CTC - the premier campaigning uselessness for UK cyclists



"marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>> burtthebike <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "Trevor A Panther" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> Let's be basic. CTC will only promote CTC.
>>>>
>>>> It is totally self sustaining and not interested in "local" issues
>>> Let's actually be truthful: local CTC sections are interested in local
>>> issues, with or without inverted commas.
>>>
>>> The CTC promotes cycling generally, and the CTC specifically.
>>>
>>> Are you a member Trevor, or just a moaner?

>>
>> I wouldn't wish to speak for Trevor, but when I was considering joining
>> the CTC this spring, their complete failure to do anything public about
>> the Highway Code was enough to make me decide not to join them.
>>

>
>
> The article in today's CTC magazine seems to show that they were a bit
> swan like during that period.


"Swan like"???????? please elucidate
 
burtthebike <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Ekul Namsob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1i546dw.1pwxifb1csox1pN%[email protected]...
> > burtthebike <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> "Ekul Namsob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:1i5403b.998lxw1e2i3o0N%[email protected]...

> >
> >> > I wouldn't wish to speak for Trevor, but when I was considering joining
> >> > the CTC this spring, their complete failure to do anything public about
> >> > the Highway Code was enough to make me decide not to join them.
> >>
> >> Not doing anything? so that's why it was changed then. And what did you
> >> do?

> >
> > I wrote to my MP and signed the online petition. This being a
> > parliamentary democracy, it's just possible that pressure from MPs
> > helped to change the Code.


> Well Luke, like you I wrote to my MP, and signed the online petition, but I
> did so in response to the request from the CTC, which organised the action
> opposing the the godawful new rules in the highway code.


Did they? You may like to look at what Google Groups has to show on this
group from this spring. <http://preview.tinyurl.com/3dvoh9>

As I recall, the CTC in its newsnet of 30/03/07, reported on this group,
announced: "We will be considering how best to respond. We urge members
to 'hold fire' for the moment". That was the last they announced for a
good five or six weeks. This despite the fact that, as it then stood,
the draft HC would have coerced cyclists to use farcilities.

> Why did you write
> and sign the petition? I wonder if it's because someone from the CTC told
> you about it? Or perhaps it was just coincidence?


Bearing in mind what I have quoted from the CTC above, it's unlikely to
have had anything to do with them.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
burtthebike <[email protected]> wrote:

> "burtthebike" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...


> > Are you a member Trevor, or just a moaner?

>
> Since Trevor himself won't respond, I think we can deduce that the first is
> not true, but the second is. Anyone who expects a membership organisation
> to take action for non-members and then complains that they don't [is a
> complete *****.]


It may be worth giving him time to respond before getting abusive. It's
just about possible that Trevor has had other things to do in the last
17 hours. Apparently, some people here have jobs, families, bicycles and
hobbies.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
burtthebike <[email protected]> wrote:

> "burtthebike" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...


> > Are you a member Trevor, or just a moaner?

>
> Since Trevor himself won't respond, I think we can deduce that the first is
> not true, but the second is. Anyone who expects a membership organisation
> to take action for non-members and then complains that they don't [is a
> complete *****.]


It may be worth giving him time to respond before getting abusive. It's
just about possible that Trevor has had other things to do in the last
17 hours. Apparently, some people here have jobs, families, bicycles and
hobbies.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
Ekul Namsob wrote:
>
> Did they? You may like to look at what Google Groups has to show on this
> group from this spring. <http://preview.tinyurl.com/3dvoh9>
>
> As I recall, the CTC in its newsnet of 30/03/07, reported on this group,
> announced: "We will be considering how best to respond. We urge members
> to 'hold fire' for the moment". That was the last they announced for a
> good five or six weeks. This despite the fact that, as it then stood,
> the draft HC would have coerced cyclists to use farcilities.
>
>> Why did you write
>> and sign the petition? I wonder if it's because someone from the CTC told
>> you about it? Or perhaps it was just coincidence?

>
> Bearing in mind what I have quoted from the CTC above, it's unlikely to
> have had anything to do with them.
>
> Cheers,
> Luke
>


So Luke, do you think we as cyclists in Britain would be better off if
the CTC did not exist? No the CTC is not perfect but then no campaigning
organisation of any size can be. As a membership organisation with a
full-time bureaucracy (I use that term descriptively not pejoratively)
there will always be differences between groups and individuals among
the membership and tensions between the interests of the membership and
the bureaucracy. I'm not one to paraphrase Churchill but here it seems
appropriate: the CTC is the worst form of national cycling campaign
except for all others we have tried.

