Council response: Council opposes this motion as unnecessary. While the editor of Cycle aims to shows a variety of people in a range of cycling contexts, the editorial priority of Cycle is to share the joy of cycling. Focusing on the narrow issue of helmet-use would be a distraction from that aim.
These cyclists are on Jersey where U14s have to wear a helmet by law.
These cyclists are a family group - One walks, all walk (one wears a helmet by law, all wear a helmet by choice/hire cycle conditions might also be reasonable suppositions).
These cyclists appear to be enjoying cycling even when the cycling is actually walking.
Focusing on the narrow issue of helmet-use:
Not allowed to be a distraction from the above.
IMO three boxes ticked, YMMV.
mjr wrote:... it was not consent for them to go do the opposite!
Please explain in what way you feel the editorial team have done the opposite?