The direction of the CTC , yay or nay

[fishfright]

Given the debate going on about the direction the CTC is heading i thought id make a quick look see pole . Are you troubled by the journey from a club centered around its members to a corporate pressure group / cycling charity or do you support the new direction?

[beardy]

No, I dont like the direction. The Club (as it was then) had a vote on it and the direction was decided by the membership at that point. The decision was final as becoming a Charity doesnt allow us (or our assets) to return to being a Club. The deed has already been done.

[Mick F]

No, I don't like it either.

I was going to not renew my membership and go elsewhere .............. but in the end, I stayed a member.
I'm only here for the beer (sorry, insurance)

[robgul]

Interestingly I found that I had a copy of the book about the CTC after the first 100 years (that was in 1978) - skimming through the first few chapters I got an immense feeling of deja vu with management in-fighting and, IIRC, a 66 person (!!!) Council that seemed to have very little say in what actually went on.

Rob

[Si]

Yes, the CTC has always been a "pressure" group (I omit the word "corporate" as used in the OP as this is a complete red herring...emotive terms like this do little to progress level headed debate). And there has always been much angst within the CTC about where it was going right from the get-go. It is certainly true that the way that the CTC has campaigned has changed but that has been because the arena in which campaigning takes place has changed.

However I do object to where it is going. For me it has of late spent much too much of its time trying to cater for 'traditional' CTC members and not enough time trying to make utility cycling more widespread and accepted in the UK. If we continue to follow the blinkered view of just catering for a very small number of touring and leisure cyclists then cycling remains a niche hobby and cyclists never get the respect and facilities that they ought to have. If, on the other hand, the CTC gets the country cycling then we all win.

[PH]

For me it has of late spent much too much of its time trying to cater for 'traditional' CTC members and not enough time trying to make utility cycling more widespread and accepted in the UK.

I'm not sure I understand what you consider to be too much of it's time, maybe some examples. A fair proportion of CTC income comes from those traditional members, and of those I've met a majority also cycle for utility to different degrees. A lot of those traditional members consider too little is being done to cater for their interests.
Things are changing, there have always been different elements to the organisation, but the emphasis seems to have changed and they do seem to be getting further apart. If it were two separate organisations, a touring club (Which has probably always been niche) and an organisation promoting cycling as a means of transport, I'd choose to be a member of or supporter of both. The messages from National Office to those traditional members are mixed, we're told how much they value the heritage but little seems to be being done to promote or preserve it. We hear how the local groups are an important part of the organisation, yet for a few quid and no commitment a new club can get preferential treatment. My vote was wait and see, but I have considerable doubt that the CTC is big enough to be as diverse as it seems to want to be.

[TonyR]

However I do object to where it is going. For me it has of late spent much too much of its time trying to cater for 'traditional' CTC members and not enough time trying to make utility cycling more widespread and accepted in the UK. If we continue to follow the blinkered view of just catering for a very small number of touring and leisure cyclists then cycling remains a niche hobby and cyclists never get the respect and facilities that they ought to have. If, on the other hand, the CTC gets the country cycling then we all win.

My perception is the opposite - that it is spending a lot of time now trying to make cycling more widespread. That was certainly very much the theme at the meeting I went to in Coventry recently.

[Si]

At the meeting I recently went to in Coventry (well, just out side) the themes seemed to be promoting member and affiliated groups (ie minority leisure cycling - despite attempts to subvert it), promoting special needs cycling ( even more of a minority), and local campaigning ( non-minority). Thus 2/3rds for minority cycling and one third that supports majority cycling.

[PH]

At the meeting I recently went to in Coventry (well, just out side) the themes seemed to be promoting member and affiliated groups (ie minority leisure cycling - despite attempts to subvert it), promoting special needs cycling ( even more of a minority), and local campaigning ( non-minority). Thus 2/3rds for minority cycling and one third that supports majority cycling.

I was at the same conference and you did a fine job of subverting it, though that they gave you the time and space knowing your theme suggests it wasn’t much of a subversion.
Even by your own calculations only 1/3 of it was "trying to cater for 'traditional' CTC members" and I'd suggest that a fair bit of that third was applicable to anyone trying to promote cycling outside of that niche.

[Si]

they gave you the time and space knowing your theme

Oh no they didn't! My theme was meant to be social media

But the day was a member's conference. Most of the focus was on member groups (be they traditional, affiliate, or 'inclusive') rather than selling cycling to the wider public. I've nothing against supporting member groups but my view is that recreating more members in their image does little to make cycling mainstream. However supporting member groups that want to take on the problem by doing campaigning, by doing proper beginner's rides, by teaching people to ride, by promoting utility cycling, etc will help this (and it'll also make being part of a member group more appealing to many).

[PH]

I've nothing against supporting member groups but my view is that recreating more members in their image does little to make cycling mainstream. However supporting member groups that want to take on the problem by doing campaigning, by doing proper beginner's rides, by teaching people to ride, by promoting utility cycling, etc will help this (and it'll also make being part of a member group more appealing to many).

I don't disagree with any of that. But looking at the aim of the big projects over the last few years, I can't see how you make the case in your original post.

[Si]

I was looking at things like the new "members conference" itself, things like the new "MG developer kit" or whatever you call it, ride leader training courses (for club rides), the push over the last year or so to re-engage with members, etc. Longer term I was looking at the on-going support for MGs...I realise that a lot of people don't believe that there is any, but there is (even if you'll don't that it works very well). And the exclusivity of MGs.

[Philip Benstead]

Governance survey, I just heard there has been over 5,000 replies to this.

[Psamathe]

Governance survey, I just heard there has been over 5,000 replies to this.

But giving what response ? Agreeing/approving or disapproval ?

Ian

[PH]

I was looking at things like the new "members conference" itself, things like the new "MG developer kit" or whatever you call it, ride leader training courses (for club rides), the push over the last year or so to re-engage with members, etc. Longer term I was looking at the on-going support for MGs...I realise that a lot of people don't believe that there is any, but there is (even if you'll don't that it works very well). And the exclusivity of MGs.

We’ll have to disagree on this one, I appreciate those things that are being done for MGs (And affiliated groups as for a lot of that they are treated the same) but strongly disagree that this is in any way too much.
The £200 flat rate allocation grant received by all MGs that apply for it, amounts to a small proportion of the subs paid, in my area it works out at around 30p per member or £3.50 per member participating in the MGs activities. The value of the CTC’s support has obviously been considered by those groups leaving and found to be not such great value after all. My MG sent two of us to the members conference, and four of us took part in the ride leadership workshops. In both cases some of the people involved are interested in doing stuff outside of that niche of traditional members.