Community Cycle Clubs - the death of.....

[Si]

Toss up between campaigning and CUK issues part of the forum, but given that it has an impact on cycling generally I thought here...mods please feel free to move if you want. Anyway, sorry for the War and Peace nature of the post - see you at the end if you make it!

A number of things have happened within CUK over the last few years that have caused me a little concern - however the latest one is the one that I find most worrying (much more so than name changes or charity conversions) for the good of cycling because it involves something amazingly positive that CUK has started recently, which they may suddenly stop in April.

You may not know much about the CUK's Community Cycling Clubs (CCCs) apart from the odd snippet in the magazine and being entertained by Lorraine and Joy at the Members Day in Birmingham last year. So a brief overview based upon my experience of them (those in other locations may have different expriences):

In Birmingham we have had a couple of traditional Member Groups. They did a pretty good job as member groups go, putting on lots of rides and other events, creating a nice social feeling between their members....yes, as MGs go they were some of the best we had. However, there is something that they didn't do: they didn't get into the vast, untapped cycling potential of the non-middle class, and/or non-white areas of the city, i.e. the on-traditional cycling areas. People living in these areas can benefit most from cycling but are the furthest removed from the CTC in its traditional form. And they didn't get non-cyclists cycling.

What CUK's CCC project has done* is get into these areas and create not just brand new cycle clubs but also brand new cyclists. We now have over 15 CCCs in Birmingham putting on loads of rides every week that anyone is welcome to join - you don't need to pay membership fees, at many you don't even need a bike as they have free 'hire' bikes to use. And if you can't ride that's no problem because a number of CCCs have bikeability instructors who can teach both adults and children free of charge. There are now several thousand people riding bikes who couldn't before this project...and they come from the poorest areas and the areas of worst health, and so they benefit most from cycling. Furthermore, the cost of getting these people going has been relatively cheap because it relies on an enthusiastic volunteer force who just needed the right opportunities and guidance to make a real difference. It's even led to a number of people getting jobs as bikeability instructors in schools or mechanics, and this year there were meant to be a number of young apprentice mechanics taken on.

That's all very well, you say, but what's it got to do with my cycling? Well, as we know improving the conditions for cyclists is all about playing politics - it shouldn't be but it's the way that it is. Birmingham City Council love the CCCs, they do just what the Council has been trying to do for ages - improves health in unhealthy areas, builds community spirit in troubled areas, gives the unemployed more opportunities, gets kids active, paints the city as a positive place to live! And because of this the council takes much more heed of what cyclists want -it can now see the value of cycling to "people on bikes", rather than just "keen cyclists". Birmingham has been traditionally anti-cycling/pro-car and to an extent it remains so, but the positive changes that have been happening, at their slow pace, have been bolstered by the support of politicians as they can see the good the CCCs are doing. Thus every other cyclist in Birmingham wins too.

Birmingham is leading the way with CCCs but there is no reason why other cities shouldn't soon emulate what has been done here and benefit likewise. And the UK will only become a real cycling country if we get ordinary people cycling rather than people in lycra riding 'race' bikes, because it's these ordinary people who will be listened to when we call for better infra, better policing of the road, etc.....just look at Holland as an example.

Alas, much of the funding for CCCs has come from the DfT and it looks like this may end in April, leading to CUK telling all the community cycling offices across the country they may well end up out of a job. Thus I would encourage anyone and everyone to get in touch with CUK National Office and plead with them to prioritise and find some money from somewhere to keep this very important project going.

Please note - this post isn't a criticism of CUK for looking at stopping the project, I'm sure they'd rather the DfT money continued and they could keep it going, and they should be praised for the progress they have made with CCCs in a very short time. I'm just hoping they can see how vital it is that they do all they can to keep the project going.


*working in partnership with Big Birmingham Bikes, British Cycling, etc

[mjr]

Interesting post. A few questions if you don't mind:

How much money are we talking about?

Where are the CCCs, how many are there, how many members, how many riders?

Did any CCCs exist before the project and are any likely to continue after? (= Does the project have a legacy / plan to become sustainable?)

What distinguishes CCCs from organisations serving deprived areas by appealing for donations from the neighbouring richer areas? Does the CCC funding basically reward boroughs for their richer people being selfish?

[Si]

Money - I don't know.....I can tell you roughly what the Birmingham officer is paid: c. £23k IIRC, which is the going rate for this sort of thing across the board. I think there is meant to be one officer per target area, I'm guessing they look at the Sport England core areas...Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow(?) etc etc...all the grim places. I think there is also a coordinator or two at N.O.

I can speak only for Birmingham in terms of numbers. The smallest group I think has less than ten members, the ones that started first have many more regulars...not being a CUK employee I'm not privy to the exact numbers, but I remember last year that one report said that they'd got over 1000 people going in a year of the project (this went hand in hand with BC's Ride Active which got similar numbers). And as time passes things seem to accelerate a bit.

