# Touring Cyclist Club



## robgul (12 Feb 2016)

A new resource for Touring Cyclists - a new website is being launched today. Early days in the thinking process but the plan is to create an online community for like-minded cycle tourists - not another Facebook but a website full of resources for a wide variety of touring and technical matters.

Have a look at http://www.touringcyclistclub.org.uk - the new Touring Cyclist Club website and help shape the direction it takes and, if you want, offer your assistance to run it. On the site you will be able to add your thoughts on the site's direction through the discussion* Forum* and *I'm interested* form links.

Together we can build a new resource and, if people want it, even a new Touring Cyclist Club.

Rob


----------



## Glow worm (12 Feb 2016)

robgul said:


> A new resource for Touring Cyclists
> 
> Have a look at www.touringcyclist.org.uk - the new Touring Cyclist Club



I can't get the link to work Rob.

*'Sorry, the website www.touringcyclist.org.uk cannot be found' *


----------



## robgul (12 Feb 2016)

Glow worm said:


> I can't get the link to work Rob.
> 
> 
> Ooops - now fixed! - it's http://www.touringcyclistclub.org.uk


----------



## Hill Wimp (12 Feb 2016)

Looks like it could be good, hope it does well.


----------



## steveindenmark (12 Feb 2016)

I have expressed my interest. The more people who show an interest, the better the chance it will start up.

Sign up for it


----------



## classic33 (12 Feb 2016)

Isn't that what Bike Tourer is going to be doing?


----------



## raleighnut (12 Feb 2016)

So they've cottoned on to Shauns idea too (see top of page)


----------



## robgul (12 Feb 2016)

raleighnut said:


> So they've cottoned on to Shauns idea too (see top of page)



Not at all. We're looking at a very different approach - rather wider than what (from the detail) looks to be a library of resources - it's a project that links back to another cycling organisation sadly in decline - but which hopefully can be re-born with the original core values, a new name and ethos.

Is the Two Wheel idea like CGOAB ? ... I assume the countdown is for when it plans to start?

Rob


----------



## steveindenmark (13 Feb 2016)

raleighnut said:


> So they've cottoned on to Shauns idea too (see top of page)



I dont think this a copy of Shauns idea. If thats the case Shaun must have copied my thoughts because I had the same idea a long time ago but had no idea how to implement it. 

The guys putting this together seem to know what they are about and need our support. I wish we had something similar in Denmark but it is all about racing bikes here.


----------



## Shaun (14 Feb 2016)

I assume it's an alternative to CTC? If so, then no, it's not what I had in mind for the Two Wheeled site (which is going to be some general touring info, kit reviews and travelogues from CC'ers and other tourer's to inspire new and "thinking about it" tourers. )

Good luck with it.


----------



## robgul (14 Feb 2016)

"I assume it's an alternative to CTC?"
You said it - not me  - response so far from current, disillusioned and past members of the "charity" has been staggering.

Rob


----------



## PK99 (16 Feb 2016)

Origins of the idea are here>>> (FB Group)

https://www.facebook.com/groups/911322558887222/

people behind the idea are: (from TCC site)

You're probably wondering who is behind the Touring Cyclist Club idea.

It's Dennis Snape and Rob Gullen - both members of Heart of England Cycling Club_ (previously CTC-Heart of England Member Group, dissolved in September 2015)_ - www.heartofenglandcyclingclub.org.uk

###

Heart of England have done what a number of other groups are considering - cutting adrift from CTC which has ceased to be a members focussed organisation.
The disillusionment within many CTC riders groups with the (relatively new) CEO is palpable


----------



## robgul (16 Feb 2016)

Just for clarity 

- the Facebook "Where should CTC be going?" was started by others some time ago - the initiative we have taken with TCC is not a result of that, but has obvious parallels.. 

- and taking the last sentence, the disillusionment as far as we are concerned goes way back before the present CEO

Response since the TCC announcement last Friday evening has been amazing with massive hit volume on the TCC Home page, loads of I'm interested and Forum sign-up responses. HoECC, which was CTC HoE, has already attracted in just a few months a lot of new (i.e. in addition the core of CTC HoE riders) members.

Rob


----------



## martint235 (16 Feb 2016)

Well I've registered an interest and joined the forums. Look forward to seeing what comes out of it. I'm not a tourist as such but feel the CTC has moved in the wrong direction.


----------



## contadino (16 Feb 2016)

It's all Greek to me. Maybe it'll become clear when there's some content on the website other than 'so has anyone got any ideas?' posts. Launching an empty site seems a bit odd.

I'm more keen to see what appears on the Two Wheeled Touring site.


----------



## robgul (16 Feb 2016)

contadino said:


> snip Maybe it'll become clear when there's some content on the website other than 'so has anyone got any ideas?' posts. snip .



The immediately preceding three or four of posts here and the Facebook page referred to make it all pretty clear ..... 

Rob


----------



## contadino (16 Feb 2016)

...as mud (at least to me)

So is the website going to have travelogues? Routes? Campsite reviews? Product reviews?

Or is it just for minutes, rules, agendas, and committee mandates?


----------



## jay clock (16 Feb 2016)

That Facebook page is a laugh a minute. Sounds like the sort of people who LOVE committee meetings but no mention of bike riding


----------



## jay clock (16 Feb 2016)

I have signed up for info but to be honest it sounds like it will be a poor man's Crazy Guy On A Bike - which they want you to pay for


----------



## PK99 (16 Feb 2016)

jay clock said:


> That Facebook page is a laugh a minute. Sounds like the sort of people who LOVE committee meetings but no mention of bike riding



To be fair, it is a page about ctc polices/structures/objectives and what to do about the "executve" capture of ctc by a charity quangocracy to the detriment of cycling members esp touring cyclists.


----------



## martint235 (17 Feb 2016)

contadino said:


> ...as mud (at least to me)
> 
> So is the website going to have travelogues? Routes? Campsite reviews? Product reviews?
> 
> Or is it just for minutes, rules, agendas, and committee mandates?


Hopefully it'll turn into a club like the CTC should have been. We'll see. Hoping for a club that uses its membership to bargain collectively for change or for discounts. A club that facilitates the sharing of information etc, there may even be rides but that is less important to me. 

What is incredibly important is that the club doesn't follow the route CTC and in particular LCC followed by having an agenda set by an elite few but then peddled as the thoughts of the majority. If that happens I'll be off.


----------



## contadino (17 Feb 2016)

See, I don't know what the CTC is, or the LCC, or the 'elite few' or 'the majority' or even what 'changes' are being bargained for. None of that matters to me.

Nor do discounts. Specially when they come at the cost of a subscription fee (and the two _never_ equate.) I prefer to buy gear 2nd hand anyway.

Being able to read about a route, where was good to camp/stay, what bike/gear to take, what time of year to go, which bits to detour.... That's what I'd like to read about. I get a bit of what I want to read about from here, more from YACF, CGOAB. That's why the Two Wheeled Touring site looks promising to me.

