Keith wrote: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 .
Vorpal wrote: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
mnichols wrote: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.
gaz wrote:Keith wrote: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 .
Mick F wrote:Me too.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
DGR wrote:... (“Club pour tous cyclistes” .......... but it’s in French!).
Si wrote:...............They also remarked as to how crap the survey was!
DGR wrote: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 wrote:A visit to the CTC www last night had me thinking that The National Cycling Charity - NCC for short, would be ideal.