Do we need a new Cyclists' Touring Club?

[Tangled Metal]

Should cycling community split into groups based on disciplines? My personal view is there's enough difficulties from people outside cycling that there's an argument for a universal cycling body that works for all. Not sure that exists but if you divide further what we have now you could dilute the voices of cycling. Is this something to consider?

BTW is any cyclist of a single type such that they do no other cycling? I do day rides, commute family rides and intend on cycle touring. One discipline club does not fit my needs.

[Psamathe]

...
The current problem is if you want to be a member of your local group, then you have to become a member of a national organisation that you may not wish to support. I agree with enough of what's going on nationally to pay my subs and support it, I'd continue to do that without the local group. But I'm very aware that it's a hard sell to someone who just want to come on a few rides and has other options.

My problem. I wont be a member of the CTC under the current management (and with the prospect of the current "direction"). I would (and used to) participate in my local CTC MG (but can not any more as I'm not a member).

I participate in an activity and feel strongly that I should be a member of an organisation supporting that activity (something I do for other activities I participate in incl. scuba diving, kayaking, sailing, etc.). Cycling is the only one I'm not ... was but then appreciated what the CTC had become.

Were my local CTC MG to decide to not require CTC membership then I would/could join then again.

Ian

[Psamathe]

Should cycling community split into groups based on disciplines?....

I think it depends on the activity and the common issues facing those who participate. My personal opinion in the case of cycling is both yes and no. For campaigning, one big organisation would be more effective, so CTC is probably detracting in that aspect. For participant related things, then different organisations would probably work better (e.g. MTB, track racing, touring, etc.).

Ian

[Philip Benstead]

...
The current problem is if you want to be a member of your local group, then you have to become a member of a national organisation that you may not wish to support. I agree with enough of what's going on nationally to pay my subs and support it, I'd continue to do that without the local group. But I'm very aware that it's a hard sell to someone who just want to come on a few rides and has other options.

My problem. I wont be a member of the CTC under the current management (and with the prospect of the current "direction"). I would (and used to) participate in my local CTC MG (but can not any more as I'm not a member).

I participate in an activity and feel strongly that I should be a member of an organisation supporting that activity (something I do for other activities I participate in incl. scuba diving, kayaking, sailing, etc.). Cycling is the only one I'm not ... was but then appreciated what the CTC had become.

Were my local CTC MG to decide to not require CTC membership then I would/could join then again.

Ian

what is the ctc doing you do not like

[robgul]

Should cycling community split into groups based on disciplines? My personal view is there's enough difficulties from people outside cycling that there's an argument for a universal cycling body that works for all. Not sure that exists but if you divide further what we have now you could dilute the voices of cycling. Is this something to consider?

BTW is any cyclist of a single type such that they do no other cycling? I do day rides, commute family rides and intend on cycle touring. One discipline club does not fit my needs.

A quick but non-exhaustive analysis of cycling types/disciplines and my interests:

• Audax - YES (but infrequently)
• BMX - NO
• Campaigning - NO (I'm a past Chairman of the local cycle forum - head and brick wall with LA officers hell-bent on delaying anything to prolong their job-tenure)
• Charity cycle rides - YES (as an event organiser - the MacRide Events I started in 2005 have raised close to £750,000 to date) - as a participant - YES, although infrequently
• Commuting - NO (I don't work)
• Cycle touring - YES (as in multi-day trips and holidays)
• Cyclo-cross - NO
• Mountain biking - NO
• Racing - NO
• Riding for pleasure YES (as in weekly runs with a club that was a CTC MG and informal rides with friends)
• Time-trials - NO
• Track cycling - as a spectator YES and (very) infrequent for fun track rider YES
• Utility/shopping - NO (not practical)

The two clubs that I belong to fit the "Riding for pleasure" ... other than that - zilch

Rob

[Tangled Metal]

Psamathe posted about joining organizations for other disciplines and mentioned kayaking. I used to be a member of BCU the national body for all kayaking disciplines. Whether competing in slalom, whitewater, sprint, etc. Or sea kayaking, freestyle, canoe polo, touring open canoe, kayak, marathon, etc. They are all represented by one, all encompassing national body. Within that there are national bodies such as the Scottish canoe association, wca and IIRC an English body set up within the BCU.

IMHO I'd say cycling could benefit from something similar because I think it works for kayak and canoe disciplines (of which there's many).