Technically I don't think that any existed in this format...but if you look at the link at the bottom of my post you can see what was, to all intents and purposes, the blue print for CCCs in Birmingham. This one wasn't set up by CUK as such - it was mainly Sustrans and BCC, but a lot of the volunteers were from CUK and it's now a CUK AG. After three or four years of independence it is still going and teaching people how to ride....it's initial cash injections were from SE and Sustrans and it's managed not to need any more money since.

As to the new CCCs, one of the positives that the CUK officer has been able to bring is very good guidance on funding applications to SE, SB, Awards for All, etc etc to help them become self supporting. A number of the groups have their own small bike fleets - either from their own funding applications or via Big Birmingham Bikes, and are being taught maintenance so they can look after them. They continue to be supported by the council in a symbiotic relationship in that when the council puts things on the CCCs turn up and support it or help run it. A number also have a good relationship with British Cycling - the bikeability instructors and ride leaders receive their training free in return for giving hours back to BC/BCC projects.

What distinguishes CCCs from organisations serving deprived areas by appealing for donations from the neighbouring richer areas? Does the CCC funding basically reward boroughs for their richer people being selfish?

Not 100% with you here. In any area there are going to be some richer people and CCCs take anyone from any background. The areas that they targeted are broadly identified based upon health and wealth levels. The areas are certainly distinguished by having low levels of cycling, but also often being within an easy to ride distance of the city centre (which is currently clogged rigid with cars - the majority of which have done under four miles to get there).

In short, it's a project that has proven that it works. But in terms of the number of people riding compared to the number of people not riding (in Birmingham) it's still hardly scratching the surface. But the fact that there are now these groups with a visible presence in deprived areas, seems to be encouraging more and more to join, hence the reason to keep it going. Certainly had more impact than the Big Bike Revival

[Cyril Haearn]

+1 for CCCs + free bike 'hire'
We love Birmingham!

[PH]

Alas, much of the funding for CCCs has come from the DfT and it looks like this may end in April, leading to CUK telling all the community cycling offices across the country they may well end up out of a job. Thus I would encourage anyone and everyone to get in touch with CUK National Office and plead with them to prioritise and find some money from somewhere to keep this very important project going.

Do we know why funding is not ongoing? Or where it comes from? I assumed it was from the DfT Access Fund was meant to be in place till 2020.
Seems an easy cost benefit calculation to me, and with the obvious successes looks good value, compare it to most DfT projects and it's hard to see why they wouldn't want to continue it. If we know the why, it might be worth lobbying against it, considering the DfTs budget it really is small change.
What is disappointing is the lack of support from the traditional Cycling UK members, I've heard plenty of comment (Not least on here) that this has nothing to do with them, these riders are not even members... I don't know what they think CUK is for but if it isn't to get people cycling then there really is no point.

[Steady rider]

London has seen a massive increase in cycling, did CCC have any part?

[Si]

London has seen a massive increase in cycling, did CCC have any part?

London had certain incentives to cycle that other cities don't:
- congestion charging: if CUK can organise the middle of Birmingham to be a CCZ then I'm all for it, I fear it might be a tad more expensive and lack interest from the politicians because this is a car centric city.
- terrorist attacks - sad but true, attacks on public transport did result in more cyclists and thus more political pressure to improve things for cyclists, and also more social pressure on people to cycle. Obviously no one is saying that terrorist attacks are a good thing, but they did lead to some behaviour change.
- boris bikes - although in them selves they may not have actually got that many people to cycle, they did lots to increase publicity for cycling and to say to people that "yes, you really can get around london by bike!"
- cycling superhighways: finally started work on one of Birmingham's , the other being stalled by political pressure, but it's been hard going. Nothing like what is in place in London, indeed, even the sub standard cycle paths of 10 years ago weren't up to London's sub standard paths of the same date.
- existing cyclists - even before the boom in cycling London had more than Birmingham, thus there was already more pressure on politicians.

Thus putting aside the awful terrorist attacks, how would we get the politicians to agree to congestion charging, cycle superhighways, etc? By showing that cycling works, not just as a form of transport, but also to make our air easier to breath, our population more healthy, and increases in social and economic well being; and that there are lots of people (voters) trying it. How do we get lots of voters to try it? CCCs certainly seem to be one reasonably high profile way.

[Steady rider]

https://www.birminghampost.co.uk/news/b ... uk-6215643
dated 2013
I am wondering about the WMP and leave the 1.5m space when overtaking and publicity this may have given to cycling?

[Bmblbzzz]

Alas, much of the funding for CCCs has come from the DfT and it looks like this may end in April, leading to CUK telling all the community cycling offices across the country they may well end up out of a job. Thus I would encourage anyone and everyone to get in touch with CUK National Office and plead with them to prioritise and find some money from somewhere to keep this very important project going.

Do we know why funding is not ongoing? Or where it comes from? I assumed it was from the DfT Access Fund was meant to be in place till 2020.
Seems an easy cost benefit calculation to me, and with the obvious successes looks good value, compare it to most DfT projects and it's hard to see why they wouldn't want to continue it. If we know the why, it might be worth lobbying against it, considering the DfTs budget it really is small change.
What is disappointing is the lack of support from the traditional Cycling UK members, I've heard plenty of comment (Not least on here) that this has nothing to do with them, these riders are not even members... I don't know what they think CUK is for but if it isn't to get people cycling then there really is no point.

