CTC No more

[Arrowfoot]

Now that the thing that used to be CTC is a charity rather than a club, it can no longer offer exclusive benefits to its members. And with recent moves to stop charities using government funding to campaign for anything at all meaningful it seems there's no longer a role for whatever the thing that used to be called CTC is called now. Apart from collecting people's subscriptions and squirrelling them away for god knows what.

Best summary ever. 100% with you.

 

[srw]

Well, as an outsider, and not being privy to all the machinations inside the world of cycling politics in the UK, it seems to me that it was about time that the CTC became something more like an effective campaigning voice for cyclists and less of a private club, so I am generally in favour of the rebranding as an idea. I used to be involved in all kinds of activism when I did live in Britain (including for better transport) and the CTC never seemed to be much use, even though there were a few good people who did work for it. But whether this is the right rebranding, whether the right people are running the revamped organisation, and whether it will be effective in its new guise... I have no idea.

Best summary ever. 100% with you.




(sorry, @Arrowfoot)

(But my observation is that there's a decent chance that quite a lot of people will look back in five years time and wonder what the hell all of the fuss was about. And, as I posted on another thread, if the inevitable Philip Bedstead is against it's probably a decent idea. I'd also point out that the club was always a representative democracy. Council were given pretty much absolute carte blanche to do what they wanted within the constiution and didn't need to consult the membership. I don't think the members were consulted about the change from "Cylists' Touring Club" to "CTC" - but nevertheless the proposition that "Cycling UK" should be used as a trading name is going to be put to the AGM.(

 

[srw]

Can I say 'I told you so...'?

Do you have evidence for that?

(And @Moderators - it strikes me that the thread title is inaccurate. The CTC still exists, but is proposing to use a different trading name.)

 

[mybike]

I recall that when I joined, back in the '60's you were told that if you let your membership lapse you couldn't rejoin. Oh well.

 

[Arrowfoot]

(sorry, @Arrowfoot)

(But my observation is that there's a decent chance that quite a lot of people will look back in five years time and wonder what the hell all of the fuss was about. And, as I posted on another thread, if the inevitable Philip Bedstead is against it's probably a decent idea. I'd also point out that the club was always a representative democracy. Council were given pretty much absolute carte blanche to do what they wanted within the constiution and didn't need to consult the membership. I don't think the members were consulted about the change from "Cylists' Touring Club" to "CTC" - but nevertheless the proposition that "Cycling UK" should be used as a trading name is going to be put to the AGM.(

The rebranding is actually a minor issue. CTC was a cycling club with history, numbers and more importantly wide geographic representation. It therefore made sense to be the defacto voice for the cycling community. In time it did become the official voice for the cycling community and while remaining a cycling club. The current CEO had spent the last 30 years running charities. He turned CTC into one with the semblance of a cycling club vaporising. The focus was similar to charities - fundraising, campaigning, lobbying, meeting political identities and rubbing shoulders etc. Some people love that sort of thing. The core membership however lost its club. The fact that the membership found about the re-branding from the press is a shocker and tells that they have no or little time for their members.

Advocacy and campaigning is important but CTC could have done that and continue to provide Club activity focus and be a members club. Why are we a charity in the first place? As TMN rightly pointed out on the new rules on grant. Have they not got themselves into a pickle. I am hopeful that Rob and Dennis can bring the affiliates and their membership over to the new place.

 

[Drago]

Remember when Norwich Union became Aviva?

No? Neither does anyone else, and they're doing quite nicely.

 

[tommaguzzi]

Like many i initally joined the CTC for the insurance but after a couple of injuries which permenantly slowed me down I started to do club rides with them which i still enjoy. Everyone turns up to ride there is no talk of campaigns or lobbying. I have just done a quick search and easily found the same 3rd party cover for half the price of CTC membership. I quite liked being a member of an old original cycling club but am not too sure about CUK.
I am certain some of the more crusty old members will rebel at such change, maybe everyone will just organise their own insurance leave CUk and form another club called The Cyclists Touring Club 2016. and carry on just as they always have done winged wheel and all.

 

[PK99]

Remember when Norwich Union became Aviva?

No? Neither does anyone else, and they're doing quite nicely.

I do. I had a NU life policy and got a cash payout far in excess of anything I had paid.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

It was a club, a national club with local groups everywhere run by volunteers who have lately been treated with complete contempt by the new management. The CTC used to run the Birthday Rides and the York Rally, which were the touring equivalents of other national clubs' time trials and annual race championships. The CTC also ran touring holidays that were cheap and family oriented. All hived off to a linked Plc now. I think touring cyclists like me, who have no interest in racing or other sport-based aspects of the cycling world, are poorly served at the moment. But there is another hope on the horizon, as outlined in the thread in the Touring forum on here.

