Cycling UK rebranding (again?)

Any thoughts?

Yes - what you posted at the bottom of that thread is spot on. CUK and Sustrans have spent years quibbling over crumbs of random funding, campaigning for just generally "cycling stuff, we're not really sure what" and in the case of Sustrans, getting wildly happy when a council finally opens up 200m of muddy trail as a "cycle route" solely to make them shut up and go away.

Ironically, "cycle touring" in the ethos of the old CTC is probably in the best place it's been for years thanks to innovations like gravel bikes, bikepacking etc - admittedly a lot of it rebranded traditional touring but because it doesn't involve a Dawes Galaxy, some Karrimor panniers and a night in the YHA, CUK seem a bit hesitant to welcome it on board.

Disclaimer: long term member of BC, never been a member of CTC / CUK but I keep half an eye on what they (and Sustrans ) do because I work in transport with a reasonable emphasis on Active Travel.

I have supported cycling Uk for the last five years or so after realising BC had no interest in mountain biking or access.

Like a lot of charities it seems to be struggling with identity and others overlapping with it, but still feels like a force for good. The 200m of muddy trail mentioned above may be accurate, but 200m is better than nothing and I get the feeling that’s what would be the alternative.

but because it doesn’t involve a Dawes Galaxy, some Karrimor panniers and a night in the YHA, CUK seem a bit hesitant to welcome it on board.

Not sure I'd agree with that - there's plenty of coverage of gravel/bikepacking in the CUK magazine, they've been very active with new bikepacking routes like King Alfred's Way which aren't that suitable for a Galaxy and panniers.

There is a lot of overlap with Sustrans on the campaigning/access side, but it seems criminal to me that Sustrans work is not part of national/local transport planning anyway.

I wasn't a fan of the move from CTC to CUK, but I think it's raised their profile and influence in the non-cycling world so I guess I was wrong.

"Research shows us that awareness of Cycling UK and what we do is low, and that our current brand isn’t helping us to engage new people."

imho with an amateur marketing head on, awareness will be low as it's not mainstream cycling but I suspect within enthusiast cycling brand awareness is higher than any time in the last 25 years. If not direct brand name or logo recognition then awareness of things like the KAW and people will find CUK through that. What I expect needs attention is awareness or clarity of what they do and what it means for a rider, not a name change. Your brand is what people see as the values, personality or character, the name gets linked to that. The name doesn't create that character.

Ironically, “cycle touring” in the ethos of the old CTC is probably in the best place it’s been for years thanks to innovations like gravel bikes, bikepacking etc – admittedly a lot of it rebranded traditional touring but because it doesn’t involve a Dawes Galaxy, some Karrimor panniers and a night in the YHA, CUK seem a bit hesitant to welcome it on board.

As MoreCashThanDash says, you're missing all the work they've done opening up routes that are just that, bikepacking for gravel and ATB bikes. I'd say they've embraced bikepacking (which imho and ime IS touring, it's same thing done in different times after a lull in popularity). I love the trad CTC ethos but equally I'm not sure I'd pin a brand's future on it - tradition does count, also the whole scene is changing.

From keithb in the CUK forum thread

No point in rebranding if you don't know what your brand is for...

+100. Not sure they do have a clear enough aim (genuinely don't know as I've not looked at that side of it much aside from being a member and skimming the mags, so it's not a criticism of them). Still, the way we all tend to see BC as for sports and CUK for non-competitive cycling does suggest the basic brand thing is on the right track.

There's a strong case that CUK has moved with the times as far as touring/bikepacking goes, building on it's CTC heritage. Local CTC clubs organise some very popular audax events and are getting exposure through that.

The CTC clubs round here are very active and despite still having a slightly fusty image of pensioners in hiviz, they will ride you into the ground on a day out. They are also active with things like Dr Bike and supporting smaller initiatives to encourage women and minorities to get the confidence to ride.

