Cycling UK Forum

100%JR wrote:The CTC is too stuck in it's ways.They offer nothing at all I'm interested in,then again BC don't really either other than the PLI.
I've no loyalty to either but my son has to have BC membership as his CC is a BC affiliated club as are all the Youth races.
Personally I think that BC and CTC will merge at some point.

They're too stuck in their ways for you and have changed too much for reohn2, it's hard to see how they'll ever square that one

PH wrote:

reohn2 wrote:Once upon a time the CTC was a cycling touring club,now however things have changed.It's that change why I'm no longer a member,

Did you join that new touring club? The one set up to fulfil the often repeated demand on here for such a thing and then attracted so little interest it disappeared.

No I didn't,simply because my cycling has changed so much in the recent past due to personal issues.

PH wrote:

100%JR wrote:The CTC is too stuck in it's ways.They offer nothing at all I'm interested in,then again BC don't really either other than the PLI.
I've no loyalty to either but my son has to have BC membership as his CC is a BC affiliated club as are all the Youth races.

They're too stuck in their ways for you and have changed too much for reohn2, it's hard to see how they'll ever square that one

Personally I think that BC and CTC will merge at some point.

My hope is that they will stop competing and work better together, but a merger isn't a possibility, because British Cycling can't be part of a charity and Cycling UK can't renounce it.

mattsccm wrote:This is starting to so a bit silly as if people are jealous that they are part of an inferior organisation. Size isn't important although of course wondering why a "competing" organisation is bigger is logical. I have just come back from a CC meeting where we were wondering the same thing. "Why is a certain club bigger than us ?". The answer is probably that they offer more for the potential market.

Yes, the danger in chasing numbers is what can be lost on the way, I've seen it with clubs that have gone after the fashionable end of cycling and lost they're original members in the process. It's bigger, but the segment they were catering for have had to look elsewhere.

I for one swapped to BC when I found out that the CTC , as they were, did sod all to do with touring and wasted my money on campaigns.

What did you want them to do for touring? And can I also ask you if you joined the new touring club? Does any one think the touring information that CTC national office used to provide would still be useful compared to what can be gained from the internet? Instead of speaking to someone in an office who's doing their best (Which was pretty good, I had cause to thank Mark several times) I can look online and likely as not get direct recent experience. Everything else is, and as far as I can tell always was, done by the local groups. Where national office has a role it's in supporting these groups and my experience is that after a period where this appeared to be in decline it's now improving.

I hate to say it but more cyclists don't enhance my cycling.

I couldn't disagree more.

In truth I'm suspicious and sceptical that a single national organisation can represent the interests of all members. I mean, look at the Blighty government! As with many national organisations, they often end up representing the interest and views of a small cabal or in-group.

It would be good if one could find the single cycling organisation that represented one's own views, with a 100% 1:1 mapping of these views. Ha! No chance of that in today's society unless there are as many such organisations as there are cyclists, all with a membership of one.

Yet the CTC/Cycling UK does offer some service to most of us, not least the insurance + legals + magazine package. It does do some things, in seeking law or policy changes, that suit me but mostly it does things I don't agree with, notably a push for cycling infrastructure (I think the roads are sufficient) and lately a push for off-road cycling "because it's safer". They do lobby for more control of motorist predations, though .... but I'm not sure how effective they are at that. Some small successes here and there perhaps.....

Anyroadup, I'd rather be a member than not. So I am.

Cugel

What would be interesting to know is if CUK membership is increasing significantly as well. One of Tooey's big promises ages ago was to increase the membership and given how much he is paid and given how BC seem to be fairly dramatically succeeding how is Tooey doing?

Ian

mattsccm wrote:I for one swapped to BC when I found out that the CTC , as they were, did sod all to do with touring and wasted my money on campaigns. Why wasted? Well nothing has reduced the close passes and that's all I worry about on the road. I hate to say it but more cyclists don't enhance my cycling.

