It's all in the name - Cyclists' TOURING club

[gaz]

Interestingly, the original information posted on the ctc.org web site just four days ago on 15th August now seems to have slipped into oblivion......

Link to oblivion .

[mjr]

TBH, I think that some discussions have become negative. We all need a reminder now and again that the majority of members are happy, and the majority of cyclists have ride after uneventful ride without posting their near misses on on YouTube

What's the source for "the majority of members are happy"? I thought the majority were silent

Agree on the uneventful bit. I got a camera a couple of years ago after a nasty incident and its rechargeable batteries are dying before it's recorded another one... the problem is the 1% gets far more than 1% of the coverage.

[horizon]

Just for balance as this forum seems to have become a little negative: I enjoy being a member of the CTC. I like the website and the forums . . . I'm just writing this to provide some balance, because I enjoy being a member of the CTC. I think those people that are involved are sincere and doing a good job.

I too like the CTC so the negativity is partly out of concern over future direction. A phrase like "refresh the brand" says more in three words than I could say in three thousand.

The CTC, like all organisations, needs to swim or sink and the weather is stormy out there. Hopefully it will retain the good bits and bring in new things. My personal gripe however is that the cultural changes that it will probably (have to) make will turn it into a different sort of organisation and one that I might not relate to so kindly. The YHA welcomes cars, fills its bike sheds with old furniture, provides a large screen television in the common room, sells alcohol and calls you a "customer". The National Trust is currently tarmacking over a swathe of Cornwall to provide more parking at one of its properties. The Eden Project loudly voices its support for a new dual carriageway across the Blackdown Hills. Cultural and organisational change brings strange results even in the best organisations. Let's see where it all leads.

[thirdcrank]

Interestingly, the original information posted on the ctc.org web site just four days ago on 15th August now seems to have slipped into oblivion......

Link to oblivion .

When I look at the linked article, it has some sort of star rating system, rather like Amazon. At the time of posting, it says three, based on eight votes. Is this another opportunity to raffle a Goretex coat?

[Mick F]

I've just filled it in again.

[leftpoole]

Me too.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

It is broken!
Cyclists touring Club died a few years ago when someone rebranded it CTC
It the CTC is no longer a cycling club................as for example how many of the miniscule 60 thousand members actually ride together?
It is a charitable foundation which is not what the original founders wanted it to be. It has been hijacked by a small group of do gooders.
I want 'my' Cyclists Touring Club returned.
I just renewed my membership and was in conversation with 'Head office' about how unhappy I am as a member. I have given my view.
John

[DGR]

Both “Cyclists Touring Club” and the so-called “British Cycling” have inappropriate names, given the scope of the activities they now support.

Although the “British Cycling” website mentions “cycling for fun” and “commuting”, their “centre of gravity” is obviously competitive cycling. See http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/at_a_glance

Although CTC takes a bit of interest in “competing against yourself for fun” (e.g. audax, LEJOG), its “centre of gravity” is in non-competitive cycling: commuting, touring, sight-seeing, freight-carrying, leisurely rides (where "CTC stands for Cafe To Cafe"), cycling as “something ordinary”. When Jon Snow and Josie Dew give evidence to a Select Committee, it’s “as cyclists” rather than specifically “as touring cyclists” (even though Josie is famous as one of the latter). If Chris Juden gets involved in “standards for bicycle lights”, it’s “on behalf of cyclists” rather than just “on behalf of touring cyclists” (even though Chris does touring). Hopefully, CTC is the organisation that government would approach for discussion of the needs of ordinary cyclists.

The scope of CTC is actually “british cycling” (everything short of competitive cycling) whereas the scope of the so-called “British Cycling” is “british competitive cycling”. In an ideal world, “British Cycling” would rename themselves as “British Competitive Cycling”. The name “British Cycling” would then be vacant, and CTC could rename itself as “British Cycling”!

But, in the world as we find it, there’s presumably no prospect of “British Cycling” giving itself a more accurate name.

This context makes it difficult for CTC to give itself a more accurate name.
* We could give ourselves a vaguer name (e.g. “Cycling UK”). But, given the number of places where the abbreviation “CTC” occurs, it would be a mammoth job to change the name. And -- if the so-called "British Cycling" keeps its vague name -- we'd create a situation where the UK has two vaguely named cycling organisations, whose names do nothing to help "the general public" to distinguish between them.
* We could change our name to something more accurate that still abbreviates to CTC. The best idea I’ve had so far is “Cycling, Town and Country”. "Town" covers commuting. "Country" covers touring. "Town and Country" implies that we cover all cycling. (“Club pour tous cyclistes” would be fairly accurate, but it’s in French!).

[thirdcrank]

... (“Club pour tous cyclistes” .......... but it’s in French!).

Are you sure?

