[Closed] The CTC / CUK referendum...

How dare they try and lose the heritage

I do think they mishandled the stealth transformation.
But I do think we need a modern relevant advocate for leisure cycling and commuting cycling (? the 95% of cycling not represented by British Cycling) so I'm voting for the change.
Reverting to the CTC will undermine the efforts of the leadership and CTC is a out dated name.

Mind they should bring back the winged wheel.....

Can you expand on why you think CTC is outdated ? I am genuinely interested.
I can certainly see that the 'T' should be maybe changed from Touring to something more general, so I can see that I could be wrong...

The Cycle Touring Club? Is that a club for people who cycle tour or an organisation for the advocating on behalf of cyclists? Rebranding can make it easier to represent the members (of whom I guess most have probably never cycle toured)
Renaming makes sense, just swapping out touring makes less sense a good time for a proper rebrand and provide clear definition as to what they are doing.

It was only after I joined last week that I realised they used to be the CTC. Whose 'winged wheel' sign I remember on cafes, how very 1920s - 1950s.

They're uk wide, a membership organisation and want to become an advocate for all types of cycling. Touring is a minority cycling pursuit so needs to be dropped from their name. But how can they reflect that they're not a govt agency like sport England, but a member owned club?

Touring is a minority cycling pursuit

But is it among the members ? I just did a bike-packing off-road Wales Coast to Coast last week, with some mates who would never call themselves 'tourists' (we did some CYB and Nant-y en-route). But it was a tour, as well as an adventure. And, for contrast, previous weekend I did the The Tweed Run.
In my view (and clearly this is open to argument), any ride that's not a race, TT or commute must be a tour. You can do single-day tours (e.g. a sportive). And I think that's what most of the members do.

In my view (and clearly this is open to argument), any ride that's not a race, TT or commute must be a tour. You can do single-day tours (e.g. a sportive). And I think that's what most of the members do.

Some wise words, if you don't get it in the first 4s you dismiss it. If you have to explain it you have lost.

This isnt about representing their traditional membership, it's about attracting a wider one, hence the rebranding to encompass all cycling. Too many cliques in cycling, we need to overcome that to get it taken seriously as a way of getting about as well as for play.

I always ignored the CTC cos I thought it was a club for old git tourers i.e. trundling around the country with panniers.

I do think they mishandled the stealth transformation.

I thought that was largely down to one member of the board losing the vote and therefore leaking it?

There appears to be a tiny but vocal minority who think that CTC shouldn't be an organisation that fights for better conditions for all recreational cyclists, but should have remained a small club looking after touring cycling only.

I always ignored the CTC cos I thought it was a club for old git tourers i.e. trundling around the country with panniers.

Will calling it CUK change your mind ?

Or will folk in it doing bike packing do the job ?

Or neither ?

I always ignored the CTC cos I thought it was a club for old git tourers i.e. trundling around the country with panniers

lol, never been 'in the club' but have trundled around England and Wales since 15yrs old. With panniers. More touring/adventuring/exploring than MTBing as a whole, but I love both. I liked the winged wheels badge too. Shame cycle touring largely gave way to the car, it was a such a great way to holiday. Britain could have a world class cycle touring status if they resurfaced many more of the the Beeching axed railways in sucha way they all linked up. Moderner is betterer though, I guess. (old git sigh). Jumpers for goalposts. Ready brek for breakfast. Guard/mail carriages for bicycles. Aaaaa.

When people chose bikes for transport. Before they chose cars to transport bikes!

(Draws on pipe)

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

'I say, Tuppy, race you to the top?'
'Not with you in those brogues, you mincer'

Small aside, an excellent blog-piece about CTC's position in the developing 'cars vs bikes' attitude way back in the 30s:

[url] https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/no-surrender-the-damaging-enduring-legacy-of-the-1930s-in-british-cycle-campaigning/ [/url]

The name CTC just doesn't reflect what they do any more. Seems an absolute no-brainer to change it. "history" is no reason, that's just another way of saying "The name CTC just doesn't reflect what they do any more".

CUK is a rubbish name too though.

I voted for Cycling UK, much more inclusive and all-encompassing than CTC I reckon.

CUK is not great but it could be worse, like the ill fated Cycling Union of the Northern Territories

Is UKCC used already?

I just voted online for CUK, it's 2016 FFS!

I think it's pretty clear that the name is CyclingUK, the branding is CyclingUK, and it's discussed as CyclingUK

CUK seems to just be something that those who wanted to try and undermine the name change have been throwing around because they thought it sounded rude. Half the problem with the old title was that with so many TLA's (three letter acronyms) doing the rounds, so few people (outside of a narrow band of cyclists) knew what CTC stood for.

Like jokes, if you have to explain it then it doesn't really work.

Personally, I think that one of the challenges is that the organisation fell into promoting cycling as a way to save the planet, rather than a fun and enjoyable recreational pastime in itself - I can understand why, totally well meaning, and that's where the money was for cycle development (reducing congestion and emissions)

However, nobody joins the ramblers because they like walking to work

I kind of get the need to show that they are relevant to modern cycling issues and cyclists, and are not just a touring club. But my brain is advanced enough to get my head round the fact that Royal Automobile Club doesn't just serve Royal motorists.

