Cycling UK Forum

will admit that they occasionally take a different route from their usual beat - just for a change. That's touring too - or leisure cycling

did I ever tell of when my 10 mile commute managed to clock up 90 miles and three counties on the first warm sunny day of the year?

CTC say their surveys show a decrease in the number of members who do cycle touring. If it was redefined to include day 'touring' etc. then there may well be an increase in those numbers.

CTC say their surveys show a decrease in the number of members who do cycle touring.

Do we know if that's because the overall number of "tourers" (using the defn used by the CTC for this statement) is down over all, or because the numbers are roughly steady but they are leaving the CTC?

There are other organisations available, e.g. The Fell Club for those who camp and travel under their own power (so walkers, cyclists, canoeists etc). This is cycle touring as some see it, but other people wouldn't dream of cycling all day unless they had the guarantee of a warm bed at the end of it.

Mostly, other groups are more specific than the CTC. The breadth of the CTC is its strength. Unfortunately, as its remit widens, it loses its focus, so you may feel that it no longer caters to you.

Personally, I like being a member of an organisation which campaigns on behalf of all cyclists.

Karen Sutton wrote:CTC say their surveys show a decrease in the number of members who do cycle touring. If it was redefined to include day 'touring' etc. then there may well be an increase in those numbers.

Oh dear, that old chestnut. Successive surveys do not actually show any decline in our members' interest in touring. Here's some data I collected from the last 20 years of surveys, as published in the CTC magazine.


Interest has remained pretty constant throughout in leisure riding (75%), commuting (65%) and touring (55%), with the only significant changes being a threefold increase in off-road riding and a reduction in the already small amount of interest in racing.

Membership surveys were conducted and results published in the CTC magazine in 1988, 1992, 1998 and 2005. All of these surveys had a question about what sort of cycling members regularly engaged in and a list of boxes to tick. The question was asked a bit differently in different years and the actual words used for Leisure, Commuting etc. have varied, but 1988 and 1992 surveys were very similar and simply let the respondent tick as many as they liked of the five types of cycling listed in the table below (hence the percentages add up to more than 100%) from which the chart above was plotted.

The 1998 and 2005 surveys offered a lot more choices, but still had one box each for: Leisure, Commuting, Off-road and Racing. These more recent surveys however, salami sliced touring into several different types of touring – and not all of the same types in both surveys! See the table below, which also gives figures for participation in clubruns (whether orgainsed by CTC DAs & sections, or other cycling clubs) and sponsored charity rides from the last two surveys.


The “Touring” percentage for 2005 is taken from the most popular of the several types of touring listed, i.e. “Touring Day Rides” on the assumption that anyone undertaking longer tours would also to go out for the day. If anything this under-estimates touring, since a commuting cyclist might also take cycling holidays, but not bother with day-rides.

The 1998 survey didn’t offer the day-rides choice; and also had a limit on the number of boxes one could tick. This would explain why commuting / utilty riding was ticked by substantially fewer people than in any survey before or since. All the other percentages are down too. So the best we can do is estimate a touring figure for 1998 by comparing similar touring options between this and later surveys. According to those figures, touring would appear to have become more popular in the last eight years, but since all the 1998 figures are depressed by number of ticks limitation mentioned above, it is fairer to estimate no change. Otherwise we'd have to conclude that touring took a huge dip in the 90s, but has recently become a whole lot more popular! And even I wouldn't argue that.

Just to answer these points:

john28july wrote:First appearance was for CTC to stick up for those who flout the rules of the road because cycling is a dangerous thing.

If you ask adults why they are cycling on pavements they will often reply that they feel safer there. Similarly there are places where some people feel safer cycling the wrong way down a one-way street than the right way around a complex high-speed gyratory.
So shouldn't the authorities be thinking of ways of encouraging cyclists to feel safe on the carriageway rather than solely thinking about greater enforcement of road traffic law? Isn't it reasonable for the CTC to put forward this argument?

john28july wrote:Second appearance this week was to put an end to the thinking that helmets are required-because cycling is a very very safe thing to do!

The statistics do show that the risk of head injuries whilst cycling is much the same as while walking. Noteworthy points are that there are that the head is not the only part of the body which can be injured and the perception of danger is not the same as real danger. Many people who cycle on pavements, for example, greatly under-estimate the risk that are talking at every side road and at every point where they leave the pavement & re-join the carriageway.

George Riches wrote:Just to answer these points:

john28july wrote:First appearance was for CTC to stick up for those who flout the rules of the road because cycling is a dangerous thing.

If you ask adults why they are cycling on pavements they will often reply that they feel safer there. Similarly there are places where some people feel safer cycling the wrong way down a one-way street than the right way around a complex high-speed gyratory.
So shouldn't the authorities be thinking of ways of encouraging cyclists to feel safe on the carriageway rather than solely thinking about greater enforcement of road traffic law? Isn't it reasonable for the CTC to put forward this argument?

john28july wrote:Second appearance this week was to put an end to the thinking that helmets are required-because cycling is a very very safe thing to do!

The statistics do show that the risk of head injuries whilst cycling is much the same as while walking. Noteworthy points are that there are that the head is not the only part of the body which can be injured and the perception of danger is not the same as real danger. Many people who cycle on pavements, for example, greatly under-estimate the risk that are talking at every side road and at every point where they leave the pavement & re-join the carriageway.

Hello,
I think that the answers given by the poster above, fail to see the whole point of the original question.
The answers given by CTC rep, are Liberal and wishy washy -do not blame me answers.
CTC never actually sticks up for its members. It campaigns against government.
In my opinion.
John.

john28july wrote:The answers given by CTC rep, are Liberal and wishy washy -do not blame me answers.

