The mission of the Touring Cyclist Club is to focus on the pleasures of cycle touring and steer away from “politics, campaigning and the wearing of helmets”
That’s the take of a new group of touring cyclists who say they just want to embrace the enjoyment of the open road.
A new club for Cycle Tourists has been launched this autumn. The Touring Cyclist Club is a club specifically for those who want to tour by bicycle – on road or off road, be it for a few hours, a day or even multiple days exploring the countryside, towns and villages.
Harking back to traditions of cycle touring, the group was started by Dennis Snape and Rob Gullen – both members of Heart of England Cycling Club.
The new club says it aims to provide members with they say what many feel is now lacking: useful information, specifically for the increasing number of Touring Cyclists and to put them in contact with each other.
Established March 2016, membership was opened on 5 August 2016 and hundreds have already joined. From the Isle of Wight to Aviemore, from Canterbury to Belfast – and even Alaska, Touring Cyclist Club members will never be far away from another local member.
The website is the hub of the community, with members already active on the popular forum pages. The founders, Rob Gullen and Dennis Snape, say they will soon be adding more Cycle Touring information to the main website.
Sections like UK Touring Routes, Maps, Places to Stay and Technical Information. Members’ Third Party Liability Insurance is in the immediate pipeline. Some content will be open to public viewing but the real value to members will be in the members’ only area of the website and forum.
The not for profit Touring Cyclist Club is run entirely by unpaid volunteers, purely for the benefit of its Members. In the words of its founders: ‘The Touring Cyclist Club is here to support and encourage members with resources, shared experiences and the inspiration to have fun touring on a bicycle’ The initial membership fee is just £4.
For further details see the website at www.touringcyclistclub.org.uk
48 thoughts on “Want cycle touring without the politics? This club might be for you…”
Popular People’s Front of
Popular People’s Front of Judea, anyone…?
brooksby wrote:
Splitter!
Leviathan wrote:
“Listen. The only people we hate more than Addison Lee are the f#cking Cyclists Touring Club.”
“Splitters”
“And the Bike Touring Club.”
“Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters…”
“And the Touring Cyclists Club.”
“Yeah. Splitters. Splitters…”
“What?
“The Touring Cyclists Club. Splitters.”
“We’re the Touring Cyclists Club!”
“Oh. I thought we were the Bicyclists Touring Club.”
“Cyclists Club!”
“Whatever happened to the Bicyclists Touring Club?”
“He’s over there. Splitter!”
Sounds like a cycling touring
Sounds like a cycling touring club I used to know!
Anybody with any sense who
Anybody with any sense who wants to know about cycle touring is already a member of Cycling UK, previously the Cyclists’ Touring Club, and has access to everything the new club proposes to supply, and a lot more besides. There are plenty, the majority in fact, of CUK members who take no part in cycle campaigning and are none the worse off for that, so what exactly is the point of this new club?
burtthebike wrote:
to embrace to open road, it would appear.
burtthebike wrote:
Because the newly rebadged CTC has upset an awful lot of its membership in various ways and possibly behaved a bit iffily with regard to voting such things in.
I’m not a CTC member myself, but I pay attention to most of the cycling groups and boy are there some pissed off folk in the CTC.
imajez wrote:
Can someone try give an objective summary of what happened?
At the moment, readers here are left guessing, but it sounds like helmets were somehow a factor in this?
Paul J wrote:
Sam_Smith summed it up pretty well here:
The Cycling Touring Club (CTC) is an old organisation (over a 100 years old) and the top brass of this formidiable organisation decided they wanted to become a broader church (nothing wrong with that). However in trying to appeal to a wider range of people they abandoned the organisation’s name and it’s very ethos and reason for being becoming “Cycling UK”. They did this without consulting the membership instead using focus groups who seemed to think that the Touring bit put people joining the CTC because they don’t tour themselves (I don’t tour but I’m a CTC member). Also the Cycling UK name is likely to get the organisation confused with British Cycling which is another kind of cycling group altogether (they’re into the sport side of cycling)
Consequently this Touring Cyclist Club has formed for those who feel that the CTC/Cycling UK have moved away from the original organisation’s remit. I wish them luck
The helmet thing was brought up by drosco, probably because of a mis-quote in the original article where the word “discussing” was omitted before “wearing of helmets”.
