Cycling UK Forum

I can not find anywhere anything that shows what the Trust has actually done in terms of cycling or anything else.
All I can find is very quaint statements about campaigning for all cyclists.
There is mention of government contracts but not anything about what they have achieved. I feel sure there must be on that has come to fruition.
Why are the CTC Council not advertising these.
There is also mention of partners but never who they are. Who is embarrassed to say who is working together. Is it CTC or others.
I feel sure all of the above can not be commercially sensitive

There is a list of the trust's contracts here: http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.as ... D=5365#ten
However, it doesn't go into any detail as to what the projects actually achieved.

Thank you for that SI. I did look at that but can not work out what is done by the CTC or the Trust.
I still can not understand the low key approach. Surely these things should be given more advertising.

Part of the problem appears to be that there isn't any rigorous project evaluation - certainly I've not been privy to any.

We are told that these projects bring in new members and promote cycling for all - but there is scant evidence to support these claims. For example, we don't ask people why they are joining, or whether it is because of a project they've been on.

.

I have looked at both of those. I found it all very quaint and airy fairy. I did not see a lot of substance as to actual achievements.

.

I read the vision thing as well very " " also.
I find it interesting that is is so hard to find facts about what has been done since the Trust was set up.
Now as you say Gaz it is to be joined together will this change.

I think the 2007 Strategic Vision is a pretty good document. It doesn't say 'we did this', but it does set out a framework within which the Club and the Trust operate, although, with the benefit of hindsight, it might have been a bit more specific about campaigning. Alan Luxton put a whole lot of work in to it and it sets out a general set of aspirations in a decent, not to say elegant way.

For all that people now say 'we always intended to unite the two organisations' I don't recall this being the intention at the time that the Strategic Vision was written. If memory serves the serious conversations about a merger came about in 2008 when Jim Brown pointed to the democratic defecit in the administration of the Trust. What wasn't considered at the time was the 25% rule, the risk to the club funds and the value to members. It was agreed that the question be examined in committee, and a report taken back to Council.

This last week I read an e-mail from Professor Cox to the Right to Ride groups which inferred that Council had been examining this for the last five years and that they hadn't seen any impediment to a merger. All I can say is that he must have been attending different Council meetings to the rest of us.....

This last week I read an e-mail from Professor Cox to the Right to Ride groups which inferred that Council had been examining this for the last five years and that they hadn't seen any impediment to a merger.

page 6 of the latest Cycle David Robinson clearly states that the council has been proposing these charity proposals for 5 years.

Is this as much spin as the rest of the two pages?

aidan wrote:

This last week I read an e-mail from Professor Cox to the Right to Ride groups which inferred that Council had been examining this for the last five years and that they hadn't seen any impediment to a merger.

page 6 of the latest Cycle David Robinson clearly states that the council has been proposing these charity proposals for 5 years.

Is this as much spin as the rest of the two pages?

it's out and out rubbish. Spin doesn't come near it. I was on Council for three of those years, and only in the last year did the subject come up.

Simon L6 wrote:

aidan wrote:

This last week I read an e-mail from Professor Cox to the Right to Ride groups which inferred that Council had been examining this for the last five years and that they hadn't seen any impediment to a merger.

page 6 of the latest Cycle David Robinson clearly states that the council has been proposing these charity proposals for 5 years.

Is this as much spin as the rest of the two pages?

it's out and out rubbish. Spin doesn't come near it. I was on Council for three of those years, and only in the last year did the subject come up.

I was on Council at the same time as Simon. It was never mentioned in the time I was there (up to March 2007).

I'd really like to know why they thought this would be a good idea.

Back to the OP issue, at the risk of rocking the boat, it seems that some of this is not achievement at all.

We've seen how the grandiose 'aspirations' of the Notional Cycling Strategy dwindled to nothing and currently we have the demonstration towns or whatever they are called. I understand that by showcasing excellence, this small scale effort is supposed to act as a catalyst for a more widespread move to the promotion of cycling by local authorities. For anybody (like me) not privileged to live in or even near one of these centres of excellence, the info is sparse. We had a depressing piece in the CTC mag where the local RtoR reps seemed to report disappointment. There is a thread running on here at the moment where unsatisfactory facilities are reported by a local cyclist, and a link on that thread to a comment by the RtoR rep is disconcerting.

The role of the CTC Trust in all this seems unclear (to me at least.) I'd like to know whether they actively support the situation, go along with it, or would simply prefer not to be arguing with the piper payer, biting the hand etc. Of course, the charity rules mean that unless there is an abuse of charity status to report to the Charity Commission, it's nothing to do with me. Or any of us - even if it's done in our name.