The fact is that not all people who are cyclists, pro-cycling or
involved in promoting the interests of cyclist/cycling have the
privilege of being totally informed, up to date with all the research
and right about everything as some people in this forum seem to think
they are. There are not enough hours in the day for most of us. So you
can sanctimoniously sit outside the imperfect CTC and lob rocks at it
but don't delude yourself that by doing so that you are doing cycling in
Britain any favours. If it wasn't around then we would have to replace
with another national cycling campaign and that would be just as
imperfect as the CTC is and all of us are.

Ian
 
burtthebike wrote:
>
> "marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>>> burtthebike <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Trevor A Panther" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's be basic. CTC will only promote CTC.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is totally self sustaining and not interested in "local" issues
>>>> Let's actually be truthful: local CTC sections are interested in local
>>>> issues, with or without inverted commas.
>>>>
>>>> The CTC promotes cycling generally, and the CTC specifically.
>>>>
>>>> Are you a member Trevor, or just a moaner?
>>>
>>> I wouldn't wish to speak for Trevor, but when I was considering joining
>>> the CTC this spring, their complete failure to do anything public about
>>> the Highway Code was enough to make me decide not to join them.
>>>

>>
>>
>> The article in today's CTC magazine seems to show that they were a
>> bit swan like during that period.

>
> "Swan like"???????? please elucidate


Looking as if they are gliding long smoooothly and calmly, whilst
frantically paddling like hell below the surface!
 
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 22:38:08 GMT,
[email protected] (Ekul Namsob) wrote:

>burtthebike <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "burtthebike" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...

>
>> > Are you a member Trevor, or just a moaner?

>>
>> Since Trevor himself won't respond, I think we can deduce that the first is
>> not true, but the second is. Anyone who expects a membership organisation
>> to take action for non-members and then complains that they don't [is a
>> complete *****.]



Uncalled for.
>
>It may be worth giving him time to respond before getting abusive. It's
>just about possible that Trevor has had other things to do in the last
>17 hours. Apparently, some people here have jobs, families, bicycles and
>hobbies.
>

AIUI Trevor was a member, but didn't renew as he was disenchanted with
certain aspects of the CTC. A google search will probaly tell you
more.


Tim
--

Tim

fast and gripping, non pompous, glossy and credible.
 
"burtthebike" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Trevor A Panther" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> Let's be basic. CTC will only promote CTC.
>>
>> It is totally self sustaining and not interested in "local" issues

>
> Let's actually be truthful: local CTC sections are interested in local
> issues, with or without inverted commas.
>
> The CTC promotes cycling generally, and the CTC specifically.
>
> Are you a member Trevor, or just a moaner?


Yes I am a member (and have been for 5 years) until the end of October that
is, but will not be after that

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
>
 
"Trevor A Panther" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
>
>
>
> "burtthebike" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Trevor A Panther" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>> Let's be basic. CTC will only promote CTC.
>>>
>>> It is totally self sustaining and not interested in "local" issues

>>
>> Let's actually be truthful: local CTC sections are interested in local
>> issues, with or without inverted commas.
>>
>> The CTC promotes cycling generally, and the CTC specifically.
>>
>> Are you a member Trevor, or just a moaner?

>
> Yes I am a member (and have been for 5 years) until the end of October that
> is, but will not be after that
>
> --
> Trevor A Panther
> In South Yorkshire,
> England, United Kingdom.
> www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
>>

>

A case in point about cyclists reaction to the Highway code hiatus when CTC
was acting "swan like". I and many hundreds of cyclists wrote directly to
their MPs to get them to pressurise the government to retook at the matter. A
great many people discussed it even on this NG. MP's were put under direct
pressure by individuals and not solely by CTC -- who at that time recommended
that members should do nothing. For weeks CTC failed utterly to keep its
members informed at that time

I find CTC's claim to have been the sole influence in this matter of the
Highway Code at variance with the truth.

The CTC campaign, with its resulted 11000 letters to MPs, had virtually no
effect in changes to the HC draft and it was not until later, when many
individual cyclists wrote, in their own words, very personal letters to their
MP's ( I wrote a few too) and started major rumblings in the backbenchers,
did action result in a second review.


--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
 
Trevor A Panther wrote:

> A case in point about cyclists reaction to the Highway code hiatus when
> CTC was acting "swan like". I and many hundreds of cyclists wrote
> directly to their MPs to get them to pressurise the government to retook
> at the matter. A great many people discussed it even on this NG. MP's
> were put under direct pressure by individuals and not solely by CTC --
> who at that time recommended that members should do nothing. For weeks
> CTC failed utterly to keep its members informed at that time


Fair comment

> I find CTC's claim to have been the sole influence in this matter of the
> Highway Code at variance with the truth.