I'm unlikely to go back to that new, empty website. Sounds like it's irrelevant to me, pointless, and poorly thought out. YMMV.


----------



## martint235 (17 Feb 2016)

contadino said:


> See, I don't know what the CTC is, or the LCC, or the 'elite few' or 'the majority' or even what 'changes' are being bargained for. None of that matters to me.
> 
> Nor do discounts. Specially when they come at the cost of a subscription fee (and the two _never_ equate.) I prefer to buy gear 2nd hand anyway.
> 
> ...


That new empty website is only empty because the originator is canvassing opinion on what people would want from a new club. This is your opportunity to do something positive rather than just pour negativity onto a guy doing his best to provide a resource that is useful. However it's entirely up to you. Get bits of what you want from a variety of places or help to build something that helps you or others.


----------



## contadino (17 Feb 2016)

User13710 said:


> Which is exactly what Shaun was saying. The two are not in conflict, and there's not need to criticise the option that doesn't work for you.



I didn't say they were in conflict. The OP asked for feedback and I provided mine.


----------



## robgul (17 Feb 2016)

martint235 said:


> That new empty website is only empty because the originator is canvassing opinion on what people would want from a new club. This is your opportunity to do something positive rather than just pour negativity onto a guy doing his best to provide a resource that is useful. However it's entirely up to you. Get bits of what you want from a variety of places or help to build something that helps you or others.



Thank you for the post. That's exactly what Dennis and I are doing - the feedback we have had is 100% positive ... a few people have failed to grasp what it's all about (or failed to read the - limited for reasons described - details). 

The Facebook page is NOT an integral part of the TCC ... it was established over a year ago - but there is some parallel thinking if you get beyond the politics and mud-slinging.

The next step is for us to ask the people that have already expressed an interest (hundreds of responses) and others to give us their top few ideas (as brief bullet points), for a small steering group to then assess the responses and refine THE PLAN. 

By taking this approach we are, hopefully, going to go forward with what the market (i.e. cyclists with an interest in touring) wants - with no politics or baggage that's seemingly dragging another organisation into oblivion.

Expect to see the ability to provide YOUR IDEAS on the website in the next 3 or 4 days. 

Rob


----------



## theclaud (17 Feb 2016)

Expression of interest submitted.


----------



## martint235 (17 Feb 2016)

robgul said:


> Thank you for the post. That's exactly what Dennis and I are doing - the feedback we have had is 100% positive ... a few people have failed to grasp what it's all about (or failed to read the - limited for reasons described - details).
> 
> The Facebook page is NOT an integral part of the TCC ... it was established over a year ago - but there is some parallel thinking if you get beyond the politics and mud-slinging.
> 
> ...


I wish you all the luck. I have expressed an interest and will maintain an open mind although experience tells me that these things do eventually get dragged down by politicking etc. Let's hope that can be avoided.


----------



## robgul (17 Feb 2016)

martint235 said:


> I wish you all the luck. I have expressed an interest and will maintain an open mind although experience tells me that these things do eventually get dragged down by politicking etc. Let's hope that can be avoided.



You should read The Winged Wheel - the story of the first 100 years of CTC - today's scenario with CTC is, as they say, deja vu all over again

Rob


----------



## videoman (18 Feb 2016)

I have book marked the site and hope it all takes off as an additional resource for cycle touring. 

Good luck for the future.


----------



## Arrowfoot (19 Feb 2016)

robgul said:


> A new resource for Touring Cyclists - a new website is being launched today. Early days in the thinking process but the plan is to create an online community for like-minded cycle tourists - not another Facebook but a website full of resources for a wide variety of touring and technical matters.
> 
> Have a look at http://www.touringcyclistclub.org.uk - the new Touring Cyclist Club website and help shape the direction it takes and, if you want, offer your assistance to run it. On the site you will be able to add your thoughts on the site's direction through the discussion* Forum* and *I'm interested* form links.
> 
> ...


Hi Rob

Have sent in the form. Glad that someone is doing this and also glad that expressions of interest are pouring in. There is a clear void and it needs to be filled. To be fair to Contadino, he did ask 3 times for clarity and was also puzzled by the empty website before he downloaded on you. There are many folks like him who do not have context and therefore cannot read between the lines. He probably assumed that it was a another "new resource". Could you provide some sort of progress comments on this initiative on this forum (hope Shaun doen't mind) as time goes by so that others would catch on and join as well.


----------



## robgul (19 Feb 2016)

Thanks for the very balanced post ... to answer your last point first:

We have been amazed by the response since TCC was announced just 7 days ago - there will be a brief update published at the end of today, Friday 19 February 2016 that will also contain the comments that were made in the "I'm interested" responses (it's a long list!)

The initial launch was deliberately very open in terms of detail and what TCC was likely to be about because we wanted those with an interest to tell us what they thought and would like to see - rather than a prescriptive "This is what you'll get" . . . which is perhaps the root of the reasoning for the initiative.

You mention needing to "read between the lines" ...... most people that have responded did do so - being aware of the ongoing discussions on the CTC Forum (stemming back quite a few years) and the Facebook page (Where should CTC be going?) established over a year ago ... we gave the link to that page. For us to have come out with the TCC idea based on _"CTC's going down the pan, here's a better model"_ would have not been right or in the spirit of what's envisaged, nor did we want to engage in virulent discussion with lots of pointless Forum posts.

We hope that what we have done so far and the obvious traction the project has from the interest to date goes forward.

.... and to cyclists with an interest in touring please do add your voice to the TCC - through the "I'm interested" or (as from today) the "MY ideas" forms - and join the Forum as well.

Rob (and Dennis)


----------



## jay clock (19 Feb 2016)

robgul said:


> For us to have come out with the TCC idea based on _"CTC's going down the pan, here's a better model"_ would have not been right or in the spirit of what's envisaged,
> Rob (and Dennis)


but to me it looks exactly like that is what you HAVE come up with. Even the name sounds pretty similar. Not a problem in either case in my view, but you do seem to angling for a newer and better CTC


----------



## jay clock (19 Feb 2016)

OT, but has me in mind the Popular Front of Judea!


----------



## robgul (19 Feb 2016)

jay clock said:


> but to me it looks exactly like that is what you HAVE come up with. Even the name sounds pretty similar. Not a problem in either case in my view, but you do seem to angling for a newer and better CTC



The point being made was that SAYING OUT LOUD that _"CTC's going down the pan, here's a better model" _in the launch messages would not have been right and potentially counter-productive - but the reasoning is just that. TCC isn't looking for a fight, just to create a solution that people want.

And for the name .... TCC says it all [the new name and logo for the other organisation* which appeared last night is a complete departure . . . ]

* see the other forum for details and an image from the trade mark registration service.

