...what the strategy is??

[gaz]

Gaz you may be conflating touring with DA riding...

Possibly and I accept that there's a big difference.

The point, for me, is that no definition of the "mainstream traditional membership" has been given by the OP. Having moved in DA circles I feel I can safely say that, rightly or wrongly, active DA members consider themselves the "mainstream traditional membership". My point was that even twenty years ago this reflected a minority group amongst overall CTC membership. I don't know when the balance changed but it's far from a recent trend.

For the avoidance of doubt, just in case anyone is wondering, I love the CTC, I am proud to be a member and I'm just trying to provoke debate.

Ditto.

[neilob]

Re the intention of the OP and the question above. I am sorry for my failure to define what I think of as traditional memebrship. These are the people that are regular CTC cyclists, that turn up for Sunday runs, that attend rallies, that take a touring holiday, that ride bikes on the road, that (mostly) ride drop bar, 531, British-made machines, that attach Carradice saddlebags, that commute when they can, that just love being on bike because it's a way of life......I'm a little tongue in cheek with that description but most people on this forum (I am sure) recognise this breed of person. It doesn't say if you are one that you are old, stuffy, out of touch, a dinasour. It may say you are lucky enough to have discovered cycling. I suppose I am just questioning why the CTC has taken a massive step away from its original mandate of wholly representing the interests of those type of people by switching towards a broader cycling pressure group strategy. I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm not saying it should reverse. I'm just saying that in my limited sample of fellow CTC riders, people seem more interested in 'traditional' aspects of cycling than hardcore campaigning - which is not the same as saying that hardcore campaigning isn't needed. Anyway, I shan't post again on this subject because I don't want to create bad feelings and divisions - as someone said earlier, CTC is a democratic organisation.

[Mick F]

Gaz,

You seem to have posted in triplicate. Is this something that happens within the CTC officialdom?

(Shall I delete a couple, or will you?)

<edit: Done it. You only have the one post now!>

[Romeo Whisky]

OK, so it is not entirely scientific, but...........Listed below are the number of posts and topics right now (add one for this one in Does Anyone Know..?) This tells me that the posting membership and diaspra are very interested in campaigning, quite interested in touring (including LEJOG) and in riding on the road, and only moderately interested in mountain biking and whacky riding machines. (and not really interested at all in member groups, yet?)

Does anyone know … ?
General cycling advice ( NOT technical ! )
3689 Topics 39706

Bikes & Bits – Technical section
4088 Topics 37590 Posts

Campaigning & Public Policy
743 Topics 16041 Posts

On the road: Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
1671 Topics 25962 Posts

Lands End to John O'Groats
448 Topics 4647 Posts

Touring & Expedition
1593 Topics 13272 Posts

Mountain Biking
195 Topics 1544

People, Events & Rides
1116 Topics 5213 Posts

Non-standard, Human Powered Vehicles
120 Topics 1406 Posts

CTC Member Groups
86 Topics 701 Posts

Cycling Goods & Services - Your Reviews
293 Topics 1866 Posts

National Standard Cycle Training
116 Topics 639 Posts

[meic]

I would guess that for every CTC "cycle tourer" there are 10 CTC club/DA riders and 100 "non-descript" CTC members who have nothing more in common than riding a bike and being in CTC.

A traditional mainstream CTC member is a mythical entity.

Tourers are traditional but far from mainstream.

I like a bit of cycle touring, Audaxing, club riding, family camping, family day trips, gentle off road, Sustrans, utility and I would commute by bike if I had to commute.

My CTCmembership helps in ALL these activities.

This was typed before Neilob's last entry. It appears we are saying the same thing and the same sort of cyclist in most ways. I do think that makes us a minority of the CTC membership. It also means that the other "summer only twice a year members" are seriously subsidising us regulars.

[Si]

I suppose I am just questioning why the CTC has taken a massive step away from its original mandate of wholly representing the interests of those type of people

Sorry to repeat myself, but I'm still unclear as to how you would see the CTC changing to better represent this type of person? What specifically does it need to do that it is not doing now?

as for...

