Cycling UK Forum

Bingo! Sustrans does these things. Highways Authorities don't have to. That's the issue. Imagine if new motorways were funded by quangos or 'membership organisations'. Imagine if they were built to a similar standard of most cycle routes (Sustrans or LA makes no odds) with deviations, odd barriers that keep out anything other than a standard passenger car, and the same amount of maintenance. And the same variety of surfaces!

Paulatic has hit the quandary on its head, to mix a metaphor (even if I do think he got the analogy back to front, it's highlights the principle): do you pragmatically buy your child's education or hold out for the promised free schooling?

What I meant was that it isn't a quandry as such. Councils (or national government) don't decide not to fund quality cycle paths because people donate to Sustrans. You're not delaying free schooling by buying books for your child.

I've been trying to find a positive comment on the name change for a few days.
Give me a clue I'm genuinely unable to find a positive comment.

Iand wrote:I've been trying to find a positive comment on the name change for a few days.
Give me a clue I'm genuinely unable to find a positive comment.

The write up in this month's 'Cycle' makes a fair attempt of justifying the change but reading it all there is no doubt that the focus of the Cycling UK is going to be away from club members.

There aren't any "club members".
We may be called that, but by definition you need to be in a CLUB to be a member of it.

We aren't in a club, we are in a charitable organisation, and as such, "supporters".

...on page 76 of the latest Cycle magazine ...David Stringer ...says he became a member of Cycling UK ...two years ago...!!

Clearly a forward thinking individual

Mick F wrote:There aren't any "club members".
We may be called that, but by definition you need to be in a CLUB to be a member of it.

We aren't in a club, we are in a charitable organisation, and as such, "supporters".

Speak for yourself. I'm in a club, over the next week I'll be on club rides Saturday, Sunday and Tuesday. Weather permitting I'll be wearing my new club jersey on at least one of those. I'm going to see the Battle Mountain film with other club members on Wednesday. I'm involved in the last of the planning for our club tour of Wales in May.
For me, the club element has always been the local groups, the best thing for me that NO can do is support them and to be honest this does seem to be improving. I'm not keen on the name change, even less keen on the way it’s come about, I'm glad the member groups can largely make their own minds up about it, but whatever the name the things that I'm a member for are not going to change.
80%+ of members don't get involved with the local groups, that's fine of course, people join and leave for their own reasons. But what isn't fine is thinking they can speak for the 15%+ of members who do.

Mick F wrote:There aren't any "club members".
We may be called that, but by definition you need to be in a CLUB to be a member of it.

We aren't in a club, we are in a charitable organisation, and as such, "supporters".

It will be interesting to see over the years whether membership of the supporters club goes up or down.

PH wrote:Speak for yourself. I'm in a club, over the next week I'll be on club rides Saturday, Sunday and Tuesday. Weather permitting I'll be wearing my new club jersey on at least one of those. I'm going to see the Battle Mountain film with other club members on Wednesday. I'm involved in the last of the planning for our club tour of Wales in May.

I wasn't meaning individual clubs.

I'm referring to the CTC - as in "Cyclists' Touring Club" as a whole - being converted to "CTC the National Cycling Charity". From that point on, we ceased to be members of a "club", but supporters of a charitable organisation.

Bicycler wrote:What I meant was that it isn't a quandry as such. Councils (or national government) don't decide not to fund quality cycle paths because people donate to Sustrans. You're not delaying free schooling by buying books for your child.

Really? Governments, and private organisations too, like to claim to provide all sorts of things, but their resources are finite. People don't like paying taxes but many are willing to donate to charity, often in areas that theoretically are covered by state funding eg healthcare and research, perhaps on the reasoning that they, the taxpayers/donors, know what is needed and what they want to do with their money. This enables these things to be provided, at least to some extent, without government spending its taxes. It can then spend them, obviously, on things that aren't so popular as charitable causes. So the government buys tanks while charities care for wounded soldiers, for instance. Thus any charitable donation, unless it is beyond the remit of public interest (donkey sanctuaries?) is both immediately beneficial, because it achieves something which might otherwise be neglected, and long-term harmful, because it contributes to the deprioritisation of that area for the state. Roads, paths and transport are within the conventional area of interest of the state (whether that parish council, Highways Agency or centrally ordained private enterprise as in toll roads); as evidenced by the tax funding of road building and maintenance.

tl;dr. Governments, just like anyone else, won't pay for things other people are already paying for.

(this is all getting way off topic though!)

Dragging back on topic: In the end I feel or at least hope that the charitised CUK might be able to act upon government to bring about some sort of change which wouldn't have been possible by a club. Not sure I like the process but... we'll see.

Mick F wrote:[I'm referring to the CTC - as in "Cyclists' Touring Club" as a whole - being converted to "CTC the National Cycling Charity". From that point on, we ceased to be members of a "club", but supporters of a charitable organisation.

The member groups are a part of CTC, you can't join a member group.

Bmblbzzz wrote:Dragging back on topic: In the end I feel or at least hope that the charitised CUK might be able to act upon government to bring about some sort of change which wouldn't have been possible by a club. Not sure I like the process but... we'll see.

'CUK'. I wonder if they considered that abreviation.

'I'm in the CUK' Lol

ukdodger wrote:'CUK'. I wonder if they considered that abreviation.

...see the thread: Don't mention the CUK