The CTC - is it vulnerable?

[swansonj]

Their "Whole Sport Plan 2009-13" also makes interesting reading - http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/zuvvi/media/bc_files/vacancies/Whole_Sport_Plan_2009-13.pdf

From the Plan:

The priority for British Cycling is to grow participation in the sport of cycling* and increase our
International successes. The diversification to encompass cycling as active recreation and active living
through working with other Government departments and agencies has been led by our desire to
create new pathways into cycle sport for participants.
* Cycle Sport has been defined by DCMS / Sport England as people cycling for at least one session per week at moderate
intensity excluding utility cycling sessions

That's fair enough viewed from their perspective: their objective is cycling-for-leisure and they have no interest in cycling-for-functional-transport. They are moving into organising "club rides" because they see increasing participation in cycling at that level as leading to improved sporting success - widening the base of the pyramid.

But this does mean that when they have driven CTC out of existence by the combination of (a) better, better supported, and better advertised rides for people who want to ride in a group and (b) cheaper individual membership for people who just want the insurance, there will be no-one left advocating cycling-for-functional-transport.

[meic]

I've just joined BC and I doubt that I'll renew my CTC membership, but I'll most certainly renew my Audax membership.
My experience over the past five or six years as a CTC member has brought me into contact with a most insular, small-minded, unhelpful and in one case untruthful group of people. Of course, there have been notable exceptions!

Rand.

Well if you leave the CTC you will have to renew your Audax membership as Audax no longer recognise BC as providing insurance as they do for CTC.

Personally I have more of a problem with Audax UKs recent changes than I do with CTC's.
They have over the past few years of their "modernisation" driven out three of my four local organisers.

The times and fashion change. At the moment we have a Team GB based high. Does cycling's success depend on theirs at the Olympics? If they fail CTC will be less affected than the other organisations.
In the meantime the organisations try to drive off their hardcore supporters as the were embarrassing to the brand, yet they are the BOF's who will remain when fashion moves on.
Harsh economics says they are too few to matter (except possibly on this forum).
So these groups will offer no loyalty to their old membership, in return the membership should just grab the best deal on offer.

BC offers me memberships (insurance) with government subsidy.
CTC offers me memberships (insurance) where you pay the subsidy to others.
Audax offers me nothing as you can ride as a non member.
Sky's offers are off limits to me due to gender and Geography.

Out of interest CTC has never had a footing in Carmarthen but BC has a thriving mixed sex club full of youngsters who are now growing up and making an adult section. Pity that I am too slow for them.

[Simon L6]

Of course their ordinary membership has no involvement in how they are run, as their Directors are elected by representatives of the clubs - it remains the British Cycling Federation.

Article 11 anyone?

Swansonj has a point - BC is not (as yet) an advocate for cycling in a general way. But....one thing did strike me as significant. BC teamed up with the LCC to issue a post-London Mayoral election press release. Now......go figure. If BC is lining up with what is, by a stretch, the most successful cycling advocacy group in the country, the rhetoric (as opposed to grass roots activity) will leave the CTC for dead. I'm not a fan of LCC's campaigns, but, when all is said and done, they do have a snappy line in communications, they do get people out on the street, and they do have a strategy that commands both fear and respect in local government.

[thirdcrank]

... So these groups will offer no loyalty to their old membership, in return the membership should just grab the best deal on offer. ...

For some reason. I always felt guilty about never having become a life member. Not for any economic reasons (I couldn't say whether it would have saved me money or not) but as a sign of solidarity and commitment. For the reasons summed up there, I'm blooming glad I didn't.

[swansonj]

Of course their ordinary membership has no involvement in how they are run, as their Directors are elected by representatives of the clubs - it remains the British Cycling Federation.

Article 11 anyone?

IMUIC, with both BC and, post-charity-conversion, CTC, the members can legally not give directions or make decisions about what the organisation does (even if article 11 remained and was used, the Trustees would be legally bound to ignore the result). The members' role in governance terms is confined to electing Trustees. In CTC the members elect Trustees directly, in BC, I gather, through the representatives of the clubs - CTC possibly therefore more democratic, but not, I suspect, significantly so, given that in both organisations members do not get to make decisions directly. This rather strengthens the strand of thought that the choice between them should be based pragmatically on what they offer, not because of any sentimental memory of the days when CTC was a club that represented the interests of its members.

[Karen Sutton]

Of course their ordinary membership has no involvement in how they are run, as their Directors are elected by representatives of the clubs - it remains the British Cycling Federation.

Article 11 anyone?

IMUIC, with both BC and, post-charity-conversion, CTC, the members can legally not give directions or make decisions about what the organisation does (even if article 11 remained and was used, the Trustees would be legally bound to ignore the result). The members' role in governance terms is confined to electing Trustees. In CTC the members elect Trustees directly, in BC, I gather, through the representatives of the clubs - CTC possibly therefore more democratic, but not, I suspect, significantly so, given that in both organisations members do not get to make decisions directly. This rather strengthens the strand of thought that the choice between them should be based pragmatically on what they offer, not because of any sentimental memory of the days when CTC was a club that represented the interests of its members.

I was under the impression that Article 11 is still included. The CC has advised that it should be removed as soon as it can be done. IIRC they actually said it probably couldn't be done at the AGM this year because of the troublemakers (they didn't word it like that of course but that was the gist of it).

[swansonj]

I was under the impression that Article 11 is still included. The CC has advised that it should be removed as soon as it can be done. IIRC they actually said it probably couldn't be done at the AGM this year because of the troublemakers (they didn't word it like that of course but that was the gist of it).

