Cycling UK Forum

Apart from the emphasis on the whipping, this could easily have been an interaction between the driver and a couple of cyclists.

Do you reckon you could do £1,700 worth of damage with a bicycle pump? With an 18 year old in an A5 up your back mudguard it might be worth a try!

thirdcrank wrote:
If this is causing you stress, please report to your member group's welfare officer.

You may have noticed that I didn't rise to it!

Mick F - thanks for the correction. A further web search rather reinforces my point, everywhere it is referred to as "The Royal British Legion", very rarely as '(The) RBL'. Maybe RBL is used verbally when the context is already understood, but not in anything written relating to brand! I think the same could be argued about 'the CTC' - we abbreviate it amongst ourselves, but IMO it's better to use the name in words, not initials, in more formal situations.

Some more thoughts about the name, prompted by some of the early comments in this thread.

We used to call ourselves "The Cyclists' Touring Club" but abbreviated it to (the) CTC, at which point we had to add some words to say what we are. Now we have the (IMO) daft situation where we spell it out as CTC The national cycling charity. I've said before that we might just as well call ourselves 'The Cyclists' Touring Club' as the initials won't stand up on their own. It prompted me to think about other organisations and whether we know them by their initials or their name.
OK, most people would refer to The AA rather than the Automobile Association (that, in itself, says a renaming is overdue but I can't imagine the AA ditching its historic name!). Much the same with the RAC. Well known by their initials as years of high profile activity have made them household names.
There are other well known organisations which are known by their names, not their initials. Who refers to The National Trust as (The) NT? They use the initials at times, but their branding is strongly "National Trust" with their leafy branch emblem. Sustrans adopted a made-up name in an attempt to reflect their business, and I'm surprised at their branding; they have a meaningless graphic and a strap line 'join the movement'. Clever? Dunno. It's too clever for me and I don't think it's 'good branding'. Who talks about '(The) BL' when they mean The British Legion?. I'm not sure whether 'British Cycling' can get away with just 'BC' - it might within the cycling community, but in the wider world, it is referred to as British Cycling.
Sure, there are lots of organisations known only by their initials, but if they are known nationally, it's likely because they're big, and have either spent a lot of money getting the public to recognise their brand. We're not, so let's not delude ourselves any longer. Let's have a meaningful name that reflects what we are; an organisation for non-competitive cyclists with its origins in touring.

I also want to belong to an organisation that is relevant and engaged with the times and the environment that we all live and work in.

We live in interesting times, my friend!

Thanks, thirdcrank, for some enlightening comments, which satisfied my curiousity.
Keith.

Or are we suggesting that the CDF is bringing vexaxious cases?

Oooh, most definitely not! No, I have often wondered whether we really do get justice (regarding the costs) when a case is taken to court. One would hope that the innocent, or injured party, would be able to recover their costs if they win the case, whether they've funded the case themselves, or been funded by CDF or any other organisation. There will no doubt be cases where there is a strong reason to fight the case, but the cyclist ultimately loses, and CDF can't recover its costs. I simply wondered what happens regarding awarding costs in cases that are won, as I'd never seen anything written about this.

Does anyone know whether the Cyclists' Defence Fund is able to recover its costs when it wins a case?

If it's necessary to add "the National Cycling Charity" after the letters CTC so that the great unwashed know who we are, why on earth don't we simply call ourselves "the Cyclists' Touring Club"? As I've said in another thread on this subject, that, after all, is what this CLUB is supposed to be. We're not trying to compete with British Cycling, which is the umbrella organisation for competitive cycling, we're not trying to compete with Sustrans, which is a civil engineering charity that promotes (sometimes misguided) cycle schemes, but we ARE THE national organisation for those who enjoy leisure cycling. That doesn't preclude us putting forward our views on anything to do with cycling, be it road improvements, the Road Justice campaign, better cycle training etc., but let's keep our true identity and tell those in charge in the CTC that we want a 'brand' that reflects what we are, instead of what we are not and never will be.

nor the Felixstowe Fun Cycling Day....was told that the latter event was very small, with few visitors

I had a chat yesterday with a colleague who was actually involved with the Felixstowe Fun Cycling Day and I must put the record straight, by saying that the organisers only intended this to be on a fairly small scale, and were happy with the attendance. There was a steady stream of people keen to try Cycle Suffolk's WattBikes. Sorry to those involved if I gave the wrong impression.

I'm of the view that branding rules cannot trump grammar rules

I agree, it's going 2 far.

