No more CTC technical officer ** NO HOAX **

[TonyR]

Rather unfortunate that the CTC e-newsletter just sent out has the subject line "New year, new career?" Insensitive in the circumstances?

[Vorpal]

... An argument could be made that they did consult you. First, there were two votes over becoming a charity, for which most members weren't even bothered enough about to return their ballots....

With something as significant as the changes being proposed (i.e. taking both the "Touring" and "Club" out of "Cycle Touring Club"), was there not some minimum quorum level set ? So those proposing the change had to get a minimum level of supporting votes across all members rather than just those responding.

I would be quite horrified if it was done just as a higher number of votes cast one way or the other !!

Ian

There was a great deal of discussion at the time. Your guide to the charity conversion vote is located at
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=49182
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=59744
There is quite a lot of information in the various threads of the Charity debate section.

[thirdcrank]

... With something as significant as the changes being proposed (i.e. taking both the "Touring" and "Club" out of "Cycle Touring Club"), was there not some minimum quorum level set ? So those proposing the change had to get a minimum level of supporting votes across all members rather than just those responding.

I would be quite horrified if it was done just as a higher number of votes cast one way or the other !! ...

A vorpal says, this was thoroughly discussed at the time and not only on here (all archived for light reading )but the "No" campaign also had a separate website. A substantially higher figure than a simple majority required (I can't remember the %age but it doesn't matter.) to change the rules but that was eventually achieved.

That's really history now, in that there's no mechanism for "unconversion."

The continuing future of the CTC isn't history. There's a difference between a political election and a vote like the CTC charity conversion. In a political election, the winner gets to run things and has the means of raising the dosh from taxation etc. The losers and those people who abstain for whatever reason can grumble but to little point, and they still have to stump up. Not so with a vote like this. The winners take control but that doesn't automatically bring in the dosh. The losers, abstainers and indeed voters on the winning side are free to look elsewhere.

[PH]

The latest edition of ClubShorts, the Newsletter for Member Groups, gives some of the reasoning for this decision.
-the first change that we've made is to create a team dedicated to supporting CTC Member Groups, campaign groups and other cycling groups.
it talks about helping with publicity and promotion, be interesting to see how that works out, my local group could certainly do with some help attracting new riders. It also talks about the decreasing demand for a technical helpline, I don't know how much this has decreased, but I'm not surprised.
So I'm wavering from my initial reaction. I think it's a loss to not have access to the technical expertise, and I'm not sure that a way couldn't have been found to keep it and increase the support for local groups. But if it did come to that choice, I'm not sure which way I'd have chosen.

[Si]

With something as significant as the changes being proposed (i.e. taking both the "Touring" and "Club" out of "Cycle Touring Club"),

Where exactly has this been proposed?
If we are talking bout the name then the Cyclists' Touring Club because just the CTC quite a while back.
If we are talking about what the CTC does then the announcement of further support for MGs surely suggests that National Office is concerned with those people who want to get out there and ride their bikes for fun.
If we are just saying that the CTC shouldn't be campaigning then as has already been said several times: the CTC has always been a campaigning organisation.
If we are talking about the club becoming a membership charity then that has been done to death several times and is not what is being proposed now.

[gaz]

CJ was engaged in writing a national CTC document of best practice in group ride and tour leading. I don't know who will be tasked with finishing the guide but without it I can't see the informal basis on which Member Group ride leaders are trained lasting much longer.

My own thoughts, nothing more.

[Si]

The CTC does a training course in leading MG type rides, and another one in leading tours, thus I'd assume that they have the necessary know-how and documentation to produce such an article.

[mjr]

There's details of the porpoised name change sat viewtopic.php?f=48&t=78803&p=839190#p839190

[Si]

There's details of the porpoised name change sat viewtopic.php?f=48&t=78803&p=839190#p839190

But that is not dropping "Touring" and "Club" from the name, and is for the trading name.

[Paddyreason]

Scientists call Wilipedia "White bread for the brain", it's a pity CTC is following suit by withdrawing the technical advice and CJs many years of knowledge. They didn't consult and I agree with other posts - how can a reputable organisation not have a technical side when technology is moving so quickly. It is only offering the same web/nag as British Cycling now and they offer insurance.

