Plus Ca Change...

For discussions about bikes and equipment.
Canuk
Posts: 1105
Joined: 4 Oct 2016, 11:43pm

Re: Plus Ca Change...

Postby Canuk » 22 Dec 2018, 6:30pm

I like the way the previous posters have completely side stepped the issue of inclusivity. There's no way you get off that lightly.

There's a reason why British Cycling is more popular than CUK: it appeals to the 99%. Its not exclusive

By peddling this 'Look pedals are rubbish, carbon is no good, Brooks saddles are great, 3 Speed is the way to go' nonsense, all you do is alienate a huge section of the cycling public, especially new cyclists who will flock to BC if they read this kind of voluminous tat first here.

Look to yourselves, the vast majority of 'regular' cyclists who take part in Sportives and club cycling ride carbon bikes, with clip in pedals, probably disc brakes and increasingly tubeless set ups.

'A brake is just a brake'....

All you do with comments like these is send potential CUK members elsewhere. Wake up and smell the coffee.
The technical section is probably where most new forum members go first, such is the thirst for advice on a world now awash with unparalleled choice.

You're not helping. Read what you write before you post it, and imagine a 25 year old novice version of yourself before you hit submit . You might not realise it, but you're the probably the first face a new member of the forum encounters.

There's a responsibility attached to that.

Good advice, given impartially and up to date, without your personal predelictions and/or preferences attached. It would be nice if there was some humour in it too. A feature to be found on the BC and other forums frequently, but given the wafer thin egos par ici pretty much devoid of same.

Think on. You're the voice of CUK.
Last edited by Canuk on 22 Dec 2018, 6:32pm, edited 1 time in total.

Brucey
Posts: 42167
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Plus Ca Change...

Postby Brucey » 22 Dec 2018, 6:32pm

what a load of twaddle. Folk join BC because if they don't they can't get a race licence. The end.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Canuk
Posts: 1105
Joined: 4 Oct 2016, 11:43pm

Re: Plus Ca Change...

Postby Canuk » 22 Dec 2018, 6:35pm

Brucey wrote:what a load of twaddle. Folk join BC because if they don't they can't get a race licence. The end.


Thats beyond the pail. Twaddle yourself.

Membership BC 2005: 14,500

Membership BC 2018: 145,000

Less than 8% active racing.

You really need to have a good word with yourself in the mirror.

What's the membership of CUK? Take the log out of your own eye first.
Last edited by Canuk on 22 Dec 2018, 7:20pm, edited 1 time in total.

Brucey
Posts: 42167
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Plus Ca Change...

Postby Brucey » 22 Dec 2018, 6:51pm

plenty of people aspire to race but then don't for whatever reason, and are likely to do the same as their ('more successful') clubmates, whether it actually makes any sense or not. Herd mentality and all that.

BTW I have no idea if your figures are right or not; but if they are anything like the other numbers you have been touting, I'd advise others who are interested enough to check them carefully rather than take them as gospel.

Also you do talk load of rubbish; for example you have construed my comments as meaning that 'LOOK pedals are no good'. I didn't say that; they were certainly lacking to start with (hence the knee injuries) but the main point is that they are NOT 'REVOLUTIONARY' which is not the same thing as 'they are no good at all'.... :roll: duh.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

User avatar
Chris Jeggo
Posts: 196
Joined: 3 Jul 2010, 9:44am
Location: Woking

Re: Plus Ca Change...

Postby Chris Jeggo » 22 Dec 2018, 6:55pm

pwa wrote:
Canuk wrote:
Brucey wrote:...

Like I said upthread, you come from the 1%, ...

... Quite the opposite.

A bit cheeky!

More than a bit cheeky. No manners.

Brucey wrote:what a load of twaddle. ...

+1 to twaddle.

Canuk wrote:... the vast majority of 'regular' cyclists who take part in Sportives and club cycling
are a small subset of the vast majority of regular cyclists.

Brucey
Posts: 42167
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Plus Ca Change...

Postby Brucey » 22 Dec 2018, 7:16pm

one serious point is that organisations that claim to represent cyclists are arguably none of them doing very well. There are something like 30-odd million people that ride bicycles in the UK (some of them only occasionally, admittedly) and in some areas a large fraction of urban journeys are made by bicycle. Local to me over a quarter of all journeys are made by bike and over half of all adults cycle at least once a month. In London there are supposedly over 600000 bicycle journeys every day, currently.

Less than ~1% of the possible 30 million are members of any national cycling organisation. Which either means that cyclists are a happy lot (goodness knows why that would be, on our roads) or that the benefits offered by these cycling organisations are not perceived to be worthwhile.

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Canuk
Posts: 1105
Joined: 4 Oct 2016, 11:43pm

Re: Plus Ca Change...

