It's all in the name - Cyclists' TOURING club

[gaz]

BTW, in case anyone missed it, an announcement was made some time ago that the outcome of the rebranding exercise was that, having listened to the Membership, it was decided not to undertake a major rebranding project.

I missed that announcement . Does it mean that there will be a minor rebranding project?

[thirdcrank]

...I missed that announcement . Does it mean that there will be a minor rebranding project?

It's just taken place:

... We are small fish in a big pond trying to fight our corner

[Penfolds11]

You should contact your local CTC councillor at
Http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/fil ... list_0.pdf

Well, I clicked on that link and got a "Page not found" landing with the message "Unfortunately, we do not have the page you were looking for at this location. However, please use the search form below to find this page elsewhere on the website".

[gaz]

Use http://www.ctc.org.uk/about-ctc/ctc-nat ... on-council or http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/fil ... list_0.pdf

[gaz]

Small Fish.png

[Psamathe]

Use http://www.ctc.org.uk/about-ctc/ctc-nat ... on-council or http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/fil ... list_0.pdf

Interesting that the Head Office only give premium rate phone numbers. I can call a standard UK landline number (01, 02, 03) for free but the 0844 numbers cost everybody. Does not "invite" communications. Add that most 0844 numbers give a "kick-back" so the CTC not only forces a caller to pay but they (should be) making money on the call as well.

I suppose in a small way that illustrates my point.

So given that 08 numbers are "phantom" and link to a real landline number, why not publish the real number (and accept you wont make money on incoming calls).

Ian

[Si]

Use http://www.ctc.org.uk/about-ctc/ctc-nat ... on-council or http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/fil ... list_0.pdf

Interesting that the Head Office only give premium rate phone numbers.

If you look at the contacts page on the main ctc website you'll find several local rate numbers.

[mjr]

So given that 08 numbers are "phantom" and link to a real landline number, why not publish the real number (and accept you wont make money on incoming calls).

I can tell you two possible answers: 1. it used to be unusual that 01/02/03 were cheaper than 084 and people keep numbers as long as possible to try to reduce disruption; and 2. most 08 numbers can be redirected to different 01/02/03 numbers depending on who's available and some providers are willing to do this in exchange for keeping the 0844 charges. My main co-op used to rely on redirection before we had VoIP to multiple offices (which means we can now redirect the 01 number to different members without costing us a fortune), else if you called the 01, you were basically relying on HQ having a line+worker free to take the call. If not, you got voicemail and people don't seem to like that.

[Psamathe]

So given that 08 numbers are "phantom" and link to a real landline number, why not publish the real number (and accept you wont make money on incoming calls).

I can tell you two possible answers: 1. it used to be unusual that 01/02/03 were cheaper than 084 and people keep numbers as long as possible to try to reduce disruption; and 2. most 08 numbers can be redirected to different 01/02/03 numbers depending on who's available and some providers are willing to do this in exchange for keeping the 0844 charges. My main co-op used to rely on redirection before we had VoIP to multiple offices (which means we can now redirect the 01 number to different members without costing us a fortune), else if you called the 01, you were basically relying on HQ having a line+worker free to take the call. If not, you got voicemail and people don't seem to like that.

Which is why 03 numbers were introduced.

Most (customer focused) organisations using 08 numbers also publish 01/02/03 numbers (everywhere). When I lived in France my landline was provided by France Telecom and you could not dial 08 numbers (incl. 0845 and 0844). Maybe it's changed recently, but the 08 number ranges often have issues calling internationally (which is why e.g. credit card companies/banks/etc. also publish 01/02/03 numbers). Also, some companied block outgoing calls to chargeable 08 numbers.

Ian

[mjr]

I need an answer from the critical contributors on this site

what do you want the CTC to be and do
I need details not just wording like a touring club what does that mean.

