What is CUK doing for us?

[Vorpal]

It is also why we need aggressive lobbying and some holding to account.

While it's faint praise, in this context, cUK are only carrying on where the CTC left off. After the initial euphoria when New Labour swept into government, the CTC just rolled over when Two Jags booted it into the long grass. Pretty much the same with the All Party Charade (and I can't remember whether that was the CTC or cUK - same difference.)

It frustrates me that they seem unable to kick into an open goal. Operation Close Pass is a glaring example.

The All Party thingy is still going.

[iandusud]

This sadly is so true and why I don't believe a word they say. It is also why we need aggressive lobbying and some holding to account. I voted for the Green party in our recent council elections in the hope that we could get a Green councillor. Unfortunately there is no chance of the Green party forming a government in the near future. Would the Labour party be any better than the torries at fulfilling any promises with regard to active transport? I would hope so, they certainly couldn't do worse.

IIRC in the last election, the Labour manifesto was the best of the lot, with more money promised for cycling, and a decent plan for infrastructure improvements. The Green party's manifesto sounded like a wish list, but didn't have the clarity or as much money pledged. However, the Greens had some clear successes with local initiatives, and IMO, the Greens are more effective at a local level on cycling issues. There was some discussion of it on the rather lengthy General Election thread a couple of years ago.

TBH, Labour's Green New Deal looks pretty good. Even though there isn't lots in it specific to pedal cycles, there is lots in it that sounds quite good. It's radical compared to the Conservatives, and far more comprehensive that what the Greens have published.

Yes I agree with you which is why I voted Labour at the general election and Green at the local.

[thirdcrank]

It is also why we need aggressive lobbying and some holding to account.

While it's faint praise, in this context, cUK are only carrying on where the CTC left off. After the initial euphoria when New Labour swept into government, the CTC just rolled over when Two Jags booted it into the long grass. Pretty much the same with the All Party Charade (and I can't remember whether that was the CTC or cUK - same difference.)

It frustrates me that they seem unable to kick into an open goal. Operation Close Pass is a glaring example.

The All Party thingy is still going.

But nobody but nobody is holding them to account.

Here's its considerable contribution to global warming (loads of hot air) in the form of yet another report Get Britain Cycling

https://allpartycycling.org/wp-content/ ... report.pdf

[Vorpal]

While it's faint praise, in this context, cUK are only carrying on where the CTC left off. After the initial euphoria when New Labour swept into government, the CTC just rolled over when Two Jags booted it into the long grass. Pretty much the same with the All Party Charade (and I can't remember whether that was the CTC or cUK - same difference.)

It frustrates me that they seem unable to kick into an open goal. Operation Close Pass is a glaring example.

The All Party thingy is still going.

But nobody but nobody is holding them to account.

Here's its considerable contribution to global warming (loads of hot air) in the form of yet another report Get Britain Cycling

https://allpartycycling.org/wp-content/ ... report.pdf

I don't disagree, but you were writing of them in the past tense.

[thirdcrank]

I don't disagree, but you were writing of them in the past tense.

At the risk of appearing to be obsessed, I said All Party Charade which I have regularly used since they had their futile inquiry in 2011(?) to refer scornfully to that pitiful inquiry. You rendered Charade as thingy, and fair enough.

Now, the inquiry (charade) is deffo in the past tense, which I used.

The All Party Group (Committee?) may well still be in existence. Which would be present tense.

The main thing IMO is that it's largely been hot air.

=================================================================

PS I've searched my posts (I see that's termed ego search) and found this which seems to be my first use of the word charade to refer to this ... er ... charade.

viewtopic.php?p=656536#p656536

I really do wish I wasn't in a position to say "I told you so."

[Vorpal]

I don't disagree, but you were writing of them in the past tense.

At the risk of appearing to be obsessed, I said All Party Charade which I have regularly used since they had their futile inquiry in 2011(?) to refer scornfully to that pitiful inquiry. You rendered Charade as thingy, and fair enough.

Now, the inquiry (charade) is deffo in the past tense, which I used.

The All Party Group (Committee?) may well still be in existence. Which would be present tense.

The main thing IMO is that it's largely been hot air.

=================================================================

PS I've searched my posts (I see that's termed ego search) and found this which seems to be my first use of the word charade to refer to this ... er ... charade.

viewtopic.php?p=656536#p656536

I really do wish I wasn't in a position to say "I told you so."

OK. It wasn't completely clear to me that you were talking about the inquiry, rather than the group.

