This is a fairly new magazine and I have only just noticed it in my local shop. Normally we have that Cycling Weekly ‘time-trial’ male centric drivel.
As soon as I saw it, I thought it was going to be like Cycle Sport, particularly with the time-trial type cyclist on the front cover. It even sounds like a OAP cycling magazine. Not more cr*p I thought? Surely even blokes want a change. IPC mags all look the same. And of course it has ‘a connection with Cycling Weekly’ which I am unhappy about, it is not independent enough from them. I would it they were a completely different owned magazine. I would trust it more.
Immediately I thought it was another bike catalogue with the typical Specialised bikes and Bike Parts on the first dreary two pages – and the third and fourth. Yes, the bloody first four pages devoted to ads!Euuugh! What a turn off.
The only good thing about some of these pages was that there was a woman’s bike on one page but was very pricey at £2999 -blimey where are we gonna get that dosh working at a check out counter or if we are volunteer workers? Maybe inpoverished women should work at a Tesco bike shop and get a discount, although 10% wouldn’t exactly make much of a dent.
So the first few pages looked unfriendly, uninviting, cold and hostile. It got a bit better towards the middle and then it went then it went really bad again.
The price of the mag was steep at £3.99.
There was a letters page ‘Cafe Chat’ that looked friendly although it had a photo of a man having a coffee. (Why not a man and a woman?)
One of the first letters was written by a woman who complained that the first issue of Cycling World was Male Centric. Haha! I am amazed that they printed that. I bet that is just there waiting for flak from other male readers.
The other letters were mainly rabbiting on about how wonderful Cycling Active is -ie lots of letters about how good it is for novices – how do we know that they didn’t write those letters? There were no addresses. There wasn’t one single letter moaning about motorists and the state of the roads. Not one. How weird is that? Even Tory cyclists go on about potholes.
Out of eight letters, only one was written by a woman cyclist. We were probably ‘a bit of a token’.
On the bright side,they had a nice photo of a red Pashley bike but again it was written like a Pashley press release, there were no photos of people with their beloved Pashleys ranting on about them. Just irritating and unimaginative ‘show room type’photos. For £3.99 they could have done some decent photography with some people on on it. These things seem to be surrealy pedalling on their own behind an unnatural white screen.
Then here was an’fashionable’ article about urban cycling wear. Fine you may think, but the clothes they were black. And the press complained that Jason McIntyre was hard to see because he was wearing dark clothes. What is the point of wearing these without any Hi Viz? Oh they are desperate to sell this stuff to some poor mug? Thought that was incredibly irresponsible. especially in view of SMIDSY motorists. Of course, no readers were allowed to make comments in the magazine about this. It was another ‘recycled advert’!
Ironically, they had an article about ‘The Clothes of Tomorrow’, so the silly black urban cycling wear must ‘be for today’. This article was is about reflective garments and how things are improving. It was quite interesting (apart from a bit of ‘ads’ thrown in).
Then it had an article on Page 28 about about ‘the Stupid Highways’ with Boris going on ‘about this really is the year of cycling for London’. It was pure Mayor London propaganda. Nothing new in it and nothing negative. Again, no chance of commenting unless we fight for a place on the letters page, which course, will be harder for women.
Then there were pages of bikes being tried out with 4 out of 4 male experts talking about them. No women – we want to know how heavy these bikes are etc. We have to cart these wretched things up and downstairs all the time with no help. Again the price range was in the region of £1000 (the media is determined to churn out even more white middle class cyclists.) – oh this reminds me of Cycling Weekly.
Then pages of watercarriers. I couldn’t find any new Lidl products.
Then there about 10 or so more pages of bikes without people on a dreary white back ground. This time at a cheaper price in the region of £400. All male bikes.
Then there were tool pages of Multi-tools – in the region of £27. Many of us a know we can get a pocket multi-tool at some good quality pound shops. The cheapest one was £11.69 in this magazine, maybe ok for a collector. This magazine knows how to rip you off.
They had a Fitness Page with experts – oh yes, one woman finally! It had a fairly good article about a 20 stone man trying to keep fit doing sportives and an article about his wife (apparently she wasn’t doing any sportives but was more interested in ‘family bike rides’ .
There was a really patronising article about ‘a family woman cyclist and her diet. I couldn’t read this at all apart from the bit about porridge. It went downhill from there. I preferred to read the ‘single man’s diet. It was ok and quite funny. I like soups and potnoodles too. Women do have them. Sorry to spoil the myth. I lived on them for months when I was in Australia trying to cook things on the cheap. I don’t drink the beer though or drink Red Bull.
Then were were ads about videos.. and all were Male Centric although I do want to watch Hell on Wheels – wonder if it is on Youtube yet?Again, that reminded me of Cycling Weekly.
There was a good article ‘Cycling in the City’ which some handsignals I didn’t know about. Some of these handsignals make it look like they are in a drug smuggling ring. Do they really use those handsignals? Maybe in Peckham or Fulham.
There was also a good article about the Kent Velogirls, a group I nearly joined until I realised that they didn’t have much of a campaigning programme and I thought the kit expensive. Also the rides were rather on the dull side, just cycling a to b.
There wasn’t a single person who was not white in the magazine either.
WOULD I BUY IT AGAIN? Yes, if they had some good free gifts. The magazine did come with a couple of Flash Lights – red and white but not if they had a free faddy health bar. If they had more funny articles – perhaps and more comments from readers. I don’t like serious cycling magazines.
NOVICE – Yes
SPORTIVE/CHARITY – Yes
MALE CENTRIC – 6/10 (they can get better)
FUNNY BITS – About 4 pages
CATERED FOR WHITE MIDDLE CLASS – 100%
BORING FACTOR: 7/10 – too gadgety still, nothing on about internet, twitter, book reviews, women’ cycling movies ie commuting, experiences
COMMUTING – just a handful of pages – mostly devoted to long distance cyclists
LEGAL STUFF – no resident cycling legal expert writing though there was a tiny bit about how cyclists should ride in single file on narrow or busy roads ie stuff about -not being naughty cyclists – absolutely nothing about how cr*p law affects us poor vulnerable mortals from mad motorists. Naturally they had to talk about cyclists going through red traffic lights but not about motorists doing the same thing.
BIZARRE Factor – the ads page at the back at a whole page dedicated to a sheep. It must be Easter.
Tory Factor: 9/1
OVERALL IMPRESSION: Cycling Weekly in Disguise