Following on from the Save our Forests, who do we think would be the best organisation to represent our rights?
Bike Forum
[closed]
Who should represent us. CTC or BC?
-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
Probably CTC as BS are very much about competition cycling and not the leisure cyclist.
Posted 1 year ago # -
What about those who compete?
They both do different things, I'm a BC member currently, and will stay so until I stop racing, when I'll still be a member of one of t'other. IMO the 3rd party insurance is rather handy.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Depends what the task is. If you need a committee of chums set up to meet periodically behind closed doors and form a sub-group to consult on the most cyclist-centred arrangement for the spin bikes on the aft deck of the Titanic, then I know who I would choose.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Which one would be better at protecting or improving our access rights?
Posted 1 year ago # -
CTC have a good plan but don't seem to be shouting much about it IMO.
Posted 1 year ago # -
In the end the world would be so much better, BC is good at pulling in sponsorship and sports council money on back or racing excellence, no reason that should not also have some benefit on recreational and commuting cyclists , if one body spoke for all cyclists you'd suddenly discover the likes of Clarkson might well head keeping a lowered head profile than shouting of discriminatory insults at cycling
Posted 1 year ago # -
Frankly, from having looked at the CTC Forum and their Charity Debate, they are the last organisation on earth I would want anything to do with!
Posted 1 year ago # -
Mugboo - Member
Which one would be better at protecting or improving our access rights?
The British Horse Society probably.
AS far as I'm concerned they're both rotten as members' groups but I've been fairly impressed with BC's competition side so I'd support them. CTC blew any chance they ever had of gaining my support when they opposed motorbike access to bus lanes- something which they say is dangerous, but which every major study ever conducted shows saves cyclist's lives.
(though I will say it was worth the price of admission to watch one appalling society go head to head with an even worse one, when they came to blows with the MAG- a group that's so with the times that they're still campaigning against mandatory motorbike helmets)
Posted 1 year ago # -
As someone who is really unlikely to go touring i can't support an organisation called the Cyclists Touring Club.
but then BC are more interested in promoting sport and themselves so neither really represents me.
but i'm BC member and have been for yearsPosted 1 year ago # -
From what I know CTC is actively pushing increased access rights for mountain bikers. I think they're more likely to do some for us non-athlete riders.
Did anyone mention IMBA, no thought not.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Huge opportunity but I guess the very nature of mtb'ing means that we're an assortment of misfits and mavericks! Can we be pigeon-holed?
Northwind - who are the MAG?
Posted 1 year ago # -
MAG - Motorcycle Action Group
Not seen anything about campaigning to remove the requirement for helmets myself... only a member as I get free beer at the rallys though
Posted 1 year ago # -
cant decide aternate each year as for the ctc plan start sof great them tells me to ride trail centres
A law which allows bicycles to share only those rights of way available to horse riders would be fine if all bridleways and byways were suited to cycling and all footpaths were not. But this is very far from being the case. This paper does not address the specific requirements of more serious enthusiasts who number perhaps 150,000 and whose needs are largely met through specialist facilities
Pah not sure of their helmet stance eitherPosted 1 year ago # -
From their website Captain:
"Whether the helmet issue is important to you or not, we all owe it, not only to Fred but to ourselves, to sustain a ceaseless call for the reform of this outrageous legislation MAG is not and never has been anti-helmet.
We just think it is wrong to criminalise peope who wish to exercise choice over what they ride and what they wear.
The helmet law made naff all difference to fatality rates, it's a complete red herring.
In a country where violent yobs walk free from courts, laughing at the law, is it right or proportionate to criminalise and imprison those who just want to have choice over what they wear?
Be it dayglo, be it body armour, be it a helmet. It's all about the same thing - choice."
Posted 1 year ago # -
Fair do's - as I said... I only signed up for the beer vouchers at a couple of the rallies
Posted 1 year ago # -
The Brick
That CTC link is worth a read. They talk alot of sense.
On a personal level my local BC & CTC reps up here in Bradford are both very genuine and enthusiastic people.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Us ? as in mountian bikers would be a start don't you think. BTC & BC both have internal differences inregard to cycling issues. From recent experience they dont even work that well together (or even want to).