Rob


----------



## Blue Hills (19 Feb 2016)

jay clock said:


> OT, but has me in mind the Popular Front of Judea!


yes, looking at from outside as one who is not aware of all the politics benhind this that name looks terrible, confusing, and a rather petulant "up yours". I would have thought it possible to come up with a name that conveyed what the initiative was about without being such a clear scrabbling of letters.


----------



## Blue Hills (19 Feb 2016)

Oh, is it changing its name?


----------



## ianrauk (19 Feb 2016)

Blue Hills said:


> Oh, is it changing its name?









And do these colours remind you of anything?


----------



## Spoked Wheels (19 Feb 2016)

martint235 said:


> Well I've registered an interest and joined the forums. Look forward to seeing what comes out of it. I'm not a tourist as such but feel the CTC has moved in the wrong direction



I've done just that. 

I'm new to touring and so far it's been only touring for the day but I'm planning to change that this summer.

A bunch of touring cyclist would have a wealth of knowledge that can be used to help each other, given the platform.

A very simple example.... I plotted a route from Bournemouth to Corfe Castle via some tracks I could see on the map, most of it was fine but one track was a dead end, and it had been for some time I think. If I could have a platform to enter my experience so the next person is not taken via that route. So basically, the club would need to create a database and store the location with the problem and use the information when the next person request a route that goes through ( assuming there will be a route plotting capability) the same track.

I can think of several ways, the members of the new touring club could help with their knowledge to create something that is worth paying a subscription and for the benefit of its members.


----------



## jefmcg (19 Feb 2016)

jay clock said:


> OT, but has me in mind the Popular Front of Judea!


Fb agrees with you (the audax group, at least)


----------



## srw (19 Feb 2016)

User13710 said:


> It appears it might be, yes.


http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/ctc-to-be-rebranded-as-cycling-uk/019104

The inevitable Philip Bedstead is leading the one-man campaign against the name change - which makes me suspect it might be quite a good thing.


----------



## Vantage (19 Feb 2016)

With regard to the name being similar to that of the CTC, what else could it really be called?
The founders are hoping it'll be a club yes? So that's a C for club.
It's being setup for cyclists, another C, who tour. There's your T.
No matter which way those 3 letters are scrambled, it's gonna be similar to CTC.
Could the actual name be changed? When's the last time someone was called a "bicyclist"? Could it be called an organization instead of club? Isn't the CTC now an organization? And look what happened there!
And what could touring possibly be swapped for? Trekking? Granted it still starts with a T.
BTO? Ugh.
No thanks. In registering my interest anyway. Good luck Rob.


----------



## robgul (19 Feb 2016)

Vantage said:


> With regard to the name being similar to that of the CTC, what else could it really be called?
> The founders are hoping it'll be a club yes? So that's a C for club.
> It's being setup for cyclists, another C, who tour. There's your T.
> No matter which way those 3 letters are scrambled, it's gonna be similar to CTC.
> ...



Thanks - we did think of the cyclingtouristsclub but we were looking at new approach - an honest and transparent description does rather restrict the name and therefore the acronym.

Rob


----------



## Shaun (19 Feb 2016)

ianrauk said:


> And do these colours remind you of anything?



Yes ... now you mention it ...


----------



## robgul (19 Feb 2016)

Shaun said:


> Yes ... now you mention it ...




Brilliant! - I've got the London Olympic font somewhere, it provided hours of fun back in the day.

Rob


----------



## Racing roadkill (19 Feb 2016)

This is a bit reminiscent of something as well.


----------



## Blue Hills (19 Feb 2016)

ianrauk said:


> And do these colours remind you of anything?


thanks mighty blue one (trust youbare well), am clearly out of touch, used to be a member in my period out of london. Don't like it, looks like they have had the consultants in.


----------



## Shaun (19 Feb 2016)

Racing roadkill said:


> This is a bit reminiscent of something as well.



I knew I'd seen it somewhere before ...


----------



## robgul (19 Feb 2016)

*UPDATE *

7 days on from the first announcement about the Touring Cyclist Club and response, interest and feedback has been huge.

We have today created a new section on the website "Updates" that does just that - with more about the background and initial plan, together with all the comments received to date. Just go to http://www.touringcyclistclub.org.uk and click UPDATES in the top line menu.

If you've not been to the site yet - please do, and use the "I'm interested" and/or "MY ideas" forms to have your say - we also have a discussion Forum.

Rob & Dennis


----------



## robgul (19 Mar 2016)

Touring Cyclist Club - a progress report is in the UPDATES at www.touringcyclistclub.org.uk
The website has received over 6,000 hits, over 100 applications to join the Forum, 184 *"I'm interested"* responses and 63 *"My ideas"* responses - and a lot of messages from cycle tourists welcoming the Touring Cyclist Club project.
We have :
- created the initial structure for the website content
- created the structure for the Forum
- investigated a membership format
- entered negotiations for a member's insurance product
.. and we're asking for interested people to join a steering group to drive it all forward.
We're hoping to have much more fleshed out by early May.
Please take a look at the website at www.touringcyclistclub.org.uk - and send your expression of interest, ideas or content for the club's resources.

Rob


----------



## PaulSB (23 Mar 2016)

I'm an ex CTC member and have expressed interest in this though to be honest I haven't a clue what much of the conversation is about in this thread.

I left CTC because my only reason to be a member had become the insurance. I found CTC provided me with nothing other than a very poorly written and outdated magazine, a forum populated by some very unpleasant people who revelled in tearing chunks off people like me and a supposed route resource I never managed to understand.

Basically CTC was stuck in the 1950s and what I perceived as my own lack of knowledge and experience made me feel intimidated and unwelcome in the organisation - the opposite of Cyclechat I should say.

I'd like to make two comments and these will seem negative but that is not my intention. My fear for the plans is this is public at a far too early stage.

I understand you wish to consult with others over how progress should be made. You've grabbed my attention, sent me to a web site and shown me what? Nothing I'm afraid. This I feel is a mistake, at some point you are going to have to grab my attention again plus overcoming my feeling there's nothing to see. This starts at the point I finished with CTC because I was offered nothing.

I feel it's also important not to over egg things. It was posted there had been "hundreds of responses" but looking at the numbers above its 347 and I'd guess probably less as many will have effectively said yes to more than one point.

I wish you lots of luck and hope it's a success. Please remember there will be thousands of cyclists like me who don't understand or care about the CTC politicking - it's simply irrelevant. If you have a good and exciting alternative put up the offer and let the potential user decide. the new idea will disappear in a cloud of "coming soon" if there is nothing to see. It's like the links at the top of this forum, click and there's nothing to be seen so I stopped clicking


----------



## Racing roadkill (23 Mar 2016)

PaulSB said:


> I'm an ex CTC member and have expressed interest in this though to be honest I haven't a clue what much of the conversation is about in this thread.
> 
> I left CTC because my only reason to be a member had become the insurance. I found CTC provided me with nothing other than a very poorly written and outdated magazine, a forum populated by some very unpleasant people who revelled in tearing chunks off people like me and a supposed route resource I never managed to understand.
> 
> ...


