Cycling UK Forum

Ron wrote:

john28july wrote:I was not writing constructively. I was criticising. I am alive and very happy and far from jaded as you point out!
I still feel let down by CTC as of late and that Membership is not required to be a real cyclist in these modern days.
If CTC could offer something worth having that would be different.
John.

I'm pleased to hear you say you are a happy person. despite sounding jaded.
You say the mag is "no longer worth reading". Could it be that you have been cycling longer than many of the contributors and are quite possibly more knowledgable than many of them? This happens, special interest magazines can lose their appeal to old hands whilst remaining essential reading to newcomers and younger enthusiasts.
Regarding the CTC spokesman, do you really think it reasonable for this man to express the views of every CTC member. You claim he did not express the views held by yourself a senior member. Perhaps he expressed the views of the younger majority, would that still be bad?
You refer to 'grass roots' cyclists, and 'real' cyclists, who qualifies for these hallowed titles I wonder?

Hello,
I think that expresing an opinion on this list is futile!
The person on BBC TV who represented CTC is not known to me. He is not in my opinion representative of CTC Membership as a whole-BUT-of the minority who rule it.
Maybe the magazine is as you say, to me a bit 'old hat'. But I still feel that CTC is not really representing cyclists in general but its own agenda-whatever that might be.
John.

john28july wrote: But I still feel that CTC is not really representing cyclists in general but its own agenda-whatever that might be.
John.

or perhaps that there is no longer such a thing as a typical cyclist and thus you feel that the CTC does not cater for you so much because it has broadened its church to take in so many other types of cyclist?

it is sad that the CTC can no longer be only a touring club, but with the way that things change it is more important that we have a modern campaigning organisation that represents our needs than a club just concerned with touring, which, if it'd gone on as it had been a number of years ago, would probably be a dying club. What would be the ideal is that the CTC could continue with the touring side of things while it also pursues its other activities. From my point of view, and that of my fellow Member Group riders, it does, but we also have to remember that touring isn't what it once was either.

Ask a number of members why they are members and you'll find that in many cases things such as campaigning on their behalf, insurance, technical advice, etc comes far above old fashioned touring.

I think that Ron puts forward a good point regarding your statement about "real" cyclists and "grass roots" cyclists.

If this isn't for you then fair enough, but please don't try to pretend that the CTC's role as a campaigning organisation, both on the national and local levels isn't of benefit to all cyclists, and likewise talking about hidden agendas just makes you look like someone looking for conspiricies.

As for expressing your opinion of the forum being "futile" - what exactly were you expecting to happen - that the CTC would suddenly see the light and rewrite all of its policies based on your comments? You have made comment, people have answered your comments, some agreed, some did not, what more did you expect?

john28july wrote:The person on BBC TV who represented CTC is not known to me. He is not in my opinion representative of CTC Membership as a whole-BUT-of the minority who rule it.

Here's the CTC policy handbook
It's 80 pages thick. Which bits don't you agree with? Or if you do agree with what's in the handbook, in which ways do you think that the CTC spokesperson didn't represent it correctly?

Remember that the news media like to create controversy, even put words in people's mouths and distort the truth, to generate a good story.

Si wrote:Ask a number of members why they are members and you'll find that in many cases things such as campaigning on their behalf, insurance, technical advice, etc comes far above old fashioned touring.

What's that then? Cord shorts? Oilskin capes?

Actually - I though my views were fairly represented!

thirdcrank wrote:

Si wrote:Ask a number of members why they are members and you'll find that in many cases things such as campaigning on their behalf, insurance, technical advice, etc comes far above old fashioned touring.

What's that then? Cord shorts? Oilskin capes?

"I love the smell of damp cotton duck in the morning"

erm, yes, could have put it better: I mean that what people might have classed as touring a few years back might not be what some see as touring now. Traditional touring tended to be self supported and often used camping, hostels and cheap B&Bs and ride something like a traditional galaxy (and there is nothing wrong with any of that at all), but some people these days are more inclined to go so tours where their luggage might be moved for them, or they have little more luggage than a credit card and a tooth brush, and they stay in more luxurious accomodation, use a carbon fibre race bike (not to mention the bandage on their knee ).

Both lots see themselves as tourists even if their actiivities and expectations are a little different.

Si wrote:

john28july wrote: But I still feel that CTC is not really representing cyclists in general but its own agenda-whatever that might be.
John.

or perhaps that there is no longer such a thing as a typical cyclist and thus you feel that the CTC does not cater for you so much because it has broadened its church to take in so many other types of cyclist?

it is sad that the CTC can no longer be only a touring club, but with the way that things change it is more important that we have a modern campaigning organisation that represents our needs than a club just concerned with touring, which, if it'd gone on as it had been a number of years ago, would probably be a dying club. What would be the ideal is that the CTC could continue with the touring side of things while it also pursues its other activities. From my point of view, and that of my fellow Member Group riders, it does, but we also have to remember that touring isn't what it once was either.