As with all volunteer led groups, a lot of good work they do goes under the radar, though around Nottingham and Derby stuff like Dr Bike and supporting new riders can get overshadowed by other groups doing the same thing.

I'm a member of two BC affiliated clubs, but as I don't race, I'm a CUK member personally.

Not sure I’d agree with that – there’s plenty of coverage of gravel/bikepacking in the CUK magazine, they’ve been very active with new bikepacking routes like King Alfred’s Way which aren’t that suitable for a Galaxy and panniers.

100% agree - if anything they might have gone a bit too gravel, from a MTBer's POV.

I wouldn't feel able to judge their current advocacy efforts/effectiveness re. off-road, but a joke has sort of developed that all they do is invent new long distance routes now.

TBF there was no realistic avenue to proceed to widen access in England when I was involved, and Wales still seems to be in the long grass.

Is there more of a prospect with the change of UK gov't? Perhaps, but it would be way down the list of priorities I'm sure.

Still, the way we all tend to see BC as for sports and CUK for non-competitive cycling does suggest the basic brand thing is on the right track.

That's also very misleading - BC have done and continue to do plenty of good campaign work; for "transport/utility" cycling, it's often fronted by Chris Boardman. They've worked with CUK and Sustrans on some campaigns too.

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/campaigning/more

The 200m of muddy trail mentioned above may be accurate, but 200m is better than nothing and I get the feeling that’s what would be the alternative.

That was the approach that Sustrans used to take - the idea that anything was better than nothing. Then they realised it was terrible and they were effectively publicising and endorsing routes that were unsafe and not up to standard. In a review of their network a while ago, they took out thousands of miles of it:

https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2020/jul/19/national-cycle-network-sustrans-cuts-quarter-uk-routes-safety-grounds

The intersections and overlaps of UK cycling organisations are explained by their histories - they make more sense when you understand them. Since most people who love cycling would like more people to do more of it all are involved to some extent in lobbying/campaigning for "utility" cycling - cycling as transport rather than a sport or leisure activity.

CTC was formed in 1878, only a few years after the invention of the modern bicycle, before the car. It did a lot of fighting for better conditions for cyclists and to maintain/improve access to roads/parks/bridleways.  There have definitely been times when their fear of restrictions on use of the roads has worked against safe cycling infrastructure being built in the UK.  They've, at various times more recently, done some good campaign work for off road riding rights. But it was a 'leisure cycling' org in its origins. They get the odd grant for 'promoting cycling'

https://www.cyclinguk.org/history

British Cycling clearly came out of cycle racing https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/search/article/bc-50th-The-Story-behind-British-Cyclings-formation

City cycling campaigns - London has the London Cycling Campaign, with 12000 paying members and a full time staff as well as volunteer led groups by borough. Many other cities have their own campaign groups but they're almost all entirely volunteer run (Oxford has some paid staff )

Sustrans - I've just been reading about their early years in Laura Lakers excellent book Potholes and Pavements.  I've always been very down on the National Cycle Network (and the book has done nothing to change my view that there are some wonderful short sections but most of it is woefully inadequate) but it's given me much more respect for the people that drove the NCNs creation.  For me it remains the most problematic org - it's a bastard mix of a campaign group with a very professional skiilled (but poorly paid) consultancy that will design and manage delivery of cycle schemes.  they've got c800 people on staff.

With regard to the NCN:

Sustrans only owns around 271 miles, or 2%, of the Network. The rest belongs to various landowners, who are ultimately responsible for their own stretch.However, Sustrans staff and volunteers help these landowners to maintain, improve and develop their routes, while adhering to quality standards we have set. And, our supporters help us to raise funds so this work can be done. We act on behalf of users, and coordinate between communities, partners and stakeholders to ensure the Network remains a well-used and loved resource. It is Sustrans’ role to promote the Network. We provide accurate information so people know what and where the Network is, why it is relevant to them and how they can make the most of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustrans#History

All of these organisations have a role - I don't think you'd 'rationalise' any of them out of existence right now. They all need support and, for me, it makes sense that they all campaign for 'more cycling' generally.  Personally I'd nationalise Sustrans and the NCN to create something more akin to National Highways. Given it proper funding, the ability to compulsorily purchase land for routes and to overrule local councils where they refuse to implement high standard cycle infra.  But do it halfway and you end up with a body like 'cycling england' which was abolished in 2010 only 5 years after it was created leaving England with no national cycling body in government for a decade until Active Travel England was set up c2 years back (and that was almost scrapped again a year later).

