Cycling UK Forum

to be fair to John28, he opened by saying it was his opinion and like it or not, that cant be corrected. Its what he sees. He closed by saying please help and convince me to stay cos he knows deep down the CTC is too valuable to simply discard. Phrases such as

I have had enough, can you persuade me otherwise?
John.

probably not

do nothing to help. The responder seems more resigned than the OP ??

Having spent a number of years working for a FMCG company, one of the lessons that was drilled into us (dont know about the research) was that for every stated customer complaint, there are probably 10 other latent complaints and a further 5 people that end up getting convinced by it. An inspirational finance director also taught us that when you ask a question or lodge an objection, you're never on your own - its just that some are too shy/scared/apathetic. So bear in mind that John28 probably speaks for others. Like it or not, at least respect, listen and validate it rather than throw it aside cos its not the party line.
To my mind, there is a distinction between touring and commuting. Touring is substitute for exploring, which is for leisure purposes. Commuting is for getting from place to place out of necessity. The link is that tourists often end up commuting (as do racers) cos they enjoy being on a saddle. The CTC commuting scene and the campaigning and lobbying is too London based and doesnt seem to reflect what happens elsewhere.
The magazine has good bits - the technical stuff and letters pages are good, as are the multipage touring expeditions, the rest of it (awards, DA news, DA day rides) seem to be irrelevant and most of the touring articles are too short to get into.
I can still remember my first issue of cycletouring - it was in 1978 and carried this article of Ian Hibble traverssing the sahara dressed like an arab. I was hooked. These days there's nothing jaw dropping in there. But, I'll continue to be a member if only for the 3rd party insurance and legal aid and to have a voice behind me when a legal decision goes tit# up.

The magazine has good bits - the technical stuff and letters pages are good, as are the multipage touring expeditions, the rest of it (awards, DA news, DA day rides) seem to be irrelevant and most of the touring articles are too short to get into.

Stone the infidel

Strange how things change...only seems like yesterday that the ramparts were being stormed after the proper DA News insert was cut from the mag.

Just goes to show that you are never going to please all the people all the time, no matter what you do I guess.

I think that I might have been one of the people that suggested the Down Your Way bit of the mag - I really must write the one for our group at some point I think that it's a good thing but could go a little further: it ought to have two roles: to promote local Member Groups to other CTC members that need that little push to get them to go out and try a ride withthe group (thus is should go on about all the rides, socials and activities that the group does, etc), and secondly to provide, route info from those with local knowledge, for that area: here I think that it could expand a little to include a seond route: thus it would be good for people thinking of visiting that area for a weekend or some such. Maybe a figure of eight type of ride that could be treated as, say, two seperate 35 miles rides or one big 70miles ride ("big" of course being relative).

CJ Quoth:

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!

I don't think that anyone has suggested that touring is dissappearing, or that everyone fits into the generalisations given.

The point is that touring, like many other types of cycling, is changing. Some will continue doing it like they always used to, while others are adopting new stratergies. It's just a question of how far down the road of deconstructionalism you want to go. Personally i think that it's a fairly pointless activity as the defining point is arbitary and different for all (for instance there are those that would suggest that following a waymarked trail, off road, between feed stations, along with 1000 other riders, is not touring - but why not: it ain't racing and it takes the riders to new places that they've never been to before).

Thus debating whether touring continues is fairly irrelivent - it is the acceptance of differences in touring and the importance of the supporting issues that makes the difference. If you can't accept them then you are less likely to endure with the club.

Likewise, no one has said that campaigning is something new within the CTC. What is new is the way that it is approached - it has changed to meet new circumstances: new political processes, new media such as the internet, new challeneges with the recent dip in cyclist numbers and growth in driver numbers, etc etc. And possibly its scope (Climate ~change Policy anyone?). The CTC is now much more noticable in it's campaigning - eg seems to have been on the BBC news every weekend this month - this is bound to ruffle a few feathers of those who might not have taken much interest in campaigning when it was less publically displayed.

Si wrote:I don't think that anyone has suggested that touring is dissappearing, or that everyone fits into the generalisations given.

The point is that touring, like many other types of cycling, is changing. Some will continue doing it like they always used to, while others are adopting new stratergies. It's just a question of how far down the road of deconstructionalism you want to go ...

But it is frequently asserted that touring has become relatively less important to CTC members. And then, when I respond with the evidence of distant and recent membership surveys, which prove the constancy of it's importance, the stout party collapses into deconstructuralism, invariably saying that what they meant was that "traditional" touring (whatever that may be) is on the wane.

Sure, people change. They get wealthy, they stop using youth hostels and instead stay in hotels. But another generation comes along and rediscovers the camping and hostels. It changes and yet it stays the same.

And I do not accept that touring is really all that different from commuting. The synergy between these two reasons to cycle is huge, infinintely greater than any parallels you may try to draw between transport and sport. It's true, sporting cyclists may also use their bikes for transport, and that may lead them to join CTC, but travel and transport are two sides of the same coin.