Ask a number of members why they are members and you'll find that in many cases things such as campaigning on their behalf, insurance, technical advice, etc comes far above old fashioned touring.

I think that Ron puts forward a good point regarding your statement about "real" cyclists and "grass roots" cyclists.

If this isn't for you then fair enough, but please don't try to pretend that the CTC's role as a campaigning organisation, both on the national and local levels isn't of benefit to all cyclists, and likewise talking about hidden agendas just makes you look like someone looking for conspiricies.

As for expressing your opinion of the forum being "futile" - what exactly were you expecting to happen - that the CTC would suddenly see the light and rewrite all of its policies based on your comments? You have made comment, people have answered your comments, some agreed, some did not, what more did you expect?

Hello,
Much of what you have written above is logical to me. I see a point of view in it which does throw some light on things. It is the only view written that seems sensible to me.
Yes-I would like CTC to be the Cyclists Touring Club as it once was, and not this business that it is today.
John.

Just to prod things a little.......


It always seems to that this matter of non-representation only arises when the CTC fails to come up with anything short of "Helmets will cure all ills in the cycling world and should be made compulsory"

Personally I think that the CTC's stance that it is up to the individual is the correct one. By pointing out the shortfalls and thus speaking agains t compulsion th CTC takes a splendid middle ground...... It doesn't encourage then or discourage them, simply says that you should mak up your own mind and wear one (or not) as you decide.

Cunobelin wrote:Just to prod things a little.......


It always seems to that this matter of non-representation only arises when the CTC fails to come up with anything short of "Helmets will cure all ills in the cycling world and should be made compulsory"

Personally I think that the CTC's stance that it is up to the individual is the correct one. By pointing out the shortfalls and thus speaking agains t compulsion th CTC takes a splendid middle ground...... It doesn't encourage then or discourage them, simply says that you should mak up your own mind and wear one (or not) as you decide.

Hello,
Not really sure about this one, it reads a little Liberal to me! Maybe it is a political CTC that we have now? (Not good at all)
John.

I'd agree with John to this extent - it would be good to have a separate touring organisation. I'd certainly join it and the CTC.
I disagree with CTC policy in some ways but overall it does a splendid job. However there is no doubt that touring has taken a back seat at least in the club's public profile, numbers may well be in urban commuting not people wandering the world's byways and the club are in the numbers game. People will point out that politics has always been part of the club's agenda but tying member's touring asirations into the same club that looks after their rights seems to stretch the two rather.

Many will think it's best to have all organisations under one umbrella (which would be handy this summer) but racing and MTBing view the CTC as an optional, not a core body and it would be useful for tourists to enjoy the same alternatives.

I key factor is that the CTC is a membership organisation and as such can look a bit amateurish now and again. TV appearances of our political arm thus can appear a bit like Old Sarum Wanderers verses Liverpool FC, to use a football analogy.

But it's not just the political side. Take membership administration. I received an updated membership card the other week. According to that I'm a lifelong member whose membership expired on 1-Feb-08. I'm not aware that I've died.

Then there are the Birthday rides. Years ago a single DA would be strong enough to organise it largely by themselves. Including providing leaders for every ride on every day. Three DA's are needed for this year's rides, no rides will be lead and the coordinator had to be brought in from a distant part of the country.

I take issue with three notions expressed above,
1) that CTC used to be just about touring.
2) that there is some kind of difficulty in reconciling an interest in touring with campaigning for the urban commuter.
3) that touring as we know or rather as we knew it, is unappealing to younger people and no longer practiced very much.

1) CTC has always been just as much about campaigning. Just read a few old magazines. Reg Shaw's editorials were always banging on about this or that injustice, and whilst later editors may not have given as much space to such issues the work was still being done by CTC. In the 80s when I joined the staff it is true we only had one full-time campaigner, but then we had only half as many members and no other sources of income. I would agree that CTC has become much more commercial in the last decade, that is a real change, and the profits have been ploughed into more campaigning.

2) There is no conflict. Look at any younger cycle campaigning organisation: ENFB in Holland, DCF in Denmark, ADFC in Germany, all formed after WW2 on the back of the pro-cycling policies adopted in those countries. People who ride bikes to work also ride them out into the countryside of an evening and at weekends, and the promotion of cycle tourism (funny how up-to-date it sounds when you swap the -ing for an -ism) almost immediately became a major part of those organisations' work.

The strength of CTC is the way it harnesses the enthusiasm of cycle-tourists and puts it to work for all cycle users. Some kind of enthusiasm is required in order to unlock the necessary funds and touring is the perfect fit with commuting. Both use a bike as transport, a simple means to an end. Neither are really about the cycling, both are about where the cycling can take you. In countries where the promotion of cycling has fallen to racing cyclists, helmets are just one of the unfortunate consequences of an excessively sports focussed approach, that obscures the potential broader appeal of cycling as a simple and convenient way of getting about.

