Should local groups break away?

PH
Posts: 9393
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Should local groups break away?

Postby PH » 15 Aug 2020, 9:43pm

Si wrote:A comparison of my local MG and my local CCCs (using my rough estimates):

That looks a fair summary, my MG does better in some regards and worse in others. My continued disappointment is the lack of crossover in either direction. My limited experience from a couple of CCCs I know of is that they're no more diverse than the average MG, they just come from different segments of society.
I don't know how to even begin such integration, but considering the paid full time staff are supposedly under the same banner as the MG maybe the onus should be on them. In Derby the opposite was the case with the Cycling Officer going out of their way not to be associated with the MG, to the extent of hiring a ride leader from Nottingham to lead some rides (Who then contacted a local member for suggested routes!)

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 16036
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Should local groups break away?

Postby mjr » 15 Aug 2020, 10:23pm

Si wrote:I think that on the lists CCCs are included in the AGs as technically they are AGs.

So how is it £0 to ride, then? I thought AGs were bound up in ride limits and membership fees and bureaucracy almost as badly as MGs.

I was contemplating suggesting to our Pedal and Chat (short evening rides, usually 3-12mi) that they consider becoming a CCC but both being an AG and needing to bid for grants to pay staff makes it sound a lot worse fit than the comparison list.
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.

PH
Posts: 9393
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Should local groups break away?

Postby PH » 15 Aug 2020, 11:25pm

mjr wrote:
Si wrote:I think that on the lists CCCs are included in the AGs as technically they are AGs.

So how is it £0 to ride, then? I thought AGs were bound up in ride limits and membership fees and bureaucracy almost as badly as MGs.

On the question of membership fees, affiliated groups put on rides and events for their members, but there's no regulation to say that there needs to be any cost of that membership.
I organised an affiliated group, sponsored by my MG, which signed people up as members at the start of their first ride.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 16036
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Should local groups break away?

Postby mjr » 16 Aug 2020, 12:01am

PH wrote:On the question of membership fees, affiliated groups put on rides and events for their members, but there's no regulation to say that there needs to be any cost of that membership.
I organised an affiliated group, sponsored by my MG, which signed people up as members at the start of their first ride.

I see you're correct. I was misled by the "model constitution for affiliated cycling groups/clubs" including "Members will pay an annual subscription" without any indication that it was optional.

Then again, now I look more closely at it, there's another reference to "fully paid-up members" and I don't understand how "Membership shall be determined by age/location/ability/interest (delete as required)" works without the payment condition. If we defined membership as being determined by location (probably by being resident or working in our main borough or its neighbours), even a 1% quorum would be many thousands!

What model did you use for the non-charging group? Is it necessary to have a Committee and all that [inappropriate word removed] which our riders dislike, instead of simply a few delegates accountable to the group? I suspect we could let CUK call them officers if that makes things easier for them.

Are different model rules used for CCCs? The model community clubs constitution looks like a copy of the other model rules, which seems like a mistake.
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
gaz
Posts: 14075
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, lorry park of England

Re: Should local groups break away?

Postby gaz » 16 Aug 2020, 12:36am

mjr wrote:Is it necessary to have a Committee and all that <i>[inappropriate word removed]</i> which our riders dislike, instead of simply a few delegates accountable to the group? I suspect we could let CUK call them officers if that makes things easier for them.

The page you linked says (my emphasis)
Committee
Next, you will need to hold a meeting to elect a committee if you want one

The model constitution is a one size probably won't fit all set of ideas to start from. Cycling UK have a number of related advice sheets but they aren't about to comment on whether your chosen constitution and structures are up to the job you intend and the legal environment in which you will operate.

Membership fees are the AG's choice. Leave out the clause, leave it in and state proudly it is £0.00 to be reviewed at each AGM, have different rates for different members according to ability to pay, age or other criteria.

As for membership defined by location, e.g. King's Lynn it's up to you whether simply being a resident of King's Lynn is enough to confer membership or if there is some form of application process to be completed by eligible persons who wish to join. I doubt that the first is legal, the second is certainly easier from both a compliance with GDPR viewpoint and for most other administrative purposes.
2020 : To redundancy ... and beyond!

PH
Posts: 9393
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Should local groups break away?

Postby PH » 16 Aug 2020, 9:40am

mjr wrote:What model did you use for the non-charging group? Is it necessary to have a Committee and all that <i>[inappropriate word removed]</i> which our riders dislike, instead of simply a few delegates accountable to the group?