I expect that most, like myself, have never heard of the CCCs before reading this thread, unless they happen to live in one of the target cities such as Birmingham, Manchester etc. Having heard of it, I'm wondering how something similar could be done in a more widespread way.

[Steady rider]

Each cycling officer for the major town/cities could include the task of promoting them perhaps?

[Si]

https://www.birminghampost.co.uk/news/birmingham-cycle-work-capital-uk-6215643
dated 2013
I am wondering about the WMP and leave the 1.5m space when overtaking and publicity this may have given to cycling?

That report is a bit dodgy - remember it talks about the percentage among cyclists not the population. Thus if there were only 10 people who ever got on a bike in Birmingham but they all cycled a mile down the road to work, they would beat every other city, inc the Netherlands!

The WMP campaign has received support from the CCCs and has worked with them. The WMP stats say that collisions have reduced since they started the project. It has had some good coverage on the local TV news.

[slowster]

A few (disconnected) thoughts:

- What is/was the goal or target of this project, in concrete terms and numbers, and how has it been measured? Has that - or have intermediate targets - been achieved? (and if so, presumably it has reached it's end as far as the DfT is concerned).

- With regard to "several thousand people riding bikes who couldn't before this project", I think the big question is trend and identified/quantified potential for further growth (versus the cost). In other words, will the project continuing just largely keep those same several thousand riding, or will it deliver a similar number of new cyclists every year if funding levels are maintained. I suspect even the latter would not be enough to justify the funding. If I were the decision maker allocating such funding, I would want either the same levels of funding each year to deliver exponential growth (with new cyclists encouraging others to join them, and people generally deciding to get on a bike without any involvement of the CCC simply because they saw so many others riding and were motivated to try it themselves), or I would want the project to be a fixed term of funding which would deliver a permanent, self-sustaining increase in numbers which would remain after the end of the funding.

- Whoever came up with the name 'Community Cycling Clubs' was an idiot. 'Clubs' are by common understanding small groups (even very large clubs are small relative to the population size, especially when considering the numbers who are potentially eligible but who do not join): by very definition the word is exclusionary. The word is suggestive of spending public money for the benefit of a minority special interest group. 'Community Cycling Clubs' is even worse, and sounds like something from the 1940s, and is a term that I could only imagine being devised nowadays by someone with a significant left leaning political bias. Something like 'Urban Cycling Initiative' might have had far more appeal across the political spectrum. Which brings me to my last related point..

- "Birmingham City Council loves the CCCs", but most of the funding came from the DfT. What was done and is being done to convince and persuade the DfT to maintain funding? If it's the Conservative controlled central government that is paying, I can well imagine that 'Community Cycling Clubs' (especially in predominantly Labour controlled cities returning mostly Labour MPs) will have little appeal to them. Boris Johnson was closely identified with cycling in London, and gained publicity and political capital from it. Was any effort made to provide the relevant junior minister from the DfT with opportunities for positive publicity associated with the scheme, such as a favourable article in the national press with a photo opportunity for the minister?

I appreciate some of the above sounds very cynical when considering the political motivations, but if - as is so often the case when dealing with people's lives - you cannot truly measure the benefit that your project is having in cold numbers, then you need to consider winning hearts as well as minds. And it's not just purely about mercenary political advantage: a minister who has had the chance to meet and talk to people involved in the project and heard positive things from the new cyclists might be more emotionally invested in it when the decision about further funding crosses his or her desk in London.

[thirdcrank]

... - Whoever came up with the name 'Community Cycling Clubs' was an idiot. ....

For a moment, I thought the the objection was to the use of the overworked word "community" which tends to be applied liberally and with a big brush to make things seem good. Around here, at least, it's gone further and there's a strong assumption that it's members of ethnic minority communities who are the focus. As a topical and typical example, on last evening's BBC Look North - the regional news from Leeds and West Yorkshire - an item about the death of a suspect in the honour killing of Samia Shahid was dealt with by "community correspondent" Sabiyah Pervez. (I'm not commenting on hearing an expert on the issue, but rather the use of the word "community.")

Having said all that, si's description of progress to date seems impressive, whatever it's called and the problem now seems to concern a lack of continuity in public funding. Nothing new in that across the board.

[Cyril Haearn]

I think the name 'Community Cycling Club', CCC, is good, it is easy to remember

[jgurney]

What is disappointing is the lack of support from the traditional Cycling UK members, I've heard plenty of comment (Not least on here) that this has nothing to do with them, ... I don't know what they think CUK is for but if it isn't to get people cycling then there really is no point.

If what CCC's do is as stated provide led rides, lend bikeless riders bikes for those rides and provide training for beginner cyclists then I can see that to someone who is not particularly keen on joining group rides, has a bike and does not need training it is just logical to think a CCC is of no interest to them. They simply don't want what CCC's are offering. That does not mean they are hostile to CCC's, just that they don't see themselves as members.

While I am keen to see more people cycling, I did not join CTC (as was) for the purpose of bringing that about. In fact it never occurred to me that there might be any connection between the two.