BC membership up

PH
Posts: 7576
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: BC membership up

Postby PH » 6 Nov 2018, 9:58am

pwa wrote:I find it quite depressing that people on this Forum see the UK's foremost (in terms of numbers) cycling organisation as the enemy! To me that is daft. I know some BC members and they are not an alien species, they are not snooty racers who look down on anyone not in lycra, and they are not overly evangelical about helmet use. They are just cyclists.

This has been a recent thing though, not so long ago they seemed to happily co-exist as two different organisations with different interests and appeal. One of those organisations has tried to broaden it's appeal in it's own interests to the detriment of the other, where we should have a united voice we now have two competing for the same ground. We are all worse off for it and I resent the muscling in that is taking place. That it's been able to flex the muscle with Murdoch money makes it even more distasteful. If the recent Commuter Membership (partnered with another commercial interest) isn't an attempt to sign up those cyclists that would traditionally join CTC I don't know what it is. Their objective is to become the only relevant cycling organisation, if we are only going to have one, I'd rather it wasn't the one reliant on commercial sponsorship.
I can say this without any negative feelings about the cyclists that have joined British Cycling, if their interest is sport they've joined the right organisation, if it's any other form of cycling I believe they'd have been better off joining Cycling UK.
I suggest that anyone concerned about it join BC and campaign from within what is, after all, an organisation for people who like cycling.

Could you suggest how one goes about that? I know Cycling UK comes in for criticism for it's lack of democracy, but British Cycling's federation structure doesn't seem to give the ordinary members any voice at all.

John Catt
Posts: 113
Joined: 21 Dec 2009, 6:08pm

Re: BC membership up

Postby John Catt » 6 Nov 2018, 10:51am

Si wrote:The reality is that all of these organisations have something to offer, and there is something that most do better than others. There are good arguments for them uniting, but there are equally goodbones for them staying seperate and concentrating on their specialisms. Perhaps the ideal is that they just work together more closely?


Couldn't agree more. I must point out that Cycling UK (or more correctly the Cyclists' Touring Club which is its legal rather than trading name) is a registered charity and as such can never be merged with the British Cycling Federation (which uses British Cycling as its trading name) and promotes both professional and amateur cycle racing. Professional cycling can never qualify as charitable.

So while the organisations cannot merge they could unite under a single trading name and obviously British Cycling is the larger brand. We could have British Cycling (Racing) and British Cycling (Leisure). A jointly owned company could be set up to provide administrative services (which could actually use the name British Cycling Ltd) to both companies for which each would pay, dependent on usage. Thus the same systems for databases, websites, accountancy could be used and economies of scale obtained.

This would produce 3 executives (BCF, CTC and Admin) who would sort out combined policies to maximise the clout of the organisations. Otherwise Cycling UK would concentrate on leisure/utility cyclists and the BCF on competition cyclists. The BCF has been moving into CTC territory because one of the main targets it has to achieve to justify government funding through the Sports Council is increasing physical activity in the general population. It should be possible to persuade it that this could achieve more success in this working with CTC rather than treating it as a rival.

Their annual report http://www.goo.gl/3iZW3i shows that getting people involved in cycling features ahead of competitive results and failure is highlighted as a risk to the organisation.

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15031
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: BC membership up

Postby Si » 6 Nov 2018, 11:15am

[post removed in order to prevent people randomly making up stuff about my rides]

brynpoeth
Posts: 11241
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: BC membership up

Postby brynpoeth » 6 Nov 2018, 11:29am

Did they all choose to wear hi-vis?
Entertainer, kidult, curmudgeon
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we love life

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15031
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: BC membership up

Postby Si » 6 Nov 2018, 12:00pm

they were probably free give-aways!

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 13985
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: BC membership up

Postby mjr » 6 Nov 2018, 2:32pm

pwa wrote:I find it quite depressing that people on this Forum see the UK's foremost (in terms of numbers) cycling organisation as the enemy! To me that is daft. I know some BC members and they are not an alien species, they are not snooty racers who look down on anyone not in lycra, and they are not overly evangelical about helmet use. They are just cyclists.

