Simon L6 wrote:they may not have your e-mail address. It could be that simple.
but if I've emailed them, they have.
point taken entirely.
My experience is by no means unique locally, or further afield, this tale has repeated itself and been echoed in cafes and pubs and LBS's wherever CTC members gather.
My concern is a simple one. In what way is the CTC a Club anymore? There seems to be a level of alienation, and a disconnect, between HQ and DA's. The aims and objectives of the two don't seem to compliment each other. The DA's could be a superb recruiting tool for CTC members, HQ's recruitment could be a superb recruiting tool for DA's. Yet neither situation seems to pertain. HQ seems to want the members for themselves and their own ends (numbers, cash income etc., I'm guessing) and (some? many? of) the DA's don't seem that keen on engaging with people who don't fit the CTC 'serious cyclist / cycle tourist' stereotype.
Perhaps what is needed is a corporate cross organisational membership portal like the one the RFU are trying to implement called "Rugby First"?
The greatest threat to the CTC as a membership body could come not from other cycling bodies but from insurance companies. The hook that got me, and evidently many others, into the CTC was the 3rd-party insurance. The personal liability section of my home insurance excludes all road vehicles, so I was in the market for free-standing cycling cover.
In France, by contrast, where cycling is perhaps more deeply embedded in the culture, the "civil responsibility" clauses of domestic insurance policies commonly exclude only vehicles that are motorised, and cover cycling so long as it is not in organised races.
You can already typically buy bike theft cover as an add-on to a UK domestic insurance policy. However, financial services firms are quick to exploit new market opportunities and as cycling grows in popularity (and people become ever more litigious) the companies could follow the French example and include 3rd-party cycling cover as well, at least as an optional extra, undercutting the cost of CTC membership.
To guard against this threat, the CTC needs to put services to members at the heart of its work, so that we feel that we are getting much more than insurance. The idea of Gift Aid is enticing, but I guess many of us fear that becoming a charity will shift the emphasis from member services. When I give money to a charity I expect other people to benefit, but I expect a club subscription to be used for the benefit of the members.
What's turned my mind to all this is the e-mail from a Council member last Friday, seeking to neutralise Simon Legg's contribution to the magazine. I don't like to feel I'm being manipulated, and I don't like to see unfairness.
Reading others' reactions, it's clear that this episode is an extreme symptom of a wider malaise. It seems that the CTC could succeed in promoting cycling in the wider community while losing loyalty among its own members. In this scenario it could help to produce a market big enough to interest the insurance companies, who then step in and attract with cheaper cover those disaffected members who've only stayed on for the insurance.
Of course, if you see the CTC primarily as a career platform, losing touch with the members as you turn it into an "up for anything", contract-seeking quango isn't necessarily a problem. You don't need individual members if you are confident you can bring in enough money from contracts and sponsorship. The big risk is that income from such sources is much more volatile than that to be had from a satisfied membership.
British Cycling now offer their "Ride" level membership for just £11 per year.
The main, and practically only, benefits are 3rd party liability insurance, and legal cover/help. Plus members get the obvious warm fuzzy of supporting Team GB and a lot of grass roots cycling.
Aside from being a whole lot cheaper than CTC for members who join just for the insurance, and member groups are often reminded that this is a large percentage of the overall membership, the BC offering is arguably far "sexier" in terms of image. They even have a message from Sir Chris Hoy urging you to sign up on their "join us" page.
With the levels of cycling continuing to grow in London (shaping and influencing cycling's image across the country via the London-based media) and our elite track cyclists poised to perform as well at London 2012 as they did in Beijing, there is going to be a huge surge of interest in cycling and I'd say that British Cycling are currently better placed to benefit.
I suppose the short answer is yes, but. . . CTC Council is beginning the process of a new 5 year strategy and competition from British Cycling and their loss leader offers are part of the picture. But CTC Membership is booming and people join for more than the insurance - a national campaigning and lobbying organisation for all cyclists- defending cycling and cyclists, local campaigning, cycling on holiday and cycling holidays, a network of local groups to ride with, a great magazine and of course Chris Juden's invaluable advice. A membership offer for new and especially young cyclists attracted through Bike Club and Cycling Champions Projects is important. It would have been useful to have had the Gift Aid benefits of charitable status to strengthen CTC's ability to implement its core values - not least the right to ride on the open road.