These are the people that are regular CTC cyclists, that turn up for Sunday runs, that attend rallies, that take a touring holiday, that ride bikes on the road, that (mostly) ride drop bar, 531, British-made machines, that attach Carradice saddlebags, that commute when they can, that just love being on bike because it's a way of life

that sounds exactly like me - I can tick all of those boxes (apart from doing Saturday rather than Sunday club runs)! But my cycling also goes beyond that and incorporates other aspects (that I see turning up in Cycle and supported by CTC campaigning). Is it really that the CTC doesn't support the trad view, or is it that the CTC has taken on many other roles (in addition) so that the trad riders don't take the spotlight any more (if, indeed, they ever did - see CJ's views on the CTC's long history of being at the forefront of campaigning issues) even if they are supported?

[genome]

Wasn't the CTC about promoting the cause of cycling, by setting up local clubs that toured different parts of the country? Personally, I would like more touring to be possible, and that by the means of pleasant days out in different areas rather than sticking locally.

On the cycle advocacy front, more promotion of pro-cycling resturants, hotels, places of interest, etc so that we know where to go regardless of where we visit. I would also like more direct action and accountaility in the sense that we define concrete goals, hold people accountable (both within the organisation and outside), and monitor progress publically.

If these goals were to provide usable, proper long routes (think miles not meters) in various city centres, and to establish proper 'documented' routes along country lanes, then that would be great.

[drossall]

... what I think of as traditional memebrship. These are the people that are regular CTC cyclists, that turn up for Sunday runs, that attend rallies, that take a touring holiday, that ride bikes on the road, that (mostly) ride drop bar, 531, British-made machines, that attach Carradice saddlebags, that commute when they can, that just love being on bike because it's a way of life....

I fit a reasonable amount of this model, and I'm happy with the CTC as it is. I think we have to face the fact that organised group riding is relatively a minority interest among cyclists (i.e. anyone who owns a bike and rides it more than once in a blue moon).

I not uncommonly see groups of friends out on MTBs and I am pretty sure that they are just friends out for a ride, off-road or on. Don't see much chance of such people joining a club, national or local. Many, many more use bikes for utility purposes, and probably wouldn't join a club for riding either (maybe for advice, insurance or campaigning).

So we could have a very small CTC open only to those who fully fit neilob's model (I fail on one or two points, so not me), and with no real voice to do anything. Or we can have one that aims to provide group riding to those who want it (and don't ride with a local club), touring advice and routes to those who need that, and campaigning and training promotion to others.

And of course, as members, we can always get involved and ensure that our interests are considered.

[paulah]

I suppose I am just questioning why the CTC has taken a massive step away from its original mandate of wholly representing the interests of those type of people by switching towards a broader cycling pressure group strategy.

But what kind of representation do you think the CTC could do if it's members only consisted of a few cycle tourists and it was only concerned with them? Would anyone in authority seriously pay any attention to that kind of group? What kind of clout would the CTC have had over the prototype highway code that made usage of cycling facilities mandatory if it didn't have a large membership? OK that's part of the cycling pressure group strategy but tourists as well as everyone else would have had to use that cycle lane with lamposts and trees all the way down the middle.

[Flinders]

As for the mag- I have edited a mag for another organisation, and on the whole we print what we can get by hook or by crook from our members, so unless a lot of stuff sent in to the CTC magazine is rejected, the mag probably just reflects what people write and send in.

Copy may or may not reflect the majority interest; in our case, though the editors do write some specific stuff they think needs to be included, our mag tend to most accurately reflect the interests of the people who can be bothered to write articles.

[rbrian]

I suppose I am just questioning why the CTC has taken a massive step away from its original mandate of wholly representing the interests of those type of people by switching towards a broader cycling pressure group strategy.

So, the CTC has gone from wholly representing the interests of a small group of cyclists, to representing the interests of the whole range of cyclists? Sounds good to me.