What is CUK doing for us?

[slowster]

But imagine how complicated it would be for the charity to administer.

The National Trust does not appear to find it complicated. The very fact that they are doing it indicates that they think it is better.

And what do you do if the trustees' strategy says that we are going to give particular focus to area A, and the members give mainly to area B?

Change the strategy.

If the trustees remain convinced that area A needs more funding than they receive for it from members and donors, then it is up to them to make the case to persuade people to change their funding choices, or they can instead use other funding streams for area A, such as grants.

If the trustees take a high-handed 'we know best' attitude and simply ignore what members and donors want, then CUK will inevitably lose support and money. If it shows that it is responsive to what members and donors consider to be important, it is likely to attract more support and money.

Moreover, it is not a 'zero sum game' where £1 allocated to one area is simply £1 that cannot be allocated elsewhere, with resulting winners and losers. This is not so much about re-allocating existing funding, but about growing the overall pot of money and resources that CUK has. If 100,000 people pay £10 to join CUK and receive no direct membership benefits, that's £1M extra funding. With substantially increased revenue the amount one area receives can still increase in absolute terms even if the amount represents a decreasing percentage of total expenditure.

[mjr]

Bike spaces probably should all be bookable and usable first-come-first-served only when not reserved. There are plenty of single-leg journeys where I expect most people would accept waiting 20-30 minutes for the next service in return for not having to commit to a departure time (which will probably be later than when you actually get to the station, if you allow for problems).

How would this work? How would the cyclist, boarding a train, know whether a space was reserved or not?

They would see it on the reservations display screen that new trains have or the paper reservation tags put out on older ones.

What happens when a cyclist takes an empty space and then someone with a reservation gets on at the next station?

The unbooked one must get off, which they would know from the display or tag. If they overstay, the guard or inspector can issue them a penalty fare for occupying a reserved space (used to be £50) and (if a guard) order them off at the next stop.

[ClappedOut]

People who ride bikes do not all share the same priorities and interests, and I suspect the current membership model harms CUK's ability to maximise fundraising for a lot of its campaigning activity.

A lot of ordinary people who ride bikes would probably be supportive of CUK's campaigning activity, but they cannot afford - or do not want to pay - the relatively high annual membership fee. They probably also don't want the various membership 'benefits' (or at least they don't consider them sufficiently worthwhile to justify the membership fee).

It's possible to donate without joining CUK, but I suspect that the existence of the membership category discourages donations ('Why donate to a club of which you are not a member?'). This is the other side of the coin of CJ's question: if you are not a keen cycletourist, what is CUK doing for you to justify giving them your money?

This is what marketing people would call a 'confused offer'. Many people who want to support CUK's campaigning will not want any of their donations to be diverted to activities which they are not interested in, and which they consider to be more for the benefit of members. Similarly many members want an organisation that is focussed on their priorities. The danger is that both groups see CUK as being 'not for them', and CUK loses support and money from both sides.

Put another way, CUK's current 'offer' will appeal far more to those cyclists who belong to both groups, but that overlap on the Venn diagram is relatively small, especially when set against the size of the group of ordinary people who ride bikes and would be supportive of CUK's campaigning activity.

My suggestion would be to have different membership options, e.g. something like the following:

- Base membership with a very low annual fee, e.g. £10, which would all go towards CUK's campaigning/charitable activities. No membership benefits as such, but regular emails sent out providing reports and updates on those activities.

- Base membership plus legal assistance (possibly no liability insurance on the grounds that is usually provided with home contents insurance anyway, but include it if it doesn't significantly increase the membership fee).

- Base membership plus everything that the current membership (or affiliated membership) scheme provides.

Advantages of the above:

1. Low cost base membership with no direct membership benefits is likely to have very wide appeal. Even people who don't even ride a bike but believe that better cycling facilities are important for reasons like climate change may join/pay if the fee/donation is small enough. It would be similar to paying to join a political party or an organisation like Amnesty International or Greenpeace.

2. For many ordinary people who ride a bike simply to get to work or to the shops, the legal assistance is likely to be the biggest attraction of membership.

3. It's likely to be much easier to increase annual CUK revenue by attracting 100,000 new base members paying £10, than getting 20,833 new members at the current fee of £48.

4. CUK could be transparent about where the money from the higher membership fee paid by current members goes, e.g. the magazine, technical assistance etc. There are obviously overlaps (room for 8 or 10 bikes on a train is arguably a benefit for everyone, as well as something that many touring cyclists would particularly appreciate), but if CUK knows that is has received £X from people paying the highest £48 fee, it should help to maintain focus on ensuring that much of that part of its revenue funds activities and campaigning that are particularly valued by that part of its membership.

