Cycling UK Forum

mjr wrote:I'm uncomfortable with flat rate subscriptions while we have such inequality.

I think this is a fair point. Our criteria are strict and hence in many cases unjust. I am a pensioner but have a good occupational pension. My disposable income is higher than many people in work supporting children, mortgage and car. I'm an ex trustee of the British Humanist Association and treasurer of Leicester Secular Society. Both offer "low income" membership which is self defined (the BHA states "student/unwaged/etc. see https://humanism.org.uk/join-the-bha/#0. The BHA doesn't believe if suffers badly from free loaders. The increased fees from the retired who don't classify themselves as low income, compensates for those on a wage who classify themselves as low income.

In the case of Leicester Secular Society http://www.leicestersecularsociety.org.uk/docs/LSSMembershipApplication.pdf I know that everyone could justify their decision and members who can afford to are encouraged to make additional donations.

Bearing in mind the religious are allegedly more honest than us Humanists, changing the system shouldn't be a problem .

I think this is a matter that CTC Council should be giving serious consideration to.

Regards,

John

I think, John, that two different things are being discussed here:

1. you get the same benefits in your membership as everyone else but you pay according to your means (what you describe).

2. you choose the set of membership benefits that you can afford (or want) (like with the BC example that mjr quotes)

For the first option I'm still not sure how well it would go down, but am happy to be convinced of it's workability. For the second, we already have affiliate membership which offers the main things that the majority seem to want: 3rd party insurance and the ability to ride with MGs and Affiliate groups, at a reduced price.

Personally I'd rather that we had a free to join option for people who were brand new to cycling and thus didn't want to lay out a reasonable lump of cash until they knew that they could both do it and enjoyed it. It ought to include such features as free learn to ride sessions, free basic maintenance, and free very gentle led rides, etc. After all, it's in all our interests to get more people cycling. And as a charity that should be one of our basic aims should it not?

Si wrote:didn't want to lay out a reasonable lump of cash until they knew that they could both do it and enjoyed it.

I don't mind the £41.50 a year, I broadly support the CTCs aims and objectives and think it represents reasonable value for money. Even so, I can see why it's sometimes a struggle to find than lump. Rather than messing about with the amount, I'd rather see easier ways to pay it. Quarterly maybe, with a slight increase to cover admin, so maybe £12 a quarter. With maybe the first quarter in arrears to give that free start Si wants.

Mick F wrote:Maybe irony, but there's a good point made.

What we need is a president with a bit of clout. Someone with a larger-than-life persona, someone with some "celebrity" whom everyone knows and is noticeable, someone who speaks their mind and doesn't mind upsetting people along the way.

Clarkson is a good example.

Fortunately Jimmy Savile's dead.

Pete Jack wrote:

Mick F wrote:Maybe irony, but there's a good point made.

What we need is a president with a bit of clout. Someone with a larger-than-life persona, someone with some "celebrity" whom everyone knows and is noticeable, someone who speaks their mind and doesn't mind upsetting people along the way.

Clarkson is a good example.

Fortunately Jimmy Savile's dead.

Alan Sugar fancies himself as a bit of a cyclist. And at least then we'd all be thoroughly enjoying the spectacle of people being fired.

Si wrote:I think, John, that two different things are being discussed here:

1. you get the same benefits in your membership as everyone else but you pay according to your means (what you describe).

2. you choose the set of membership benefits that you can afford (or want) (like with the BC example that mjr quotes)

For the first option I'm still not sure how well it would go down, but am happy to be convinced of it's workability. For the second, we already have affiliate membership which offers the main things that the majority seem to want: 3rd party insurance and the ability to ride with MGs and Affiliate groups, at a reduced price.

Personally I'd rather that we had a free to join option for people who were brand new to cycling and thus didn't want to lay out a reasonable lump of cash until they knew that they could both do it and enjoyed it. It ought to include such features as free learn to ride sessions, free basic maintenance, and free very gentle led rides, etc. After all, it's in all our interests to get more people cycling. And as a charity that should be one of our basic aims should it not?

Si, with regard to the bit I've put in bold; we don't all have the option of affiliate membership. You can only have that if you belong to an affiliated club. Are you suggesting we just join one even if we don't live near one or want to ride with one? There isn't one near me but I know of at least one I could join with no intention of ever riding with. Maybe it's something to consider when my commuted membership approaches it's end?

Si wrote:Personally I'd rather that we had a free to join option for people who were brand new to cycling and thus didn't want to lay out a reasonable lump of cash until they knew that they could both do it and enjoyed it. It ought to include such features as free learn to ride sessions, free basic maintenance, and free very gentle led rides, etc. After all, it's in all our interests to get more people cycling. And as a charity that should be one of our basic aims should it not?

Sorry, I missed that bit first time around and only spotted it in Karen's quote .

The health department of a nearby local authority offers free learn to ride sessions and very gentle led rides. I've been along on a couple and very gentle they are too.

Their website states they provide these in conjunction with BC and CTC. I've not been able to establish what the connection or support is from the CTC end (e.g. no specific mention in annual reports, CTC website search draws a blank). My understanding is that the CTC involvement prevents helmets from being mandatory on these rides (except for ride leaders). I'm certain there's no connection to the local member group, although I expect National Office would be delighted if there were.

I'm not sure if free basic maintenance is part of the package. I've seen a puncture fixed on one of these rides but that was on the leader's own bike. I've also been asked by one of the leaders if I had any tools with me suitable for adjusting a loose BB on another riders bike, must have been the size of my saddlebag .