CTC does seem a bit antiquated in many ways.


----------



## robgul (23 Mar 2016)

PaulSB said:


> I'm an ex CTC member and have expressed interest in this though to be honest I haven't a clue what much of the conversation is about in this thread.
> 
> I left CTC because my only reason to be a member had become the insurance. I found CTC provided me with nothing other than a very poorly written and outdated magazine, a forum populated by some very unpleasant people who revelled in tearing chunks off people like me and a supposed route resource I never managed to understand.
> 
> ...



Your comments about CTC pretty much reflect what we thought before kicking off the initiative ...of the comments we have had ( and that is from, now, over 350 separate individuals with a big rush in the last 4 days) also echo your thoughts .... some even more vehemently than you!

The point about content is understood - what we are aiming to achieve can't be done without input from touring cyclists willing to share their ideas, experiences etc to be able to index and publish that content in a usable form .... and in order to give an indication of the content we've created the structure of the website and accompanying Forum to show what WILL BE AVAILABLE ... but we're starting with a clean sheet of paper and need help from interested cyclists.

[It should be noted that the Touring Cyclist Club website and Forum will be integrated ... not separate as is the CTC Forum where as you describe all sorts of hell breaks loose ... although much of that is probably simply venting anger at CTC - which takes us full circle]

So - please do send ideas, copy, whatever to help us get going ...

Thanks

Rob


----------



## PaulSB (23 Mar 2016)

Rob I hope you didn't feel I was being aggressive, it wasn't my intention. I do wish you lots of luck. Thanks for the reply. 

When I need some cycling info the first place I head to us Cyclechat. That's the standard to aim for.


----------



## robgul (23 Mar 2016)

PaulSB said:


> Rob I hope you didn't feel I was being aggressive, it wasn't my intention. I do wish you lots of luck. Thanks for the reply.
> 
> When I need some cycling info the first place I head to us Cyclechat. That's the standard to aim for.



Not at all .... without getting bogged down in nostalgia what "the market" seems to want is what CTC offered until perhaps about 8 or 10 years ago but failed to keep up to date - GOOD in depth touring and technical content - and support for questions ... be they from cycle-touring newbies or old hands.

Rob


----------



## robgul (5 Apr 2016)

Our incoming mailbox at Touring Cyclist Club is overflowing today with "angry" "disgusted" "complete shock" "a disgrace" messages about the CTC rebrand now that Cycle mag has hit the doormats ... this message is typical (from a current CTC member):

We have been cycle touring for many years and have watched the CTC hi-jacked over recent years. The rebranding announced today was a complete shock and not something I support. Looking for a more focussed club, not a charity, dedicated to touring.

... watch this space ....

Rob


----------



## Racing roadkill (5 Apr 2016)

robgul said:


> Our incoming mailbox at Touring Cyclist Club is overflowing today with "angry" "disgusted" "complete shock" "a disgrace" messages about the CTC rebrand now that Cycle mag has hit the doormats ... this message is typical (from a current CTC member):
> 
> We have been cycle touring for many years and have watched the CTC hi-jacked over recent years. The rebranding announced today was a complete shock and not something I support. Looking for a more focussed club, not a charity, dedicated to touring.
> 
> ...


Ohh deary deary me. This is going to be very bad news for CTC. More people I deal with, when riding, are saying that they are more concerned with POWERRRRR, and CADENCE, and not so much with getting out and seeing places, stopping off for the social stuff, politics, and not worrying too much about the more 'sporty' 'technical' aspects of riding. CTC has been stuck in the past for too long, I don't think this 're-brand' is going to help them.


----------



## Racing roadkill (5 Apr 2016)

User13710 said:


> That's one view. Most people I ride with (I don't 'deal with' them, not sure what that means) are much more concerned with "getting out and seeing places, stopping off for the social stuff, politics, and not worrying too much about the more 'sporty' 'technical' aspects of riding" than all the British Cycling bollocks about "POWERRRRR, and CADENCE". The rebrand is a very bad idea because it distances the CTC even further from its core membership.



I've got to very 'diplomatic' when I'm on a ride, if anyone mentions one of the myriad of British Cycling 'mantras'. I'm employed by B.C. (Not my main job, but they still pay me) so regardless of my personal opinions on some of the stuff coming from their corner, I do have to tread a thin line.


----------



## Racing roadkill (5 Apr 2016)

User13710 said:


> I know several people who lead rides for BC and they don't come out with any of the bollocks, so it is easily achievable.


The leaders tend not to. It's when the participants start to ask about such things, we have to be sure to just tell 'em like it is. 
Point them in the direction of the B.C. resources that are available for that sort of thing, if they wish to get involved in the more sporty side of things.


----------



## jefmcg (5 Apr 2016)

I love it! I've got RR on ignore, so it looks like TMN is just arguing with herself. I'm not going to read the ignored content, 'cause I've never not regretted doing that for RR.

(He's got me on ignore, too, so this won't bother him)


----------



## Racing roadkill (5 Apr 2016)

User13710 said:


> So you never say to them that it's possible to just potter about on your bike and enjoy the scenery? Is that against the BC roolz?


That's the thing, the Skyrides are about getting people out for a potter on their bikes, most people are there for exactly that, some people want to get involved in the sportier side of it. Like I said before, it's all about diplomacy, and neither putting off the social riders, or putting off the sportier riders. 'Inclusion' is the official B.C. line, that suits me.


----------



## robgul (5 Apr 2016)

Racing roadkill said:


> That's the thing, the Skyrides are about getting people out for a potter on their bikes, most people are there for exactly that, some people want to get involved in the sportier side of it. Like I said before, it's all about diplomacy, and neither putting off the social riders, or putting off the sportier riders. 'Inclusion' is the official B.C. line, that suits me.



I thought that the Skyrides initiative was in part to get people riding ... and then buying Sky cycle clothing and a subscription to Sky TV? [Having been on a couple of Skyrides ages ago I was inundated with email promos for the dreaded dustbin lid on the side of my house television system as well as the clothing]

Rob


----------



## Racing roadkill (5 Apr 2016)

robgul said:


> I thought that the Skyrides initiative was in part to get people riding ... and then buying Sky cycle clothing and a subscription to Sky TV? [Having been on a couple of Skyrides ages ago I was inundated with email promos for the dreaded dustbin lid on the side of my house television system as well as the clothing]
> 
> Rob


Well Sky aren't involved for nothing, but they are going to be leaving at the end of this year, I've no idea who's taking over.


----------



## Racing roadkill (5 Apr 2016)

User13710 said:


> The local ride leaders for Breeze tried to make helmets compulsory, until it was pointed out that BC only insists on them in competitions. That's not the way to promote cycling as a non-sporting inclusive activity as far as I'm concerned.


