What is CUK now?

steady eddy
Posts: 669
Joined: 1 May 2008, 11:02am
Location: Norfolk

Re: What is CUK now?

Postby steady eddy » 17 Jun 2016, 9:16am

Yes

User avatar
Audax67
Posts: 4675
Joined: 25 Aug 2011, 9:02am
Location: Alsace, France
Contact:

Re: What is CUK now?

Postby Audax67 » 17 Jun 2016, 10:18am

Is CUK pronounced with a hard or a soft C?
Have we got time for another cuppa?

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1198
Joined: 14 Dec 2006, 8:27pm
Location: Lancing, West Sussex
Contact:

Re: What is CUK now?

Postby admin » 17 Jun 2016, 11:15am

Bmblbzzz wrote:would it be beneficial if there were one single organisation to "look after" all sorts of cycling, from track racing to commuting, in the whole UK?


No more beneficial for pedestrians if there was one organisation to "look after" all kinds of walking and running, for the whole UK. Would it make any sense for pedestrians to join a group that also catered for joggers, sprinters, and mountain-runners? Would you pay to join such an organisation?

In fact this apparent aim to have "one voice for cycling" completely misses the point that "cycling" covers a huge variety of completely different activities, and that almost everyone in the country will have ridden a bicycle at some point in their lives.

Anyone who has ridden a bike much will have noticed the minor animosity between different types of cyclist: touring cyclists don't get on with racing cyclists, and mountain bikers are a different breed again. Those three types tend to join cycling clubs, while utility transport cyclists don't see the point. "Cyclists" is almost a synonym for "People".

Much better to have distinct organisations for the specific uses of bicycles: track racing, time trialling, road racing, mountain bike racing, leisure mountain biking, leisure riding, touring, BMX, trials, and local transport. Then the groups have focus and their members have more in common than the slightly irrelevant fact that their tool happens to have two (perhaps three or more) lightweight spoked wheels and is powered by pedals. As such these organisations can charge a sensible annual membership fee, as people like to join organisations that align with their specific interests.

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 3085
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: What is CUK now?

Postby Bmblbzzz » 17 Jun 2016, 1:15pm

steady eddy wrote:Yes

How? Why? In what way?

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 3085
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: What is CUK now?

Postby Bmblbzzz » 17 Jun 2016, 1:19pm

admin wrote:
Bmblbzzz wrote:would it be beneficial if there were one single organisation to "look after" all sorts of cycling, from track racing to commuting, in the whole UK?


No more beneficial for pedestrians if there was one organisation to "look after" all kinds of walking and running, for the whole UK. Would it make any sense for pedestrians to join a group that also catered for joggers, sprinters, and mountain-runners? Would you pay to join such an organisation?

In fact this apparent aim to have "one voice for cycling" completely misses the point that "cycling" covers a huge variety of completely different activities, and that almost everyone in the country will have ridden a bicycle at some point in their lives.

Anyone who has ridden a bike much will have noticed the minor animosity between different types of cyclist: touring cyclists don't get on with racing cyclists, and mountain bikers are a different breed again. Those three types tend to join cycling clubs, while utility transport cyclists don't see the point. "Cyclists" is almost a synonym for "People".

Much better to have distinct organisations for the specific uses of bicycles: track racing, time trialling, road racing, mountain bike racing, leisure mountain biking, leisure riding, touring, BMX, trials, and local transport. Then the groups have focus and their members have more in common than the slightly irrelevant fact that their tool happens to have two (perhaps three or more) lightweight spoked wheels and is powered by pedals. As such these organisations can charge a sensible annual membership fee, as people like to join organisations that align with their specific interests.

I'm not sure who has 'this apparent aim to have "one voice for cycling"' in your view. Is it CUK? BC? Some of their members? Other cyclists/bike riders/etc who aren't members of these organisations? Maybe DfT?

roubaixtuesday
Posts: 2793
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: What is CUK now?