One good thing that I think they have done is contributed to the update/replacement of the design standards for infrastructure, including a badly needed revision to the DMRB. I have some hope that will result in future improvements, though, like all things, without providing training to the engineers who apply the standards, it will be 20 years before they are (mostly) consistently applied.

IMO, the biggest problem with all of the these things, from the Notional Cycling Strategy to the APPGCW is that there is vast mismatch between the needs of vulnerable road users, design practice, and political will. They've made a small step toward fixing the mismatch between the needs of vulnerable users and design practice, but nothing can fix the even bigger mismatch with political will.

[thirdcrank]

But this thread is about "What is CUK doing for us?" and I'd have to say that if "us" = cyclists then the answer is "Not vey much" especially if CUK = the charity rather than the legacy parts of the CTC - the member groups in their various forms consisting of "cyclists."

This isn't new to the charity. The CTC preferred incorporation - an illusory seat at at the top table rather than robust campaigning at least as far back as the 1990s and that was probably the preferred approach of much of the membership anyway, but there have been some doubtful strands eg an unwillingness to campaign on safety issues lest potential cyclists were deterred. (Clue: they don't need safety campaigning by cycling organisations to realise that road conditions for cyclists are not ideal.)

I've tried to use the All-Party inquiry as an example. The only worthwhile approach from cycling organisations IMO would have been a well-publicised boycott: WE'VE HEARD IT ALL BEFORE. WHEN WILL YOU STOP PROMISING AND PRODUCE SOME RESULTS?

As I said about Close Pass, they seem incapable of kicking into an open goal.

Sorry about the "charade" misunderstanding. It reminds me that I bang on about my pet themes and I might as well be shouting down our cellar steps - even though we have no cellar.

[PH]

But this thread is about "What is CUK doing for us?" and I'd have to say that if "us" = cyclists then the answer is "Not vey much" especially if CUK = the charity rather than the legacy parts of the CTC - the member groups in their various forms consisting of "cyclists."

I thought it clear from the OP that the "us" was touring cyclists.

[mjr]

They've made a small step toward fixing the mismatch between the needs of vulnerable users and design practice, but nothing can fix the even bigger mismatch with political will.

I would say "... between the needs of vulnerable users and design theory, ..." because even the change to DMRB was watered down in the next update, making it essentially optional guidance, and I have not seen the full advice implemented anywhere yet.

[Vorpal]

They've made a small step toward fixing the mismatch between the needs of vulnerable users and design practice, but nothing can fix the even bigger mismatch with political will.

I would say "... between the needs of vulnerable users and design theory, ..." because even the change to DMRB was watered down in the next update, making it essentially optional guidance, and I have not seen the full advice implemented anywhere yet.

Yes, that's probably fair.

[CJ]

But for most people who use bikes, it's just a way of getting somewhere. So long as it's the best or good-enough compromise of time, convenience, comfort, economy and safety, they cycle.

Do you have data to support that Chris? I suspect that these days most people who cycle do so for leisure. And I think this is all the more so with the Bradley Wiggins?Chris Froome Tour de France success effect. Certainly most of the cyclists I know do so at the weekend or in the evening as a sport/leisure activity. For myself cycling is my daily transport to and from work and my a leisure activity at weekends and holidays. However I do believe that so much more needs to be done to make cycling an obvious and logical choice as a way of getting somewhere.

I was talking about most people who use bikes, in places where most people do. That would be most other northern European countries. And in UK: Cambridge, perhaps York, maybe central London... I don't have the data, however it's possible that there are far more people using bikes simply as transport in UK than you realise. Transportational cyclists are less conspicuous than leisure riders. Their journeys are shorter, mainly urban, use back streets and cyclepaths wherever possible and most take place at peak commuting time. So unless you're in those places at those times, you're not going to see many of them.

There's also the factor that in anti-cycling countries like UK, sport is perceived as the only 'smart' reason for, or manner of cycling. So rather than cycle in normal clothes on a practical city or trekking bike (as the Dutch, Germans, Danes sensibly do), those using bikes for transport tend nevertheless to adopt a sporting style of dress and ride a cheapo version of a racer or MTB. So how do you know that these apparently sporty riders are not fashion victims, actually on their way to work or some other errand?

[iandusud]

But for most people who use bikes, it's just a way of getting somewhere. So long as it's the best or good-enough compromise of time, convenience, comfort, economy and safety, they cycle.