The Skyride Locals have a helmets are advised, but not compulsory guide now. There was too much flack coming from all quarters, so they softened their line. It's particularly important in my area, due to the large Sikh community.


----------



## jefmcg (5 Apr 2016)

robgul said:


> [Having been on a couple of Skyrides ages ago I was inundated with email promos for the dreaded dustbin lid on the side of my house television system as well as the clothing]


It pains me to defend Sky, but I signed up with a unique email address 2009 and have only had cycling related spam from them. I thus assume that either you missed ticking a box or the spam is from another source.

(That's not to say that Sky aren't evil spammers. I was at a meeting where we were told that if someone was halfway through buying Sky TV on the website, and had filled in their email address but then closed the page without checking the opt-out box, then their email address should be harvested for spam. It's not often you hear hissing and booing during a planning meeting!)


----------



## Ajax Bay (5 Apr 2016)

jefmcg said:


> It pains me to defend Sky, but I signed up with a unique email address 2009 and have only had cycling related spam from them.


Is this a good thing? Is it an effective defence, painful or otherwise? Would you have expected a wider variety of SPAM, not just cycling related stuff sent to a 'unique' (whatever that means) e-address?


----------



## raleighnut (5 Apr 2016)

I've been registered with 'Skyride' for years, no spam or unwanted advertising from them ever. (and I used my regular eMail address too)


----------



## Racing roadkill (5 Apr 2016)

raleighnut said:


> I've been registered with 'Skyride' for years, no spam or unwanted advertising from them ever. (and I used my regular eMail address too)


You probably ticked the 'leave me alone' boxes. They then can't send you anything.


----------



## jefmcg (5 Apr 2016)

Ajax Bay said:


> Is this a good thing? Is it an effective defence, painful or otherwise? Would you have expected a wider variety of SPAM, not just cycling related stuff sent to a 'unique' (whatever that means) e-address?



I spoke too glibly, I guess. The only mail I have received at the email address that I registered for skyride is skyride related.

skyride@<mydomain> is the unique email address I used. I always do this, so I always know where the spam comes from.


----------



## raleighnut (6 Apr 2016)

jefmcg said:


> I spoke too glibly, I guess. The only mail I have received at the email address that I registered for skyride is skyride related.
> 
> skyride@<mydomain> is the unique email address I used. I always do this, so I always know where the spam comes from.


Same here, I get regular notifications (monthly) about events etc. but no SKY sales pitch. I wonder if this might change after they leave British Cycling though.


----------



## robgul (1 Jun 2016)

UPDATE at 1 June 2016

These are the key points - please go to UPDATES at http://www.touringcyclistclub.org.uk for more details:

Over 350 expressions of interest
Limited by Guarantee Company has been formed
Constitution, policies etc at advanced draft stage
Membership at a modest annual cost
Add-on personal insurance option negotiated
Funds from membership to meet the modest running costs
Touring Cyclist Club will be run entirely by unpaid volunteers.
Seeking “Regional Champions”

- things are taking a little longer than we had hoped, but all looks good . . . 

Rob & Dennis
Founders, Touring Cyclist Club
http://www.touringcyclistclub.org.uk


----------



## martint235 (6 Sep 2016)

I noticed it's now open to founder members so I am one.

I don't tour much, when I do I hope it's a resource of useful ideas and discussion. I'd rather it wasn't an organisation that told me how to think, behave or vote ala CTC/LCC

Good luck


----------



## srw (6 Sep 2016)

martint235 said:


> I noticed it's now open to founder members so I am one.
> 
> I don't tour much, when I do I hope it's a resource of useful ideas and discussion. I'd rather it wasn't an organisation that told me how to think, behave or vote ala CTC/LCC
> 
> Good luck


An organisation without policy (which is what you describe) is an organisation without power or influence.


----------



## martint235 (8 Sep 2016)

srw said:


> An organisation without policy (which is what you describe) is an organisation without power or influence.


CTC/LCC are largely without power or influence regardless of how much they delude themselves. The people they pretend to represent see them as laughable and the people they seek to influence see them as irrelevant.

I'm fairly sure that policies can be formed without telling people how to think.


----------



## snorri (8 Sep 2016)

martint235 said:


> I'd rather it wasn't an organisation that told me how to think, behave or vote ala CTC/LCC





martint235 said:


> CTC/LCC are largely without power or influence regardless of how much they delude themselves. The people they pretend to represent see them as laughable and the people they seek to influence see them as irrelevant.
> I'm fairly sure that policies can be formed without telling people how to think.


It's unclear if you regard CTC as being too militant or too weak.


----------



## snorri (8 Sep 2016)

User said:


> Both?


Sorry, I should have added a third choice, too undecided.


----------



## martint235 (8 Sep 2016)

snorri said:


> It's unclear if you regard CTC as being too militant or too weak.


Not sure how it's unclear but here goes. CTC to an extent and LCC more so set themselves up to be militant however they do it without the buy in of their constituents. Therefore the people they purport to represent think they are just a waste of space and the people they are negotiating with recognise the fact that no one really gives a stuff what CTC/LCC think and just ignore them. So it's an illusion of militancy but without foundation that is in fact weakness or actually worse than weakness, complete irrelevance.

HTH


----------



## swansonj (8 Sep 2016)

martint235 said:


> Not sure how it's unclear but here goes. CTC to an extent and LCC more so set themselves up to be militant however they do it without the buy in of their constituents. Therefore the people they purport to represent think they are just a waste of space and the people they are negotiating with recognise the fact that no one really gives a stuff what CTC/LCC think and just ignore them. So it's an illusion of militancy but without foundation that is in fact weakness or actually worse than weakness, complete irrelevance.
> 
> HTH


I also think that CTC are picking soft targets for their "militancy". They want to give the impression of campaigning without picking on issues that might upset the establishment who they increasingly depend on for their funding.


----------



## srw (8 Sep 2016)

martint235 said:


> CTC/LCC are largely without power or influence regardless of how much they delude themselves. The people they pretend to represent see them as laughable and the people they seek to influence see them as irrelevant.
> 
> I'm fairly sure that policies can be formed without telling people how to think.


I disagree with both of your claims. We have plenty of evidence from national and local politicians tgat they are heavily influenced by campaign and representative groups, not always for the good. And your second statement is a caricature of the real position, which is that members (as opposed to official reps) of organisations have freedom to think what they want.


User said:


> Do we want an organisation with power and influence?


As long as there are numpties lobbying for dodgy positions, yes. Every crap claim needs a counter.


----------



## srw (8 Sep 2016)

swansonj said:


> I also think that CTC are picking soft targets for their "militancy". They want to give the impression of campaigning without picking on issues that might upset the establishment who they increasingly depend on for their funding.


Such as......


----------



## martint235 (8 Sep 2016)

srw said:


> I disagree with both of your claims. We have plenty of evidence from national and local politicians tgat they are heavily influenced by campaign and representative groups, not always for the good. And your second statement is a caricature of the real position, which is that members (as opposed to official reps) of organisations have freedom to think what they want.
> 
> As long as there are numpties lobbying for dodgy positions, yes. Every crap claim needs a counter.