I would agree however, that rural problems are currently being neglected by CTC in favour of the urban and particularly the metropolitan. The 20mph campaign is all very well, but I dare to suggest that rolling out the existing urban default 30mph limit to include all country lanes, would be more help to more of our members more of the time.

Sorry, but you do seem to be wandering away from the point. And although agruing against me you do seem to be doing it by agreeing with what I said, thus I think that in reality we might actually agree but just be phrasing things differently. So, can we not just stick to what ought to be a positive debate as to why certain parties feel that the CTC is no longer for them and what can be done about it?

The issue that i was talking about is this: people who may have joined the CTC because they saw it primarily as a touring organisation are now sometimes dissillusioned because they think that it is becoming a political/campaigning group: campaigning taking over from touring as being the club's main priority. Thus there are several options when it comes to understanding this criticism:

That the club still concentrates on touring but that changes in the world around us mean that campaigning is either more important than in the past, or is more noticable than in the past. Thus we have to demonstrte that touring with in the CTC is still alive and healthy - how do we best do this?

That the club still concentrates on touring but that touring itself has changed and so those that criticise the club for losing its focus may not see the new styles of touring as what they would call touring, and so feel excluded to some extent. Again, we have to demonstrate that touring is still a priority, but at the same time make people understand that we have to cater for more needs within that church now. How do we do this, indeed, is it possible at all?

That the club does not concentrate on touring as it once did, instead being more interested incampaigning,fitnes, utility, or whatever. If this is the case then we either have to be ready to lose some members or we have to look at how we can get more attention back on touring without losing the vital campaigning work that we do. How to achieve this?

To put it simply, I feel the CTC has done a good job recently in encouraging, expanding and reflecting utility cycling but hasn't had the same success with touring. That may be because as an organisation there's a lack of confidence about how 'sexy' touring is, or there could be a preconceived image of an old style which doesn't translate.
I carry no brief for traditional touring (whatever that is) and wouldn't privilege camping or hostelling over a good hotel and a 3-course dinner every evening. Even so I'd still maintain commuting and touring do emerge from different motivations and that the pleasures of cycle touring, whether to the edge of town or across a continent, haven't yet found their niche or a literature and image that does the thing justice.

Touring is a plural and nuanced activity and tourists a broad church but it is not utility riding and the two are confused to the detriment of the trip.

Yes, I admit, I was wandering from the point. The point is that the OP, and some others whose main/only cycling interest is touring, feel that the organisation which obviously ought to be for them, in which 80% of the members share that interest, is taking their support for granted.

IMHO CTC is trying too hard to be all things to all cyclists - or to look like it is. The main place we put on this show is in Cycle, where we try to tick all the boxes, with articles that feature road-bikes, commuting, women, the disabled ... the list goes on. If Cycle were on the shelves of WHS there might actually be some point in all this box ticking. But it isn't. It goes to members. Unless you're a librarian or a youth hostel warden, you can't even have a magazine-only subscription anymore! So six times a year we preach to the converted, and almost nobody else, that the organisatoin they joined is interested in so very much more than little old them. Is it any surprise that some of them come to feel we don't care as much about them as we ought to!

The preocupation with quotas inevitably has implications for the quality of articles. Campaigning may be necessary but it seldom makes interesting reading. If we haven't had anything with a mountain-bike in it lately, the off-road piece gets in even if the photos are poor and the writing not that great.

I also receive Adventure Cycling: the organ of a US organisation that also combines cycletouring with "advocacy programs" for commuting etc. They have the good sense not to devote too many pages of their members' magazine to campaigning. Instead you'll find stunning travel photography and genuinely entertaining writing on the joy of being out and about on a bike. They also put a fair amount of resources into the promotion of cycle tourism, by publishing route maps and guides, the "Cyclists Yellow Pages" etc. etc.

I could ask what CTC does specifically to promote cycle tourism (admittedly the campaigning indirectly helps), but I've probably said too much already!

The following is is from the CTC Strategic Vision 2007 to 2012. I would like to know how CTC are going to implement this part of the strategy, particularly as the term "Cyclists' Touring Club" is used only on carefully selected occasions when it suits. I hope that at some point soon I will be able to find time to contact my National Councillor who may find a CTC Committee who will look at this. The knock-back of Simon's motion at the AGM indicates that this is not something that can be dealt with by the Council itself.


Strategic Vision 2007 to 2012, Part II:
2. Cyclists’ Touring Club is our body for touring, travelling, holiday & leisure cyclists.

We will promote Cyclists’ Touring Club as an integrated leisure cycling club based on the following strengths.

Our welcoming, knowledgeable and sharing network of local touring clubs.
Our information, services and advice.
A comprehensive service package aimed at the leisure market.
Our subsidiary company CTC Cycling Holidays and Tours.