3) A few years ago I might have agreed that cycle-touring was becoming a pursuit of the elderly, or at least middle-aged. My faith in the eternal appeal of the activity has however been restored by observing not only that our kids continue to cycle as they become independent young adults, but that many of their school and college friends are doing it too.

You'll not see these young people out with the local CTC group (that certainly has got an elderly image!), instead they're finding out for themselves what most lifetime cycletourists discovered in our youth, that a bike ride is a great way to hang out with your mates, to have a few laughs and yes a few beers, whilst getting to know and appreciate this wonderful country/planet of ours!

Cycling for pleasure as well as utility fits right in with the environmental consciousness of the younger generation (as well as their lack of funds) and some of this bunch, none of whom evince any interest in cycle racing by the way, are really getting the bug. A few have swapped the ubiquitous mountain-bike for the likes of a Dawes Galaxy and two have even joined CTC! Several actual tours have been made, in Britain and France, and one young man just got back from Spain - riding all the way apart from the wet bits!

So don't be too quick to throw the touring baby out with the bathwater! I'm looking at our future, and it's surprisingly similar to our past!

The challenge for CTC is how to communicate with nascent cycle-commuter-tourists. As I've noted, they don't use traditional club structures to organise their leisure. As "digital natives" they don't need to, they have text and email and facebook etc. Somehow, we need to be there too.

CJ wrote:You'll not see these young people out with the local CTC group (that certainly has got an elderly image!), instead they're finding out for themselves what most lifetime cycletourists discovered in our youth, that a bike ride is a great way to hang out with your mates, to have a few laughs and yes a few beers, whilst getting to know and appreciate this wonderful country/planet of ours!

I really got into cycling as a way to get out for a regular social/active outing in the week (I'm not old but I'm not young either!). There were a group of us who were husbands/partners of mums who met through parenting groups. My wife, and others, nagged us to sort out social evenings. We occasionaly met in the pub and it was always a bit half-hearted until we turned it into a bike ride. It started off with three of us going out every other week in the summer when the weather was nice. Three years on we have a group of about 10 of which about 7 usually make it come rain or shine once a week all year round! Incidently my wife doesn't see the other half of this club very often! Two of us have joined the CTC, we're actively discussing weekend tours/long rides and gradually tweaking our machines. One other is trying to get a tourer from the cycle to work scheme. And we've all discovered a little corner of countryside that otherwise we'd never seen. So what CJ says is true and I bet this happens all over the country.

For what it's worth the CTC does more for its grass-roots members than any nationwide organisation that I've been associated with (amateur athletics and amateur rowing are really only interested in elite athletes and if you don'f fit that mould then forget it!). The reason for that is that it tries to work for all types of cyclists. This probably makes the touring cyclist feel a bit left out but a tourist needs safe roads, non-compulsion to use cycle lanes etc as much as someone who doesn't tour.

Also given cyclists are the current bete noir of the media it's going to be hard for someone not to appear a bit amateur, after all that's what the producers want. But in time we'll be seen as less of a nuicance and hence will be portrayed a bit more favourably.

So in summary generally thumbs up for the CTC. Of course they're not perfect but I can't imagine them being much better for one group without alienating another.

CJ wrote:I would agree that CTC has become much more commercial in the last decade, that is a real change, and the profits have been ploughed into more campaigning.

My emphasis. Where I differ from the CTC hierarchy is whether this state of affairs can pass without notice? The organisation is quick to point out, quite reasonably, the ongoing challenges to bicycle use from government and pressure groups like the road lobby and tie them into the big picture but are they necessarily the same thing? Does someone plan a route from Reading to Rome with regard to micro-politics and the road situation along the way or the changing flora and fauna? Where is touring's Singletrack? Where its Waterlog? Publications centred on the joy of being there?

Campaigning comes from a different mindset to touring. A cycletourist may be concerned with ozone depletion, then again he may not give a fig. Does his lack of politicisation make him any less a tourist? I feel the urban politik and campaign emphasis has changed the profile of the club. Whether that's what others sense I couldn't say I'd pay subs to the new CTC and a touring group.

Si wrote:... Traditional touring tended to be self supported and often used camping, hostels and cheap B&Bs and ride something like a traditional galaxy ...

As well as riding "traditional galaxies" the 20-somethings I refer to above, being still at university and hence short of funds, either camp or stay in youth hostels and cheap B&Bs. And remarkable though that may be, they do seem to enjoy it. Maybe in a few years time they'll be riding carbon fibre to four-star hotels, but don't count on it.

With a credit crunch and peak oil upon us and a recession to follow, we can expect low-cost cycle-touring to become more, rather than less popular in the coming years. I think we're at one of those points of inflection in human history where the future can no longer be extrapolated from the recent past. Bad news for "the great car economy" could be very good news for cycling and CTC.

I do hope that tomorrow does not find us still peddling the dreams of today.