Is this "evidence" a politician saying "Yes of course I think the CTC (I suppose I should start referring to them as Cycling UK) do an important job and my door is always open to them to listen to new ideas" or is it evidence of things actually being done for the benefit of cyclists generally? And by things being done I don't mean wittering on about how we want Dutch streets over here or that novel idea where a cycle path leaves a main road and passes behind a bus stop.


----------



## srw (8 Sep 2016)

martint235 said:


> Is this "evidence" a politician saying "Yes of course I think the CTC (I suppose I should start referring to them as Cycling UK) do an important job and my door is always open to them to listen to new ideas" or is it evidence of things actually being done for the benefit of cyclists generally? And by things being done I don't mean wittering on about how we want Dutch streets over here or that novel idea where a cycle path leaves a main road and passes behind a bus stop.


Just because the outcome isn't exactly what you want it doesn't mean that there has been no influence.


----------



## snorri (8 Sep 2016)

martint235 said:


> I'd rather it wasn't an organisation that told me how to think, behave or vote ala CTC/LCC


I haven't been aware of CTC doing any of these things, help me with some examples please.


----------



## martint235 (8 Sep 2016)

snorri said:


> I haven't been aware of CTC doing any of these things, help me with some examples please.


CTC sent me an email "suggesting" how I should vote in the last London Mayor election is one example.


----------



## snorri (8 Sep 2016)

martint235 said:


> CTC sent me an email "suggesting" how I should vote in the last London Mayor election is one example.


Wow! I'm surprised, I've never received anything remotely similar. (I don't reside in London)
Perhaps this accounts for some comments I've heard elsewhere regarding them putting too much emphasis on campaigning , whilst I consider they don't campaign enough.


----------



## martint235 (8 Sep 2016)

snorri said:


> Wow! I'm surprised, I've never received anything remotely similar. (I don't reside in London)
> Perhaps this accounts for some comments I've heard elsewhere regarding them putting too much emphasis on campaigning , whilst I consider they don't campaign enough.


To be fair to CTC/Cycling UK, the LCC are far, far worse. There campaign material always comes across with a "We're doing this for you" attitude. No you're not, you're doing it because you think it makes you important. Go Dutch? No thanks. Stupid cycle lanes that are two way but on top of a kerb next to a road? No thanks that's just asking for trouble. The aforementioned bus stop on an island idea? Hopefully that person has been removed from any decision making whatsoever.


----------



## swansonj (8 Sep 2016)

srw said:


> Such as......


I'm signed up to various CTC comms channels, but off the top of my head the only recent things I could remember hearing about were the Big Bike Revival (classic way to generate activity, do some genuine good, make everyone feel good, and not rock any boat atall) and the recent Welsh nominate a cycle route thing, where it's unclear to me how much CTC have to do with it anyway. 

So I looked at their website under campaigning. It features "fill that hole" -more classic win all round without upsetting anyone - but also "road justice" and "space for cycling", which sound good. So I looked at those two. Can you find a specific hard campaigning objective? I'm not dismissive of the strategy of sneaking change under the radar and getting to where you want with no one noticing; it's a good strategy. But sometimes you need someone actually to do something - change a law, for instance. That's where I increasingly see no appetite in CTC for doing anything that might rock their paymasters' boat.


----------



## srw (8 Sep 2016)

swansonj said:


> I'm signed up to various CTC comms channels, but off the top of my head the only recent things I could remember hearing about were the Big Bike Revival (classic way to generate activity, do some genuine good, make everyone feel good, and not rock any boat atall) and the recent Welsh nominate a cycle route thing, where it's unclear to me how much CTC have to do with it anyway.
> 
> So I looked at their website under campaigning. It features "fill that hole" -more classic win all round without upsetting anyone - but also "road justice" and "space for cycling", which sound good. So I looked at those two. Can you find a specific hard campaigning objective? I'm not dismissive of the strategy of sneaking change under the radar and getting to where you want with no one noticing; it's a good strategy. But sometimes you need someone actually to do something - change a law, for instance. That's where I increasingly see no appetite in CTC for doing anything that might rock their paymasters' boat.


From the last few weeks of their weekly email...
http://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/davidmurray/future-cycle-access-countryside
http://www.cyclinguk.org/news/20160630-mayor-promises-autumn-plan-safer-lorries
http://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/driver-training-testing-licensing
http://www.cyclinguk.org/publication/cycle-campaign-news-cycledigest/cycle-campaign-news-august-2016

And, from a few months ago they directly confronted government over the small proportion of the transport budget that went to cycling.
http://www.cyclinguk.org/news/20160523-cwis

Of course if you don't think they're doing enough it's always open to you to put yourself forward as a trustee....


----------



## swansonj (8 Sep 2016)

srw said:


> ....
> Of course if you don't think they're doing enough it's always open to you to put yourself forward as a trustee....


perhaps we could consult @dellzeqq and @User as to their views on the likely value of becoming a CTC/CUK trustee .


----------



## srw (8 Sep 2016)

swansonj said:


> perhaps we could consult @dellzeqq and @User as to their views on the likely value of becoming a CTC/CUK trustee .


We could, although with all respect to both gentlemen neither would be at the top of my list for people to turn to for their skills in coming to a negotiated compromise - which is what you need on a board of any kind. If you want someone to impose his or her will or be stroppy in a cause, or show deep and wide knowledge on a huge range of subjects on the other hand, both would be ideal. 

On paper at least a lot has changed for the better since their day, which was in the depths of the pre-restructure pre-professionalised CTC. The organisation is now one which has structures capable of producing strategic direction. I didn't do more than glance at the advert for many reasons - one of which was @dellzeqq and @User and their well-publicised poor experiences. On the other hand the fact that Philip Bedstead fared badly more recently was a positive attraction....


----------



## Venod (8 Sep 2016)

I have been a member of the CTC now cycling UK on a number of occasions throughout my cycling life mainly for the insurance (I know you don't realy need it to make a claim} I joined CTC rather than BCF as I was not racing and believed they had more of a connection to the ordinary cyclist.

What they have done reorganising and changing their name I look on as a positive move, especialy the name change, I always thought CTC was a bit misleading for what the organisation actualy carried out.

Good luck with the Touring Cycling Club but its not for me and I suspect a lot of others who are happy with Cycling UK, should I become a Touring Cyclist I would certainly be interested.


----------



## dellzeqq (8 Sep 2016)

Rob

As a CTC councillor I always thought that the members, who were the customers, should come first. The Fridays had a great deal from the CTC, and we signed a good number of people up - either as full members or affiliates. but now I'm simply one of many CTC customers, and, if a better deal is available elsewhere, I'll take it. 

I've never cared about the 'campaigning' (which is, in truth, lobbying), and I don't really want to pay for it. I can see that some people would want to make an affinity purchase, but it's not for me.