But to go back to the actual subject of the thread, 'cycle touring club' clearly meant very little to most people in the UK and I've always thought that both the name Cycling UK and 'we are cycling uk' logo were a terrible terrible replacement.  We've got a LCC and a Cycling UK membership in our house, but I feel very little affliction to the latter (keep it on because of the off road rights work they do.  It would probably make more sense for me to donate to Sustrans but I've always believed on principle that it should not be a donation funded org so never have.

That’s also very misleading – BC have done and continue to do plenty of good campaign work; for “transport/utility” cycling, it’s often fronted by Chris Boardman. They’ve worked with CUK and Sustrans on some campaigns too.

Agree, it's only a general impression and there's crossover. I do think there needs to be some difference in who they see their core member as being, though many of us will have interests that span both.

I have been a CTC/CUK member for more than 30 years . Other tham take my money I am not convinced they have a significant impact on UK cycling.

The rights of way situation has not changed. There are more segregated cycle lanes but these are very limited and funded by the government and councils.

I have never felt more unsafe on the roads and CUK spend money on creating long distance cycle routes which dont seem to offer any extra access.

They should be spearheading a campaign to provide access to footpaths for bikes and trying to take back to roads and pavements from cars.

Come on CUK fight for people who ride bikes not for bikepacking routes.

 I do think there needs to be some difference in who they see their core member as, though many of us will have interests that span both.

Definitely, and that ties in with @b33k34 's excellent post above.

There's a strong case for having Sustrans absorbed into Active Travel England.

BC and CTC / CUK have long accepted and tacitly agreed their different aims overall but are also happy to work together for "the greater good" which is nice to see. There doesn't have to be a tribal approach to it.

but 200m is better than nothing and I get the feeling that’s what would be the alternative.

It rarely is though.

<iframe src="https://www.google.com/maps/embed?pb=!4v1736766451435!6m8!1m7!1sBePnd8zFzrlAF83sXIusGw!2m2!1d51.36786114941759!2d-1.006819774048917!3f2.7997744714322756!4f-5.135261496028136!5f2.166578283250558" width="600" height="450" style="border:0;" allowfullscreen="" loading="lazy" referrerpolicy="no-referrer-when-downgrade"></iframe>

Donkey Pound Lane in Beech Hill, even Google maps only classifies the first section as "Cycle Friendly" , Sustrans calls it part of the national cycle network.

Reading confuses me, they've spent millions of grant money on a new cycle bridge on the A33 that won't actually achieve anything that a ramp up the embankment on the east side wouldn't have solved for a fraction of the price. Yet the Shinfield Road cycle scheme seems to have been done on a scrap of paper, cost a fortune and I'm sure is actually going to kill someone.  The new bridge over the river feels like it's in the wrong place (why not just put it next to Reading bridge? Maybe it makes more sense if you live in the TC rather than just pass through it ).  And the Reading Road / Wokingham Road is an exercise between the two councils in who can build the worst infrastructure.

@thisisaspoon

I'm only part way through but buy and read Laura Laker's book and the network we have, and the piecemeal and illogical way it gets added to will make a lot more sense.

https://singletrackmag.com/2024/05/book-review-potholes-and-pavements/ I was going to write something that sounded very much like Hannah had already written:

"I started out reading this with a sense of exasperation that yet again here was a clearly written and well researched book spelling out how bikes can solve so many of our problems (see also Peter Walker’s ‘Bike Nation’) but what has actually changed at a policy level? SFA? But, as I read on, the continuous drip drip of happy tales of bike rides and indefatigable activists got under my skin. Things might not have changed as much as I (or any sane person freed from the clutches of the motor industry’s influence machine?) might want them to, but they have shifted since the inception of the NCN. As a ‘network’ it remains as much a hope as a reality, but the evidence is increasingly there. Build it (right) and they will come. Build it and the world will be a better place. Build it and we can all benefit."