Are you suggesting we just join one even if we don't live near one or want to ride with one?

I'm merely suggesting that it is a possibility. If the CTC envisaged that it would work like this when they created it is another question, but I know that some people do use it this way.

I have considered joining the Fridays (FNRTTC) instead of having a regular CTC membership. Unlikely that I would ever go to London to join one of their rides but I might take a tour to York or Cardiff one year so I could be a member ready for if that occasion should ever happen.

beardy wrote:I have considered joining the Fridays (FNRTTC) instead of having a regular CTC membership. Unlikely that I would ever go to London to join one of their rides but I might take a tour to York or Cardiff one year so I could be a member ready for if that occasion should ever happen.

The Fridays was the one I was thinking of. Simon Legg is not running it now though, having done it for so long he's taking a break in 2015. The rides and the affiliation to CTC will continue though. My daughter Katie (aged 27) is a member of The Fridays and has done several of their rides. She is no longer a CTC member after being so since 2000 when she was 13. She didn't bother renewing in November last year.

All 3 of us at our house registered for a sportive via BC last year as it was the York Rally sportive in September which we wanted to support. Katie said at the time that she may join BC instead of renewing with CTC.

gaz wrote:My understanding is that the CTC involvement prevents helmets from being mandatory on these rides (except for ride leaders).

Helmets aren't compulsory on BC's own Skyride branded rides (except for ride leaders & Under 18s) so I don't think CTC involvement, if any, will have much bearing on this.

Rick.

Let me get this straight , many many people have pumped so much time and passion into building a 'brand identity', according to the CTC timeline since 1878, now a small bunch of other people have seen a way of handing over £xxxxxx to their pals in marketing for no good reason and maybe potentially destroy all that work.
Ive yet to read any good reason for this change only nebulous marketing blurb about bringing the CTC into the modern era etc .

Tell me how this was a good idea unless you're part of that clique that siphons off millions from the third sector every year to share amongst other old boys

Follow the money

fishfright wrote:Let me get this straight , many many people have pumped so much time and passion into building a 'brand identity', according to the CTC timeline since 1878, now a small bunch of other people have seen a way of handing over £xxxxxx to their pals in marketing for no good reason and maybe potentially destroy all that work.
Ive yet to read any good reason for this change only nebulous marketing blurb about bringing the CTC into the modern era etc .

Tell me how this was a good idea unless you're part of that clique that siphons off millions from the third sector every year to share amongst other old boys

Follow the money

FWIW I agree,and not wanting to be negative(but in this regard I really can't help myself),or a told you so.
But when the CTC went corporate ie;became a charity,I'm afraid I saw it coming from miles off and didn't renew my membership,I haven't been tempted to since.
Much as it saddens me to say but the CTC IMHO has been hi-jacked,it's no long a club with it's members interests at heart,why it's members are not even members any longer,but contributors to the charity.
It's all,sadly,been a take over by self nest featherers with cycling being the tree that holds their nests swaying gently in the breeze of corporate enterprise wrapped up as charity.

As an aside this morning through the post I received an invitation to contribute to the British Red Cross,as sweeteners I was 'given' a couple of coasters and a pen to persuade me.
The bumf and coasters went in the bin where they belong without a second glance,I kept the pen as it could come in handy.
It's all become a business and is extremely sad.

My giving won't be to the CTC or BRC,because of that.

The idea that a touring club can't also be involved with more general campaigning is, I think, false. Certainly when I first joined the CTC back in 1987 (for reasons other than touring or campaigning!) they were very much involved with both. In fact, since the late 19th century, the CTC has been involved in campaigning for the rights and conditions of cyclists, both through individual legal cases and general pressure for legislative and practical change.

reohn2 wrote:

fishfright wrote:Let me get this straight , many many people have pumped so much time and passion into building a 'brand identity', according to the CTC timeline since 1878, now a small bunch of other people have seen a way of handing over £xxxxxx to their pals in marketing for no good reason and maybe potentially destroy all that work.
Ive yet to read any good reason for this change only nebulous marketing blurb about bringing the CTC into the modern era etc .

Tell me how this was a good idea unless you're part of that clique that siphons off millions from the third sector every year to share amongst other old boys

Follow the money

FWIW I agree,and not wanting to be negative(but in this regard I really can't help myself),or a told you so.
But when the CTC went corporate ie;became a charity,I'm afraid I saw it coming from miles off and didn't renew my membership,I haven't been tempted to since.
Much as it saddens me to say but the CTC IMHO has been hi-jacked,it's no long a club with it's members interests at heart,why it's members are not even members any longer,but contributors to the charity.
It's all,sadly,been a take over by self nest featherers with cycling being the tree that holds their nests swaying gently in the breeze of corporate enterprise wrapped up as charity.....

Absolutely.

And I think the new "powers that be" are taking it all much further (e.g. attempts to lessen the powers of the Council and to take more powers for themselves - all much more of the "Corporate Approach to Business").

Personally (and for the same reasons I left a years or so ago), I think whoever appoints the senior employees needs to have a hard look at those in post with a view to replacing them with people who can recognise the organisation for what it is/was rather than to allow employees to turn it into their own career development vehicle.

CTC had great strengths in it's particular sector (loads of experience, could talk with knowledge and authority and a good membership, etc.). All that is being discarded and it is such a waste as those strengths could really work for and help cycling.

Ian