Cycling UK Forum

Melc and Irc seem to be on the same side in the argument, but their statements are contradictory. Irc says:"...to argue for the expansion of cycling as a transport option and as a leisure activity. I was under the impression that it had been doing that for years in a coherent and moderate way" - which I entirely agree with - in other words we've been doing "outreach", "charitable" activities for years.

Melc on the other hand says he wants "a Cycle Club that exists for the benefit of its members, I dont see why the taxpayer should fund my leisure activity" as if the only thing CTC does at present is to "fund his leisure activity" - which is patently not the case. It is therefore quite reasonable that the taxpayer should support such activity.

In other words, the Club has been doing both, for years - serving the [narrow] needs of the members, while at the same time reaching out to the wider community, if for no other reason than to attract new members like danceswithcats. If we're doing the outreach work, we deserve to be treated as a charity, and gain the benefits therefrom.

I completely agree with RichardYorkshire, that driving kids to school regularly is irresponsible parenting. When I cycled to school, there wasn't as much traffic as today but it moved faster and was just as dangerous. Apart from the independence and confidence derived from learning to cycle in traffic, the great thing for me was reliability of journey time - if I cycled I arrived on time, if I got the bus I was invariably late and it usually wasn't my fault! Hardly anyone dreamt of taxi-ing their kids to school in those days and we were all much better off for it.
Maybe we should have a pro-cycling publicity campaign to the effect that cars are for wimps and weaklings - real people cycle!