I think that an important part of such different categories of membership is that everyone should still consider themself a full member, and the base membership should not be seen as second or third class membership. Instead people would simply choose what benefits they wanted with their membership.

I’m not adverse to joining something I can afford and see the benefit, I recently gave £20 to Charlotte’s Tandems as I believe that there is a chance of paying some maintenance parts etc and volunteers look after bikes.
Having been extremely fortunate with kindness of others- I hope in some small way to pay it forward.

Corporate Charities I feel those with deeper pockets can fund ivory towers- example RSPCA or National Autistic Society, neither would get a penny from me.

So currently the barriers for me joining CyclingUk

1) Cost, now I personally can’t see the value in joining- it could be amazing value if your a John Lewis Shopper- I’m more of an Aldi or Lidl person. So I’m saying excellent value if you have good income, expensive if you don’t.

2) An email monthly with some content other than adverts and articles catering to various incomes, ie Di2 nice as it is are likely as a £5000 electric bike here.


2) tiered membership allows engagement at a level people are happy with, £10-£20 tops I wouldn’t expect that much & a few discounts would possibly make me interested 10% at Halfords on a Sunday etc

[ClappedOut]

Bike spaces probably should all be bookable and usable first-come-first-served only when not reserved. There are plenty of single-leg journeys where I expect most people would accept waiting 20-30 minutes for the next service in return for not having to commit to a departure time (which will probably be later than when you actually get to the station, if you allow for problems).

How would this work? How would the cyclist, boarding a train, know whether a space was reserved or not?

They would see it on the reservations display screen that new trains have or the paper reservation tags put out on older ones.

What happens when a cyclist takes an empty space and then someone with a reservation gets on at the next station?

The unbooked one must get off, which they would know from the display or tag. If they overstay, the guard or inspector can issue them a penalty fare for occupying a reserved space (used to be £50) and (if a guard) order them off at the next stop.

Sounds like a great reason to not use trains unless a Brompton or similar

[leftpoole]

CUK is not doing anything of benefit. CUK is now an organisation made simply to employ with pretty high salaries available to those who are in the know,....
Chris Juden after all these years you seem to be awake!

[ClappedOut]

CUK is not doing anything of benefit. CUK is now an organisation made simply to employ with pretty high salaries available to those who are in the know,....
Chris Juden after all these years you seem to be awake!

Seen the salary, sure they will manage fine without my contribution could even take pay cut Gravy Train!

[CJ]

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.

[CJ]

On the one hand the continental organisations are praised for being more effective, yet their headline campaign is to get reasonable train provision, obviously they've not been very effective on that score.

Oh yes they have! If you check out the ECF website you'll find lots of success stories around their Trains for Cyclists campaign. Germany, for example, is rapidly adding at least 8 bookable bike spaces to all long-distance trains and this policy is spreading to adjacent countries such as Poland, Czechia, Netherlands, Switzerland... They're all keen to attract wealthy German tourists, one in three of whom take a bicycle on their main annual holiday - usually on the back of their campervan, but those who come by rail spend more Euros on lodgings and meals! Meanwhile ECF has succeeded in getting (not all of what they wanted but...) an Directive that new and refurbished trains in ALL EU countries, must have at least 4 bike spaces.

[CJ]

I disagree with the way CJ departmentalises Touring Cyclists

Me too! But that's how CUK see us, sadly. I know, I've worked inside it.

, I don't know any. I know a few MTB'ers, some TT'ers, and racers, and track riders... that's what defines their cycling. All those I know who tour were already cycling, maybe others know different, I can't recall meeting a single person who tours by bike who doesn't use it for other things.

I couldn't agree more. Well I could. I'd like also to written about the synergy between travel and transport, so close you can hardly divide them. But one of CUK's policies appears to be 'divide and rule'!

I much prefer the way ECF sees things. Promoting cycling for travel is - or should be - part and parcel of promoting cycling for transport.

[mjr]

Sounds like a great reason to not use trains unless a Brompton or similar

What do you see as the drawbacks and what would you do instead, given the current trains?

I am all for a Belgian-style turn-up-and-go with most trains having at least one coach in six as "multifunctional space" with inwards-facing folding seats, but that will not happen quickly: how long have the ScotRail conversions taken?

[ClappedOut]

Sounds like a great reason to not use trains unless a Brompton or similar

What do you see as the drawbacks and what would you do instead, given the current trains?

I am all for a Belgian-style turn-up-and-go with most trains having at least one coach in six as "multifunctional space" with inwards-facing folding seats, but that will not happen quickly: how long have the ScotRail conversions taken?

