Cycling UK Forum

Diane Bulley wrote: John Snow is carrying out the wishes of Council, thats his job, and its a very complicated one.

news to me

We now have one ex-councillor saying that JS is promoting existing policy and a current councillor - whose views are well-known to be different from those expressed in the Guardian piece - guiding us on to another forum where there is a lively debate.

My understanding was that CTC policy was not what was expressed by JS. Now I am confused. It would be valuable to have a clarification from the CTC, perhaps in the weekly newsletter. (Presumably, publishing deadlines would mean that anything in Cycle would have to wait till the issue after next.)

I appreciate that this forum is not an official route of approach to the CTC - more a sort of playground where the members can run about and let off steam

But a well supervised playground TC

My point right through this thread - when and where have the CTC told its members what their policy is.
I would like to have been told this on joining - and if it changed significantly over a period - particularly if they are actively against the promotion of cycle paths.
And I had joined under the belief that the CTC campaigned for the benifit of all cyclists not just those in London

The club gave up it's core values a long time ago. It has now got too big, too commercialised and too fragmented.
The forum member who said it was now a club for commuters is spot on. What we don't need is a charitable version of the LCC.
If there were a club exclusively for cycle tourists I would join that and not bother with the CTC at all.

Terry T wrote:The club gave up it's core values a long time ago. It has now got too big, too commercialised and too fragmented.
The forum member who said it was now a club for commuters is spot on. What we don't need is a charitable version of the LCC.
If there were a club exclusively for cycle tourists I would join that and not bother with the CTC at all.

Could we not form one,this one is reminisent of our political system,ie the members pay for the privilage of not getting what they want.

I agree T.T.

Every year there is a cock up when we renew our membership.
One year although we paid for both - my membership had not been renewed by the CTC and I only found out when I came to renew the following year presumably leaving me with no insurance for the whole year. Last year both cards came with previous years expiry date, neither have the correct membership starting date and the camping carne we bought from CTC was hand written and completely illegible causing embarassment at foreign campsites. (We get them from the camping club now).
And the Magazine isnt worth having.

The only reason we stay is for the insurance.

Good idea R2 - but I think it will need more than three of us

My point right through this thread - when and where have the CTC told its members what their policy is.
I would like to have been told this on joining - and if it changed significantly over a period - particularly if they are actively against the promotion of cycle paths.

They've told their members on their website and in their publications. Have they told you their policies on cycles on trains or LED lights and pothole filling? Not in the limited space on the membership card, but definitely elsewhere.

The Hierarchy of Solutions is government policy in the UK, not just CTC policy. It doesn't mean no cycle paths, it means they are low on the choices list of what you look at to make things better for cyclists. After everything else the path might be the right choice. If you don't structure the choices you get Highwaymen trying to create useless paths for no reason, just what CTC campaigners are fighting against. Useless paths waste money, make things more dangerous, and mean you do not address speeds. And they spread the myth that you can only cycle on a path, so you should drive everywhere else, and yes, drive to paths.

Jac wrote:I agree T.T.
Good idea R2 - but I think it will need more than three of us

At the rate the CTC's going the numbers for a new club could grow quite quickly.
Its either that or take the club back from those who stole it.

reohn2 wrote:

Jac wrote:I agree T.T.
Good idea R2 - but I think it will need more than three of us

At the rate the CTC's going the numbers for a new club could grow quite quickly.
Its either that or take the club back from those who stole it.

.....oooooh anarchy in the ranks R2

Terry T wrote:To be honest, I couldn't care less what the general public, (who in the main, have no connection with cycling), think.

It's attitudes like that that make me despair. You should care, deeply, what the general public think. For two reasons.

1. The general public are people who don't cycle yet, but may do one day if only it was made easier for them. And yes, that includes decent provision of safe, separated cycle paths.
2. The general public are the drivers who we are ready to run us down.