Postby roubaixtuesday » 17 Jun 2016, 1:27pm

touring cyclists don't get on with racing cyclists, and mountain bikers are a different breed again


OK, I guess this was perhaps written for rhetorical effect, but I've ridden touring bikes, racing bikes and mountain bikes. I've never had the slightest problem "getting on" with other riders of any of them.

What all have in common is a need for more consideration from the law and other road users.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 15051
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: What is CUK now?

Postby mjr » 17 Jun 2016, 2:44pm

BrianFox wrote:
touring cyclists don't get on with racing cyclists, and mountain bikers are a different breed again


OK, I guess this was perhaps written for rhetorical effect, but I've ridden touring bikes, racing bikes and mountain bikes. I've never had the slightest problem "getting on" with other riders of any of them.

What all have in common is a need for more consideration from the law and other road users.

You don't have to search far to find cyclists online claiming that other types of cyclists are "not cyclists", "bobbers on bikes" and so on. Most often, these insults seem to be directed at transport cyclists, especially if they don't follow the orthodoxy of another group (for example, daring to ride in plain clothes).

Also, some MTBers claim not to care much about road law and other road users because they don't ride on roads much.

There are some ecumenical(?) cyclists but it's sadly not universal. Also, I agree with admin that a collaboration of cycling bodies would be best, but I think both CUK and BC are making attempts to be "one voice for cycling" based on their news releases and that I often refer enquiries to CTC (as it still is locally), BC clubs or even Sustrans when it's something they're better for, but our group gets few referrals from them (more from CTC than BC, none from Sustrans).
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15084
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: What is CUK now?

Postby Si » 17 Jun 2016, 3:42pm

mjr wrote:
Si wrote:
mjr wrote:In other words, you prefer a brand that misleads people to your benefit?


No.
But it would interest me to know why you feel the need to twist what people say in this way.

You wrote that "they just assume that it...looks after cycling in Britain" which British Cycling most definitely does not do, in my opinion, as explained previously on these boards. CUK has some problems, but they are tiny compared to BC's.


And you accused me of wanting to benefit from dishonesty, which is both insulting and had nothing to do with either the reality of the subject or the theme. Disappointed.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 15051
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: What is CUK now?

Postby mjr » 17 Jun 2016, 4:15pm

Si wrote:
mjr wrote:You wrote that "they just assume that it...looks after cycling in Britain" which British Cycling most definitely does not do, in my opinion, as explained previously on these boards. CUK has some problems, but they are tiny compared to BC's.


And you accused me of wanting to benefit from dishonesty, which is both insulting and had nothing to do with either the reality of the subject or the theme. Disappointed.

No, I asked if I'd understood that correctly, as it was very surprising from you, and you've said "no" but offered no alternative explanation of why you seemed to be suggesting that people making that incorrect assumption is a good thing.

It seems harmful if people confuse the various cycling bodies and lump them all together. Would motoring have so much clout if the RAC, RHA, SMMT and so on spent time and money renaming themselves to Motoring UK, British Motoring, Motor Transport and so on and tried to confuse everyone about who does what?
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1198
Joined: 14 Dec 2006, 8:27pm
Location: Lancing, West Sussex
Contact:

Re: What is CUK now?

Postby admin » 17 Jun 2016, 5:10pm

Bmblbzzz wrote:I'm not sure who has 'this apparent aim to have "one voice for cycling"' in your view. Is it CUK? BC? Some of their members? Other cyclists/bike riders/etc who aren't members of these organisations? Maybe DfT?


All of the above, in my view.

I've been a CTC Right to Ride representative for a few decades, and have been closely involved with local campaigning both in Worthing and West Sussex as a whole. I have been closely involved with the emergence Cycling Embassy of Great Britain, an organisation that campaigns for cycleways suitable for "people on bikes" who wouldn't consider themselves to be "cyclists". On a regular basis I hear campaigners complaining about cyclist campaign organisations "fighting each other" and "not cooperating", and saying that we need to "combine forces" to campaign "with a single voice".

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 3085
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: What is CUK now?

Postby Bmblbzzz » 17 Jun 2016, 8:03pm

That all sounds highly believable, not to say predictable, but perhaps that fighting is one of the reasons they don't unite? And if they did, they'd still be fighting within the one organisation, as happens in many large bodies.