My club is affiliated to CTC, BC, RTTA, LVRC. BC's Go-Ride scheme has been a great help in modernising the Club's Constitution (especially around equal opportunities), encouraging the training of more coaches and introducing proper child protection policies. However it has not taken off yet in schools for various reasons and we were advised to discourage cycling to school or cycling on the road. Go-Ride is primarily about finding a new generation of Olympic hopefuls. The core of BC efforts are in sport and racing and rightly so. Unfortunately they have not yet been able to adequately protect amateur road racing in this country where classic events are being driven off the road by the stipulations local authority and police. But if you don't race you will always be at the bottom of BC's pecking order.
Sky Rides on closed roads are great but it remains to be seen whether there is a spin off into everyday cycling and club cycling and touring. Personally I am suspicious of News Corporation's money coming into cycling. A company that owns Fox News and supports the Tea Party Movement in the US - undermining Obama's Government and decent Republicans and which is seeking further dominance of British media wants to de-odourise its image with cycling and protecting rain forests. I dont currently take up the free membership that I am offered by BC.
Are we to hear the outcome of the last 5 year strategy? I was on council when that was launched. To me the objectives don't seem to have been met. I would be pleased if someone could convince me otherwise.
With regard to CTC membership booming, I would question this. Our Member Group area had 1187 CTC members at 30th September 2009. At 30th September 2010 we have 1207. That's an increase of 20. HOWEVER, we have had over 220 new members join over the course of the year. I know this because I have sent 221 "welcome" letters out to them. As some of the leters have gone out to multiple member households there were actually more than 221 new members.
So the fact that we have only 20 more members now means a heck of a large number have either move out of the area or have simply lapsed.
Karen Sutton wrote:So the fact that we have only 20 more members now means a heck of a large number have either move out of the area or have simply lapsed
Maybe like me they can not afford the CTC subs and are switching to the cheaper BC.
Or maybe, like a lot of cyclists they want the member benefits but don't want to ride with a group.
Karen Sutton wrote:So the fact that we have only 20 more members now means a heck of a large number have either move out of the area or have simply lapsed
Maybe like me they can not afford the CTC subs and are switching to the cheaper BC.
Or maybe, like a lot of cyclists they want the member benefits but don't want to ride with a group.
It makes no difference whether they ride with a group, they still appear on our list simply because they live in our postcode area. It is the full member database for our area. I'd have thought you knew about that system. We certainly don't have that many members riding with our group(only about 50). If they don't want to appear on our database they can ask to be moved to a different one.
So the fact that we have only 20 more members now means a heck of a large number have either move out of the area or have simply lapsed
Edwards wrote:Maybe like me they can not afford the CTC subs and are switching to the cheaper BC.
jimmy the hand wrote:Or maybe, like a lot of cyclists they want the member benefits but don't want to ride with a group.
Karen Sutton wrote:It makes no difference whether they ride with a group, they still appear on our list simply because they live in our postcode area. It is the full member database for our area. I'd have thought you knew about that system. We certainly don't have that many members riding with our group(only about 50). If they don't want to appear on our database they can ask to be moved to a different one.
Why would I "know about that system"? Because Barry was a councillor? funnily enough we don't sit around talking about each others database systems so I know as much about the CTC sytem as he know about my company system.
Also I was commenting on Edwards comment not on your complete message so please wind your neck in and don't jump down my throat everytime I post something here
Edwards wrote:Jimmy I will not lower myself to comment on your tone. To my best belief I have never made a reply to so.
I was stating a fact. I can no longer afford the CTC fees.
If you open your post with a quote, or part of a quote, from another post then are you not replying to that post? and did you not open your post with a partial quote from Karen Sutton?
As to your other point people who treat me with respect are treated with respect.