You must be older than I thought! The CTC was one of the instigators of the "Roads Improvement Association"* which was created in 1886, so has been "wasting money on campaigns" since soon after its formation in 1878.

Edited to add that BC also "waste your money" on campaigning these days too! - https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/campaigning

(*Read Carlton Reid's book "Roads Were Not Built For Cars" if you want to see how pivotal the campaigning of CTC, & others, has been on the road network we have today - particularly the nicer bits)

I was a bit surprised that the CUK membership is not higher than it is. I'm sure CTC had more than 60,000 members a decade or more ago, when cycling was less popular than now. Maybe it just isn't presenting a cool image.

BC do a good job marketing themselves. Cycling UK don't. IMO, it's fairly simple.

Too many local groups still use Yahoo and email, and don't make much effort to extend awareness. NO is not much help to them, either.

If they improve the campaign network, and the resources available to campaigners, and make an effort to recruit more, I think that will reflect in local groups. While they do neither, new and returning cyclists are likely to go to BC.

Vorpal wrote:BC do a good job marketing themselves. Cycling UK don't. IMO, it's fairly simple.

What do you base that on? BC primarily market themselves with a sporting image and that's what's in fashion, so it's hardly surprising they have a greater appeal. Would you suggest Cycling UK do the same?

PH wrote:

Vorpal wrote:BC do a good job marketing themselves. Cycling UK don't. IMO, it's fairly simple.

What do you base that on? BC primarily market themselves with a sporting image and that's what's in fashion, so it's hardly surprising they have a greater appeal. Would you suggest Cycling UK do the same?

The BC sporting marketing department is basically paid for by SKY. I believe their annual budget is around £30 million.

Tough to compete with that!

(If BC riders were mainly getting Bronze medals and Top 10 placings, I don't think they'd get a tenth of their recent media exposure.)

PH wrote:

Vorpal wrote:BC do a good job marketing themselves. Cycling UK don't. IMO, it's fairly simple.

What do you base that on? BC primarily market themselves with a sporting image and that's what's in fashion, so it's hardly surprising they have a greater appeal. Would you suggest Cycling UK do the same?

No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that they market themselves for what they want to be known for (campaigning? an organisaiton of everyday cyclists?).

mattheus wrote:The BC sporting marketing department is basically paid for by SKY. I believe their annual budget is around £30 million.

Tough to compete with that!

Yeah, It is tough to compete with. But I'm not suggesting that Cycling UK need a £30 million marketing budget. But, they can also seek sponsorship and corporate donations.

What I'm suggesting is merely that they do more to develop their image, and support local groups in doing so.

They do a little better now than they did 10 or 15 years ago, but not yet enough. At least now, if you google 'cycling' and the name of a town or area, you will get some hits that are Cycling UK or affiliated local groups. It used to get mostly BC affiliated and independent clubs.

On the other hand, most non-cyclists have never heard of Cycling UK.

Vorpal wrote:BC do a good job marketing themselves. Cycling UK don't. IMO, it's fairly simple.

But Tooey claimed he was good at that stuff and is being paid a lot of money to do what he claims he's good at. But given the growth in cycling organisation membership, have CUK seen similar growth because if the have not them clearly Tooey is not as good as he said, at least not compared to BC people.

Ian

Vorpal wrote:...<SNIP>...
They do a little better now than they did 10 or 15 years ago, but not yet enough. At least now, if you google 'cycling' and the name of a town or area, you will get some hits that are Cycling UK or affiliated local groups. It used to get mostly BC affiliated and independent clubs.

On the other hand, most non-cyclists have never heard of Cycling UK.

The former suggests that rebranding as "CYCLING uk" has been successful!

To the latter: most non-cyclsits watch the Olympics.

I think all cycling groups may tend to blow their own trumpet on occasion and when fishing for members not unduly highlighting the work of others. The helmet issue tends to get in the way but will need more time. Pulling together is a task and half it appears.