In the 10+ years I've been with them, they've been the CTC, not the Cycle Touring Club, so the touring aspect was being minimised as they got more into access, road justice etc. And cyclists owe the CTC a lot in terms of last campaigning and representation. Easy to mock the image, but they did more on bikes, and for cyclists, than most of the keyboard warriors who mock their image.

But the name got changed, and trying to change it back is just a waste of time and money. Though it would have been nice to have been asked first.

my brain is advanced enough to get my head round the fact that Royal Automobile Club doesn't just serve Royal motorists.

Though to be fair, you knowing that might be partially to do with the fact that RAC's annual advertising spend is about three times CTC's entire budget

I am for the change to CUK, but can't help but think that there's a better name.

I've been a CTC member for 26 years and involved in cycle campaigning for many of them. I'm a local CTC Right-to-Ride Rep - along with many others across the UK - and we make a real difference: cycling facilities would be really crap without us.

I do think they mishandled the stealth transformation.

I'm not sure they did IMO. there was a survey, and they had previously stated interests in investigating changing branding.

I think CyclingUK is a better; more relevant name. I have tried to get colleagues/ commuters to join the CTC, first thing they ask is CTC, whats that stand for, then you have to explain, and you've lost them...

How are others thinking ?

The fact there is now a vote to reverse the decision makes me groan, and think of the stereotypical CTCer in socks and sandals etc etc and puts me off the whole thing tbh.

why not call it british cycling, catchy name, does what it says on the tin, yep i know it already exists, so why not merge two together.

@ I always ignored the CTC cos I thought it was a club for old git tourers i.e. trundling around the country with panniers.

I've been out with my local CTC (Swansea)for the last two Sundays. I haven't met any 'gits', they all seem very friendly and welcoming. As to 'trundling' then you'd be surprised how quickly they can hoof a Dawes Galaxy up the Devils Staircase! I did a really great 85 mile ride with them today, all nice and relaxed,

Personally, I view the CTC as an archaic anti-mass cycling organisation. The CTC has been "campaigning for cycling" for well over a century, and we've witnessed instead the cataclysmic collapse of British people cycling, to some of the lowest levels ever. I realise the social, economic and political reasons for this aren't the CTC's fault, but they certainly haven't helped.

The CTC is [i]still[/i] resistant to the real measures that would instigate mass cycling (separated Dutch infrastructure). The LCC, BCC and The Cycling Embassy of Great Britain are doing excellent work of truly campaigning for real mass cycling, and the only places I'd be giving my money. I support the slightly nerdy Bristol Cycle Campaign and I love them too. But CyclingUK/CTC? Sustrans? Sops to the status quo, or worse, supporters of a culture where nobody cycles. **** them both.

@

I always ignored the CTC cos I thought it was a club for old git tourers i.e. trundling around the country with panniers.

I've been out with my local CTC (Swansea)for the last two Sundays. I haven't met any 'gits', they all seem very friendly and welcoming. As to 'trundling' then you'd be surprised how quickly they can hoof a Dawes Galaxy up the Devils Staircase! I did a really great 85 mile ride with them today, all nice and relaxed,

So putting the facts together they have a massive image problem.

Did I throw something away when the mag arrived this week? No signs of a voting form.

Fwiw, I've come round to the new format. It's better reflection of what they do today.

cycling facilities would be really crap without us.

wait...there are cycling facilities? 😕

Beardy old cycling evangelists, it doesn't have much of a ring to it.

Fascinating. I am clearly totally out-of-step with the singletrack massive on this one.

I might be prejudiced here but much of my impression of the CTC comes from my first contact with them- motorbikes in bus lanes.

London did a trial of allowing motorbikes in bus lanes. Naturally the CTC kicked up a fuss and said it'd be too dangerous to even trial. TFL went ahead anyway and when the trial ended, it turned out it made bus lanes safer for [i]all[/i] users including cyclists and pedestrians. Basically the presence of ptws made people respect bus lanes more so there were less left hooks, less people stepping into the road etc.

CTC lost their shit, so after a while, the trial was set aside and a second trial was run. They lost their shit about that as well, again just doing a trial was obviously too dangerous. Results were identical- as they were in every other UK trial.

But the thing is, CTC viewed ptws as competitors for commuting. So they kept pushing this agenda- polluting, reckless, dangerous- and actively worked to make cyclists [i]less safe[/i], for reasons of politics, because they'd rather have you ride a bike and get run over, than ride a scooter.

So, changing the name might so p's off the old codgers that they leave and a new better organisation emerges. Hadn't thought of that. I'm wavering...

Interestingly, mrs flap_jack tried to get a WI group going locally but wanted it to be cool and groovy, like the Shoreditch Sisters. However, she encountered so much resistance in the local organisation (despite backing from the very top) that she eventually gave up.

Maybe the WI needs a name change too.