Is the insurance policy a third party policy? Do you have the policy to hand?

Are you intending to offer organisers insurance?

(We, along with many very senior CTC members, did try and get to the bottom of where the money went. The low point was being shown 'the full accounts' in which a sum of almost £200,000 was shown not broken down in any way. My companion on the day, a man who had been vice president of the CTC, a retired accountant, was at a complete loss...)


----------



## swansonj (8 Sep 2016)

srw said:


> From the last few weeks of their weekly email...
> http://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/davidmurray/future-cycle-access-countryside
> http://www.cyclinguk.org/news/20160630-mayor-promises-autumn-plan-safer-lorries
> http://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/driver-training-testing-licensing
> ...


See, if we just take your last example, the "directly confronting government" one, you feel it demonstrates that CUK are campaigning on the correct issues, but I simultaneously feel it vindicates suggestions of soft campaigning. Telling an all-party committee who already agree with you that we ought to spend more money? Delivering a letter to a Minister and getting it into the Times? Vociferously demanding that we need ... err ... a plan, a pathway and a strategy? It could certainly be a legitimate part of building momentum behind more focused campaigning, but honestly, it doesn't sound like the sort of thing to keep a minister awake at night. Or the civil servant/road planner/motoring lobby.


----------



## srw (8 Sep 2016)

swansonj said:


> you feel it demonstrates that CUK are campaigning on the correct issues,


No - I'm using it as an example of confronting the establishment, which is what you asked for. The establishment (if it exists - but that's another thread) don't really want to spend money on cycling.


----------



## swansonj (8 Sep 2016)

srw said:


> No - I'm using it as an example of confronting the establishment, which is what you asked for. The establishment (if it exists - but that's another thread) don't really want to spend money on cycling.


"Confront"? Honestly?


----------



## srw (8 Sep 2016)

swansonj said:


> "Confront"? Honestly?


That was my word, and in the context of polite British lobbying - yes.

Your challenge was to find something that rocks their paymasters' boat - which is rather weaker, and clearly fulfilled.


----------



## martint235 (8 Sep 2016)

srw said:


> No - I'm using it as an example of confronting the establishment, which is what you asked for. The establishment (if it exists - but that's another thread) don't really want to spend money on cycling.


This is part of my point. Do I want money spent on cycling? Yes. Do I want it spent on the stuff, for want of a better word and there are many, that CTC tells me it should be spent on? No. I'm pretty good at staying upright on two wheels. If we can't persuade motorists to just accept us, let's spend more on cyclist training rather than just going for segregation and "what problem"


----------



## snorri (8 Sep 2016)

srw said:


> From the last few weeks of their weekly email...


Of the five links you provide, only one is relevant nationwide and it doesn't say what is being done to make progress in achieving the aims described.


----------



## swansonj (9 Sep 2016)

srw said:


> That was my word, and in the context of polite British lobbying - yes.
> 
> Your challenge was to find something that rocks their paymasters' boat - which is rather weaker, and clearly fulfilled.


I think we've reached the point of respectfully agreeing to differ. You think there is evidence that CUK are willing to rock their paymasters' boat. I think the activities described will have made such small ripples that no boat at all was remotely disturbed.


----------



## srw (9 Sep 2016)

swansonj said:


> I think we've reached the point of respectfully agreeing to differ. You think there is evidence that CUK are willing to rock their paymasters' boat. I think the activities described will have made such small ripples that no boat at all was remotely disturbed.


I agree to disagree. But I'm slightly surprised you think that the approach is new or has changed much over the last many years.

But if you'll forgive me I'll disagree more vehemently with @martint235, who is missing the point that cycle campaigning and membership organisations aren't all about what he wants personally. The reaons CUK decided to campaign for stuff on the roads is because that's what the public tell them they want. And although I recognise @snorri's concern that was a random and biassed sample from 5 emails. They send 52 emails out per year.


(And if anyone thinks I'm defending CUK uncritically - stop thinking like that. It's not true. I'm in the business of opening minds to alternative possibilities and ways of looking at the world.)


----------



## swansonj (30 Sep 2016)

Has anyone else looked at the voting form for CTC Trustees in the latest Cycling? If anyone doubts the extent and the thoroughness of the transformation of CTC from a members organisation to a self-perpetuating professional charity, look no further than the nominations procedure; the history of the various candidates' involvement in CTC or even cycling; and the things they choose to emphasise in their statements.


----------



## robgul (2 Oct 2016)

dellzeqq said:


> Rob
> 
> As a CTC councillor I always thought that the members, who were the customers, should come first. The Fridays had a great deal from the CTC, and we signed a good number of people up - either as full members or affiliates. but now I'm simply one of many CTC customers, and, if a better deal is available elsewhere, I'll take it.
> 
> ...



Apologies for the delay in commenting - I've been off the air here for a few weeks. The key questions you ask are about insurance - quick answers:

YES to a TP policy for individual members (available as an optional add-on to the basic membership at a cost of £10 - 12 per annum) It's taking longer than we wished to get it finalised ... but as our paid membership is now at several hundred (from launch on 5 August - a notable date in cycle touring) we should be able to get it sorted very quickly

DUNNO to Organisers' Insurance - that obviously depends on member feedback (see below) but probably not in the short term as an offer for other clubs (which is what I think you are asking) . . .the more likely scenario is that we will have organisers' insurance for events run by TCC members.

We will be planning a meeting for all interested paid-up members of the Touring Cycle Club in Birmingham towards the end of November . . .we'll be broadcasting the date and details to all TCC members and the many hundreds that have expressed an interest in what we are doing (obviously with the opportunity to join before the meeting) The agenda will be a progress report and a structured process for all interested parties to give their ideas . . .and to appoint a "group" of volunteers [We have yet to decide on the expression for the group .... Committee ?... Board ?. . . . Council (I think not!) ]

So watch this space - we have printed materials available from about 15 October and will hopefully have editorial coverage in various forms of medis - traditonal print and online.

We really welcome ideas, comments, feedback - please go to the website (which has scant information at the moment - the resource for TCC members will be behind a log-in, just general information for public viewing) for an online response form - and join the Forum - all at www.touringcyclistclub.org.uk 

Rob


----------



## robgul (8 Oct 2016)

UPDATE - meeting for members on Saturday 19 November 2016 in Birmingham - see the website for details

Rob


----------



## swansonj (24 Jul 2018)

Random choice of thread to resurrect to say:

The Aug/Sep issue of Cycle contains a timeline of “landmark dates and achievements “ of Cycling UK. 

Guess what. Not a single mention of charity conversion.


----------



## theclaud (24 Jul 2018)

swansonj said:


> Random choice of thread to resurrect to say:
> 
> The Aug/Sep issue of Cycle contains a timeline of “landmark dates and achievements “ of Cycling UK.
> 
> Guess what. Not a single mention of charity conversion.