Anyway,my main reason for posting is that while I've no hang ups about whatever the CTC chooses to call itself, the British Cycling Federation, as British Cycling used to be called, was only formed in the 1950's (1957?) with the amalgamation of the BLRC and NCU. For the first 80+ years of its existence, the CTC could have chosen that name had it wished.

FWIW, the word Charity begins with a C. I'm surprised that's not been wangled in there.

[JohnW]

...............They also remarked as to how crap the survey was!

I didn't think that was as good as that, myself. It probably cost a lot of money................and to what purpose?

[JohnW]

Both “Cyclists Touring Club” and the so-called “British Cycling” have inappropriate names, given the scope of the activities they now support.

Although the “British Cycling” website mentions “cycling for fun” and “commuting”, their “centre of gravity” is obviously competitive cycling. See http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/at_a_glance

Although CTC takes a bit of interest in “competing against yourself for fun” (e.g. audax, LEJOG), its “centre of gravity” is in non-competitive cycling: commuting, touring, sight-seeing, freight-carrying, leisurely rides (where "CTC stands for Cafe To Cafe"), cycling as “something ordinary”. When Jon Snow and Josie Dew give evidence to a Select Committee, it’s “as cyclists” rather than specifically “as touring cyclists” (even though Josie is famous as one of the latter). If Chris Juden gets involved in “standards for bicycle lights”, it’s “on behalf of cyclists” rather than just “on behalf of touring cyclists” (even though Chris does touring). Hopefully, CTC is the organisation that government would approach for discussion of the needs of ordinary cyclists.

The scope of CTC is actually “british cycling” (everything short of competitive cycling) whereas the scope of the so-called “British Cycling” is “british competitive cycling”. In an ideal world, “British Cycling” would rename themselves as “British Competitive Cycling”. The name “British Cycling” would then be vacant, and CTC could rename itself as “British Cycling”!

But, in the world as we find it, there’s presumably no prospect of “British Cycling” giving itself a more accurate name.

This context makes it difficult for CTC to give itself a more accurate name.
* We could give ourselves a vaguer name (e.g. “Cycling UK”). But, given the number of places where the abbreviation “CTC” occurs, it would be a mammoth job to change the name. And -- if the so-called "British Cycling" keeps its vague name -- we'd create a situation where the UK has two vaguely named cycling organisations, whose names do nothing to help "the general public" to distinguish between them.
* We could change our name to something more accurate that still abbreviates to CTC. The best idea I’ve had so far is “Cycling, Town and Country”. "Town" covers commuting. "Country" covers touring. "Town and Country" implies that we cover all cycling. (“Club pour tous cyclistes” would be fairly accurate, but it’s in French!).

I think that's a good post, and well reasoned. I think there's more to say, however.

[Steady rider]

Cycling Association UK made up of member groups. Members wishing to be known as CTC being one section. In other words cyclists could use several names at a local or national level but would still come under the CA membership.

[thirdcrank]

A visit to the CTC www last night had me thinking that The National Cycling Charity - NCC for short, would be ideal.

[Steady rider]

Cycling UK

Allowing for groups to use the names they relate to but all being part of 'Cycling UK'
CTC name could be used for touring type events or for clubs wishing to keep the CTC or other names as part of their title.

[JohnW]

A visit to the CTC www last night had me thinking that The National Cycling Charity - NCC for short, would be ideal.

Northern Counties Committee - Northern Ireland's Railways? - ter bi shore.

[JohnW]

Our section secretary received an edict from HQ to the effect that our "member group" should be known as Xxxxxxxxxx CTC, not "CTC Xxxxxxxxxx".

That is "Xxxxxxxxxx Cyclists' Touring Club", not "Cyclists' Touring Club - Xxxxxxxxxxe".

The latter would mean The Cyclists' Touring Club's Xxxxxxxxxx section (or division or district or area or department or whatever - the term "Section", like "District Association" now being non-politically correct).

The former means a club for cycle tourists (whatever that means) in Xxxxxxxxxx.

Do you know, coupled with the re-branding and re-naming issues, this is to me awfully sad.

It all smacks of headless chickens and not knowing what to do next. From first being able to understand speech, the name "CTC" was part of my upbringing - my mother's (widowed in 1944) best ever memories were spoken in terms of "CTC" - my late uncle's life was the "CTC" - "CTC" Christmas Parties were an annual highlight - personally, I didn't enter club-life on my own account until the early 70s but the ethos, the friendships, the shared pleasure was all as imagined and all part of my life...................

Locally, we are still a family and whilst our activities are more diverse, the same atmosphere obtains. We can carry on like that locally while HQ continues it's path of campaigning and furtherance of countrywide cycling matters and benefits - we have to be grateful for all that involvement - but in my opinion, we must keep the name...............and there must be some decision about what the heck is happening. Seems to me that CTC is running on SATNAV, rather than studying the maps, thinking about the route, and knowing the way. Am I being unjust and cynical - an old anachronism?