Fair comment

> The CTC campaign, with its resulted 11000 letters to MPs, had virtually
> no effect in changes to the HC draft and it was not until later, when
> many individual cyclists wrote, in their own words, very personal
> letters to their MP's ( I wrote a few too) and started major rumblings
> in the backbenchers, did action result in a second review.


probably *not* fair comment. While the CTC going on as if had all been
their own work was, as you point out, rather at odds with reality, if
you look at what government were saying when they did their U-turn it's
pretty clear IMHO that CTC were a very major (probably *the* major)
player in the actual rewording from the draft.

But they should certainly have done more in keeping us informed, and
been freer with credit where it was due to MPs and individual letter
writers and other such stirrers.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
>IMHO [the] CTC were a very major (probably *the* major) player in the
>actual rewording from the draft.


It's not clear what that's based on besides assertions by the CTC.

And even if it's true, the new wording is a complete mess. It may be
the best mess that was attainable under the circumstances, of course.

But I think the real credit for such victory as we achieved lies with
the the campaigning by individuals and other organisations.

Can the CTC take any credit for the 11,000 letters to MPs ?
No, that was done by individuals alerted by grass-roots publicity.

Can the CTC take any credit for the EDM supported by David Howarth and
Menzies Campbell ? No, they told us it was counterproductive.

Can the CTC take any credit for the sub-48h >1000-signature paper
petition to the House of Commons ? No, that was started by David
Howarth and signed by mainly individual Cambridge cyclists after
publicity from the Cambridge Cycling Campaign.

Can the CTC take any credit for the 29,900-signature Downing Street
e-petition ? No, that was started by an individual from the Cambridge
campaign and signed by cyclists following grassroots publicity.

The CTC told us all to "hold fire" while they hobnobbed with the same
officials who'd doublecrossed them.

Full disclosure: I'm a member of the Cambridge Cycling Campaign and of
the Liberal Democrats so you might say I was biased. Or you might say
that I choose to support organisations that advance causes I care
about.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <[email protected]>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
 
Ian Jackson wrote:

> It's not clear what that's based on besides assertions by the CTC.


The way they were specifically named by the minister in charge was a
pretty strong indication.

> And even if it's true, the new wording is a complete mess. It may be
> the best mess that was attainable under the circumstances, of course.


Well, quite.

> The CTC told us all to "hold fire" while they hobnobbed with the same
> officials who'd doublecrossed them.


But who ultimately came out with a vastly improved form of words, and
said that the "hobnobbing" with the CTC was instrumental.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Quoting Peter Clinch <[email protected]>:
>Ian Jackson wrote:
>>It's not clear what that's based on besides assertions by the CTC.

>The way they were specifically named by the minister in charge was a
>pretty strong indication.


But we know he is a liar.

>>The CTC told us all to "hold fire" while they hobnobbed with the same
>>officials who'd doublecrossed them.

>But who ultimately came out with a vastly improved form of words, and
>said that the "hobnobbing" with the CTC was instrumental.


But we know they are liars.

Maybe what they would like is to eliminate the sources of pressure that
cause people to come and ask them awkward questions, and retain the one
that can be quietly fobbed off in a back room somewhere.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is First Leicesterday, September.
 
Allow me to be slightly more cynical.

If the CTC had pushed members to write, en masse, at the time they
were telling us to sit back, it would have appeared as if they were
using the membership as a vocal publicity weapon in the campaign. This
would probably have engendered animosity at the kind of levels where
goodwill is needed. As it is was, they could turn round and say 'look,
we have tried, but we can't get them to shut up. We are not
encouraging this letter writing' and it demonstrates the deep worry
felt by cyclists across the board rather than a mobilised campaign by
a single pressure group.

So there are games and there are games. And getting it right is not
always easy, and not always obvious.

...d
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> I find CTC's claim to have been the sole influence in this matter of the
> Highway Code at variance with the truth.
>


As they say, success has many fathers while failure is an orphan.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Allow me to be slightly more cynical.
>
> If the CTC had pushed members to write, en masse, at the time they
> were telling us to sit back, it would have appeared as if they were
> using the membership as a vocal publicity weapon in the campaign. This
> would probably have engendered animosity at the kind of levels where
> goodwill is needed. As it is was, they could turn round and say 'look,
> we have tried, but we can't get them to shut up. We are not
> encouraging this letter writing' and it demonstrates the deep worry
> felt by cyclists across the board rather than a mobilised campaign by
> a single pressure group.
>


I have been in exactly that situation with negotiations, on behalf of a
membership, with a Government Department. The hubbub in the background
is useful leverage for which you apologise as you cannot be seen to be
condoning it while claiming to be having serious negotiations to solve
the problem.