I've been active in campaigning in London for years and seen schemes that stretch on forever.  Quietway 7 was announced in 2013 as a 'back street' cycle route from Elephant & Castle to Crystal Palace.  Over a decade later it's still nowhere near complete from end to end. Some short sections have been done to a high standard, but on others the council has basically given up ever doing anything and moved on to other schemes.   if you're really bored the saga of just one short section is documented here - https://bsky.app/profile/coldwarcliff.bsky.social/post/3lckjmwmmnc2n

The NCN is the same - continuations of a route might get descoped and scaled back or 'value engineered' but you don't stop the bits that can go ahead that people have put loads of work into.  Like the NCN you hope someone will come back and upgrade later.

I have never felt more unsafe on the roads and CUK spend money on creating long distance cycle routes which dont seem to offer any extra access.

While I don't disagree with that, seeing it differently - I can't expect CUK to change the road attitudes problem and I see the long distance routes as a way of increasing bike tourism which is a good thing for local businesses who begin to see the benefits of cycling, and a way to encourage bike holidays within the UK which is really where the cycle touring boom of the 50s came from.

FWIW I'm a CUK member and have been a monthly DD supporter of Sustrans for almost about 15 years. I agree that Sustrans should really be a national body like the Highways Agency however both where I lived for some time and where I now live are served by good Sustrans routes and I believe in supporting that.

There doesn’t have to be a tribal approach to it.

No, 100% agree and I don't think there is, doesn't seem that way anyway - more of a focus on different aspects on one hand and mutual overlap on the other.

As to 'whats Cycling UK for' I think they should make themselves the group that represents all 'leisure cycling'.  There are a lot of people clogging up 'club runs' who frustrate cycle clubs because they've no interest in racing.  Cycling UK could be be the lead on that sort of riding, and sportives, gravel - off road rights/right to ride mtb.  Everything thats' not 'utility' or sport.

But cycling is so tribal making that work is always going to be a challenge - and you can hear that in their magazine letters page already.

I was a CTC member for over a decade, and I'd forgotten that Cycling UK was them. I suspect most people will be thinking they are a second rate version of, or related to, British Cycling because of the name. Rebranding (again) might be an admission that they got it wrong... but it's wise to admit that and fix it. No one thinks that "the Ramblers" are "UK Athletics/British Athletics"... their rebrand didn't confuse people as to their purpose.

Cycling UK could be be the lead on that sort of riding, and sportives, gravel – off road rights/right to ride mtb.  Everything thats’ not ‘utility’ or sport.

I'm sure they could, but BC would not want to lose those non-racing memberships.

 BC have done and continue to do plenty of good campaign work; for “transport/utility” cycling, it’s often fronted by Chris Boardman. They’ve worked with CUK and Sustrans on some campaigns too.

Without being too bitchy, BC can put out a good press release - but there's often not much behind it (my experience on the MTB advocacy side of things anyway).

BC have the better marketing dept, Cycling UK do campaigns better - engaging in lobbying gov't etc, - but perhaps lack focus and reach.

I'm with the last poster - as a CTC (!)  member, I've always thought that the 'Cycling UK' branding just confuses itself in the general population with what is British Cycling.

The one thing I'd like it to absolutely and utterly seperate itself from is any notion or (incorrect) believe that CTC / CUK is in any way related to the organisation that brought you things like

- bullying culture

-Female body shaming at elite levels

- dodgy testosterone patches in brown jiffy bags sneaked through foreign customs

- taking oil company money whilst throwing out any morals

- etc. etc etc.

