So I am 'Special Needs' am I?!

[Si]

Careful, you are twisting so much that you are going to screw yourself into the ground! You will notice that my comment was a reply to the OP not to you. An OP that seemed to be saying that because one person had not benefited from a particular scheme then no one else should be allowed to.....given that there are people that really can benefit enormously from 'Inclusive cycling' initiatives my question stands: why would anyone want to deny the joy of cycling to thee people?

Ah well, that's the CTC for you....lots has changed, but the deeply conservative tradition of automatic distaste for anything new is still healthily passed down certain lines. By all means, put forward a logical, cogent argument as to why we should or should not have certain initiatives, but one would hope that the respondent actually takes the time to understand the thinking behind the initiatives first. The opening post does not give this impression.

The CTC is clearly far from perfect (what organisation is perfect?), yet should we stop trying to do new, positive things just because there are negative things elsewhere? Must we not do anything at all new until every other aspect of the organisation has been changed? And what happens when your correction is seen as a new error in someone else's eyes?

[mjr]

Careful, you are twisting so much that you are going to screw yourself into the ground! You will notice that my comment was a reply to the OP not to you. An OP that seemed to be saying that because one person had not benefited from a particular scheme then no one else should be allowed to.....given that there are people that really can benefit enormously from 'Inclusive cycling' initiatives my question stands: why would anyone want to deny the joy of cycling to thee people?

No, I still think you're twisting the original post into an extremely offensive loaded question.

[Si]

So, is the OP for the CTC's inclusive cycling promotion after all?

[Bill Reynolds]

Hello David, Why do you use that strange non-de-plume when your name is below each message!...I am happy to be known as a 'Disabled Cyclist' and that is what it say's on my high viz. tabard. I too have bits of paper off the NHS and get D. L. A. not to mention the disabled rail pass and a disabled bus pass...(that word comes up a lot does it not?) I don't find it a stigma to be like this. I cannot go out with the local CTC section anymore as I do not understand spoken speech any more. Being a solitary cyclist is no problem at all. The reason why I posted the first message on this topic was I was at a loss as to why people were thought to need a special section....or club?? to be on or part of this forum....

[Bill Reynolds]

By the way Si, I am very happy if any other disabled person on here or anywhere else wants the CTC help.... or any other organisation/charity to get started then they should get all the help they need! I don't know where you got that thought that 'MJR' refers to above..."Seems to SAY that nobody else should be allowed to"....That is terrible!

[Geoff.D]

I'm in support of this "Inclusive Cycling Section" for two reasons. It tells me that the organisation has recognised that I might feel excluded and offers me a specific channel to participate on inclusivity issues.

Both are positive expressions, and need not be the only innovations to encourage greater participation. They're not perfect, and not everyone will want to use them. But, it shows proactivity, rather than passivity, from the organisation. I like that in an organisation.

In no way have I ever interpreted the title as "Special Needs", nor have I ever thought that this is the only section that I can actively use. I'm a cyclist, but have a disability in certain contexts. I tour. I do the daily shopping. I ride recumbent and upright. I have discourses with women. I'm technically minded and like "fettling". So..............I read and post on whichever section is most suitable, defining myself appropriately on that occasion.

What's not to like?

[Edwards]

I do not feel that this sub bit should be about giving people labels, but it should be about where to find information about specific needs.

As an example a technical question about adapted saddles or special seat supports will soon be lost in the Technical section. It does not stand a chance of competing with the important stuff like WD40 being a lube (again) and so on.
But if the information is in one dedicated place then it is much easier to find, especially if somebody is only interested in that one aspect of cycling.
This is more so for people who are trying to introduce sections of society who are not normally involved or associated with cycling. These people might find it useful to have some where to find and share good ideas and come up with things that work.
Maybe even come up with some specific advice for others starting out.

The problem is this is easily ruined by some who think that they know better and feel that they have some sort of right to dictate what and where others should post questions. As shown by the Womens Section.

We are all "Special Needs" just some are more specialised than others.

[landsurfer]

Why does the phrase "inclusive" all ways become "exclusive " .
" I want to be included " . . So the first thing I must have is a section that excludes you !!!
Maybe I should demand a "LGBTS" section ......

[gaz]

Locked discussion about a possible LGBT forum.

Si's post upthread suggest that it did go ahead but separate from these boards.

[Geoff.D]

Why does the phrase "inclusive" all ways become "exclusive " .
" I want to be included " . . So the first thing I must have is a section that excludes you !!!
Maybe I should demand a "LGBTS" section ......

But.......there is NO exclusion in the open Forum.

The touring section excludes no one. It's open to anyone who wants to have a look, participate (or not), and move on. You don't have to define yourself as a tourist, or be one, in order to do this. The same applies to the technical section. You don't have to be a techie to dip in, or to ask a question.

And that's true for every other section, as well as the "Inclusive Cycling". You don't have to be anything in particular to come in, look around, decide if there's anything for you, and then go your way. If something catches your eye (as it has done on this occasion) you can participate. You use whichever section is appropriate to you at the time, as others have said above.

If you don't wish to discuss issues around Inclusivity (or Touring, Racing, Campaigning, Health, LEJOG, et al) then don't dip in. That would be your choice, not an exclusion.

EDIT
I'm mindful of the information from Si earlier, and confirmation by Gaz above. My response has been purely in defence of the Inclusivity section, choosing not to debate on two fronts, for which the arguments are different.

[hufty]

Was it not established previously (by Si and mjr) that threads discussing whether a subforum is necessary/divisive/unused etc should not be posted in the subforum they refer to but should be moved somewhere else?