--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> Allow me to be slightly more cynical.
>>
>> If the CTC had pushed members to write, en masse, at the time they
>> were telling us to sit back, it would have appeared as if they were
>> using the membership as a vocal publicity weapon in the campaign. This
>> would probably have engendered animosity at the kind of levels where
>> goodwill is needed. As it is was, they could turn round and say 'look,
>> we have tried, but we can't get them to shut up. We are not
>> encouraging this letter writing' and it demonstrates the deep worry
>> felt by cyclists across the board rather than a mobilised campaign by
>> a single pressure group.
>>

>
> I have been in exactly that situation with negotiations, on behalf of a
> membership, with a Government Department. The hubbub in the background
> is useful leverage for which you apologise as you cannot be seen to be
> condoning it while claiming to be having serious negotiations to solve
> the problem.
>


Both very well put. And I think you're being a little hard on yourself
David - there's all the difference in the world between being cynical
and being realistic about how parliamentary, civil service and lobby
group politics works.

Most politicians and to an extent civil servants want an easy life and
to be able to convince themselves that they are doing 'good things' - it
is a fine judgement on the part of a lobby group whether to rally the
masses to the barricades or to make yourself out to be the reasoned and
acceptable face of a potentially angry mob.

And of course there are many more subtleties and variations on this
theme in the surreal backslapping world of lobby politics. That's not
something the CTC can be blamed for - that is unfortunately the terrain
in which they have operate much of the time.

Ian
 
7@m3 G33k <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ekul Namsob wrote:
> >
> > Did they? You may like to look at what Google Groups has to show on this
> > group from this spring. <http://preview.tinyurl.com/3dvoh9>
> >
> > As I recall, the CTC in its newsnet of 30/03/07, reported on this group,
> > announced: "We will be considering how best to respond. We urge members
> > to 'hold fire' for the moment". That was the last they announced for a
> > good five or six weeks. This despite the fact that, as it then stood,
> > the draft HC would have coerced cyclists to use farcilities.
> >
> >> Why did you write
> >> and sign the petition? I wonder if it's because someone from the CTC told
> >> you about it? Or perhaps it was just coincidence?

> >
> > Bearing in mind what I have quoted from the CTC above, it's unlikely to
> > have had anything to do with them.


> So Luke, do you think we as cyclists in Britain would be better off if
> the CTC did not exist?


I refuse to argue against a straw man.

> No the CTC is not perfect but then no campaigning
> organisation of any size can be. As a membership organisation with a
> full-time bureaucracy (I use that term descriptively not pejoratively)
> there will always be differences between groups and individuals among
> the membership and tensions between the interests of the membership and
> the bureaucracy. I'm not one to paraphrase Churchill but here it seems
> appropriate: the CTC is the worst form of national cycling campaign
> except for all others we have tried.


You are, therefore, one to paraphrase Churchill. Indeed, your rhetorical
style is well practised.
>
> The fact is that not all people who are cyclists, pro-cycling or
> involved in promoting the interests of cyclist/cycling have the
> privilege of being totally informed, up to date with all the research
> and right about everything as some people in this forum seem to think
> they are.


Absolutely. However, if they are sufficiently involved with a national
cycling organisation that they get to publish on its website, I might
suggest they don't so much have the privilege of being totally informed
as the duty to make themselves informed.

>There are not enough hours in the day for most of us. So you
> can sanctimoniously sit outside the imperfect CTC and lob rocks at it
> but don't delude yourself that by doing so that you are doing cycling in
> Britain any favours.


You accuse me of being sanctimonious, which, I'm sorry to say, is odd,
considering your tone.

> If it wasn't around then we would have to replace
> with another national cycling campaign and that would be just as
> imperfect as the CTC is and all of us are.


Would it tell people to 'hold fire' while the very interests of the
entire membership are threatened? Would it then claim to have won the
battle almost singlehandedly once grassroots cyclists had personally
written to their MPs? If the CTC would care to explain that one, then I
might well reconsider my opinion.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> I find CTC's claim to have been the sole influence in this matter of the
>> Highway Code at variance with the truth.
>>

>
> As they say, success has many fathers while failure is an orphan.
>


Actually they say failure is a *******
 

Similar threads

M
Replies
10
Views
563
UK and Europe
Just zis Guy, you know?
J
M
Replies
1
Views
376
UK and Europe
David Hansen
D
R
Replies
2
Views
551
R
P
Replies
9
Views
414
P
P
Replies
0
Views
390
P
M
Replies
0
Views
321
M
I
Replies
48
Views
2K
UK and Europe
Peter Scandrett
P