There are a lot of people clogging up ‘club runs’ who frustrate cycle clubs because they’ve no interest in racing.

But cycling is so tribal

Read that back, slowly.....

CTC/CUK as a group to represent noncompetitive recreational cycling for cycling enthusiasts is a good thing - and that should be their role. I'm just not convinced they should be the mouthpiece for cycling as a form of transport. It's too niche and divisive when we should be thinking about an integrated and safe transport system as a whole. We don't need to be thought of as a separate group - that's a large part of the problem. I'd say something like Campaign for Better Transport (previously known as Transport 2000) would be the best mouthpiece for that type of work.

@morecashthandash

Read that back, slowly…..

Hey - I was one of the ones turning up who just wanted a 'guided ride' out to Surrey/Kent.  And was never made to feel unwelcome.  But I can fully accept that if you want to have an amateur race team a lot of leisure riders turning up kind of get in the way.  If you're doing mtb group rides some are going to be tougher than others, some are going to be jumpy - theres nothing wrong with grouping people who want the same thing and respecting them for it.  It doesn't need to be and wasn't meant to be exclusionary.

My point was that theres an overlap between people who currently turn up to race club 'club runs' and the kind of rides CTC groups do.

I’d say something like Campaign for Better Transport (previously known as Transport 2000) would be the best mouthpiece for that type of work.

LOL. Its pretty much a 'powered public transport' lobby group.  John Stewartwho was their chair until (I think) some time last year (and is still a trustee)  has been actively campaigning AGAINST Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and protected space for cycling on main roads for the last 4 years.

https://bettertransport.org.uk/better-transport/walking-cycling/

We want to see walking, wheeling and cycling rates increased by:

A requirement for all local authorities to review and improve facilities for walking, wheeling and cycling
More community programmes to inspire more people to take up cycling and remove barriers to doing so
Ensuring more bike capacity on trains and more storage facilities at train stations.

Pathetic.  No call for funding, no reference to any standards or to a density of cycling network.  No call for a real 'cycling network at all'.

They've just appointed a new Chief Executive who has a good reputation so, hopefully, that might change a bit - https://bettertransport.org.uk/media/campaign-for-better-transport-appoints-new-ceo/

London TravelWatch ( "represents all the users of London’s streets.") is similar - until very recently their policy lead was a Hackney Councillor by the name of Vincent Stops who's another ardent 'vehicular cyclist'  - ie believes people should just ride in traffic and that any protected infrastructure (I quote) "infantilises cycling".
Their policy document - written by Stops - says "Some cycle campaign groups want to see ‘mass cycling’ at levels found in cities with very high cycle mode share with facilities that will enable cyclists between the ages of 8yrs and 80 to cycle in comfort and safety. London TravelWatch does not have a remit to campaign for ‘mass cycling’".   In consultations, as a result, London TravelWatch have pretty consistently opposed cycling infrastructure in London,.

As to ‘whats Cycling UK for’ I think they should make themselves the group that represents all ‘leisure cycling’.  There are a lot of people clogging up ‘club runs’ who frustrate cycle clubs because they’ve no interest in racing.  Cycling UK could be be the lead on that sort of riding, and sportives, gravel – off road rights/right to ride mtb.  Everything thats’ not ‘utility’ or sport.

Maybe you had a bad experience in one cycling club but they're not all like that.

We have the chaingang and fast runs for those who what to ride through and off for 50-200km at 35km/h.  There's no chance of anyone "clogging up" those rides though* because also have gravel rides, social rides,  steady (15-18mph) rides, brisk (really it's just fast without the organization).

Organize a regional CX race

Organize a Hillclimb (occasionally the national championships)

Organize the local weekly TT

Open 10's and 25's

Road race and crit.

A reliability ride.

And a social calendar

And sportive / audax / CX / racing secretary's to encourage people into those activities.

*also because they effectively became invitation only after Covid

.