Posted 1 year ago # -
CTC is putting a lot more effort into MTB these days and I think they are on the right track with access at the moment.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Wasn't it CTC who lobbied (successfully) for the right to cycle on bridleways.
Oh and lobbied (again successfully) against the law change forcing road bikers to use terrible cycle paths.
British Cycling organise events (races, and also 'recreational' events like sportives) and sporting teams.
So really it depends on what you mean by represent you. If you want to cycle as a sport (races etc.), then British Cycling will sort you out. If you want to cycle to get around, or mostly ride for fun and not at organised events, then CTC possibly represent what you do more. One of them is an organiser of serious racing events, the other is a political lobbying organisation.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Wasn't it CTC who lobbied (successfully) for the right to cycle on bridleways.
No, there's never been a law prohibiting cyclists from bridleways.
Oh and lobbied (again successfully) against the law change forcing road bikers to use terrible cycle paths.
No cos there's never been plans for that either. Cyclists use the roads by RIGHT, to change that would be a massive piece of legislation which would be so unworkable and so unpopular it would never succeed anyway!
British Cycling organise events (races, and also 'recreational' events like sportives) and sporting teams.
Wrong, BC, administers the sporting side of cycling, it's rare that "British Cycling" itself actually organises events - most events across all disciplines are put on by volunteer organisers (who are members of BC) but BC just supports, facilitates and administers this process.
Sportives are mostly organised by professional events management companies doing it for a profit.So really it depends on what you mean by represent you. If you want to cycle as a sport (races etc.), then British Cycling will sort you out. If you want to cycle to get around, or mostly ride for fun and not at organised events, then CTC possibly represent what you do more. One of them is an organiser of serious racing events, the other is a political lobbying organisation.
Still not correct. Both organisations lobby Parliament, BC is currently doing some good work in getting the massively outdated Cycle Racing on the Highways legislation re-written and while that may not affect the average MTBer directly it does have repercussions for cyclists rights everywhere. CTC is more of an advocacy based organisation which is fine. Both do excellent work but both work in different ways due to their different methods of funding, their goals and their demographic.
Joining either one shows you support cycling and it gives you the insurance cover as well - personally I can't understand why more cyclists don't have insurance. You wouldn't drive a car without it, why ride your several-thousand-££ bike without it?!
As to "representing MTBers", show me an average MTBer who actually gives a stuff about representation. While it's a great ideal, cyclists (especially MTBers) have always been anti-establishment.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I wouldn't support the CTC and certainly wouldn't want them representing me! After long discussions with them at the highest level, over taking over our local forests, my conclusion is that they offer nothing bar the third party insurance for their £68 yearly fee to ride their 'controlled' areas. If they had their way mtb'ing would require a permit like a fishing rod licence, you would need one by law at 68 quid per year to ride off road anywhere in the UK.
The local DH group subscribed (were forced) to the CTC to continue using the tracks they had created on FC land. Out of the £68 CTC yearly fee, only £2.50 - £5 went to the local club. Again the CTC are not providing anything other than the third party insurance.
If I were a roadie or touring cyclist then I could see the benfits of this organisation.
Posted 1 year ago # -
As to "representing MTBers", show me an average MTBer who actually gives a stuff about representation.
Sadly yes this is the case as recent meetings in Dalby have proved.
100's of walkers turn out,100's of general public and even 2 horse mounted ladies as for MTBers well 5 of us ? even though it was a sunday and the car park was full of MTBers. All to busy riding I guess.Posted 1 year ago # -
In my area BC & CTC seem happy to work together.
And tis sadly true that most bikers are oblivious to what could be achieved with the right lobbying and more trailbuilding.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Junkyard - Member
cant decide aternate each year as for the ctc plan start sof great them tells me to ride trail centres
If you read the entire document it says nothing of the sort.
Pah not sure of their helmet stance eitherSo you don't believe people should have a choice of if and when to wear a helmet?
Posted 1 year ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