Do you have data to support that Chris? I suspect that these days most people who cycle do so for leisure. And I think this is all the more so with the Bradley Wiggins?Chris Froome Tour de France success effect. Certainly most of the cyclists I know do so at the weekend or in the evening as a sport/leisure activity. For myself cycling is my daily transport to and from work and my a leisure activity at weekends and holidays. However I do believe that so much more needs to be done to make cycling an obvious and logical choice as a way of getting somewhere.

I was talking about most people who use bikes, in places where most people do. That would be most other northern European countries. And in UK: Cambridge, perhaps York, maybe central London... I don't have the data, however it's possible that there are far more people using bikes simply as transport in UK than you realise. Transportational cyclists are less conspicuous than leisure riders. Their journeys are shorter, mainly urban, use back streets and cyclepaths wherever possible and most take place at peak commuting time. So unless you're in those places at those times, you're not going to see many of them.

There's also the factor that in anti-cycling countries like UK, sport is perceived as the only 'smart' reason for, or manner of cycling. So rather than cycle in normal clothes on a practical city or trekking bike (as the Dutch, Germans, Danes sensibly do), those using bikes for transport tend nevertheless to adopt a sporting style of dress and ride a cheapo version of a racer or MTB. So how do you know that these apparently sporty riders are not fashion victims, actually on their way to work or some other errand?

HI Chris, I think those are very valid points and you are probably right with regard to UK and certainly in the case of wider northern Europe. As I say most of the cyclists I know are primarily leisure cyclists, which is perfectly ok. My wife and no longer own a car and bicycles are our daily transport as well as a leisure activity. I do think that there is a golden opportunity to get a lot of the people who have taken up leisure cycling, either as a result of the success of British cycling in recent years or of covid restrictions getting them out exercising, converted to cycling for transport.

[millimole]

. I don't have the data, however it's possible that there are far more people using bikes simply as transport in UK than you realise. Transportational cyclists are less conspicuous than leisure riders. Their journeys are shorter, mainly urban, use back streets and cyclepaths wherever possible and most take place at peak commuting time.

It's an anecdote of a snapshot so treat this with scepticism if you choose - pre-covid we would drive past the local sandwich & pie making plant once a week as the late evening shift was chucking out at about 11pm - I was gob-smacked at the number of cyclists (noticeable because they were nearly all on the pavements without lights). These were minimum wage, largely new-immigrant, workers. Who is counting them?

[Govnor]

Lads at work said about bike week, which is how found this forum.
Still clueless.

[cycle tramp]

i believe there still would have been a better choice of touring bikes with 559 size wheels if ctc had decided to test more of them.

Don't you believe it. A couple of times I gave a bike an absolutely glowing review, only to see the model withdrawn from the market next year! And I did test quite a few 559 wheel tourers. I didn't go overboard on the size (like SJSC) because I knew that the availability of touring tyres in that size - and a range of widths down to 32mm - relied upon lots of people buying MTBs with wheels that size and then discovering they were awful slow on the tarmac they actually rode on most of the time. Unfortunately - and I'm genuinely disappointed about this because I advised a lot of 'vertically challenged' people to go with this size - 559 has become an endangered species since it's niche was stolen by 584, which helps fewer short people.

The touring future of the 622 size however, is guaranteed. Reason: Germans (who buy approx ten times as many bikes as us, more when you add Austria and Switzerland and do a heck of a lot of cycle-touring) are wedded to 'achtundzwanzig zoll' (28 inch = 700C). And according to the Wheel-Science test lab in Finland, size really does matter: bigger bike wheels do roll better. But only a little bit better and only if all else is equal, which it rarely is (althougth the other differences also usually favour big).

So my advice, when investing in a new bike for the long-term, was always go with 622 unless you need a smaller size to match your stature, and then go for 559. The wisdom of that advice is now well proven, but I don't know what smaller size I'd advocate now.

Apologies for not returning to this thread until now. Thanks very much for your reply - personally I found it very insightful. With the news that new 29 inch wheel mountain bikes now make up 50% of last years sales (and appear to now be threatening the perceived dominance of the 27.5 inch wheel) I can only concur that the 622 inch is the longer term investment - and with the news from Rivendell Bicycles that shimano may not be producing any medium and high quality non disc mounting wheel hubs* - I guess the future may be 622 with discs...whether this this with of without 'thru axles' I guess remains to be seen.

That said, whilst I acknowledge the performance of a larger wheel, given my own routes, which follow pot-holed and slurry covered tarmac lanes, farmers tracks and gravel paths together with my habit of carrying stuff by bicycle, I shall keep with the 26" wheel size (and if I convert to 150 size cranks may even consider the 24" wheel size).

(*although I've not been able to find any other s to confirm this)