Some are like that. Others are snooty racers who will ignore you if you turn up to a supposedly all-welcome event not in all the gear. At least it's improved from a certain BC club of my youth, where lack of a penis or a limb would have them assuming you weren't there to ride!

pwa wrote:I understand and appreciate the objections voiced here to BC's helmet stance, but we need to view the wider picture. I suggest that anyone concerned about it join BC and campaign from within what is, after all, an organisation for people who like cycling.

Three problems with that IMO: 1. I will not agree to obey the anti-doping code, so cannot join at present. 2. BC's democracy is even more broken than CUK's - notice how even someone as successful and familiar with BC as Nicole Cooke didn't consider "campaign from within" to be a viable method for reforming it. 3. the helmet problem is not completely within BC's power, being dictated in part by the UCI.

pwa wrote:A lot of the new wave of cyclists have taken an interest because of the Olympic and TdF successes that they have seen on TV, and which have fired their imagination.

What makes you think that? No-one has ever said to me that they've got on or got back on their bike because of seeing sporting success and surveys suggest it's still the same three things encouraging most cycling: it's faster, healthier and more convenient than driving.

If we looked at touring in particular (maybe next survey I'll remember to suggest adding it), I suspect "faster" would drop out of the top reasons (because it's not really once you get to touring distances) and be replaced by "more fun" or "more beautiful" or something.

Maybe if you limit the survey to BC members, you might detect some sporting inspiration, but I have my doubts even then if it would show up without leading questions.

pwa wrote:If anyone is bothered about this they would be best advised to think about how BC could be made better, rather than defeated.

Split the UCI-affiliated race regulator and elite sports team from the membership organisation, perhaps.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 13985
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: BC membership up

Postby mjr » 6 Nov 2018, 2:36pm

Si wrote:[post removed in order to prevent people randomly making up stuff about my rides]

100% H&H so I think it looks like a BC astroturfing ride like Sky Ride or Breeze.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15031
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: BC membership up

Postby Si » 6 Nov 2018, 3:42pm

mjr wrote:
Si wrote:[post removed in order to prevent people randomly making up stuff about my rides]

100% H&H so I think it looks like a BC astroturfing ride like Sky Ride or Breeze.


Is the wrong answer. As clearly pointed out the helmets and hiviz were totally optional - so I am really at a loss as to why are you trying to pretend/infer that they were forced on riders on a ride that you were not at and have no knowledge of?

You really are giving the impression that your agenda is merely stand back and criticise anything that anyone else might do no matter what the actual facts are - I find this very strange and also potentially more damaging to the good of cycling than any of the perceived enforced rules that you might imagine occur on my rides.

We've all met the permanently annoyed self-proclaimed cycle campaigner who hasn't a good word to say about anything but their own work, and who leaves the impression with outsiders that cyclists are just there to find things to moan about - is this really the impression that you want to give the world? I'm sure that in real life you are not like this at all, but on here you run the risk of people ignoring all the good stuff you say because of your seeming constant need to criticise.

[edit: I have also reported my reply to the moderators to save you the effort]

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 13985
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: BC membership up

Postby mjr » 6 Nov 2018, 5:27pm

Si wrote:
mjr wrote:
Si wrote:[mjr: moderator powers abused?] [Si: post removed in order to prevent people randomly making up stuff about my rides]

100% H&H so I think it looks like a BC astroturfing ride like Sky Ride or Breeze.


Is the wrong answer. As clearly pointed out the helmets and hiviz were totally optional - so I am really at a loss as to why are you trying to pretend/infer that they were forced on riders on a ride that you were not at and have no knowledge of?

I'm not saying they were forced - as noted above, those BC rides don't actually force them either or at least not according to BC policy although some ride leaders have had other ideas as discussed in other topics - but I'm saying what it looks like. I don't remember the picture that you've now removed to make my reply look worse out of context but none of the stereotypical CTC-style hints (panniers, saddlebags, blue/yellow jerseys) were as obvious or ubiquitous as the BC-astroturf-ride-style H&H.