The problem is that for many years the CTC has been trying to present itself as 'the voice' for cyclists in general. And as such it was pretty woeful. The dual role was not making for an effective campaigning organisation. Even Sustrans was more effective, which I believe was to the detriment of most everyday cyclists. If a choice had to be made, my view is that given the huge expansion in numbers of everyday cyclists who aren't (primarily) cycle-tourists but just commuters and people who ride bikes on a daily basis for practical reasons, the role of being a national advocate for all cyclists is more important these days than being a super-club for cycle-tourists, sad though that will be sad to some, I recognise. But as you say, people who want that latter kind of organise can do it themselve, and perhaps they will probably be better off that way, because you'll be able to make an organisation exactly as you wish. That's my optimistic view. I'm just not quite so optimistic that the rebranded CTC can become the effective lobby that I'd like...

 

[Arrowfoot]

Like many i initally joined the CTC for the insurance but after a couple of injuries which permenantly slowed me down I started to do club rides with them which i still enjoy. Everyone turns up to ride there is no talk of campaigns or lobbying. I have just done a quick search and easily found the same 3rd party cover for half the price of CTC membership. I quite liked being a member of an old original cycling club but am not too sure about CUK.
I am certain some of the more crusty old members will rebel at such change, maybe everyone will just organise their own insurance leave CUk and form another club called The Cyclists Touring Club 2016. and carry on just as they always have done winged wheel and all.

In more ways than one the Insurance has been the glue for CTC since the Charity bender. If the new Touring Club can get hold of decent insurance cover, it might be the catalyst. Worth trying to work with British Cycling and their Insurance.

 

[snorri]

Can I say 'I told you so...'?

You can indeed, unfortunately you were unable to waken the sleeping members who still make up the majority of the membership

 

[Shut Up Legs]

This sounds like what Bicycle Victoria did in the state of Victoria, in Australia.

Up until several years ago, they were Bicycle Victoria. Then they decided, without consulting their members, to change the name to Bicycle Network Victoria. Then a few years later, again without consulting their members, changed the name again to Bicycle Network. Since then, they've been expanding, to the detriment of some other cycling organisations (at least, in my opinion). Unfortunately, the so-called cycling advocacy organisations over here are a disjointed, argumentative and uncooperative lot.

I quit Bicycle Victoria in disgust a few years ago, and joined Audax instead, because they also offer the 3rd-party incident insurance, which was the only thing from Bicycle Victoria that I really used, anyway. Bicycle Victoria don't stand up to any of the motoring advocacy organisations (e.g. the RACV: Royal Automobile Club of Victoria) or the government, so they're (again, in my opinion) pretty ineffective.

OK, rant over.

Regards,

--- Victor.

 

[snorri]

If anyone is interested, there is a group on Facebook called "Where Should CTC be Going" which is really just a rumour mill due to the failure of CTC HQ to disseminate any information to members regarding their plans for any part of the organisation.

 

[PaulSB]

I can't help but feel CTC lost its way and relevance many years ago or possibly that should be failed to move with the times.

To explain, I've ridden off and on all my life and over the last 20 years ridden more and more. I ride solo, club rides, sportives and a couple of tours each year plus I'm a committee member for my club. I feel I'm quite active.

I first joined CTC when I was nervously planning LEJOG - I needed a resource but found it quite difficult to get any info. I've since discovered touring only needs a map, a start point and a daily plan. That of course is what experience and confidence gives.

Having discovered the insurance I stuck with CTC. Apart from this all I received was a largely, to me, poorly written magazine.

I joined the forums and tried to become involved. What I encountered was a group of unpleasant individuals who seemed to revel in their superior knowledge. I well remember commenting on how I believed when my brand new helmet cracked in four places after a 20mph crash it saved me from serious injury. This led to a barrage of posts attempting to prove by wearing a helmet I had turned myself in to a dangerous cyclist who took uneccessary risks. In fact I hit a rut on a club run descent!!! I mentioned this in the discussion- my crash wouldn't have occurred if I'd been riding alone or so I was told!!!!!

I found I had to join BC for more and more events. Something I object to but that's life. With BC providing insurance my CTC membership lapsed.

I've been a Sustrans supporter for 30 years or so and in terms of providing for me as an individual cyclist I feel this is by far the most worthwhile organisation.

CTC left me with the overall impression without a deep knowledge of cycling, weather beaten kit, a set of very old panniers and the accompanying knowledge of widgets I simply wasn't welcome.

I'm sure many on here will hold very different views and I don't mean to be disparaging but try to explain my experience. CTC sold good insurance but gave me nothing for my membership. It's rooted deep in the past and for me irrelevant.

The members on here have helped me learn more on cycling than CTC or any organisation.

It's a great shame because I love the idea of a modern vibrant organisation with a strong history working for the benefit of all cyclists.

 

[Flick of the Elbow]

I wonder where this leaves CTC Scotland ? Were they consulted on this ? Do they now become We Are Cycling UK Scotland ? Or We are Cycling Scotland ? Or do they have an option to carry on as CTC Scotland ? Perhaps now is the time for independence from the Surrey based charity that is no longer a club.