Judging by the views expressed on this message board, I would say that the majority of CTC members do find the policy of the CTC acceptable.

john28july wrote:CTC never actually sticks up for its members.

Quite the contrary, we only have to think of the proposed changes to the Highway Code trying to pressurize cyclists into using "cycle facilities" or the continuing campaign to improve cycle carriage on public transport. Many CTC representatives find such an idea offensive, given the enormous amount of time, the majority unpaid, they devote to the cause of the CTC and cycling.

john28july wrote:It campaigns against government.

So only our media masters should have the right to express an opinion on what the government should do; the rest of us should simply obey?

I have to say that I am in agreement with George.

John, you seem to be making a political issue out of this now. That the CTC does not follow your particular bent does not mean it is wrong. And growing membership numbers might suggest that what the CTC is doing is what the membership wants.

You are also just making vague complaints without any evidence to back them up: you say that the CTC doesn't stick up for its members but can you give evidence of this because this forum is full of evidence to the contrary. Noteable recent egs: the HWC s mentioned by George, the CDF and the Dan Caden case, support of '20 is plenty', the RTR network support, the events that it supports : Mildenhall, York, Meriden, P&F, etc, the great technical advice that you can get from CJ on this forum or by contacting direct, the toruing advice, etc etc etc etc and that is not to mention all ofthe lower profile more local campiagning and group organisation that goes on. As George says, your words are pretty insulting to the people, many of them volunteers, that put in all the tme and hard work to do these things.

As for the interview on TV the other day: you do seem to have understood it in a very different way to many others. The issue was about cyclists using pavcements, etc. What the CTC spokesman said was that one way to stop them doing this was to make the roads safer so that they would use the roads instead, as opposed to a certain lobby that would just have cyclists all carry numberplates and be immediatly deported to the colonies if they so much as look at a pavement. He was delivering a counter view of how to deal with the problem, a view that is shared by many pavement cyclists and one which rarely gets aired, the media being very much biased to the poor put upon motorist. And your issue with this? That the CTC rep is a 'nerd'. Not exactly good well reasoned argument there John.

No, after reading the thread I think that, despite your opening comments asking why you should stay in the CTC, your mind was made up from the start. People have outlined why the CTC is a good thing to be a member of, and you have just looked for more problems. I've not noticed you actually suggesting reasonable solutions anywhere though. So I would be most interested to see you offer a workable and realistic solution for each of the complaints that you have made - what would you like to see done?

Hello,
Many and varied responses to my original post. I am pleased to note that all have been constructive and mainly to the point. No nasty replies either, which has been refreshing.
I think what has to be taken into consideration, is that the views shown on here are very very few in respect of CTC Membership. As such I still feel that CTC are no longer a 'Club' for cyclists-but a business. The salary of some CTC officials is too high in my opinion. I started out very enthusiastic of the Cyclists Touring Club a number of Years back. I no longer remain so.
However of reflection, one day things may get better, the Magazine might have content and the local Groups might be more welcoming. So I think I may continue for another Year as a Member.
But-the TV broadcast which was the start of this remains to me an embaressment and so I will still maintain my opinion that CTC reps appear as nerds!
All the best, and thank you all for a great debate.
John.

Uncanny! My renewal notice arrived late post today. A full 6 weeks before its due.
John.

john28july wrote:Hello,
I will still maintain my opinion that CTC reps appear as nerds!
All the best, and thank you all for a great debate.
John.

We have someone around here who signs himself "CTC REP" under all his letters to the press etc. His campaigns and letter writing all support pavement cycling and compulsory helmets

If someone is signing themselves "CTC rep" but promoting things which are against CTC policy, you should send evidence to Head Office.
I would expect that the Campaigns Manager, roger.geffen@ctc.org.uk would be the best person to approach.

Interesting debate.

CTC Membership

Luckily, perhaps unluckily for the CTC, you don't have to be a member in order to ride your bike. So people join the CTC either for direct benefits (legal aid, third party insurance, the magazine, local groups, etc.) or for the longer-term indirect benefits (CTC's work to improve cycling conditions).

Rather like voting for a political party, the decision whether to join the CTC is a personal one, and has to balance all sorts of different things. I doubt there is a member of a political party, or a voter for them, that agrees with all of that party's manifesto in full.

If you want to change how the CTC is run directly, then being a member gives you a say. If you have the same point of view as many other members, then you might get a resolution passed at the AGM, and changes made.

An alternative option, if you have a great deal of support for your views (e.g. to have a "traditional" membership organisation soley to enjoy cycle touring), is to stop being a CTC member and form the organisation you'd prefer to be a member of.

If you look at CTC's history, there was big debate about those new-fangled motor cars in 1905, and whether motorists should be catered for as well as the original cyclists. In other words, whether to turn the Cyclists Touring Club into the Touring Club. In the end there were enough motorists to split off from the CTC (and the High Court ruled that the proposed name change would be illegal!) and they formed their own organisation, the AA.

CTC 'nerds' on the News

In defence of Roger, I'd say that calling him a nerd is a compliment: nerds are those people who know in great (perhaps boring) detail what they're talking about, and with Roger and cycle campaigning that is certainly the issue. I'm not as much of a cycling nerd as Roger is, but I proudly claim computer nerd status Our modern news media now prefers a sensational story to the actual facts, so it's good to see factual interviews with people like Roger still occasionally being featured.

The News deals in short sound-bites, so you can say what you like without really being challenged (unless it's Newsnight with Paxman!). However even a small amount of investigation would reveal that Roger's facts stand up to detailed analysis. Perhaps we should try to get Roger onto Newsnight?