In case you've not seen them, there are tons of answers at viewtopic.php?f=45&t=78299

At least I'd like a CTC that answers almost all member/potential-member enquiries, is systematically/openly/visibly engaged with its members right the way through the organisation (rather than "CTC has limited staff and therefore are unable monitor this forum" - why is it automatically left to staff? Why are only a minority of councillors and campaign reps active here?), costs about the same as most other UK Cycling Alliance members (locally: CTC is £41 while BC is £20 and CN £donations) and seeks to avoid bloopers like Nice Way Code and Turbogate.

[Psamathe]

... At least I'd like a CTC that answers almost all member/potential-member enquiries, is systematically/openly/visibly engaged with its members right the way through the organisation (rather than "CTC has limited staff and therefore are unable monitor this forum" - why is it automatically left to staff? Why are only a minority of councillors and campaign reps active here?), costs about the same as most other UK Cycling Alliance members (locally: CTC is £41 while BC is £20 and CN £donations) and seeks to avoid bloopers like Nice Way Code and Turbogate.

I agree. When I make a donation to e.g. Oxfam (or similar) it is a charitable donation and I rely on the organisation to spend my donation appropriately. When I pay a membership subscription to a club, I expect that organisation to be more responsive to its membership. And I don't know where the CTC sits between the two (and I feel the CTC doesn't either).

And whilst I don't know the full background to the Bedford Turbo R'bout, from when I did start following it I saw minimal engagement from CTC despite members expressing their disagreement of the CTC's decisions. CTC appeared quite impervious to the strong opinions of many members, instead following the path they chose despite the expressed member/cycling community outrage. And to me this illustrates the failures of the CTC in relation to their membership and the cycling community.

Ian

[mjr]

And whilst I don't know the full background to the Bedford Turbo R'bout, from when I did start following it I saw minimal engagement from CTC despite members expressing their disagreement of the CTC's decisions. CTC appeared quite impervious to the strong opinions of many members, instead following the path they chose despite the expressed member/cycling community outrage. And to me this illustrates the failures of the CTC in relation to their membership and the cycling community.

Ah well yeah once Turbogate became public, CTC's involvement was long over, the decision had been made about a year before. After its explanation and the lack of further funding (which was apparently part of the reason for spending all that round despite not having enough good projects), I feel CTC should have said that it got it wrong, that it shouldn't have helped micturate taxes up the wall in a time of cuts and that it is making changes to avoid repeats.

But to be fair, I don't think any other organisation involved has done that yet, so in itself, it doesn't really mean you should join a competitor instead of CTC. (Measures that I think will help will go to a CN membership meeting in 8 days but even there, I feel the CN board considers its actions imperfect rather than wrong, and they probably won't be judged wrong until there's more data.)

[gaz]

It is extremely unusual for a member of CTC staff to contribute to the forum on matters of CTC policy.

Chris Peck joined the Bedford Turbo Roundabout thread to do exactly that, explain the decision that had been made.

The CTC has around 70,000 members, the forum around 26,500 (including non-CTC members). There were certainly strongly voiced opinions on that thread but with under 40 forum members contributing I cannot conclude whether or not those opinions were representative of the views of CTC's membership.

[AlaninWales]

It is extremely unusual for a member of CTC staff to contribute to the forum on matters of CTC policy.

Chris Peck joined the Bedford Turbo Roundabout thread to do exactly that, explain the decision that had been made.

The CTC has around 70,000 members, the forum around 26,500 (including non-CTC members). There were certainly strongly voiced opinions on that thread but with under 40 forum members contributing I cannot conclude whether or not those opinions were representative of the views of CTC's membership.

An excellent argument; which can be brought forward to negate the input of anyone who writes to their MP (after all, only a minority do so), or otherwise attempts to initiate discussion with those in a position to impose their judgements without reference to others.

[gaz]

It's not an argument. It's simply my opinion on the matter.

A statement was made that CTC's input on the Bedford Turbo Roundabout Thread had been "minimal", I disagree. A statement was made that "many" members had voiced their strong opinions, again I disagree.