Northwind - I think thats a really interesting example,

The way I understand it having sat on the sidelines (I have assisted CTC on some MTB campaigning issues for some time now, at both local and head office level) part of the problem there is that the organisation is 'run' by council, who are democratically elected, but only a tiny proportion of members ever take part in the vote etc. - as I understand it, the charity commission have told them that the current model of governance has to change anyway, as trustees have to promote the charitable objectives rather than being beholden to the wishes of the small portion of the membership that elects them.

For some time, there have been genuine differing but valid opinions and debate on a number of areas of policy, e.g.. infrastructure, helmets etc. and elected council have blocked a number of developments in policy that might have been beneficial to the wider riding community. e.g. full backing for segregated infrastructure. I think (hope?) that the rebrand is indicative of a shift in council.

As i mentioned above I think there has been a (my opinion) very 'anti car' standpoint from council for a long time - I have, for example, heard opposition voiced against trail centres because they 'encourage people to drive there' and I know in the past of a significant sponsorship for the mountain bike/offroad side of campaigning being turned down because it was from a car company. My opinion is that this is a mistake, that you don't have to be 'anti car' in order to be 'pro bike' - others may disagree.

Thanks, ninfan and Northwind, these are the type of insights I was hoping for.

I hate the zero sum games e.g. cars vs bikes because it's always a false dichotomy, that only exists in the bigoted positor's head.

The arguments on here are genuinely swaying me.

When I first got into riding seriously as a teenager, CTC was the thing to join for the insurance and route info. An old chap down the road used to encourage us and talk endlessly about his old steel bikes with fancy lugs, and teach us bike maintenance. He was a typical CTC member of the day. I used to go out on the local club runs where me and a couple of friends were the youngest by at least 40 years. They were nice old blokes and we regularly did 100+ miles every Sunday and got to see some great places. We even did Lejog as 15 year olds. Wanting to burn everyone off wasn't the ethos obviously so I joined a road club (and BCF then) for racing.

Fast forward 20 years I start getting into riding again, decide to rejoin. Nothing much seemed to have changed. As a Director of a youth charity I meet with the then CTC CEO and tell him this, not that it was a huge problem but said it would be great to get more young people riding for all the well known reasons. And why not go for full charitable status to attract more funding for cycle campaigning, grassroots clubs and training. We did some great partnership work. We had a bit of a peak 5-10 years ago with getting many projects going, more young people involved, growing membership, our charity even had a Pro team for a while to raise awareness.

As ever, once funding tails off and government cut backs really started kicking in, so does the momentum and impact. This is often exacerbated by good people in an organisation who make a difference tending to move on / getting head hunted. The then CEO knew more than anyone the need to respect the heritage and membership whilst modernising. The local memberships were a key factor, they have been and could be even more a brilliant asset to inspire more people young and old to get into cycling. He knew to reach and benefit more people, stakeholders and investors, an easier to understand name and brand was needed. No easy task with the then set up.

I haven't been involved for a few years now but it looks like his successors have finally brought it to a head. Some of the old guard will inevitably moan, but overall I think it needed doing years ago. I have the CTC / CUK to thank for a lifetime's passion, I hope it will continue to do the same for future generations.

Did I throw something away when the mag arrived this week? No signs of a voting form.

Yeah, there was a form on the inside pages of the address cover sheet. There's a website to vote on though, you don't need the sheet itself, I bet if you drop them a line they'll sort you out with the relevant code to submit your vote.

FWIW I am in favour of the rebrand, and have voted accordingly. I think it will help in getting traction with policy-makers when they get a call from Cycling UK ("Oh right that's all the cyclists in the UK then, better listen.") rather than CTC ("Who? Cyclists Touring Club? Sounds like they sell cycling holidays or something, tell them to piss off.")

As others have said, interesting views expressed. Feeling even more positive about the rebrand.

I think that teh issue is less that a rebrand has occured, rather the scope and nature of the rebrand that has been undertaken.

When CTC was converted to a single caritable organisation, it was basically sold to the members as an administrative change, to allow alternative funding streams to be sought. This wholesale sweeping away of the "club" has left the core membership feeling that teh "doom mongers" who complained about the charity conversion were right. basically, if feels as if a small group of people wanted a national campaiging organisation, and have co-opted the CTC to do that.

the CTC was more like a colletion of local clubs, under a single umbrella name that had core resources and a campaigning arm operatign on a national level. Under this new form, the CTC is now a national campaigning organisation, with some affiliated local riding groups attahed.

While i agree that "CTC" as a brand didn't really cover whaat it was trying to achieve in campaigning, it the nature and method of the change that has caused the problem. (bofore you even get onto the bland name of cyclingUK and the early learnign centre style logo...

I really wish I'd voted against the charity conversion now, with hindsight... The organisation would have been better served as "CTC" for a club, and "cycling UK" as it's rebranded campaigning charity...

PS: Sorry for all the typo's in that... I could make the esxcuse of having a new keyboard at work, but I'm pretty sure it's basic incompetence on my part...