As the linked article says one of the things to decide is - Whether or not you will charge a fee to join
We kept it very simple, three officers, a constitution which laid out the role of the club and that it was under the direction of the MG.
Membership form, again very simple, much like a standard signing on form. I worked on the assumption that you can't be a member unless you signed up for it. It wasn't complicated but it could be confusing, we didn't run it for long, one or two years, we worked with Cycling UK to find a way to bring those rides into the MG while still allowing them to be open to all.

AndyHenderson
Posts: 25
Joined: 15 Oct 2013, 11:40am

Re: Should local groups break away?

Postby AndyHenderson » 29 Aug 2020, 5:21pm

CCC's and Member Groups are not mutually exclusive.

We set one up as an informal member group (as defined in the member group guidelines) run by our volunteers. Riders still need to sign up to Cycling UK but the CCC has its own, local identity. More here: https://www.portsmouthctc.org.uk/wccc/

This has been very successful and continues to do well (albeit via 'pop-up' rides during the epidemic) after two years. Several members have gone on to join our main rides and two have become main ride leaders.

That's in stark contrast to all the local ones set up by Cycling UK without reference to us. They all foundered as soon as the National Lottery money dried up.

Andy

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14075
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, lorry park of England

Re: Should local groups break away?

Postby gaz » 29 Aug 2020, 7:26pm

Well done for getting bums on saddles and showing that there are things MGs can do to encourage and support new riders.
AndyHenderson wrote:... Riders still need to sign up to Cycling UK ...

CCCs don't have that requirement, PH's free to join AG model is closer.
2020 : To redundancy ... and beyond!

PH
Posts: 9393
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Should local groups break away?

Postby PH » 29 Aug 2020, 10:46pm

AndyHenderson wrote:We set one up as an informal member group (as defined in the member group guidelines) run by our volunteers. Riders still need to sign up to Cycling UK but the CCC has its own, local identity. More here: https://www.portsmouthctc.org.uk/wccc/
Andy

That looks an excellent project Andy, though like Gaz I thought the requirement to join CUK didn't apply to Community Cycle Clubs.

AndyHenderson
Posts: 25
Joined: 15 Oct 2013, 11:40am

Re: Should local groups break away?

Postby AndyHenderson » 30 Aug 2020, 9:42am

PH wrote:That looks an excellent project Andy, though like Gaz I thought the requirement to join CUK didn't apply to Community Cycle Clubs.


It may not, but it does apply to informal member groups which have to abide by Cycling UK and our local guidelines.

Andy

AndyHenderson
Posts: 25
Joined: 15 Oct 2013, 11:40am

Re: Should local groups break away?

Postby AndyHenderson » 30 Aug 2020, 9:52am

gaz wrote:Well done for getting bums on saddles and showing that there are things MGs can do to encourage and support new riders.


We also run an easy ride programme (which is how I got into cycling) and we support 'elevenses rides that allow people to participate in main rides - and the socialising at elevenses - without having to worry about pace and without the main ride leader(s) having to accommodate slower riders.

We were planning to run another of our Cathedral Ride series this year (https://portsmouthctc.org.uk/cc) - they are a great way to introduce people to cycling. Sadly the rides couldn't happen but, hopefully next year...

So, we have no difficulty recruiting new members and several routes into cycling for newbies.

Andy

PH
Posts: 9393
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Should local groups break away?

Postby PH » 30 Aug 2020, 10:00am

AndyHenderson wrote:
PH wrote:That looks an excellent project Andy, though like Gaz I thought the requirement to join CUK didn't apply to Community Cycle Clubs.


It may not, but it does apply to informal member groups which have to abide by Cycling UK and our local guidelines.

Andy

Yes I understand that, but informal groups can only be set up as an attachment to a formal member group.
My original point was that there's no crossover between CCC's and MG's, although your project looks great (And I wouldn't mind a closer look at some point) it isn't the same as those CCC's that have been set up as independent clubs and that original point stands.
You do sort of make the same point yourself, in that those set up by CUK with some funding can flounder when the funding and support end, which seems to have happened locally. If there'd been more involvement and integration from the start maybe the MG could have carried on where CUK left off, to the benefit of all.

thirdcrank
Posts: 29423
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Should local groups break away?

Postby thirdcrank » 9 Sep 2020, 9:10am

IMO this thread has not attracted the attention it deserves. Perhaps the subject attracts only a few people.

I found the frankness of si's posts invaluable and they give much more insight than any amount of carefully crafted statements, especially as they come from a long-standing member. I take the gist to be that in the setting of promoting cycling to non-cyclists the typical cUK member / member group set-up, is more the problem than its solution and then, that if typical cUK members really want to promote cycling to non-cyclists then they should stump up so that others can be paid to undertake it.