What is it about cycling that means it isn't suitable for.one national representative body able to speak across many matters for its members? I can't think of anything that makes cycling.uniquely unsuitable for one national body.

[Psamathe]

...
The current problem is if you want to be a member of your local group, then you have to become a member of a national organisation that you may not wish to support. I agree with enough of what's going on nationally to pay my subs and support it, I'd continue to do that without the local group. But I'm very aware that it's a hard sell to someone who just want to come on a few rides and has other options.

My problem. I wont be a member of the CTC under the current management (and with the prospect of the current "direction"). I would (and used to) participate in my local CTC MG (but can not any more as I'm not a member).

I participate in an activity and feel strongly that I should be a member of an organisation supporting that activity (something I do for other activities I participate in incl. scuba diving, kayaking, sailing, etc.). Cycling is the only one I'm not ... was but then appreciated what the CTC had become.

Were my local CTC MG to decide to not require CTC membership then I would/could join then again.

Ian

what is the ctc doing you do not like

I thought I was joining a Cycle Touring Club. It seems to have ever less to do with Touring and is no longer much of a Club. Membership seems to be becoming increasingly irrelevant to the National Office who seem to want to take control of everything and to pursue the aims of the new CEO. I was very unhappy about the manner in which the redundancies were handled - it demonstrated very poor management skills in National Office which to me does not indicate a capable organisation.

I have grave doubts of the capabilities of National Office. A good example is their handling of the Fill That Hole system. They don't seem to basically have a clue and even when they got given a load of money from government for the system seemed at a complete loss and have since done little to push the system. Yet fixing road hazards is something that can have a great benefit to cyclists and help make thing safer. It was a project that was managed quite incompetently - nobody seemed to have much of a clue about what they were doing (even though they were spending other people's money (not) doing it). After such an example, how could I have any confidence that they would be spending my membership "donations" in an effective manner ? (And, given it is the area I worked on most of my careerI did offer of help with this in a voluntary capacity but National Office showed absolutely no interest in my offer !!).

Ian

[Tangled Metal]

My interests in cycling:
Touring- intend to go on multi day tours in 2016.
Commuter- daily during the week.
Leisure rides- with family and on my own.
Fitness riding
No competitive, audax, sportives, bmx, cx, MTB, track, TT, triathlon. I do ride my "adventure" bike across a lot of terrains like road, towpath, gravel tracks, single tracks, bridleways in the lakes even.

As a comparison my kayaking activities are more varied. I did whitewater, slalom, day tours, sea kayaking, freestyle for fun and canoe polo. My interests covered in one organization.

[TonyR]

I thought I was joining a Cycle Touring Club. It seems to have ever less to do with Touring and is no longer much of a Club. Membership seems to be becoming increasingly irrelevant to the National Office who seem to want to take control of everything and to pursue the aims of the new CEO. I was very unhappy about the manner in which the redundancies were handled - it demonstrated very poor management skills in National Office which to me does not indicate a capable organisation.

I have grave doubts of the capabilities of National Office. A good example is their handling of the Fill That Hole system. They don't seem to basically have a clue and even when they got given a load of money from government for the system seemed at a complete loss and have since done little to push the system. Yet fixing road hazards is something that can have a great benefit to cyclists and help make thing safer. It was a project that was managed quite incompetently - nobody seemed to have much of a clue about what they were doing (even though they were spending other people's money (not) doing it). After such an example, how could I have any confidence that they would be spending my membership "donations" in an effective manner ? (And, given it is the area I worked on most of my careerI did offer of help with this in a voluntary capacity but National Office showed absolutely no interest in my offer !!).

Ian

Sounds a bit like refusing to shop at the Co-op because of what is going on there at Board level.

[Psamathe]

I thought I was joining a Cycle Touring Club. It seems to have ever less to do with Touring and is no longer much of a Club. Membership seems to be becoming increasingly irrelevant to the National Office who seem to want to take control of everything and to pursue the aims of the new CEO. I was very unhappy about the manner in which the redundancies were handled - it demonstrated very poor management skills in National Office which to me does not indicate a capable organisation.

