Cycling UK Forum

I think the new brand is a good one and should be a better descriptor of what I want the organisation to do. Which is to campaign effectively on making cycling safer and more accepted as a mode if transport. In my opinion British Cycling is too sports focussed to do this.
I will be keeping my membership, as I think it is good value for money, particularly for the 3rd party insurance.

I am however concerned at the ability of the organisation's management to do what I think they should be doing. The way that some things have been handled doesn't bode well.

deckertim wrote:...
I will be keeping my membership, as I think it is good value for money, particularly for the 3rd party insurance.
....

I understood the LLC (I think) offer 3rd party insurance for £10 (though most people will have it automatically included as part of their house insurance policy).

Ian

ukdodger wrote:

al_yrpal wrote:

BrianFox wrote:Mick, et al,

I asked you, very politely, to reserve negative comments for elsewhere. Otherwise you're effectively filibustering people who want to have a positive conversation.

I've no objection at all to your complaints, in fact i think they are very valuable, but would also like freedom to continue a conversation without them.

Our comments are not negative. They are about democracy and proper consultation. Its quite clear you want to avoid these things. If you want a love in here you are not going to get it.

My suggestion is that as this new organisation is not focussed on touring that it gives up the CTC name and insignia to a new organisation that is. You are not using it so why not? You can then get on with grabbing grants and campaigning for cycling in general unencumbered by dinosaurs like me.

Al

That sums it up for me too.

Me too. I have been a life member (48 years). This organisation now literally CUKs so I'll be spending my money with LCC and Sustrans and YHA.

I think that 'Cycling UK' is a good name for a cycle campaigning organisation and a good move in that respect.

However like many others I'd love to know when/who decided that such an organisation was a) needed and b) that taking over CTC would be an easier way to achieve this objective than starting from scratch. And wouldn't it have been nice to know this was on the agenda, allowing us to come to a much earlier compromise (charitable arm doing campaigning, core CTC unchanged? or whatever)

Having made this decision what has followed is just the standard - become a charity, get more money, buy in expensive executives route

In this day and age I suspect the old CTC, run as a good old fashioned volunteers + enthusiasts organisation may have become less and less effective as a campaigning organisation simply because it's set-up and approach would drop out of fashion - I despair mostly about how much this seems to matter these days

That's as positive as I can get

Essential to our future? If we is the CTC, then clearly not. If we is cycling as a mainstream, normal activity, a way of getting around that's not worth mentioning in any special terms, then maybe. Let's hope so.

To be honest I expected this after the formation of the charity. At first the club was run alongside the charity but we couldn't expect that to continue. Now we have a hostile takeover with members of the club being sidelined. Unfortunately the charity income will reduce and if the membership numbers drop they will struggle for funds.

This has already happened to Sustrans. Now their routes have chuggers on them.

I am a long-term CTC member, cycle-camper and am passionate about integrating cycling into people’s lives. And generally I support the re-branding.

My hope is that Cycling UK will become a broad organisation that campaigns assertively and intelligently to promote and encourage all forms of cycling. I’m particularly keen on getting children cycling to school on safe routes. Early habits tend to stick. I hope that there is room for us all, particularly including cycle-tourists like myself.

The change of name and broadening of objectives make sense to me. I asked my wife what she thought of the name Cyclists’ Touring Club. She said it sounded like something from the 1950s, and with perhaps a Scouting flavour. Nothing wrong with that of course, and it just happens that I’m a product of the 50s (maybe she was trying to tell me something). But it does indicate a certain view of the organisation that could hinder communication, and suggest that we are only for hardened touring enthusiasts.

The CTC has been changing for a while. Consider the typical spread of articles and photos in Cycle magazine. There’s often as much, if not more, about mountain biking and road bikes than cycle-touring.

Change is often seen as a threat. But it’s also part of life. And, sometimes, if we don’t change, we get unhelpfully stuck in the past.

Yeah, but the decision was not about whether to update or go back several decades and go round telling everybody we're all about touring. The discussion is about the change of the current brand name from "CTC- The National Cycling Charity" to "Cycling UK".

Sure the organisation's formal name retained the T-word and some member groups insisted in using the full version of the name, but as far as I'm aware there is no proposal to change these things under Cycling UK.

In the example you give "safe routes to school" wouldn't you be better giving your money to Sustrans?
I've just given money, which I've saved from not renewing CTC, to Pedal on Parliament.

I support both: I'm a long-term CTC member, and donate to Sustrans on a monthly standing order.

I'm not a huge fan of the new logo (it's rather Early Learning Centre) but anything's better than that cartoon bike thing.

Well, I suppose the slogan is marginally better than "Cyclists R Us", or "Every1 4 Cycling" or some other childish wording.

A suggestion - can we run a forum competition for the most ridiculous alternative name that the marketing consultants might have come up with? No prizes, just a bit of fun

W

Paulatic wrote:In the example you give "safe routes to school" wouldn't you be better giving your money to Sustrans?
I've just given money, which I've saved from not renewing CTC, to Pedal on Parliament.

Maybe. Or maybe that's just perpetuating the notion of cycling facilities as beneath the remit and funds of DfT. Something for a charity to do, in fact, not worthwhile central funds or organisation being involved. Interesting take on this in Singletrack magazine recently.
http://singletrackworld.com/columns/201 ... lue-signs/

It's a difficult one isn't it?
Similar to if parents don't buy school books the kids have no books. What do you do?

It's the other way round though. Analagous to schools not providing books (or equipment in the science lab or desks or some other item intrinsic to education) in the knowledge or expectation that parents will dip into their pockets for it, all the while the education authority claiming to provide free and full schooling for all.

Is it? Sustrans hardly provided all the cycle infrastructure through its own money raising. They got a lot of taxpayer money to spend; a borderline quango. Also, a lot of 'their' NCN consists of either existing routes or new routes constructed as part of local council or developer schemes. Sustrans has received a lot of credit for works undertaken by public bodies or at public expense.

Councils don't invest in new and improved cycle routes because their highways budgets are squeezed and they don't have a statutory duty to provide new and improved cycle routes or even to maintain non-highway routes (which includes much of the NCN). If Sustrans folded tomorrow I don't think it would result in councils suddenly deciding to improve cycle provision.