Huh. Never mind whether it's called the CTC Shop or Waggle. Support your local bike shop, or a good touring specialist. Wiggle's neither! I had a whinge about this on the forum last year. No telephone number, customer support by email only, no collection facility even if you live in Portsmouth, so you have to place orders on line. They don't sell any touring bikes, either.

I heard all the reasons why we've chummed up with them, but I for one, won't buy anything from them, there are much better real shops around the country (not just web sites that sell bikes and bits) and I want them to stay in business! They've never let me down.

Grumpy old ***.

From the 2009 edition of the Member Group Handbook

The duties of a Secretary shall include the following:

(a) To convene general meetings in accordance with these Regulations.

(b) To call a special meeting of the group Committee upon receipt of a requisition signed by not less than one third of its members.

(c) To prepare minutes of all committee meetings and AGMs.

(d) To present the Annual Report to the AGM, and to forward a copy to National Office by December 21 each year.

(e) To ensure that the group Treasurer has submitted the Audited group Accounts (which shall include accounts of Member Groups within the hierarchy) to National office by December 21 each year.

(f) To ensure that all committee members, ride leaders, event organisers and any other volunteers are registered as such with CTC National Office.

(g) To liaise with National Office as appropriate and act as a point of contact between National Office and the Group.

From the 2012 edition, items (a) to (e) are unchanged, but thereafter...

The duties of a Secretary shall be to:

o ensure that all Committee members, ride leaders, event organisers and any other volunteers, are registered as such with CTC National Office; and that a Self-declaration Form for those working with children and vulnerable adults is submitted as appropriate;

o ensure that all Member Group officers are aware of and abide by CTC national policies as applicable to Member Groups – an index of these policies is at the end of this document;

o ensure that all Member Group rides and events comply with the requirements of CTC’s policies – an index of these policies is at the end of this document.

o liaise with CTC National Office as appropriate and act as a point of contact between CTC National Office and the Group;

o act as a point of contact between the Group and representatives of any Informal Member Groups connected to the main Group;

o act as a point of contact for CTC members on the CTC website and in ‘Cycle’ magazine.

Spot the differences! In particular the words "are aware of and abide by..." and "all Member Group rides and events comply with..."
I didn't think that was what I was elected to do!

Our section secretary received an edict from HQ to the effect that our "member group" should be known as Xxxxxxxxxx CTC, not "CTC Xxxxxxxxxx".

The 2009 edition of the Member Groups Handbook said

a) The title of all groups must include "CTC". The only exemption to this policy is where groups exist solely to carry out Cycle Touring activities under CTC’s objects in which case the title "Cyclists' Touring Club" may be retained.

If the title “Cyclists’ Touring Club” is used publications must also contain the phrase “a group of CTC, the national cyclists’ organisation”.

b) Groups with a defined geographic area (see ‘Area’ below) should also include this definition in their title, normally following CTC, i.e. CTC Scotland or CTC Central London. This may be reversed for Cyclists’ Touring Clubs, i.e. Cambridgeshire Cyclists’ Touring Club.

c) Any other defining titles that help members and the public identify the scope of the groups’ activities may be added. i.e CTC South West London Beginners, CTC New Forest Cycling Week, CTC South Bucks Wednesday Group.

d) Council recommends that groups no longer use the titles “District Association” or “Section”.

The 2012 version says

Title

The title of all Groups must include ‘CTC’. The only exemption to this policy is where Groups exist solely to carry out cycle touring activities, in which case the title ‘Cyclists' Touring Club’ may be used.

The title should normally be written with CTC at the end, for example Kidderminster CTC rather than CTC Kidderminster.

Any other defining titles that help members and the public identify the scope of the Group’s activities may be added.

 Groups must no longer use words such as ‘District Association’ or ‘Section’ in their titles as these terms are now redundant.

If we can't even decide where to put 'CTC' in the title of our groups, heaven help us as we try to rebrand the whole organisation! We had enough debate agreeing we should be CTC xxxxx. I, for one, don't want to have to go through the process of changing the bank details again just for this!

When we compare our ‘brand recognition’ with some very well known brands, it’s worth remembering that they are backed by very big budgets.
The AA, for example, claims that “Overall about 16 million customers – representing approximately 51% of UK households – subscribe to at least one AA product.” Now we are never ever going to achieve anything like that, so there is no point in comparing ourselves with that sort of brand recognition.

Going off at a slight tangent, I also noticed that the AA has a Charitable Trust, set up in 2008 with the aims of

* Educating road users in road safety
* Campaigning on issues of road safety
* Promoting understanding and awareness of road safety and eco-driving to reduce environmental impact of motoring and to protect the environment.

But all the other services are NOT in the charitable trust.
Now that, with a few words changed, looks like a good model….