Frankly, all the stats in the world won't convince someone to cycle if they don't think it's safe. A lot of cycle paths, even if they're technically less safe according to someone's little black book, will do more in the long run for cycling than anally retentive infighting about who should or shouldn't say what. I am more likely to visit somewhere if I know that someone has cared enough to signpost and build something that's designed for me.

I agree with Redkite- we should be concerned with what the general public think, because their appreciation is the only way we can be taken seriously and listened to. As a small special-interest group (ie a Touring-only club) we stand not a chance of lobbying for something better. By representing lots of different cyclists (who aren't mutually exclusive, but include offroad, racing, recumbents, BMX, unicyclists and yes, commuters) then there is a much better chance to change public opinion and improve conditions, not only for ourselves but all non-motorised road users.

I don't think that Jon Snow is representing what I see as CTC policy, but he is representing lots of people who do or would feel safer on separated paths (even footpaths). And that feeling goes farther to encourage people to take up cycling than any detailed stats analysis, or any arguments about right of way.

Mr. Snow, if representing CTC, should present CTC policy, but I don't think removing him at this stage is likely to improve public relations whatsoever, and this is important! Perhaps these issues should be seriously discussed with him.

*Bites Bullet* -
I've been a member of the CTC for a very long time - early 80s I think - precisely because of the organisation's record of fighting for our rights to ride *ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY*. If the Club President, however well meaning, contradicts this stance or holds personal beliefs which run counter to it then he must go. Sorry Mr Snow but that's all there is to it.

reohn2 wrote:

Jac wrote:I agree T.T.
Good idea R2 - but I think it will need more than three of us

At the rate the CTC's going the numbers for a new club could grow quite quickly.
Its either that or take the club back from those who stole it.

I would consider myself an enthusiast with regard to cycling and cycling issues. The CTC seems to be targetting people who aren't so much enthusiasts, but cyclists (and would be cyclists) none the less.
Cycle tourists are a section of the cycling community that are what I would call "lifestyle" cyclists. There are other sections within the cycling community that could also be described as such.
Can you imagine a club for washing machine users? That, in my opinion, is the type of club the CTC will end up being. Bland.

I would jump at the chance to join a club that caters exclusively for cycle tourists, but setting one up would be a mammoth task.

Frankly, all the stats in the world won't convince someone to cycle if they don't think it's safe. A lot of cycle paths, even if they're technically less safe according to someone's little black book, will do more in the long run for cycling than anally retentive infighting about who should or shouldn't say what. I am more likely to visit somewhere if I know that someone has cared enough to signpost and build something that's designed for me.

Actually cycle training does get people to realise its safe.

Thanks for putting the defeatist Sustrans point of view. What about riding a bicycle where you live and work? Have you learned to ride a bicycle? Why ignore the policies that all the cycling orgs and uk government have signed up to? Is the earth flat???


Creating useless paths just creates useless cyclists who drive everywhere. Sustrans just never say when the day will come when its ok to cycle away from their farcilities. Because they don't want you to - they want cycling to not be transport, they must be in the pocket of the oil companies

redkite wrote:

Terry T wrote:To be honest, I couldn't care less what the general public, (who in the main, have no connection with cycling), think.

It's attitudes like that that make me despair. You should care, deeply, what the general public think. For two reasons.

1. The general public are people who don't cycle yet, but may do one day if only it was made easier for them. And yes, that includes decent provision of safe, separated cycle paths.
2. The general public are the drivers who we are ready to run us down.

Frankly, all the stats in the world won't convince someone to cycle if they don't think it's safe. A lot of cycle paths, even if they're technically less safe according to someone's little black book, will do more in the long run for cycling than anally retentive infighting about who should or shouldn't say what. I am more likely to visit somewhere if I know that someone has cared enough to signpost and build something that's designed for me.

Thank you for telling me what I should do. I wouldn't have known without your input
It's this sort of arrogance that makes me care even less what people think. I wouldn't dream of telling someone what they should think or do, as I don't bathe in my own self-importance