[pga]

I heard the news about Chris Juden on today's club run. Sad and disappointed that the CTC is resorting to the kind of behaviour usually associated with big business rather than with a national club that now claims to be a charity. I have known Chris on and off for many years. Even for riders of my generation, who took pride in knowing all there was about cycle mechanics, there were times when we looked to Chris for sound advice, in my case for example baby seats and trailers bikes. Today the cycle industry has managed, whether deliberately of by default, to generally make cycle mechanics difficult for the old hands and incomprehensible for new ones, many of whom cannot even mend a puncture. Most cycle shops today do not understand, let alone cater for the needs of touring cyclists. There are one or two notable exceptions but the list gets shorter every year. In my part of the world we have just lost Byers Cycles who served us well over many years.

In such circumstances it is even more important to have a technical expert at CTC HQ who can provide sound unbiased technical advice both to individual CTC members on request and to the general CTC membership by a regular section in Cycle. The role is also important in providing a standard response to inquiries from national and local government on wider issues, such as cycle parking, cycles on public transport, lighting and the like.

On a personal level I hope that Chris is treated to a decent redundancy package. He has served the CTC for many years and this needs to be recognised.

Finally, like many of you I am worried at the direction the CTC is taking. After some years of lapsed membership I have rejoined British Cycling as I feel that it is doing more for cycling than the CTC. This applies not just to the racing successes but also to the Sky, Breeze and Social R ides and, equally as important, campaigning for better cycling conditions.

Some of you may have noticed that the BC website now advertises CTC rides and other rides by non BC affliated cycling groups. This facility not only advertises rides to a wider audience but offers easy advance booking and prepayment if needed - very useful if you are an organiser. On the other hand there may be some of you who prefer to see your CTC group as a select group of friends. Fair enough, but look around and check the average age of your group. Cycling is changing like the world around it and it needs to respond or die, like many of the top cycling clubs of my youth, such as the Southampton Wheelers.

Enough ranting. Have a good Christmas and New Year.


(check reviews in other cycling magazines, where even the colour of the handlebar tape is regarded as an important issue)

[mjr]

There's details of the porpoised name change sat viewtopic.php?f=48&t=78803&p=839190#p839190

But that is not dropping "Touring" and "Club" from the name, and is for the trading name.

The trading name is currently "CTC, the national cycling charity", isn't it? So you feel "Touring" and "Club" are still in the name, even if it's never used in public by the organisation any more except for its corporate registrations?

[Psamathe]

There's details of the porpoised name change sat viewtopic.php?f=48&t=78803&p=839190#p839190

But that is not dropping "Touring" and "Club" from the name, and is for the trading name.

The trading name is currently "CTC, the national cycling charity", isn't it? So you feel "Touring" and "Club" are still in the name, even if it's never used in public by the organisation any more except for its corporate registrations?

If you look at the bottom of club's home page you well see "Cyclists' Touring Club (CTC):A company limited by guarantee ... Registered as a charity ...".

When I joined I king of assumed it was about Touring and was a Club. Obviously the "Touring" and "Club" in the "Cyclists' Touring Club" were not actually the case.

Ian

[Si]

As I said - that's a trading name - the actual name at the top is 'CTC' as it was before the charity change.

And the other question is, of course, what aspects of 'touring' do you believe they have dropped, and have you communicated this to your Councillor?

[JohnW]

I have just been told the CTC have decided they don't need anybody on the staff who is expert in bike technical matters, or even touring, come to that.
Is this a hoax?

It's not a hoax - it was discussed at our recent section committee meeting, along with the CTC's decision not to replace the retiring touring officer.

The general (although not quite unanimous) view of the committee members present was that this endorses what has been rumoured for some time, that the CTC has no interest in members or the reason for the founding of the club, and some said that they would remain members only as long as our own current local structure was maintained. In days of yore (and mine in the 50s/60s, and as far as I know long before that) the CTC was known among us as "this great family of ours".

In our section we retain our family atmosphere and approach but it was felt that the CTC at HQ level were not interested in that. One member said that one option could be to secede from CTC and find a way of continuing as we are but under the BC banner. Personally I find this upsetting as I believe that we need to maintain, and even increase, membership if the current campaigning is to continue and prosper. It would also be as well if we all took our fingers out and gave the campaigners concrete support.

Another thought was that CTC and BC, instead of being in competition with each other, could join campaigning forces and resources, and sing from the same hymnsheet all of the time.

To answer Si's question above, our section secretary has written to Council.