Guards van with decent space and storage, after years of disappointment the only train I would take is a steam train ride now.

No reason to visit cities as everything specialist is cheaper online and the faff of train travel and expense would either be a vehicle or a national express.

For me the years of bad service on trains, crowding and expense- it's not even on the travel options.

[domnortheast]

Sounds like a great reason to not use trains unless a Brompton or similar

What do you see as the drawbacks and what would you do instead, given the current trains?

I am all for a Belgian-style turn-up-and-go with most trains having at least one coach in six as "multifunctional space" with inwards-facing folding seats, but that will not happen quickly: how long have the ScotRail conversions taken?

Guards van with decent space and storage, after years of disappointment the only train I would take is a steam train ride now.

No reason to visit cities as everything specialist is cheaper online and the faff of train travel and expense would either be a vehicle or a national express.

For me the years of bad service on trains, crowding and expense- it's not even on the travel options.

Returned just last Thursday from a two week cycle tour of North and West Scotland. Travelled up by train with my bike and panniers etc from Carmarthen to Inverness and returned the same. It was the longest UK train journey with a bike I've made. So, how did it go?

There were ups and downs.

To start with I wasn't able to book the bike online for all the stages and train operators, Transport for Wales don't take reservations at present, Trans Pennine Express couldn't book my bike on the outward journey due to some glitch but advised me just to turn up and hope, (it turned out there were 6 bikes on the train instead of the regulation four but they were cool about that). LNER refused to let me board as I didn't have a reservation for their service but I managed to get a ScotRail train shortly after instead (which didn't need a reservation). It was a similar sketchy process on the return journey. The actual journey went perfectly smoothly apart from this bike storage aspect.

If there was ample space provided and a single reservation process from start of journey to finish on all trains then all the stress and uncertainty would have been removed from the trip. I get the distinct impression that train companies really don't want to have to handle cycles. LNER were definitely the least accommodating, with their tiny cubicles and hooks. ScotRail and Transport for Wales the best with a much more relaxed attitude, no reservations required and plenty of space.

[millimole]

I won't try to quote or snip your interesting (&useful) contribution, but in instances such as these I wonder how much of the experience is down to the company policies and how much down to the guard-conductor, or Station staff, having a bad / good day. In some instances of the latter there may be a contribution from the attitude of the cyclist as well.

I have a family member (cyclist) who used to be a guard-conductor and his attitude (outside of peak hours) was to "stuff the stupid company rules" as long as safety was maintained. Even so, they'd very occasionally bump up against a person-with-bike who was determined to make a (non-existent) point about bike carriage.
They are now in a more senior management position with a different TOC and quietly pushing for cycle travel facilities (among many other competing priorities).

[iandusud]

Thank you CJ for bring this up. It is a very useful area of debate and one that I hope is being followed by CUK.

First of all I would like to say that the reason I'm a CUK member is because they are body which is doing the most to promote cycling in all its forms in the UK and are very actively involved in lobbying to that end. The more people who are on bikes the better it will be for all of us.

Secondly I wholeheartedly agree about the need for much more and better lobbying with regard to facilities for carrying bikes on trains. Last year my wife and I took the decision to go car-less after over 40 years of car ownership. This was a major step for us and was taken with the idea that it was an experiment and that if a car was needed we would rent one. However we have not needed to and we have been through one of the worst winters I can remember with regular commutes on icy roads and through snow. We have solo bikes but our main transport is our tandem. So far we have not needed to travel far afield involving using a train but I know that when we do it will be problematic, and to that end we are getting a frame built with S&S couplings so that we can split it in two to make it easier. However as highlighted in a post above travelling by train with bikes is a lottery. This really does need to be addressed. I have written to CUK about their lobbying in this area but I didn't find the reply particularly satisfying. Regardless of the current needs of cyclists there is a desperate need to reduce road traffic and the combination of train and bike is one that makes so much sense. So come on CUK and put some weight behind this particularly at the this time when the government is overhauling the train franchising system.

[Mick F]

I've become tired of CUK and will not be renewing my membership this year.

Been on direct debit of years and years but since the demise of CTC and the birth of CUK, I've become more and more disillusioned by the organisation.

Changed to annual renewal instead of "automatic" and when they send me a renewal form, I'll be ignoring it.

Here's a strange thing.
My membership expires on 1st July 2022 as I have a card to prove it.
We haven't reached 1st July 2021 yet, so how does my membership ............. that I haven't paid for since July 2020 ............... actually work?

Wot's goin' on?