What is CUK doing for us?

[Psamathe]

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?

Why not briefly send them an e-mail saying you wont be renewing and your reasons. It'll only take you a few moments and might hlep them identify aspects they are overlooking (or might be completely ignored in which case you'll only have wasted a few minutes).

Even with companies that make such a mess of something that I'll never do business with them again, I'll normally still tell them why (e.g. a brief e-mail). When working we always welcomed complaints as no company gets everything right and most customers where you go wrong just silently go elsewhere so somebody telling you what is wrong, pointing out where you need to improve should be taken as helping you to avoid the same mistakes again (and silently losing more customers).

Ian

[Bmblbzzz]

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?

This especially won't happen when most trains have fewer than six carriages!

[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?

This especially won't happen when most trains have fewer than six carriages!

I'm not sure the number of coaches is the issue, more the interior design of those coaches. My recent experience showed that both 'local' service providers (TfW & ScotRail), while only running 3 or so coaches on the ones I used, still had the better provision. Trans Pennine's provision had the potential to be very good indeed as they had half the front carriage turned over to multifunction use for bikes, oversize luggage and folding seats. Their downfall was their 4 bike limit and the less than straightforward reservation process.

[slowster]

In CUK's current 5 year strategy it states how it will achieve its strategic goals:

Across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, there are thousands of people who are creating and supporting a thriving cycling culture. They are educating, inspiring, influencing and supporting. They get things done through formal or informal community groups; through charities and social enterprises; in their schools and workplaces; in universities and think tanks; or via networks and digital platforms. Some work inside public bodies, others seek to influence them. Together we are an influential social movement.

Cycling UK needs to do much more to connect, equip and facilitate this movement, to increase its impact on cycling. That is the most important role we can play in bringing about the change we want to see.

CUK sees itself as a 'facilitator'. It is relying on the ill-defined and uncertain activities of others to deliver its strategic goals.

[al_yrpal]

I was a CTC member in my teens in the 1950s when I did my 100 in 8 . I am still a keen cycle tourist when I get the chance. The organisation was set up to serve cycle tourists. It no longer served me so I left like many others.

Corporate stupidity wrecked our local Ramblers group during the pandemic too. It no longer exists. The pandemic has done more for cycling than CUK in its present form will ever do.

Al

[Mick F]

Why not briefly send them an e-mail saying you wont be renewing and your reasons. It'll only take you a few moments and might hlep them identify aspects they are overlooking (or might be completely ignored in which case you'll only have wasted a few minutes)

Already done it.

Did it in 2020, but (as I say) I still received a card that expires July 2022

[domnortheast]

I guess, if it's felt that CUK no longer serves the segment of the cycling community it was originally formed around, then there's nothing stopping a new national cycle touring body being established, if there are enough people with the time, resources and inclination to do so. Everything changes, nothing stays the same forever.

[Bmblbzzz]

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?

This especially won't happen when most trains have fewer than six carriages!

I'm not sure the number of coaches is the issue, more the interior design of those coaches. My recent experience showed that both 'local' service providers (TfW & ScotRail), while only running 3 or so coaches on the ones I used, still had the better provision. Trans Pennine's provision had the potential to be very good indeed as they had half the front carriage turned over to multifunction use for bikes, oversize luggage and folding seats. Their downfall was their 4 bike limit and the less than straightforward reservation process.

In general IME local trains have more usable bike accommodation than long-distance ones. "Tippy seats" and similar usable on a turn-up-and-go basis compared to dangle cupboards which are often occupied by other stuff even when you've booked.

[Barred1]

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?

Why not briefly send them an e-mail saying you wont be renewing and your reasons. It'll only take you a few moments and might hlep them identify aspects they are overlooking (or might be completely ignored in which case you'll only have wasted a few minutes).

Even with companies that make such a mess of something that I'll never do business with them again, I'll normally still tell them why (e.g. a brief e-mail). When working we always welcomed complaints as no company gets everything right and most customers where you go wrong just silently go elsewhere so somebody telling you what is wrong, pointing out where you need to improve should be taken as helping you to avoid the same mistakes again (and silently losing more customers).

Ian

I think that horse has bolted - CTC/CUK hasn't taken any notice of the thoughts or feelings of the paying membership for about 15 years (my membership ceased in about 2014 when the CTC group I belonged to opted out and went to a normal cycling club model)

[drossall]

I guess, if it's felt that CUK no longer serves the segment of the cycling community it was originally formed around, then there's nothing stopping a new national cycle touring body being established, if there are enough people with the time, resources and inclination to do so. Everything changes, nothing stays the same forever.

Wasn't that tried off an earlier version of this thread?

[gaz]

Wasn't that tried off an earlier version of this thread?

The Touring Cyclist Club Ltd was dissolved 16 Oct 2018.

[Psamathe]

Wasn't that tried off an earlier version of this thread?

The Touring Cyclist Club Ltd was dissolved 16 Oct 2018.

It was a shame as the organisers came up with a good plan, tried hard, did a good job, etc. but I guess not enough people responded?

Ian

[PH]

The Touring Cyclist Club Ltd was dissolved 16 Oct 2018.

It was a shame as the organisers came up with a good plan, tried hard, did a good job, etc. but I guess not enough people responded?
Ian

They fell at the first hurdle - That is to explain what a Touring Club is for or what it does. A lot of posters on here do the same, they want a touring club, but when asked they can't say what it is, just a belief that it would be a good idea, along with some nostalgic notion they once had that. Bottom line is, who needs a club to go touring?
As CJ said, the ECF have the right approach, promoting cycling for travel is part of cycling for transport. attempting to separate them makes no sense, CJ says that's what CUK have done by segregating (And ignoring) touring, but the answer to that is to get it reintegrated rather than further isolation. We may have some disagreement about how to go about that, but the idea of a club solely for touring never was or will be.
As for reminiscences about 1950's 100 in 8, or any of the other CTC club activities, these are and probably always were, organised by the DA's/Sections/Member Groups. I know this as I've organised the Derby & Burton 100/8 (So I don't have to ride it ) and I don't have to think back decades to recall it. There's an argument that Cycling UK ought to offer more to the MG's, but also a feeling from many of those involved that they'd rather be left alone. But even the MG's (Of which I'm a fan and saddened by those who've left) need to be realistic about how relevant they are to most members. I think the participation level is around 15%, which from my experience sounds about right.
I don't know the answer, I'm not even sure there was a question here rather than just a gripe. I'm not entirely satisfied by the way things are going, but neither am I entirely disillusioned by it. I find some of the ideas in this thread fanciful, to be polite. It's a relatively small organisation, with limited funds, and a large proportion of the membership subscription is spent directly on member benefits. It isn't the NT, or some charity gravy train Seriously, I've seen some of the salaries, you can make more money doing Deliveroo.

[mjr]

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?

This especially won't happen when most trains have fewer than six carriages!

So do some Belgian trains and the multifunctional space is then half or two thirds of a carriage, I think.

[ClappedOut]

I've re thought this and come to the conclusion that if you don't think CUK represents your interests, stop paying them- one of 3 things will happen:-
1) They won't care and will continue on a course funded by those who agree with current stance
2) Ivory Tower will notice gravy train stopping and reevaluate why they are losing members.
3) The organisation no longer relevant and nature will take its course.

My dislike of bigger charities is the point where maintaining gravy train or increasing it, becomes more important than core issues.

The National Autistic Society City Rd address and under funded workers and criminal investigations- world away from original remit.