Why didn’t CTC do this?

Discussion of the re-branding of CTC as Cycling UK.
User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 14984
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby Si » 29 Mar 2016, 8:10pm

Philip Benstead wrote:
gaz wrote:
Philip Benstead wrote:if I accept all that you say the eventual consequence there will be so few member groups and the numbers voting in any election and at agm be so small that the powers that be will say let's do away with elections and that all members will become supporters and hence have no vote. The council will be self appointed. Imho that will be a bad thing

The thing is that it is not just the members who happen to take part in MG activities who take an interest in what the Club does and how it is run.

Members who do not take part in MG activities get to vote too. One member, one vote and all members are equal.


so members who do not take part in any activities may cause the ctc to fold. Using you view I demand a say in your local ctc grouop plans for summer tour I have no intention of going on it but I am a ctc member I know my rights


You are seriously saying that CTC members who aren't part of MGs shouldn't have a say in how the CTC is run???? And you are the one complaining about others trying to take the memberships' power away!!!!!!!!! All members are equal, just that some now appear more equal than others.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13569
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby gaz » 29 Mar 2016, 8:28pm

Philip Benstead wrote: so members who do not take part in any activities may cause the ctc to fold. Using you view I demand a say in your local ctc grouop plans for summer tour I have no intention of going on it but I am a ctc member I know my rights

How long ago would CTC have folded without the membership subscriptions of those who do not take part in any MG activities? Fortunately CTC has much more to attract members than just MG activities.

As for rights; any member can stand for election to an MG Committee, any member can vote on decisions at MG AGMs. It's highly unlikely that a member would do either without having an interest in the running of the MG and its activities, even less likely that they would succeed in being elected or that their single vote would swing an AGM decision one way or another.
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

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

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby Philip Benstead » 29 Mar 2016, 9:34pm

How members vote, the do not know what is going. I asked a ctc councillor tonight does they know what is going on, no we do not, we do notv get all the agenda in good time and do not see all the minutes. I should say much of the discussion is done by the executive committee level. That group is a non policy making body but it appears to do so. So I ask again how can members vote if they do not know what going on,?
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

PH
Posts: 7121
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby PH » 29 Mar 2016, 9:48pm

gaz wrote:How long ago would CTC have folded without the membership subscriptions of those who do not take part in any MG activities? s.

it would certainly be a different organisation, but I don't agree an associations of Member Groups wouldn't have been sustainable.

PH
Posts: 7121
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby PH » 29 Mar 2016, 9:50pm

Si wrote:As for changing to Affiliate groups: in some ways I welcome it. It puts cycling within the reach of many more people.

Something has gone seriously wrong if the best way for a local group to contribute the the national ambition is to leave.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13569
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby gaz » 29 Mar 2016, 10:32pm

I bowed out of DA politics around the time that DAs and Sections were morphed into Formal/Informal MGs. I have no reliable recollection of how the AG offering came about.

As you said earlier some MGs decide to stay, others decide to leave and become AGs. I doubt that the decisions of their respective Committees had much to do with how they feel they best serve the 'national ambition'. That's certainly not the impression I get from HoE members' posts, it was about how they could best promote cycling to their local community.
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

PH
Posts: 7121
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby PH » 30 Mar 2016, 11:26am

gaz wrote: I doubt that the decisions of their respective Committees had much to do with how they feel they best serve the 'national ambition'. That's certainly not the impression I get from HoE members' posts, it was about how they could best promote cycling to their local community.

HoE along with every MG I've come across, want to get more people cycling, as do the National CTC. Yet as Si's post details, HoE's recent membership shows and my own experience indicates, this is easier done as a group outside the CTC framework than within it. It simply makes no sense other than maybe NO wanting to hold onto the full paying members. It could so easily be sorted by offering MGs the same terms as AGs, offer to sell them leader/ride insurance and let them run rides open to all.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13569
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby gaz » 30 Mar 2016, 1:39pm

PH wrote:HoE along with every MG I've come across, want to get more people cycling, as do the National CTC.

Every British Cycling Group, Sustrans Group and local authority health promotion group that I've come across also wants to get more people cycling. These groups aren't doing it because it is the 'national ambition' of CTC and neither IMO are HoE CC.

PH wrote:Yet as Si's post details, HoE's recent membership shows and my own experience indicates, this is easier done as a group outside the CTC framework than within it. It simply makes no sense other than maybe NO wanting to hold onto the full paying members. It could so easily be sorted by offering MGs the same terms as AGs, offer to sell them leader/ride insurance and let them run rides open to all.

There are differences between the AG and MG packages. I won't pretend to know them all. The insurance packages are different, the group costs are different, the administrative burdens are different. MGs are bound by the infamous "Rule of Three" and get to use the "CTC" name.