Si wrote:You really are giving the impression that your agenda is merely stand back and criticise anything that anyone else might do no matter what the actual facts are - I find this very strange and also potentially more damaging to the good of cycling than any of the perceived enforced rules that you might imagine occur on my rides.

You're really giving the impression that you asked a question and then couldn't tolerate the "wrong" answer from a different perspective to where you're standing. I'm riding mostly in the fens and Cambridge where both Hs seem to be on well under 25% of cyclists, so when a whole group all don both, it's glaring to me and a sign of something going a bit wrong - hopefully something minor in that case, rather than the massive brain-fart of UCI rules.

Si wrote:We've all met the permanently annoyed self-proclaimed cycle campaigner who hasn't a good word to say about anything but their own work, and who leaves the impression with outsiders that cyclists are just there to find things to moan about - is this really the impression that you want to give the world? I'm sure that in real life you are not like this at all, but on here you run the risk of people ignoring all the good stuff you say because of your seeming constant need to criticise.

I didn't even criticise your picture. I simply said which of BC and CTC it looked more like to me, as you asked for, and why.

There are plenty of good initiatives that I praise on here and elsewhere. A smattering of reminders of stuff I think are helpful: cycle.travel, Bill's Epic Round The World Tour report, Highway Code improvements, "rail trail" cycleways, "stop lights of shame" for speeding motorists and I'm sure I've also written praising operation close pass, stourbug and groups that welcome e-bikes before (although that last one is contrary to the "e-bikes are motorbikes" dominant view on here). In terms of people, Bez, rob archer and stork of this online parish are wonderful campaigners not already mentioned above, to name but three - I bet there are plenty more but I get a bit befuddled who's on which forum/site/group.

AFAIK, the only one of the above to get significant BC support are the Highway Code improvements - and you wouldn't know from their publicity that anyone else was ever involved at all. BC do seem far more often to harm than help, from where I'm standing.

Si wrote:[edit: I have also reported my reply to the moderators to save you the effort]

Not sure I would have, but have you also reported your editing of my post to remove its context?
Last edited by mjr on 6 Nov 2018, 10:28pm, edited 1 time in total.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

reohn2
Posts: 36269
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: BC membership up

Postby reohn2 » 6 Nov 2018, 6:30pm

If this thread illustrates anything at all it's how fragmented the cycling community is.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 13985
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: BC membership up

Postby mjr » 6 Nov 2018, 6:48pm

reohn2 wrote:If this thread illustrates anything at all it's how fragmented the cycling community is.

And our ability to turn on each other at the drop of a hat. :-(

Some fragmentation is to be expected: there may be overlap between transport and touring, and between touring and audax, and between audax and endurance events, and between endurance events and road racing, and between road racing and CX, and between CX and MTB... but that doesn't necessarily mean that there's all that much overlap between every other pair of those variations, for example.

The leaders of whoever is top dog at any particular time seem uncomfortable with this and want to push on with trying to be all things to all people and the result is rather like trying to make an octopus by nailing legs onto that top dog - ultimately, there's a lot of blood on the floor and no-one is happy, especially not the dog.

Last I heard, there is actually a collaboration/coordination body called the Active Travel Alliance which is meant to coordinate BC, CUK, Sustrans, the Bicycle Association, the Ramblers, Living Streets and possibly some others I've omitted... but, well, how many people know about it? I think CycleNation was part of it but may have withdrawn which would be understandable IMO because its resources are rather limited compare to the grant-funded bodies and it had invested a lot in the alliance in this and its previous form (the UK Cycling Alliance) with little visible progress towards coordinated campaigns.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 2471
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: BC membership up

Postby The utility cyclist » 6 Nov 2018, 8:00pm

100%JR wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:What effort do British Cycling bring to increasing cycling safety, IFAICT they have actually made matters worse with their noddy hat rules and ignorance. They certainly don't do anything of note to make the roads themselves safer by doing much in the way of lobbying parliament.
They don't do much of anything really apart from increasing helmet sales and riskier cycling by their members at non racing events, which are really down to BCs adoption of blanket helmet rules, this then excludes many who wish to cycle helmet free (or are forced to wear to take part, just like kids cycle training in fact) and also put off many cyclists after their first taste because of the aforementioned wannabe strava @@@@@@s/weekend warriors/club cyclists increased risk taking/racer boy attitudes.
As a CUK member I don't want BC anywhere near us, they are insidious, offer nothing for making cycling safer and IMO have done more damage to cycling in the last 20 years than they have improved, by a distance.


