Cycling UK Forum

I have the impression that CTC tends to act as though "British Cycling" does not exist (except "for racing"). In particular, the proposed change-of-name from CTC to "Cycling UK" takes little account of the pre-existing "British Cycling" name.

Similarly "British Cycling" seems to act as though CTC does not exist. British Cycling "ride" membership https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/membership/ride seems aimed at people who might otherwise join CTC.

However, "Joe Public" -- and I suspect Government -- may be confused at seeing 2 organisations with equivalent names ("British Cycling" and "Cycling UK").

• Both organisations campaigning, and wanting "public money" https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/campaigning
• Both organisations supporting cycle-commuting https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/commuting
• Both organisations supporting group leisure rides https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/recre ... de-Local-0
• Both organisations offering liability insurance for leisure riders https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/membership/ride
• Both organisations negotiating discounts with retailers https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/membership/ride
• Both organisations supporting disabled cyclists https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/disab ... -cycling-0
• Both organisations supporting sportifs http://www.ctc.org.uk/article/cycling-g ... ycle-rides https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/sportives

Both "Joe Public" and Government may wonder what is the point of Britain/UK having 2 organisations, with equivalent names, whose scopes have such large areas of overlap. Although I'm a long-standing CTC member, I now wonder about this myself. Apart from "being a charity", CTC now seems to have no "unique selling point", since the "overlap of scope" with British Cycling is now so large.

The name-change doesn't even make sense in "marketing" terms. "British" is much-the-same as "UK". "Cycling" is definitely the same as "Cycling". So "Cycling UK" gives no "brand differentiation" from "British Cycling".

If -- despite there being little difference in non-racing areas between the advertised scope of British Cycling and the advertised scope of CTC -- CTC management wants "Joe Public" and Government to regard CTC as "the organisation" for all non-racing stuff, then "Cycling UK" is a poor choice of new name (since it gives no "brand differentiation" from "British Cycling"). "Everyday Cycling" would be a better name, since it would hint to "Joe Public" and Government that CTC is "the organisation" that does the non-racing stuff.

If "the scope" of CTC has now moved so far from "just touring" that the name "Cycling UK" is appropriate, it may be worth taking things to their logical conclusion, and considering:

• whether there is now so much overlap between "the current scope of CTC" and "the current scope of British Cycling" that there's little point in Britain/UK having two distinct organisations
• whether CTC and "British Cycling" should merge (in which case "Cycling UK" would be a good name for the merged organisation).

A merged organisation should be able to make "economies of scale", and also have the "critical mass" to do more for cyclists than the 2 current "pretend the other doesn't exist" organisations (e.g. employ a Technical Officer?). Yes, I know "CTC is a charity and British Cycling isn't" -- I expect "the lawyers" could find a way forward.

People who specifically want "touring" (e.g. myself) might then opt to join both "the merged organisation" and (if it gets off the ground) http://www.touringcyclistclub.org.uk/

The CTC also does campaigning, and has, in particular, the network of local campaigners.

IMO, sport is a distraction from this. Not that there is anything wrong with sport, but regulation and organisation of sport is BCs primary purpose. We need a separate organisation focused on campaigning ro improve cycling conditions and cyclists' rights.

They should, however talk to each other and work together, when appropriate.

Vorpal wrote:...
IMO, sport is a distraction from this....

But sport is the 1st of the objectives of the CTC (in it's Articles).

https://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/ctcarticlesammendedmay2012.pdf wrote:1.7.1 promote community participation in healthy recreation by promoting the amateur sport of cycling, cycle touring and associated amateur sports;

In fact there is nothing (I can see) about cycling for transport in those objectives. And the 50 year old "blue rinse" lady that cycles down our lanes to work each day probably is not participating in "sport". Same with the 60 year old guy on his beaten-up old bike going home after working on the allotment, etc.

Ian

I would prefer that it not be in CTC objectives. But that's my personal opinion. And as long as it remains 'amateur' sport, it's not something I feel strongly about. Transport cycling is another matter, and promoting it should be part of the objectives.