Jughead wrote:Dear John W, total humour and nothing personal whatsoever. We have enough enemies on the road without fighting amongst ourselves. On a serious note, people pay good money to get the sort of heritage we have. Have you ever tried buying an old Raleigh from the seventies? Keep the name. It's a good talking point if anything.
Thanks - and you're right.
For the record (no pun intended) one of the bikes I have on the road at the moment is built on a 1979 Pennine frame. Does that qualify?
I also think "keep the name" - it was part of our domestic vocabulary from my earliest memories - in the 1940s.
There was a piece in yesterday's Daily Telegraph business news about a funeral prepayment company whose gimmick is highlighting the price of coffins. The company is called Compare The Coffin and in the printed article this was abbreviated to "CTC."
No point linking it because the online version of the article doesn't include that abbreviation.
I have just joined - what have I done? It seemed such a good idea and now I have read all seven pages of this blog! Well on the positive side there is a healthy dialogue, and every one seems to treat each other and each other's views with respect, so that is good. I have been aware of the CTC all my conscious life, which is why I joined. Apart from anything else I did positively want to associate myself with that long and proud tradition. I also want to belong to an organisation that is relevant and engaged with the times and the environment that we all live and work in. Judging by the different forums that I have spent time today looking at I do think that the organisation and it's members are a very healthy representation of the cycling fraternity. I am a bit less sure than I was is morning regarding the aims of the organisation but that is an area to explore. I still think that I have done the right thing on any number of rational levels in joining the CTC. I am off on my first big cycling adventure this coming Thursday, London to Paris via Avenue Verte and I shall be very proud to be undertaking that journey as a member of the CTC. Hope to make a lot of friends through CTC so here's wishing you all well and a positive and fruitful another 100 + years of the CTC carrying on a great cycling tradition Fraternally Marcus
Having thought about this a bit, I've realised what I would like CTC to do: I would like to see CTC expand to cover walking as well as cycling.
Not in the Ramblers sense obviously, as they already do that, but in the pedestrian sense.
It seems to me, at least here in Sheffield, that while I feel the cycle facilities are pretty rubbish, every time I have to walk somewhere (and I don't do it often) I'm shocked by just how much worse the pedestrian facilities are. Walking anywhere is an absolute nightmare. You get to junctions, and there are no crossings and you just have to chance it. Where there are crossings you have to go over in several stages and it takes an age.
At side roads, pedestrians are always forced to give way, (despite the fact that the highway code states that it should work the same way it does elsewhere in Europe - the vehicle turning should give way).
So why should CTC fight this corner?
1. Because no-one else will. Someone should, I and I think CTC has a pretty good starting base to do so. The rights of cyclists and pedestrians have been diminished and pushed to one side by the ever increasing use of motor vehicles in the same way.
2. Because it would be beneficial for cyclists as well as pedestrians to have a unified voice. Pedestrians aren't as universally hated as cyclists are, and therefore to get a more neutral group on board could be a good thing. It would make a stronger argument to be fighting for better rights for all non-motorised modes of transport rather than just a specific group.
A long shot I know, and how it would fit in with branding who knows...
Benethi wrote:Having thought about this a bit, I've realised what I would like CTC to do: I would like to see CTC expand to cover walking as well as cycling. [...] So why should CTC fight this corner?
Cycling groups work with them on things like pavement parking http://ow.ly/qfxzV
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.
Si wrote:Sustrans are also meant to be the voice of the utility walker are they not?
Sustrans is a privately controlled charity, not accountable to its supporters democratically. Living streets is closer to the CTC but for pedestrians.
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.
Cycling groups work with them on things like pavement parking http://ow.ly/qfxzV
I didn't know about them but I see it's the Pedestrians' Association as was ie they've already had their rebranding exercise.
I'm with benethi on a lot of what he says. For a start, anybody looking for a reason to fear cycling farcilities need only look at the existing pedestrian farcilities. OTOH, where do they stand on pavement cycling? With my pedestrian hat on, I don't see the CTC doing much to look after my rights.