Are the CTC/Cycling UK and Sustrans just talking the talk. They should look at Europe and the rest of the world, thing get done and its properly done . The National cycle routes are a joke nothing is joined up it's all start stop . Has anyone seen the crossing on the A9 just north of the Perth roundabout. In Europe if a major road is crossed it's bridge or underpass not waiting at a pedestrian crossing.

 In Europe if a major road is crossed it’s bridge or underpass not waiting at a pedestrian crossing.

In the UK, there's usually been very piecemeal funding, short notice, no long term joined up plan, no ambition, councils are not incentivsed to produce any definitive pipeline of work...

As a result, anything like the example you cite is met with a case of "bodge it as best as possible" which is often the same as "bodge it as cheaply as possible".

Since councils (and by extension, CUK / Sustrans) don't know what funding is going to be forthcoming, they find it quite difficult to campaign effectively and when a crossing is actually put in, Sustrans call it as a huge victory, even if it's crap.

And because the funding is so short term, so time limited, it has to be spent quickly or returned so they'll build a cheap thing that's quick to install.

It's a terrible way of building infrastructure but it happens across all sorts, not just transport.

@sajama55

I'd +1 on @crazy-legs post.  You're blaming the wrong people.

The issue is a lack of proper long term funding from central Government, and political will at a local level to drive through projects.   Sustrans have good engineers who can design good schemes, but in most cases they're just a consultancy and will design to the brief they're given - if the council says 'build a shared use pavement that doesn't delay any motor traffic' that's what gets built.  In most cases Sustrans are just a contractor.

Where a council has political will, and commits a proper amount of funding over a number of years, you start to see real change - a few London boroughs are getting there now - Waltham Forest and Lambeth at the top of the list but that's not nearly enough.

I reckon that they are trying to do too much, as BC are as well. They lost my subs when they changed their name although I had been wondering for a couple of years. I don't think that any organisation can do it all as you'll have members not wanting anything than their own interest. For example.....
I joined for the touring side of things as generally I have no interest in the more modern side of things. I live in the country so have no need for cycle lanes for example. I don't really care about getting more people on bikes as that tends to spoil things.  I was a BC member when I was racing CX but have given that up so no point BC either.

I also have gripe about the name as with BC. It somehow seems grammatically incorrect suggesting a vague idea  just like , I dunno,  British eating habits. Both organisations have retained their original names in the back ground which some how seems better.

Jack of all trades methinks.

The new Cycle mag just dropped through the door. It's rather like visiting a new supermarket. Much of the content is familiar, just everything's in the wrong place. Strong push on the Cycling UK jerseys across a number of pages. Definitely fiddling around the edges rather than a mission reset, I from first glance.

There are a lot of people clogging up ‘club runs’ who frustrate cycle clubs because they’ve no interest in racing. 

I call bullshit. You can be a very capable, fast rider and not want to race.

I also remember, years ago when I was chair of a road bike club, getting a call from a guy checking he'd be OK and wouldn't get dropped on his first club ride with us.

I said I'd be out and would ensure he'd be OK. Turns out that he was a 2x British road race champion and former European pro coming back after 5 years off the bike. Moral: Be nice and allow people a way into the sport.

The issue is a lack of proper long term funding from central Government, 

Yes - that and any infrastructure is delivered through local councils. 

I call bullshit. You can be a very capable, fast rider and not want to race.

as I took it the club was originally about racing and club runs were part of training.  and they'd got loads of people turning up for weekend ride outs, but a shortage of people interested in racing or volunteering for marshalling etc etc  Now I was completely guilty of exactly that for the short while I was joining their rides. It was a comment someone made to me years ago, one persons view.  

website now says

Dulwich Paragon is a friendly cycling club in south-east London. We have a proud racing heritage, competing across multiple disciplines. But you don’t have to be a racer! We’re an inclusive bunch, and our sociable weekly club runs take riders of all paces into the beautiful lanes of Kent and Surrey. So whether you want to win races, get fit, meet new people, or just enjoy the ride, why not join us?

so thats definitely not their policy

Posted by: StirlingCrispin

↑

Yes - that and any infrastructure is delivered through local councils

Aye, and a lack of political leadership from central government (which has repeatedly blown hot and cold and spouted “War on Drivers” bollocks on what is ultimately a public health measure as much as anything else) hasn’t helped.