At the bottom line there are over 100 MG Committees who still feel the MG package is better.
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

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

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby Philip Benstead » 30 Mar 2016, 2:13pm

gaz wrote:
PH wrote:HoE along with every MG I've come across, want to get more people cycling, as do the National CTC.

Every British Cycling Group, Sustrans Group and local authority health promotion group that I've come across also wants to get more people cycling. These groups aren't doing it because it is the 'national ambition' of CTC and neither IMO are HoE CC.

PH wrote:Yet as Si's post details, HoE's recent membership shows and my own experience indicates, this is easier done as a group outside the CTC framework than within it. It simply makes no sense other than maybe NO wanting to hold onto the full paying members. It could so easily be sorted by offering MGs the same terms as AGs, offer to sell them leader/ride insurance and let them run rides open to all.

There are differences between the AG and MG packages. I won't pretend to know them all. The insurance packages are different, the group costs are different, the administrative burdens are different. MGs are bound by the infamous "Rule of Three" and get to use the "CTC" name.

At the bottom line there are over 100 MG Committees who still feel the MG package is better.

There are 186 member groups but over 800 affiliate groups.
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

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

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby Philip Benstead » 30 Mar 2016, 2:46pm

gaz wrote:
PH wrote:HoE along with every MG I've come across, want to get more people cycling, as do the National CTC.

Every British Cycling Group, Sustrans Group and local authority health promotion group that I've come across also wants to get more people cycling. These groups aren't doing it because it is the 'national ambition' of CTC and neither IMO are HoE CC.

PH wrote:Yet as Si's post details, HoE's recent membership shows and my own experience indicates, this is easier done as a group outside the CTC framework than within it. It simply makes no sense other than maybe NO wanting to hold onto the full paying members. It could so easily be sorted by offering MGs the same terms as AGs, offer to sell them leader/ride insurance and let them run rides open to all.

There are differences between the AG and MG packages. I won't pretend to know them all. The insurance packages are different, the group costs are different, the administrative burdens are different. MGs are bound by the infamous "Rule of Three" and get to use the "CTC" name.

At the bottom line there are over 100 MG Committees who still feel the MG package is better.



The rule of three is a guideline, there is no insurance reason laid down that prevent a none ctc member from coming out more than 3 times.

I repeat again the framework of friendship binds the ctc together, without that the ctc will go into decline.

Gaz , why have you stop going out with the local group, you reasons may be of interest
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

PH
Posts: 7121
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby PH » 30 Mar 2016, 2:53pm

gaz wrote: These groups aren't doing it because it is the 'national ambition' of CTC and neither IMO are HoE CC.

I didn't say they were doing it because it was the national ambition, but it is and they are.
At the bottom line there are over 100 MG Committees who still feel the MG package is better

It's quite possible that some if not most of these groups haven't yet discussed it and it isn't just what they feel now, we need to consider how they'll feel in a year or twos time.
The insurance packages are different,

The insurance documents are available to download, I can't access them at the moment, but when I looked I couldn't see any difference.

PH
Posts: 7121
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby PH » 30 Mar 2016, 3:11pm

Philip Benstead wrote:There are 186 member groups but over 800 affiliate groups.

I don't know where those numbers come from, I understood there were around 110 formal MGs.

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

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby Philip Benstead » 30 Mar 2016, 3:38pm

PH wrote:
Philip Benstead wrote:There are 186 member groups but over 800 affiliate groups.

I don't know where those numbers come from, I understood there were around 110 formal MGs.


Correction

123 members groups from the ctc websiter
55 informal groups plus

Affiliate groups over 800 from the ctc website
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

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13569
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby gaz » 30 Mar 2016, 4:21pm

Philip Benstead wrote:Gaz , why have you stop going out with the local group, you reasons may be of interest

You asked that question almost a year ago, I answered it then: viewtopic.php?f=45&t=95819&start=15#p887440
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 14984
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby Si » 30 Mar 2016, 7:26pm

PH wrote:
Si wrote:As for changing to Affiliate groups: in some ways I welcome it. It puts cycling within the reach of many more people.

Something has gone seriously wrong if the best way for a local group to contribute the the national ambition is to leave.


Not so much 'gone wrong'.....if the CTC was predominantly about promoting touring to 'keen cyclists' then the MG system works fine in theory: this is your hobby where you are happy to spend your disposable income so the membership fee won't put you off (assuming you believe the benefits are worth while).

But the CTC's (or should I say "Cycling UK's"...I notice in the draft govt transport strategy there is a big bit on the Bike Revival and it uses the term Cycling UK) main aim is not to promote touring but to promote all cycling. In which case, running it as a special interest club is not for beneficial. By promoting all cycling touring cyclists benefit, by promoting touring, only tourists benefit. If you are a died in the wool tourist I can see why you would rather it was heavily loaded towards touring cyclists, I do much more utility cycling than touring and so believe that the CTC/CUK should be supporting all forms of cycling.