Strategies:

We will develop a communication strategy to ensure that Cyclists’ Touring Club is recognised and promoted by tourist boards, travel media and other relevant bodies.
We will make our information routing and knowledge management processes more flexible and interactive with comprehensive UK coverage.
We will develop strategic alliances with other cycling organisations to provide a range of cycle touring information and activities outside the UK to complement our members’ information.
We will support and develop cycling groups (member and affiliate) that provide Cyclists’ Touring Club activities.

3. CTC Charitable Trust will work with groups and communities who would benefit from low cost transport, better health, exercise and social interaction through increased levels of cycling.

CTC Charitable Trust carries CTC’s mission beyond the membership organisation because we believe in increasing access to cycling. We bring people to cycling by extending our core programmes such as cycling groups, training and activities.

We will show how cycling can relieve transport inequality, improve health, encourage networking, provide capacity, build confidence and provide social and environmental benefits to communities.

We believe these aims are fundamental to what cyclists and their organisations can contribute to society.

Strategies:

Create a distinctive CTC package of services and activities tailored to each of the communities in which we will be working - our activities will identify and support their unique needs.
As well as our own activities we will also achieve our goals by campaigning for public bodies to improve access to cycling and for government intervention in areas of need.
By researching issues relevant to cycling we will become a recognised source for the development and dissemination of best practice and we will identify opportunities for new programmes.

I believe that the term "Leisure Cycling" could replace "Touring", which would embrace the different types of cycle touring many of our members do.

If you go out for a day ride with your local CTC Member Group surely you are in reality on a days tour? If you have a weekend away with a fixed base you may explore (or 'tour') the local area?

The dictionary gives the following as definitions for "Touring":

1. To travel from place to place, especially for pleasure.
2. To travel among various places while fulfilling engagements.

This surely encompasses many cycling journeys which we may not term "cycle touring".

Wildduck wrote:I feel I must stick up for the lovely Roger Geffen. Yes (and apologies if you're reading Roger!), he can come across a little eccentric (not quite the right word but I am trying!), but in his defence he has an encyclopaedic knowledge of cycle campaigning and has successfully led many charges for cyclists for at least the last 16 years that I've known him.

I watched a recording of the programme after taking loads of comments from viewers, (Yes if you phone Breakfast you might get me ). I thought Roger came over well.
I've never been into club runs so cannot comment on any of the other CTC issues.

Hello,
As the original poster of this long thread I must reply.
To the person above who watched a recording of this particular 'interview'-watch it again with a normal persons view and not a totally biased CTC cyclists view.
To the others who have contributed I feel that a great deal has been aired in the open. It is just a great shame that nobody in 'control' of the CTC will make any changes because of this.
Chris Juden, thank you.
As to my own opinion it remains the same I am afraid and nothing has so far given me a reason to pay money to the CTC when renewal time arrives.I do not think that the CTC is a Member club for cyclists any more but a business that involves cycling. I recall the protests on Dartmoor a few Years back-not in my opinion a true representation of honest law abiding cyclists. Standing up for those who run red lights is not for law abiding cyclists either. CTC has a larger membership than it used to have but considering the population who ride bikes, it is a measly membership.
If the CTC wants to be the 'voice of cycling' then in my opinion it must be run and represented by those real cyclists and not by the few political anarchists it is represented by at present.
The BBC interview which started this was and still is even when watched again by the person above, a terrible view of cycling and I for one am very embaressed by it!
CTC in the Media comes across as nerdy-do you wish to be classed as a nerd? Maybe?
As an aside to this how many are attending or attended Rallys this Year? Not that many because CTC is now a big business and costs too much. As I live within sensible distance I thought that I would go to the Birthday rides this Year as a camper. Could I? No chance the costs are ridiculous.
John.

The media are a bunch of hate mongering airheads, so I'd advise everyone to ignore their cackling.

On a more substantial point, are the Birthday Rides being run to make a profit? Or are the high cost of this year's events due to them being run on a no subsidy basis in an expensive area?

I thought Simon l6 had weighed up the situation accurately earlier on in this thread.
Nevertheless, this thread has clearly illustrated the diverse intersts within the 70,000 strong membership, and it would appear the vast majority feel the political anarchists are for the most part doing a good job whilst perhaps disappointing the 'normal people' and 'real cyclists' within our midst.

Ron wrote:I thought Simon l6 had weighed up the situation accurately earlier on in this thread.
Nevertheless, this thread has clearly illustrated the diverse intersts within the 70,000 strong membership, and it would appear the vast majority feel the political anarchists are for the most part doing a good job whilst perhaps disappointing the 'normal people' and 'real cyclists' within our midst.

Hello,
Is this what is called sarcasm/
John.

Karen Sutton wrote:I believe that the term "Leisure Cycling" could replace "Touring", which ...
... surely encompasses many cycling journeys which we may not term "cycle touring".

Yeah, I'll buy that. Tourism is good too, especially as it hints at the economic benefits to an area of making itself more attractive to cycling visitors, as well as it's own population.

The way I see it, even those who insist that they only ever use their bike for commuting and other essential journeys, when pressed, will admit that they occasionally take a different route from their usual beat - just for a change. That's touring too - or leisure cycling.