Posted by: ratherbeintobago

↑

Posted by: StirlingCrispin

↑

Yes - that and any infrastructure is delivered through local councils

Aye, and a lack of political leadership from central government (which has repeatedly blown hot and cold and spouted “War on Drivers” bollocks on what is ultimately a public health measure as much as anything else) hasn’t helped.

Oh god and with Reform sweeping the local elections recently, that is only going to get worse....  Less infrastructure, delivered worse, then complained about when not used and used as "evidence" that it's all a waste of money...  While congestion and deaths from poor air quality all continue rising...  

@keithb It’s not even deaths from poor air quality, it’s deaths from the consequences of sedentary lifestyles.

Local news FB item about an active travel scheme full of people saying “no one uses it” and “no one asked for this” - but the people that asked for it aren’t being heard, and it’s half a complete route and a barrier to people using it is that it’s disjointed.

I can’t stress enough that it’s important to write to councillors/transport portfolio holders/candidates and ask for them to build this stuff - see this from Ian Walker suggesting this does make a difference.

https://bsky.app/profile/ianwalker.bsky.social/post/3lqd7x2pdus2k

That's a good study, I was reading that just the other day. Also highlights how so much social media is just noise, often from a very small minority. 

The various opponents of a LTN scheme around where my Mum lives were notorious for astroturfing; setting up numerous social media accounts of "old people against..." and "disabled people against..." and "carers against..." to make it seem like there was lots of opposition. The reality was that it was the same 8 people behind it all, creating a shedload of noise and piling onto any positive comments, accusing such people of being council stooges. That had the effect of silencing those voices and reducing the positive comments on social media which further gave the impression that the scheme was hated.

Thankfully the council saw through most of it and had received enough positive feedback via "non-public" methods (like direct emails, letters, face-to-face interactions) that they knew it had broad support.

That’s one of the things borne out by evidence - most people in an LTN etc are quietly in favour, but they get drowned out by the phenomenal amount of noise created by a small group of opponents. There’s also decent evidence that AT is a poor choice of wedge issue (in Withington last year, the only candidate to increase their vote share was the explicitly pro-LTN Green)

That study is helpful in that it suggests an email is much more helpful than (pro- or anti-) social media posts.

as I took it the club was originally about racing and club runs were part of training.  and they'd got loads of people turning up for weekend ride outs,

Maybe you got unlucky and met a dick, they exist. They complain if the average speed deviates from what was advertised (up or down), they moan if people get dropped, they moan if people don't get dropped.

Reading has both BC and CUK affiliated clubs, doesn't (for the BC club) necessarily follow that they are BC members beyond having login details to pay for club membership.  CUK are the opposite, there is no club membership, but you join CUK.  In terms of rides theirs top out at 12mph / 40 miles, ours start at 14mph / 60miles, they organize the weekly off-road night ride, we organize the road one to the pub on a different night.

We do have issues with volunteers to run events (I'm as bad as anyone for shirking TBH), which occasionally boils over into a snotogram when it's a week away from a regional race and we can't get enough marshals (or even 3 people to run a weekly TT).

Posted by: thisisnotaspoon

↑

We do have issues with volunteers to run events (I'm as bad as anyone for shirking TBH), which occasionally boils over into a snotogram when it's a week away from a regional race and we can't get enough marshals (or even 3 people to run a weekly TT).

That's LONG been an issue in the world of cycling clubs. The common belief amongst older members was that back in their day everyone knew their place and duty whereas "now" (any definition of NOW being "not what it was like back in my day") folk were only interested in points bagging and racing, not the supporting aspect.

Usually followed by calls for a return to the Good Old Days of the Traditional Cycling Club, when Men would ride 100 miles in the winter sleet no matter what.