I have grave doubts of the capabilities of National Office. A good example is their handling of the Fill That Hole system. They don't seem to basically have a clue and even when they got given a load of money from government for the system seemed at a complete loss and have since done little to push the system. Yet fixing road hazards is something that can have a great benefit to cyclists and help make thing safer. It was a project that was managed quite incompetently - nobody seemed to have much of a clue about what they were doing (even though they were spending other people's money (not) doing it). After such an example, how could I have any confidence that they would be spending my membership "donations" in an effective manner ? (And, given it is the area I worked on most of my careerI did offer of help with this in a voluntary capacity but National Office showed absolutely no interest in my offer !!).

Ian

Sounds a bit like refusing to shop at the Co-op because of what is going on there at Board level.

What's wrong with that (depending on what it is they are doing at board level). And by coincidence I did stop using Co-Op banking services following the change in their "structure"/ownership as I was not happy about that. I know quite a few people who won't use Amazon (in the UK) because of their company policies (and I avoid them when there are acceptable alternatives).

If you don't agree with or like the way a company or organisation behaves many people will stop supporting or using the organisation or business.

Ian

[millimole]

The comparison with kayaking is illuminating- I flirted with paddling in the 1990s, but it was more my son's interest than mine.
We are effectively 'stuck' with three national cycling bodies at the moment CTC, British Cycling & Sustrans. As I see it they have all started competing for the same pot of monies - grant money, project money, and lottery funding.
If they could get their heads together and work together (maybe under a loose guiding umbrella committee) to carve this up among themselves the whole thing could become cooperative rather than competetive and so much more effective.
Sustrans could look after the 'big ticket' infrastructure; BC handles sports cycling; with CTC to manage campaigning and touring. I'm sure there are holes in there (commuting? Inclusive cycling?) but I'm sure these could be thrashed out to everyone's benefit.
What I'm seeing is each corner feathering its own nest with no thought for the bigger picture.

[TonyR]

Sounds a bit like refusing to shop at the Co-op because of what is going on there at Board level.

What's wrong with that (depending on what it is they are doing at board level). And by coincidence I did stop using Co-Op banking services following the change in their "structure"/ownership as I was not happy about that. I know quite a few people who won't use Amazon (in the UK) because of their company policies (and I avoid them when there are acceptable alternatives).

If you don't agree with or like the way a company or organisation behaves many people will stop supporting or using the organisation or business.

That's fine and its your choice to make. But having made it it seems a bit odd to then be complaining that you had to give up the benefits you got from it.

[Psamathe]

Sounds a bit like refusing to shop at the Co-op because of what is going on there at Board level.

What's wrong with that (depending on what it is they are doing at board level). And by coincidence I did stop using Co-Op banking services following the change in their "structure"/ownership as I was not happy about that. I know quite a few people who won't use Amazon (in the UK) because of their company policies (and I avoid them when there are acceptable alternatives).

If you don't agree with or like the way a company or organisation behaves many people will stop supporting or using the organisation or business.

That's fine and its your choice to make. But having made it it seems a bit odd to then be complaining that you had to give up the benefits you got from it.

(I'm not bothering to sort out the previously misattributed quotes/posters ... and now I have so it can make some sense to others)

I actually was not complaining. Just answering a question another poster raised. Could have answered by PM, but then the forum becomes less useful if people answer publicly posted questions by PM, etc.

Ian

[Bmblbzzz]

The comparison with kayaking is illuminating- I flirted with paddling in the 1990s, but it was more my son's interest than mine.
We are effectively 'stuck' with three national cycling bodies at the moment CTC, British Cycling & Sustrans. As I see it they have all started competing for the same pot of monies - grant money, project money, and lottery funding.
If they could get their heads together and work together (maybe under a loose guiding umbrella committee) to carve this up among themselves the whole thing could become cooperative rather than competetive and so much more effective.
Sustrans could look after the 'big ticket' infrastructure; BC handles sports cycling; with CTC to manage campaigning and touring. I'm sure there are holes in there (commuting? Inclusive cycling?) but I'm sure these could be thrashed out to everyone's benefit.
What I'm seeing is each corner feathering its own nest with no thought for the bigger picture.

I see your point about competing for the same money and how that is self-destructive in the longer term. However, from the cyclist's point of view (as opposed to the cyclists' point of view, IYSWIM) I don't think Sustrans can be considered a cycling body comparable to CTC and BC. It offers places you can ride, not actual riding.

[TonyR]

I actually was not complaining. Just answering a question another poster raised. Could have answered by PM, but then the forum becomes less useful if people answer publicly posted questions by PM, etc.

viewtopic.php?f=45&t=102481&start=30#p966446. ?