Postby Canuk » 22 Dec 2018, 7:26pm

Brucey wrote:one serious point is that organisations that claim to represent cyclists are arguably none of them doing very well. There are something like 30-odd million people that ride bicycles in the UK (some of them only occasionally, admittedly) and in some areas a large fraction of urban journeys are made by bicycle. Local to me over a quarter of all journeys are made by bike and over half of all adults cycle at least once a month. In London there are supposedly over 600000 bicycle journeys every day, currently.

Less than ~1% of the possible 30 million are members of any national cycling organisation. Which either means that cyclists are a happy lot (goodness knows why that would be, on our roads) or that the benefits offered by these cycling organisations are not perceived to be worthwhile.

cheers


The quoted 30 million is of course utter hyperbolae. The number of cyclists who ride a bicycle 2-3 times a week is 900,000. Source Ons. That means British Cycling now has 20% of the regular bike riding population in the UK as its members.

Part of the reason why CUK can't even get close to the dramatic increase in BC membership (who now offer discounts at various bike retail outlets as standard) is the attitude and luddite fraternity of sections of the forum like this. BC are aggressively targeting commuters in 2019, see link below.

Own the failure. You either become inclusive or die. You either offer impartial advice or none at all. I reiterate, read twice what you post before you hit the submit button, and becone part of the future of CUK, and not the failure of the past.

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/late ... ers-398725

Brucey
Posts: 42167
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Plus Ca Change...

Postby Brucey » 22 Dec 2018, 7:42pm

you can prove anything with statistics ; am I the only one who finds it completely improbable that there are ~600000 journeys every day by bicycle in London alone and yet there are only 900000 'regular cyclists' in the whole country? Shurely shome mistake?


BTW I meant what I said about appealing to potential members; I am currently a paid up member of neither organisation.

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

mattheus
Posts: 1573
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Plus Ca Change...

Postby mattheus » 22 Dec 2018, 7:52pm

Well I for one have learned a lot from this thread.

Canuk are you running for CUK Publicity Officer or similar? If so, I predict a land-slide election victory, and a subsequent doubling of membership. Get at 'em!

pwa
Posts: 13649
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Plus Ca Change...

Postby pwa » 22 Dec 2018, 7:54pm

Canuk wrote:
Brucey wrote:one serious point is that organisations that claim to represent cyclists are arguably none of them doing very well. There are something like 30-odd million people that ride bicycles in the UK (some of them only occasionally, admittedly) and in some areas a large fraction of urban journeys are made by bicycle. Local to me over a quarter of all journeys are made by bike and over half of all adults cycle at least once a month. In London there are supposedly over 600000 bicycle journeys every day, currently.

Less than ~1% of the possible 30 million are members of any national cycling organisation. Which either means that cyclists are a happy lot (goodness knows why that would be, on our roads) or that the benefits offered by these cycling organisations are not perceived to be worthwhile.

cheers


The quoted 30 million is of course utter hyperbolae. The number of cyclists who ride a bicycle 2-3 times a week is 900,000. Source Ons. That means British Cycling now has 20% of the regular bike riding population in the UK as its members.

Part of the reason why CUK can't even get close to the dramatic increase in BC membership (who now offer discounts at various bike retail outlets as standard) is the attitude and luddite fraternity of sections of the forum like this. BC are aggressively targeting commuters in 2019, see link below.

Own the failure. You either become inclusive or die. You either offer impartial advice or none at all. I reiterate, read twice what you post before you hit the submit button, and becone part of the future of CUK, and not the failure of the past.

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/late ... ers-398725

I'm not that bothered about CUK so if someone asks about how bikes have progressed I'll just deal with that question rather than worrying what impression that gives. I don't care. You don't seem very tolerant of views you don't share. Why not just accept other people like bikes you don't like? Does it really matter that much?

pliptrot
Posts: 610
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 2:50am

Re: Plus Ca Change...

Postby pliptrot » 22 Dec 2018, 7:55pm

Why someone would come on this forum and try and pick a fight with (1) Mercian (and anyone who may be disposed to buy one of their frames), (2) some of the more learned and interesting posters here, and then (3)all of CUK, is a mystery. Anyone looking for inspiration as they start out would be put off by this. However, if they were to read the posts of those more experienced and knowledgeable (and more reasonable), who offer balanced and objective opinions, they would learn a great deal quickly and probably save themselves a great deal of money. Whatever press releases and ill-informed opinions you choose to consider, reality is what reality is. I don't know what Canuk is trying to achieve -other than provocation- but he tells us he works in aerospace. If the aerospace industry took the same wild approach to procurement as he advocates (that cheap Chinese counterfeit products are just as good as the genuine article) I imagine air safety would be much, much worse. But worst of all, he is repetitive.

thelawnet
Posts: 2665
Joined: 27 Aug 2010, 12:56am

Re: Plus Ca Change...

Postby thelawnet » 22 Dec 2018, 7:56pm

Canuk wrote:
Brucey wrote:what a load of twaddle. Folk join BC because if they don't they can't get a race licence. The end.


Thats beyond the pail. Twaddle yourself.

Membership BC 2005: 14,500

Membership BC 2018: 145,000

Less than 8% active racing.