When they went through the rebranding exercise they didn't listen to the members. It was obvious that the rebranding was so they could cater for a different demographic that they hoped would be more profitable.

Like many others, I simply stopped subscribing.

I have been a CTC/Cycling UK member for 35 years and also a local advocate. 

CUK have come a long way and the amount of work the organisation does to promote cycling is phenomenal.

Attending the Scottish gathering is a wonderful experience as people talk about the work they do ; allowing blind people to go on tandem cycle rides;  delivering cycling for children; enabling refugees to cycle (can't just give them a bike, you need to show them how to ride it safely and how to maintain it) so they can take a role in society. The list goes on.

The membership makes up only part of their income - delivering cycling initiatives to all is a large part of it and employs many people. 

I thought this rebrand was relatively bland and makes sense to me. The magazine has to cater for all cyclists - from rugged old-timers to absolute newbs. Dan Joyce does an excellent job with it.

----

Also, the access rights enjoyed today by cyclists in Scotland is entirely down to CTC/CUK. Somebody had to pay for John Taylor to travel up from Castle Douglas in his own time and to sit through all the meetings at Holyrood in order to battle for our rights. Thanks John.

The new Cycle mag just dropped through the door. It's rather like visiting a new supermarket. Much of the content is familiar, just everything's in the wrong place. Strong push on the Cycling UK jerseys across a number of pages. Definitely fiddling around the edges rather than a mission reset, I from first glance.

Yes, was a total put off for me, if I wanted to get all lycra'd up there are a load of local clubs I could join & buy their branded club wear... Cycling UK rebrand fail from where I'm sitting.

Edit - could so easily have been the same branding but with three different styles of cycling gear & bikes all together to show inclusivity surely?

That's LONG been an issue in the world of cycling clubs. The common belief amongst older members was that back in their day everyone knew their place and duty whereas "now" (any definition of NOW being "not what it was like back in my day") folk were only interested in points bagging and racing, not the supporting aspect.

Usually followed by calls for a return to the Good Old Days of the Traditional Cycling Club, when Men would ride 100 miles in the winter sleet no matter what.

I think people are just busier too.

Most of these events seem to either fall on a Saturday (which is my day of the week to do something non-cycling with the OH), or in September which is chock full of other events that are trying to make the most of the short period in late summer when the weather is still good, the trails are still dry and people aren't on holiday. 

I do my bit 'organizing' the winter mid-week cub-runs which generally means little more than naming a time and place and then wondering where 297 club mates are and the other two go off on a faster ride anyway leaving me Billy no mates in the November drizzle 😂.

Just got the recent mag. I like the rebrand, necessary or not it's better than the last one. Agree the custom tight sleeve roadie jerseys and lycra shorts look a bit odd and out of context but I guess that's just what's available from custom kit makers. 

so they could cater for a different demographic that they hoped would be more profitable.

Or just more of them generally? Things change and the CTC needs to survive. Cycle touring has changed in some ways, it's mostly the same imho but the way it's expressed, the kit, the brands involved all changes.

Maybe I'm just hitting cycling middle age but tbh it's the only mag that gets any of my attention these days, some articles in STW aside. Touring/bikepacking/country lanes bimbling/some old-school XC is a good mix.  

Dan Joyce does an excellent job with it.

+1

Posted by: jameso

↑

Or just more of them generally? Things change and the CTC needs to survive.

This.

Rounding up enough volunteers to run an event has always been a challenge for event organisers (and events always rely disproportionately on a small group of committed volunteers) but I suspect it is actually more difficult than it was back in the day. There has been a general decline in volunteering and race organisation is also a more involved process now. There is more admin, more formal risk assessment and more stringent organisational requirements, and that also means more people are required. 

I received the CUK magazine this week and was a bit underwhelmed by the rebrand. I understand the reasons for rebranding and promoting the organisation more effectively to people, but after reading the article in the mag it seemed a bit superficial, with the highlights being a new colour, a new logo and a new tagline!