You choose not to wear one and that's your choice others choose to wear one and that's their choice.You don't see helmet wearers constantly bleating on about it or trying to shoe-horn it in at every opportunity.Give it a rest :wink:
You seem to imply that those who choose to wear a helmet are somewhat lesser cyclists for it.I tend to find the exact opposite.

[Post edited by mod to remove insulting phrases]

Lesser cyclists, given what we know, yes, on average helmet wearing cyclists are worse in attitude, worse in safety and contribute to the negative fallout simply by the fact others wear a helmet.
British Cycling also contribute massively to the negative fallout from helmet wearing, as do the UCI, governments that make it compulsory, organisations like the EU road safety commission that push helmet wearing in children, adults as a solution to the deaths and injuries of vulnerable road users.

Does that make my stance a bit clearer for you?

As for bleating on about helmets, I think you'll find the pro helmet people who start the argument/discussion off 999999/1000000, they come out to spout unproven anecata and scenarios that make no sense and are illogical in conclusion in their quest to push for 'helmet wearing good'. Yes there was that one old boy whom you encountered, as rare as rocking horse poop. The little chat/advice and you made a mountain out of a molehill. other helmet wearers also chimed in here getting all agitated and were saying what they would like to do to someone voicing their opinion, their immediate thoughts outed their anger and willingness to physically assault someone because they had an opinion which was alluded to by one despite their later protestations.

That's what happens when you tell helmet wearers/pro helmet people about their choice, you get threats, you get people ridiculing you, you get exclusion, you even get people saying they'd like to assault you for simply saying what you think is best and even more sick mentions of your family should you die.
Funny how you said the after chat was calm and yet you used the extremely angered emoticon in your paragraph and were clearly extremely perturbed that someone had had the temerity to say your son he could cycle without a helmet.

it would be better for you, better for your son, better for me if you did the right thing and gave up wearing helmets, you both contribute in a small way to the negative outcomes, for yourselves individually and for society as a whole. British Cycling are one of the root causes of those negatives as I said, if there were no insistence for racing and the rides that they back etc, the garbage that gets spouted from pro helmet/helmet wearers would be massively less, we'd have more people cycling, more people alive/not injured on our roads, more focus on that which actually harms cyclists. The focus on helmets masks that massively which has a far worse outcome for everyone.

[Mod: edited to depersonalise - please keep points general and not aimed at individuals as that will only get people's backs up and turn debate into bad tempered argument and name calling]

reohn2
Posts: 36269
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: BC membership up

Postby reohn2 » 6 Nov 2018, 8:48pm

The utility cyclist wrote:
100%JR wrote:......?You seem to imply that those who choose to wear a helmet are somewhat lesser cyclists for it.I tend to find the exact opposite.....

Lesser cyclists, given what we know, yes, on average helmet wearing cyclists like yourself are worse in attitude, worse in safety and contribute to the negative fallout simply by the fact you, your son and others wear a helmet.......


That's something of a very sweeping statement with a capital sweep! :?
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

User avatar
Graham
Moderator
Posts: 5932
Joined: 14 Dec 2006, 8:48pm

Re: BC membership up

Postby Graham » 6 Nov 2018, 9:07pm

Where one finds profound disagreement, tis best to acknowledge as such and move on to other matters.

Slogging away tends to cause entrenchment. . . . . and everyone loses when the topic gets binned.

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17294
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: BC membership up

Postby Vorpal » 7 Nov 2018, 8:08am

We are all cyclists. No one is *lesser* for what they wear. :twisted:

p.s. when I was living in the UK, I was a member in multiple cycling organisations.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom