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

[reohn2]

............Am I being unjust and cynical - an old anachronism?

No,you're are "raging against the machine".
A machine that is a slave to funding,not members.

[Mick F]

A machine that is a slave to funding,not members.

Yep.

Same as the advert banner.

They asked the whole membership about converting to a charity and the membership voted Yes.
They've asked the forum about the advert banner, and the forum have voted No. Trouble is, only 100 voted one way or another. There was a fair proportion of the members who voted No to the charity too.

Funding?
Income from adverts and income as a charity.

[reohn2]

They asked the whole membership about converting to a charity and the membership voted Yes.

Yes but not the whole membership voted,not even the majority of the whole membership voted,only a majority of a small minority of the membership.
In the same way police commissioners were democratically elected

Funding?
Income from adverts and income as a charity.

That's what's wrong,the machine feeds on such "funding" a club(which the CTC was once)relies on it's members subs,no subs,no club.The word hijack springs to mind...........

[gaz]

Our section secretary received an edict from HQ to the effect that our "member group" should be known as Xxxxxxxxxx CTC, not "CTC Xxxxxxxxxx".
....
Do you know, coupled with the re-branding and re-naming issues, this is to me awfully sad.

When the terminology of DA's and Sections were discarded rules were put in place about group names.

IIRC Xxxxxxxxx CTC denoted a Formal group whearas CTC Xxxxxxxxxx was an informal group, but it may have been the other way around.

I'm not saying that such seemingly petty bureacracy isn't sad, simply that it's been around for 10 years or more and is not directly connected to any re-branding exercise.

If it was part of the rebranding the edict would be Xxxxxxxxx CTC sponsored by yyyyyyyyyyy.

[Steady rider]

The traditional view of many members of the CTC may be along the lines of JohnW.

The problem I think is the CTC after more than 100 years does not register with the general public like we would like it to, ask the public what is the AA, RAC, CTC, BA and even some cyclists will not know what the CTC is.

We are trying to have a good profile and have a name that connects.

Rather than changing from using the name CTC, could be it used like, CTC - Cycling UK? The CTC reflects many years of experience and Cycling UK reflects a national organisation.

Changing to a charity upset quite a few members and apart from the name a few things could be done to raise the profile of the CTC.

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

When the terminology of DA's and Sections were discarded rules were put in place about group names.

IIRC Xxxxxxxxx CTC denoted a Formal group whearas CTC Xxxxxxxxxx was an informal group, but it may have been the other way around.

I'm not saying that such seemingly petty bureacracy isn't sad, simply that it's been around for 10 years or more and is not directly connected to any re-branding exercise.

If it was part of the rebranding the edict would be Xxxxxxxxx CTC sponsored by yyyyyyyyyyy.

I think we had probably been using it the wrong way round gaz - but I for one had thought that we had a choice. Clearly I was wrong, and I wasn't alone in that - I don't have anything to do with these matters at any level.

It does concern me sometimes, when I have to tell someone that I'm CTC RtR rep for Xxxx, and they ask "What is CTC?"

What is the answer - well I don't know and I don't pretend to, but I do know about the campaigning and other involvement that the CTC is part of - even though the campaigning is unfortunately often ineffective.

The CTC has genuinely moved forward - I do get a little bit involved with a lot of things, and if CTC is to be effective in campaigning and really making a difference at high levels, then I suppose there has to be a different image to reflect all that CTC is trying to do.

If I'm honest, the change from "Cycle Touring" to "Cycle Touring and Campaigning" which was heralded on the covers of "Cycletouring" (the erstwhile CTC Gazette) all those years back was simply a reflection of the acknowledgement of changing times. Becoming a Charity was similar, and possibly in reality (although not in my opinion) inevitable.

Rebranding? - well, let's see if HQ come up with something, and let's see what it is. Change of name? - who out there, including many cyclists, know the name anyway. Mind you, how many of them know the name of BC?

For someone like me who really cares about what used to be "......this great family of ours.....", it's all a bit unsettling. I'm conscious of rambling and contradicting myself now.................but whilst locally, for me, "Cyclists' Touring Club" does reflect what I'm about , I don't think it does reflect the club nationally anymore and the name possibly limits the club in what it's trying to do...............but the idea of changing make me cringe!

[Jughead]

Have you lot recently been on a course or hired someone new? Who cares?
Get your **** on a bike and send the money you are about to fritter to a charity.

[JohnW]

Have you lot recently been on a course or hired someone new? Who cares?
Get your **** on a bike and send the money you are about to fritter to a charity.

Jughead -

If that's a criticism of me as a rambling old man, I accept it - if you'll explain it.

If all you're saying is "get your saddle-contact zone" on your bike and ride it, well I do, all the time, and that's part of what I'm saying.

I detect either ridicule, bitterness or humour - which of them is correct?

[Keith]

When we compare our ‘brand recognition’ with some very well known brands, it’s worth remembering that they are backed by very big budgets.
The AA, for example, claims that “Overall about 16 million customers – representing approximately 51% of UK households – subscribe to at least one AA product.” Now we are never ever going to achieve anything like that, so there is no point in comparing ourselves with that sort of brand recognition.

Going off at a slight tangent, I also noticed that the AA has a Charitable Trust, set up in 2008 with the aims of

* Educating road users in road safety
* Campaigning on issues of road safety
* Promoting understanding and awareness of road safety and eco-driving to reduce environmental impact of motoring and to protect the environment.

But all the other services are NOT in the charitable trust.
Now that, with a few words changed, looks like a good model….

[Keith]

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

The 2009 edition of the Member Groups Handbook said

a) The title of all groups must include "CTC". The only exemption to this policy is where groups exist solely to carry out Cycle Touring activities under CTC’s objects in which case the title "Cyclists' Touring Club" may be retained.

If the title “Cyclists’ Touring Club” is used publications must also contain the phrase “a group of CTC, the national cyclists’ organisation”.

b) Groups with a defined geographic area (see ‘Area’ below) should also include this definition in their title, normally following CTC, i.e. CTC Scotland or CTC Central London. This may be reversed for Cyclists’ Touring Clubs, i.e. Cambridgeshire Cyclists’ Touring Club.

c) Any other defining titles that help members and the public identify the scope of the groups’ activities may be added. i.e CTC South West London Beginners, CTC New Forest Cycling Week, CTC South Bucks Wednesday Group.

d) Council recommends that groups no longer use the titles “District Association” or “Section”.

The 2012 version says

Title

The title of all Groups must include ‘CTC’. The only exemption to this policy is where Groups exist solely to carry out cycle touring activities, in which case the title ‘Cyclists' Touring Club’ may be used.

The title should normally be written with CTC at the end, for example Kidderminster CTC rather than CTC Kidderminster.

Any other defining titles that help members and the public identify the scope of the Group’s activities may be added.

 Groups must no longer use words such as ‘District Association’ or ‘Section’ in their titles as these terms are now redundant.

If we can't even decide where to put 'CTC' in the title of our groups, heaven help us as we try to rebrand the whole organisation! We had enough debate agreeing we should be CTC xxxxx. I, for one, don't want to have to go through the process of changing the bank details again just for this!

[JohnW]

...............If we can't even decide where to put 'CTC' in the title of our groups, heaven help us as we try to rebrand the whole organisation! We had enough debate agreeing we should be CTC xxxxx. I, for one, don't want to have to go through the process of changing the bank details again just for this!

Yes - I know what you mean - those members of our section committee for whom the name will affect their roles and the work they do will just take it in their stride as they have done, and will do, with all the other edicts that we have received. We'll just carry on.

However, it does not mean that I - and there are many others like me - will see the (now old news)proclamation that the words "section" and "district association" should no longer be used, as anything but petty, pointless and attempting to change the world for the sake of changing the world............and for the sake of changing the ethos of "this great family of ours". What benefit is there from changing words? - like changing York Rally to York Cycle Show. It's a Rally, and nothing much like the Cycle Show at the NEC, for example. There's no benefit, and another name then has to be invented.

But - we all will just carry on - riding our bikes, drinking tea, encouraging others to ride their bikes - and name change or not, if CTC does make a campaigning breakthrough - which may be coming - with government, then we'll all benefit.

[Steady rider]

I think Keith makes a few good points about the AA etc. I was on a ride with several non CTC members and I gathered from one person that they did not know what the CTC was.

If the CTC decided to have a change of name to go hand in glove with other activities to promote the CTC and cycling would the most acceptable be 'CTC - Cycling UK' or 'Cycling UK - CTC' or would both be unsuitable?

[JohnW]

I agree, and I particularly note Keith's comment :

.............the AA has a Charitable Trust, set up in 2008 with the aims of

* Educating road users in road safety
* Campaigning on issues of road safety
* Promoting understanding and awareness of road safety and eco-driving to reduce environmental impact of motoring and to protect the environment.

But all the other services are NOT in the charitable trust.
Now that, with a few words changed, looks like a good model….

In a sense, that's where we were before we became a full-blown charity, and despite what we were told by Council, I though that was a better situation, and didn't it work?

However, we are where we are now and surely the charity debate is dead.

To be truly democratic, Council would have to ask the members' views and suggestions, and with 77,000(ish) members we could get 77,000 suggestions - and all different. Imagine the voting paper to decide between that lot! .

The world is changing around us, and cycling is moving on, but to change our name ..............if we had a new name, then to non-members I think we'd be seen as a new organisation and to many members it may be seen as the end of the club. It is a bit of a dilemma - and I would submit that whatever happens the initials "CTC" should be retained, as should the Winged Wheel badge, for continuity; possibly in association with the "squiggle" and to show our credentials and boast of our heritage.

[mjr]

To be truly democratic, Council would have to ask the members' views and suggestions, and with 77,000(ish) members we could get 77,000 suggestions - and all different. Imagine the voting paper to decide between that lot! .

Who needs to imagine? I'm a member of co-operatives that have far more than 77,000 members. Some of them have helped develop tools like http://www.neweconomics.org/projects/crowd-wise to help you get broad agreement in huge groups of supporters, such as football clubs. Why not CTC?

If there was more participation beyond occasional chances to stand for election, I feel it would make CTC far more democratic and attractive to riders. The name isn't as important as what it does and how it does it.

[Jughead]

Dear John W, total humour and nothing personal whatsoever. We have enough enemies on the road without fighting amongst ourselves. On a serious note, people pay good money to get the sort of heritage we have. Have you ever tried buying an old Raleigh from the seventies? Keep the name. It's a good talking point if anything.