One theoretical solution would be for each organisation to limit itself to one area: so BC would be responsible for sport, CTC/CUK for leisure riding, Sustrans for building infrastructure, etc. The obvious problem being that in reality things very rarely fall neatly into one box. In fact, far from being box by box, we haven't got whole boxes: so eg BC aren't "in charge" of all forms of racing, let alone restricting their interest to sport! Then of course some groups are purely local. So although one universal body might be an ideal, I can't see it happening.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 15051
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: What is CUK now?

Postby mjr » 17 Jun 2016, 8:25pm

Another theoretical solution is to collaborate while keeping basically their fields of interest with the inevitable overlaps. Maybe we could call that collaboration something like the Active Travel Alliance.. ;)
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

reohn2
Posts: 37928
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: What is CUK now?

Postby reohn2 » 17 Jun 2016, 10:18pm

PaulB wrote: ...........Change is something that happens all the time and I understand that organisations cannot stand still. However, when the club you joined stops being a club and the emphasis and ethos changes, there comes a point when a parting of the ways is inevitable. As has been mentioned on other threads, the way this whole saga has been handled and pushed through leaves some of us feeling alienated. Even though I am no longer a member I feel very betrayed by the "powers that be" who obviously have pseudo political agendas and are using a once fine club to further their own ambitions. I no longer know what the organisation is for.........

........... What has happened to the Cyclists' Touring Club has been a total demolition job.......

.........It is easy to criticise and be negative on a forum like this but when something you believed in has been hi-jacked and changed out of all recognition then I don't blame anyone for feeling miss-led and let down.


My thoughts exactly.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

User avatar
CJ
Posts: 3010
Joined: 15 Jan 2007, 9:55pm

Re: What is CUK now?

Postby CJ » 30 Jun 2016, 1:35pm

Bmblbzzz wrote:One theoretical solution would be for each organisation to limit itself to one area: so BC would be responsible for sport, CTC/CUK for leisure riding, Sustrans for building infrastructure, etc. The obvious problem being that in reality things very rarely fall neatly into one box. In fact, far from being box by box, we haven't got whole boxes: so eg BC aren't "in charge" of all forms of racing, let alone restricting their interest to sport!

And since CTC/CUK now claims also to be about sport, a word which NEVER before appeared in its aims and objectives but was inserted right at the top of it's cycling aims and objectives upon charity conversion, we now have completely overlapping confusion!
Chris Juden
One lady owner, never raced or jumped.

User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: What is CUK now?

Postby Philip Benstead » 30 Jun 2016, 1:41pm

CJ wrote:
Bmblbzzz wrote:One theoretical solution would be for each organisation to limit itself to one area: so BC would be responsible for sport, CTC/CUK for leisure riding, Sustrans for building infrastructure, etc. The obvious problem being that in reality things very rarely fall neatly into one box. In fact, far from being box by box, we haven't got whole boxes: so eg BC aren't "in charge" of all forms of racing, let alone restricting their interest to sport!

And since CTC/CUK now claims also to be about sport, a word which NEVER before appeared in its aims and objectives but was inserted right at the top of it's cycling aims and objectives upon charity conversion, we now have completely overlapping confusion!


QUESTION

Is cycle touring and leisure cycle a sport?


SPORT
Origin
Late Middle English (in the sense 'pastime, entertainment'): shortening of disport.
More
• Sport comes from a shortening of disport (Middle English), formed, via French, from Latin dis ‘away’ and portare ‘carry’ used in much the same way as the expression ‘to take someone out of themselves’. Sport meant any kind of entertainment, and only started to be used in the modern sense of physical activities with set rules in the late 18th century. The sport of kings (mid 17th century) once referred to war-making but was later applied to hunting and horse-racing.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... lish/sport
Philip Benstead | CTC London and FORMER CTC Councillor SE
| 0794-980-1698 | philipbenstead1@gmail.com |
Organizing events and representing cyclist in southeast since 1988
Cycle Ride? http://www.meetup.com/socialcycling4u/
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic