Cycling UK Forum

Thanks for that explanation

+1 It makes zero difference to the case for or against the name change. Maybe we could have a "debate Philip Benstead" sub-Forum like the one for the helmet debate. I don't think many of us are interested either way.

Also, you're not pointing out anything new. It was in the chair's statement viewtopic.php?f=48&t=103845 and has been discussed at length on here.

It's fairly common political/management jargon meaning going against the party/company policy. I was using it rather ironically.

What I meant was that it isn't a quandry as such. Councils (or national government) don't decide not to fund quality cycle paths because people donate to Sustrans. You're not delaying free schooling by buying books for your child.

Is it? Sustrans hardly provided all the cycle infrastructure through its own money raising. They got a lot of taxpayer money to spend; a borderline quango. Also, a lot of 'their' NCN consists of either existing routes or new routes constructed as part of local council or developer schemes. Sustrans has received a lot of credit for works undertaken by public bodies or at public expense.

Councils don't invest in new and improved cycle routes because their highways budgets are squeezed and they don't have a statutory duty to provide new and improved cycle routes or even to maintain non-highway routes (which includes much of the NCN). If Sustrans folded tomorrow I don't think it would result in councils suddenly deciding to improve cycle provision.

To my mind it shouldn't take a huge number of resources to send an initial letter to Eurostar acknowledging and formally objecting to the change of policy. The media bells and whistles can follow.

Joking aside, the emoticon (this is the term I always used, does an emoji differ?) is a part of communicating on social media and thus a part of communicating in modern English. It may be something some choose not to engage in, but it's something we all have to get used to.

Flinders wrote:Sometimes people are being ironic or sarcastic. Without emoticons used to make it clear, that sort of nuance can be missed, especially on forums where English isn't everyone's first language. The Guardian forum for one has trouble with that all the time

It took The Grauniad a while to learn English

Yeah, but the decision was not about whether to update or go back several decades and go round telling everybody we're all about touring. The discussion is about the change of the current brand name from "CTC- The National Cycling Charity" to "Cycling UK".

Sure the organisation's formal name retained the T-word and some member groups insisted in using the full version of the name, but as far as I'm aware there is no proposal to change these things under Cycling UK.

geocycle wrote:In the late 16th century a cuk or cuck was a slang term used as an insult, short for cuckold. I seem to recall Malvolio in Twelth Night but I can't look it up at the moment.

I mentioned upthread that the shortened term is apparently still used by people who find such a situation erotic My informant didn't have the sense to claim Shakespeare as his source of information

I had thought along the same lines. Some have argued that we needed to change away from an organisation which appeared to represent "cyclists" to an organisation which promoted "cycling". It seems strange to do this in the name but reverse it in the tag line. Also, I never imagined that we'd change our name and introduce another problematic apostrophe. Maybe this counts as celebrating the club's heritage

gaz wrote:IMO from the opinions expressed on these boards some former members believe CTC(Cyclists' Touring Club) is a misleading title as they feel it is not a Club and has little to do with Touring, for some members any rebrand that removed CTC from the trading name would not be acceptable.

The first point has to be that Cyclists' Touring Club has not been the name of the brand for years and the use of the full name outside of dedicated touring activities has been strongly discouraged for quite a while. I don't see why "CTC - The National Cycling Charity" was not inclusive and I'm dubious as to why the details of the acronym are so important. People visit ATMs, they take MOT tests and always used to look for CORGI registered tradesmen. Most of us have a healthy dislike for QUANGOs. The meaning of the initials are not of any particular interest to the masses. When people did ask, how difficult was it to just say that it's a historic name just like the AA or RAC and the CTC has always been the equivalent organisation representing cyclists? Will it be any quicker to explain to the general public how Cycling UK and the synonymous British Cycling differ?

Speculatively that's because Council did their research, consultation and engagement in the two and a half years before approving the re-brand and made the arguments for their case knowing that not every member, former member or prospective future member would accept their arguments.

Whatever brand was chosen there would be some discontent, no brand choice was ever going to please everyone

They could please me by being more transparent in terms of releasing details of the consultation (who was asked, what questions they were asked and what the responses were) and also how (having accepted the need for change) the name We are Cycling UK was chosen. If the facts justify the decision council made there should be every reason to release them. I'd also like to know why, if Cyclists' Touring Club was deemed to be an inappropriate name, they sought only to remove it from branding but retain it as the official name.

Maybe they are just confident of winning. In the meantime, they aren't obliged to maintain the status quo.

To be fair, I think they have said throughout that they are happy to keep the CTC name in association with their heritage and touring activities, including holidays and touring focused membership groups.

geocycle wrote:What's the difference between British Cycling and Cycling UK? Northern Ireland if we are talking geographically perhaps? But even that is open to political debate!

Not even the most flag waving unionist would argue that Northern Ireland is geographically part of Great Britain. The term British Isles is a bit more controversial because it includes the whole of the island of Ireland. As for British Cycling, it (nowadays) refers to the geographical area, not the political one. It doesn't represent Northern Ireland (though admittedly it does include the Isle of Man).

I think the point here is that Scotland will remain a geographical part of Great Britain, regardless of whether it remains in the UK.