Agreed. My understanding is that Article 11 is still there. As of the implementation of charity conversion, it will become meaningless, because the Trustees can legally only decide the future of the charity in accordance with the Objectives, not in accordance with the wishes of the members. If Article 11 was used to pass a motion, the Trustees could well be legally obliged to ignore the motion. Because Article 11 has no effect on the decisions of the Trustees any more, the Charities Commission don't mind it still being there too much. But it is an anachronism, so they suggested removing it, and I'm sure the Trustees will seek to remove it at a future AGM when the dust has settled (and, sadly but in all probability, most of the "troublemakers" have ceased to be members).

[Simon L6]

my point was that sometimes the membership gets to decide when information is being concealed from them....

[meic]

It looks like my young daughter will be joining BC instead of CTC.

That is two tick boxes (young and female) lost with one person.

The reason is that they provide Go-Ride with coaches, track and bikes.
It is actually geared for children (equal participation from the sexes).

When I attend CTC events apart from the New Forest camping week, I am normally apologizing for bringing a child along. Audax always leaves me with a difficulty of organisers not having a clue how to cope with a child on a tag-a-long and sometimes saying I cant do it.

BC are getting in and harvesting the Youth, while CTC is playing lip service and spouting "equality" without substance.

I am quite happy to be a CTC member riding with the adults on my days "off", but when doing that I feel put upon by a dogma of inclusivity coming from above, rather than just those who turn up having a ride together.

I think we have achieved the worst of both worlds, hassling the established riders but no improvement for the upcoming. It may be more practical if CTC and BC kept to their own turfs and left the others area alone as trying to compete in each others territory seems to offer nothing to "us" so much as trying to improve "market share" and the status of the organisation.

Leaving apart my personal opinions, for a young girl (or boy) BC wins by miles (despite the helmet rules ).
So in ten years CTC will still be asking the same equality questions.

The only times I see kids with the CTC is New Forest or on the backs of very hard core riders.

[admin]

Part of the problem with taking children on road bike rides (we have 8-year-old twins who are accomplished cyclists) is the lack of places to take them. Note that I'm talking about "road" cycling, not MTB riding.

I'm reasonably happy riding amongst motor vehicles on my own, I have experience of the things that can go wrong and trust my instinct to get myself out of danger, but I don't trust motor vehicles around my children. I know that statistically it's safe, but that doesn't diminish the strong fear of seeing my own child being run over. So we only go cycling with trailer bikes, or riding on the pavements illegally and inefficiently to one of the few motor-traffic-free cycleways. No chance of taking them on their own bikes to see the lovely lanes of West Sussex, sadly. Perhaps when they're 18 we'll feel more comfortable riding with them there?

Go-Ride is where BC win over CTC: BC have cycle racing tracks that can be used for children to cycle on their own bikes, while CTC are geared towards cycling on public roads. While the latter is ideal for adult touring and utility cyclists, it's not much use if you want to take young children along too. Sustrans have some National Cycle Network routes that are child-friendly, but I'm not aware of any motor-traffic-free routes provided by CTC.

[Psamathe]

Part of the problem with taking children on road bike rides (we have 8-year-old twins who are accomplished cyclists) is the lack of places to take them. Note that I'm talking about "road" cycling, not MTB riding.

I don't know whether it is a sign of the state of our roads, our drivers or parenting styles (or many other thinks) but I remember when I was that age we used to disappear out on our bikes after breakfast, sometimes come home for lunch but to make sure we were back in time for tea. I remember the reason I was brought my first watch was that we were often late home (and without a watch who could blame me).

I don't have children so cannot comment on any aspects of bringing them up, but it is interesting how things have changed.

I'm sure people must have seen the short document that every now and again "circulates" on the internet "As Kids" (or "Congratulations To All The Kids Who Were Born In The 1940's, 50's, 60's and 70's !!").

Ian

[mjr]

Go-Ride is where BC win over CTC: BC have cycle racing tracks that can be used for children to cycle on their own bikes, while CTC are geared towards cycling on public roads. While the latter is ideal for adult touring and utility cyclists, it's not much use if you want to take young children along too. Sustrans have some National Cycle Network routes that are child-friendly, but I'm not aware of any motor-traffic-free routes provided by CTC.

That's slightly unkind/misleading in two ways: 1. BC here are using athletics tracks; 2. CTC campaigning was absolutely crucial to getting at least one motor-traffic-free route provided near here, which was fairly swiftly adopted by Sustrans for their National Cycle Network. Going back further, weren't CTC crucial in providing the first tarmac roads? But the large grant to the Sustrans charity for the NCN Millenium project means that it's Sustrans symbolism on the signs.

One reason I'd like to see CTC start using their signing powers more again is to advertise CTC to riders on the roads. That, and to signpost the smoother/faster alternatives to the more bonkers, less cycle-friendly (indirect/unsurfaced/worse) bits of the NCN.

[Si]

Well, on the subject of kids.....when we go into a school and teach bikeability we quite often have kids asking if there is some sort of club they can join to continue riding. And I'm afraid the answer seems to be 'no'. Problem is that there are loads of clubs around here but as far as I know they only accept kids if the parents come too. And for the most part the parents aren't interested in cycling. What we need is some sort of club setting up in urban areas where the kids can go without parents and be taught different things about cycling,e.g. bikeability, MTBing, BMXing, racing, spannering, etc etc. CTC doesn't seem to offer anything like this on a wide scale as the local MGs are all volunteer run and few volunteers want to get mixed up in what is basically a cycling youth club.

[David Cox]

Bike Club was exactly that a cycling youth club. Some were attached to schools. We still have some in Scotland. However this required external funding.

[mjr]

Does CTC offer good guidance and insurance to its affiliate clubs? Certainly the only club I'm sure near here that accepts under-16s without parents is a CTC affiliate and requires a consent form. I suspect that all the modern child protection policies, possible CRB checks and that sort of thing are more of a deterrent than any particular opposition to running a youth cycling club.