Cycling UK Forum

Simon L6 wrote:

Simon L6 wrote:

I think you're asking yourself the wrong question. Why should anybody pay £39 when they could pay £12? And, what, pray, do they get for the extra £27.

I think that any DA that thinks of itself of a bike club should simply go the affiliate route.

I think we are singing from the same hymn sheet just to different tunes

The real issue for me is not that affiliates exist, if a club affiliates to the CTC and continues to ride as a club, fine and dandy, but the means exist for affiliates clubs to ride without limit with the CTC and without the responsibility of leading rides or taking any office. so all the fun bits none of the hard bits.

That I think is the thrust of the motion, in my view anyway. Its not against affiliates but seeks clarification on should they be able to ride, forever, with CTC groups when other "non member" riders are in theory allowed 5 rides before being asked to join CTC to continue.

If every group took your view, we would all be affiliates and there would be no membership to worry about charity status

Interested in thoughts on this

Hi Meic

I agree with much of what you say. We should, whether we are a charity or not, encourage people to ride. But I also think that the affiliate membership should be a stepping stone to full membership rather than undermine full membership. Maybe people will not see the saving sufficient to jump ship from the CTC, time will tell.

Affiliates do get a magazine I think, but only one copy so it maybe a bit dog eared by the time you get it. Question is, are the things you loose as an affiliate worth the £27 you save?

Anyway I digress from the theme of this thread. Apologies.

Simon L6 wrote:
Motion 7 - the comedy motion. Passed overwhelmingly. That's fine, chaps. You're welcome on our rides..... http://fnrttc.blogspot.com/

Why do you call it the comedy motion?

If I read it right there is a legitimate concern here. With the rising costs of full membership, what is to stop large parts of the club starting their own "club" and availing themselves of affiliate membership saving considerable sums? Havinng saved themselves such funds they are prevented from sitting on committees and leading rides. Best of the fun bits none of the hard bits.

I dont understand how we can set up a method like this to undermine full membership. If the costs involved actually encouraged full membership I could understand it but £12 as opposed to £39? Plus a £50 admin fee if shared between enough is not a great deal. You only need enough member groups to think this way and we will all be affiliates

Personally I would welcome and encourage anyone on a ride but to me there seems some inbalance here.

PS - No I am not the proposer of the motion

Jonty

I was only answering the question you yourself posed.

Personally I find that such a low number of members voting on a major issue puzzling. I fear and have no evidence of this, that the majority don't care and I worry that is because the only reason they joined our club is for insurance benefits.

But the democratic process continues and we are all bound to it whether we like the result or not.

So my personal happiness does not come in to it. And neither does yours.

Personally I would have been happier because then there would be a clear mandate from the actual majority of members.

Doh!!!!

I thought I'd joined the Cyclist Touring Club

Did not know where else to post this.

In a BBC website article the CTC was described as "Formerly The Cyclists' Touring Club"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12356618

In an article in The Independent the club is described "CTC, The UK's National Cyclists' Organisation" No mention of touring.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 03369.html

Have I missed something or is it just bad reporting?

Both links from a topic on Cyclechat forum.

To be fair is it an accusation or simply a question of "is there a way to tell?"

LOL

The problem with speaking about percentages and majorities is that because of the apathy of so many people not voting in either direction, we are quibbling about percentages of a small vote. The only substantial majority is the silent majority who don't seem to care, maybe because they only joined for the insurance, who knows. If we get another vote on ammending things to allow charity status and we get another small percentage voting, whoever wins cannot say they have a substantial majority of the members, which I for one find quite sad.

But for the life of me I cannot think of a way to get people to vote unless its done locally and each DA/PMG canvass their own, but is that allowed?

It would be good for everyone if we could just have one final vote, get as many people as possible to cast their vote one way or another and then just abide by whatever the result is and get back to riding our bikes

The affiliate membership does look attractive when compared to full membership. As far as I can see you get all member benefits apart from the right to vote, lead rides and the magazine.

I am sorry you feel that way Ratatouille.

Personally I have not experienced much of what you say other than people who are passionate about the CTC and hold strong views. Some of those views have been very forthright I agree. There can be no excuse for some of the things you have experienced.

Whilst it is correct that the Yes vote was won with a big majority, its is a big majority of a very low turnout to vote and I find that very sad when the subject is so important to the club.

I am sure that those who have debated the issue so strongly have done so out of a sincere desire to get the best for their club. It seems that the process has run its course and we all must accept the vote. However there is another arm to all this and that still, as far as I am aware, needs resolving.

Personally I hope the debate continues to be vigorous and searching, but NOT personal in attacking anyone, whatever their view is.

After all when all is said and done we might need each other

If the rules say a majority of the regardless of the numbers then of course we must accept that. My question was simply is there any rule on this? I dont know and dont really know where to look.

It does seem a pity that a quarter of the club can decide on such an important issue. I suppose those that did not vote only have themselves to blame if it goes against what they would have preferred.

Is there nothing in the clubs constitution which states that there must be a certain percentage voting to make it binding, like a quorum in a committee?

This forum is worth a look http://c2c.freeforums.org/