You really need to have a good word with yourself in the mirror.

What's the membership of CUK? Take the log out of your own eye first.


Are you trolling us here?

Membership figures tell you that, well, they have attracted members.

This is because of various things like clubs, discounts, insurance, and what not. See e.g. https://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewto ... t=13042796

It has literally nothing to do with this forum, on which most of the posters are likely not even members.

It's worth noting that BC costs £23 for the 'various discounts' level, or £37 with the 'added liability insurance' level, which is cheaper than CUK, at £46.50.

pliptrot
Posts: 610
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 2:50am

Re: Plus Ca Change...

Postby pliptrot » 22 Dec 2018, 7:59pm

[/quote]You either offer impartial advice or none at all.[/quote]

How ironic.

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 18646
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Plus Ca Change...

Postby Vorpal » 22 Dec 2018, 8:05pm

Canuk, this forum is not directly related to Cycling UK, and not all forum members are members of Cycling UK. So whatever you might think of an individual contributor on here, or Cycling UK, they don't necessarily have anything to do with each other.

The advice on this forum is not endorsed by Cycling UK.

I think that some of your criticism is fair, but you all to often begin with attacking what others have said, e.g.
The quoted 30 million is of course utter hyperbolae.
which puts folks off the rest of whatever you are going to say.

About 25 million people aged 5 or older in Great Britain own, or have access to a bicycle . About half of those say they ride them, and somewhat over 9 million adults say they ride more than once per month.

So, there are lots of cyclists, even if they aren't the folks who ride every day. Only a tiny proportion of them are club cyclists. BC hardly has 20% of the regular bike riding population.

Where did you find the membership numebrs for BC? Their website only says 100 000+ so it must be under 150 000? 125 000? Even if it is 180 000, as you have implied, that's 2% of people who ride their bikes at least once per month.

p.s. I have been a member of BC and the CTC (prior to the name change). I am currently a member of neither.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

slowster
Posts: 1798
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: Plus Ca Change...

Postby slowster » 22 Dec 2018, 8:29pm

Canuk wrote:
Brucey wrote:one serious point is that organisations that claim to represent cyclists are arguably none of them doing very well. There are something like 30-odd million people that ride bicycles in the UK (some of them only occasionally, admittedly) and in some areas a large fraction of urban journeys are made by bicycle. Local to me over a quarter of all journeys are made by bike and over half of all adults cycle at least once a month. In London there are supposedly over 600000 bicycle journeys every day, currently.

Less than ~1% of the possible 30 million are members of any national cycling organisation. Which either means that cyclists are a happy lot (goodness knows why that would be, on our roads) or that the benefits offered by these cycling organisations are not perceived to be worthwhile.

cheers


The quoted 30 million is of course utter hyperbolae. The number of cyclists who ride a bicycle 2-3 times a week is 900,000. Source Ons. That means British Cycling now has 20% of the regular bike riding population in the UK as its members.

Part of the reason why CUK can't even get close to the dramatic increase in BC membership (who now offer discounts at various bike retail outlets as standard) is the attitude and luddite fraternity of sections of the forum like this. BC are aggressively targeting commuters in 2019, see link below.

Own the failure. You either become inclusive or die. You either offer impartial advice or none at all. I reiterate, read twice what you post before you hit the submit button, and becone part of the future of CUK, and not the failure of the past.

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/late ... ers-398725

CUK and BC cater for keen/serious cyclists, who are a minority among those who ride a bike, and so it should be. Most people who ride a bike have never heard of the organisations and would never join them.

Cycling is inherently inclusive: if you ride a bike you are a cyclist. It does not matter what sort of bike it is, how expensive or cheap it is, whether it's got the latest 11 speed, electronic shifting, carbon fibre or whatever, or whether it's something salvaged from a skip and refurbished.

However, sport/race cycling is a minority activity, and has always had a strong streak of exclusivity: if you don't conform to what the group deems is a proper rider with the right sort of bike, you will at best have the mickey taken out of you, and at worst will be made to feel unwelcome.

I suspect that a lot of people who would like to take up cycling as a leisure activity or for utility purposes are put off by the perception that they need a special/expensive bike and need to wear special lycra clothing (something which is especially likely to deter self-consciously overweight people who might benefit the most from taking up an activity like cycling).

As for the technological innovations over the last 30-40 years, they mostly have both benefits and disadvantages. Those targeted at racers generally are not suited for utility cycling, which is indicative of the limited benefit they provide: if it were something fantastic, it would feature on all types of bike, not just racing bikes. In contrast LED lighting has been an unqualified huge improvment for anyone who rides at night, e.g. including utility cyclists. For most people who ride a bike, there's a lot to be said for keeping the equipment as simple and basic as possible: it's cheaper to buy and replace, it often lasts longer, and it's often easier to maintain. If you are cycling to work daily in all weathers, a bike with an internal hub gear and chaincase makes a lot of sense, and similarly a small but significant number of MTBers ride singlespeed because it's lighter, cheaper and has less to go wrong.