I struggled to get past the double-page Jeremy Hunt spread...


----------



## raleighnut (25 Jul 2018)

theclaud said:


> I struggled to get past the double-page Jeremy Hunt spread...


----------



## Drago (25 Jul 2018)

My copy of their ad rag went in the bin unread.


----------



## hoppym27 (25 Jul 2018)

robgul said:


> UPDATE at 1 June 2016
> 
> These are the key points - please go to UPDATES at http://www.touringcyclistclub.org.uk for more details:
> 
> ...



I might have missed something but i stumbled on this thread and clicked on the link, it just took me to some online shop selling canadian hockey and american football replica kit???


----------



## theclaud (25 Jul 2018)

raleighnut said:


>


Zactly. There were no spoiler tags or anything.


----------



## Milkfloat (25 Jul 2018)

hoppym27 said:


> I might have missed something but i stumbled on this thread and clicked on the link, it just took me to some online shop selling canadian hockey and american football replica kit???




It seems it did not go anywhere, a bit like CTC/Cycling UK.


----------



## snorri (25 Jul 2018)

hoppym27 said:


> I might have missed something but i stumbled on this thread and clicked on the link, it just took me to some online shop selling canadian hockey and american football replica kit???


The website you visited was that of an organisation set up as an alternative to the CTC for those disappointed in some major changes in the CTC organisation. It would appear that the new organisation failed to gain sufficient support to continue. Why a disused website address would be taken over by a business unconnected with cycle touring, I don't know.

Edit What Milkfloat said in fewer words.


----------



## robgul (25 Jul 2018)

snorri said:


> The website you visited was that of an organisation set up as an alternative to the CTC for those disappointed in some major changes in the CTC organisation. It would appear that the new organisation failed to gain sufficient support to continue. Why a disused website address would be taken over by a business unconnected with cycle touring, I don't know.
> 
> Edit What Milkfloat said in fewer words.



Your surmise is correct - lots of interest and a group enlisted to develop the idea - but when it came to any work, commitment or contribution the enthusiasm waned. 
As one of the joint founders we decided to close the project . . . we were also thwarted by CTC's insurer (a monopoly) creating insurmountable barriers for a member insurance offer which was key to the plan.
The website domain name has lapsed and through the mysteries of the internet companies harvest these names and display odd stuff - nothing do with us guv!

Rob


----------



## hoppym27 (25 Jul 2018)

robgul said:


> Your surmise is correct - lots of interest and a group enlisted to develop the idea - but when it came to any work, commitment or contribution the enthusiasm waned.
> As one of the joint founders we decided to close the project . . . we were also thwarted by CTC's insurer (a monopoly) creating insurmountable barriers for a member insurance offer which was key to the plan.
> The website domain name has lapsed and through the mysteries of the internet companies harvest these names and display odd stuff - nothing do with us guv!
> 
> Rob



Ahhh..Ok..thanks for clearing that up...shame it never took off though although I do know how difficult these type of things are to get off the ground so I do understand the challenges


----------



## srw (25 Jul 2018)

robgul said:


> CTC's insurer (a monopoly


Insurers are never a monopoly. Someone, somewhere, would have been persuadable if you'd pitched up with the right proposition.


----------



## srw (25 Jul 2018)

User13710 said:


> Even if threatened with the loss of a massive client if they took on a tiny minnow?


"Someone, somewhere".

Yes, the insurer that covers CUK might not have been willing, but someone, somewhere would have been with the right proposition. Of course, the proposition on offer might not have been the right proposition for an insurer, but blaming insurers for the unwillingness of the challengers to put together an attractive package for members is a cop-out.


----------



## srw (26 Jul 2018)

User13710 said:


> That's odd, I always thought insurance companies were there to help their clients and give them peace of mind, not to blame them for not 'putting together the right package'.


A club looking to intermediate insurance for its members isn't the client, it's the distributor. It will be making money from the sale of insurance. The members are the (potential) clients.

Would you blame the entire food distribution industry if you waltzed into Tesco and they refused to offer you a discount so you could set up your own shop? No. You would look around until you found a wholesaler who was happy to work with you. Or you might accept that starting a shop is not the simple proposition you thought.


----------



## robgul (26 Jul 2018)

I'm not proposing to make any further comment after this as, per usual, the "experts with no facts" are posting. The reasons that the plan was stopped were as detailed in my recent post :

- initial enthusiasm from a core group that failed to materialise as contribution and input when it came to the point to get moving.

- failure to secure an insurance offering which was a key requirement indicated by the initial research. We spent a lot of time pursuing possibilities although almost all avenues came back to the same broker (Butterworth Spengler) for whichever company (or cycling organisation) and they refused on the basis of QUOTE: "conflict with our other major clients" - the ONLY option we found was for cover linked to a very expensive (aren't they all?) bicycle theft cover product which would not have worked. IF there had been immediate volume in tens of thousands then the situation would have doubtless been different.

We gave it a good shot and it didn't work - our efforts were on an unpaid basis and after very minimal costs the balance of the modest funds contributed was donated to charity (NOT CTC!) that has relevance to cycling.

It's unfortunate that the lapsing of the domain name has led to the current content - on reflection to have paid the annual domain registration fee of about £5 a year for a few more years would have been a good idea. [I did look yesterday to see if there was any way that we could retrieve it but there isn't]

That's it - over and out!

Rob


----------



## hoppym27 (26 Jul 2018)

Sorry but 'Over and Out' isn't a correct way to sign off :0

Over is an invitation to reply but Out is end of transmission....you can't invite someone to rpely but end the transmission....it annoys me on military based films etc when they do this....everyone who has served knows this is not correct


----------



## Drago (26 Jul 2018)

It'll also get the pish ripped put of you in the ham radio world.


----------



## theclaud (26 Jul 2018)

Drago said:


> It'll also get the pish ripped put of you in the ham radio world.



Oh no! That must cut to the quick.


----------



## PaulSB (26 Jul 2018)

Domain acquisition is a strange thing. My club was slow to renew .co.uk and it was nicked off us. We now have .com and ring fenced various others. 

The .co.uk addresss sells shoes. Bizarre.


----------



## Venod (28 Jul 2018)

Drago said:


> My copy of their ad rag went in the bin unread.



Retrieve it, and read the excellent piece "The Fire Still Burns" by Richard Baynes, well worth a scrummage the dustbin.


----------



## Pale Rider (30 Jul 2018)

robgul said:


> The website domain name has lapsed and through the mysteries of the internet companies harvest these names and display odd stuff - nothing do with us guv!
> 
> Rob



That site looks dodgy to me, lots and lots of items all heavily discounted, no direct contact details, and what's with using 'org' as part of the main title on the front page?

You probably know more about how sites work than me, but I think you need to be able to prove exactly when you lost control of the name, in case there is a stewards' inquiry about the 'new' site.

Also worth removing it from your sig line - you don't want to be accused of continuing to promote it.


----------