psling wrote:
Quite so. (Although to be fair to the writer of this road.cc article, it would seem she had simply copied that part of TCC’s earlier – unfortunate – press release word for word in good faith. It’s still on TCC’s ‘News’ page now. )
Actually, as both Cycling UK and – I’m fairly sure – Touring Cyclist Club have a sort of a pro-choice approach to the wearing of helmets (TCC folk just appear to be tired of people endlessly rehashing the same old discussion) I would say it’s a topic on which they are in something like agreement.
burtthebike wrote:
The new non-campaigning club charges £39 less. I suppose some people might prefer to fund other cycle campaigning groups, or none. Logic dictates that they cannot all be equally effective.
Sounds like quite a selfish
Sounds like quite a selfish splinter group that just wants to ride without putting anything back in to making the roads or trails better for other people who ride. Most groups / organisations in the UK try and at least put something in to making cycling better for everyone – seems a shame that they can’t be bothered.
After going into a car door
After going into a car door this weekend, anyone who is advocating not wearing a helmet must be insane.
drosco wrote:
People who ride in the door zone must be insane. Not wearing s helmet is a small increase in risk. Riding in thr door zone is much bigger. Wearing a plastic helmet will not save you if you are knocked down in front of a cat or bus.
wycombewheeler wrote:
It could be argued that an even greater peril than falling in front of a predatory feline is that all of us should take as read such an obviously suspect statement as Steer away from “politics, campaigning and the wearing of helmets” with the new Touring Cyclist Club…
From the ‘About us’ page of the web site linked to in this article:
Woldsman wrote:
It could be argued that an even greater peril than falling in front of a predatory feline is that all of us should take as read such an obviously suspect statement as Steer away from “politics, campaigning and the wearing of helmets” with the new Touring Cyclist Club…
From the ‘About us’ page of the web site linked to in this article:
— wycombewheeler
An even greater peril? Yeah I’d like to see the risk profiles broken down. After you…
davel wrote:
It could be argued that an even greater peril than falling in front of a predatory feline is that all of us should take as read such an obviously suspect statement as Steer away from “politics, campaigning and the wearing of helmets” with the new Touring Cyclist Club…
From the ‘About us’ page of the web site linked to in this article:
— Woldsman An even greater peril? Yeah I’d like to see the risk profiles broken down. After you…— wycombewheeler
Just in case davel was being serious I’ve copied above my earlier – silly – comment and emboldened the text of two key words. Just a throwaway bit of nonsense written around three o’clock this morning when I couldn’t get to sleep.
I’d read an article about a new cycling club. After that I chuckled at the Python references and felt the familiar sinking feeling as the discussion drifted further off topic. After reading wycombewheeler’s forgivable typo I was then transported from Python to the Goodies. Now some poor cyclist had hit a car door. (It happened to me. Once.) Just when it seemed the rider’s day couldn’t get any worse s/he was then set upon by the kitten from that TV comedy programme of my youth. Or something.
Back on topic. It would appear that an earlier press release from Touring Cyclist Club has been faithfully reproduced by Sarah Barth for this article. In the statement it seems an unfortunate omission was made of the word ‘discussing’. (At the time of writing there are press releases on the ‘News’ page of TCC’s web site.)
On the ‘About us’ page I scrolled past a photograph of the co-founder of this new club to read the mission statement. Again:
The mission of the Touring Cyclist Club is to focus on the pleasures of cycle touring and steer away from “politics, campaigning and discussing the wearing of helmets” [my bold]
In the photograph Dennis Snape is wearing a helmet.
Woldsman wrote:
Well, that was a disappointing breakdown of risk profiles (I wasn’t being serious)…
wycombewheeler wrote:
You know precisely nothing about the circumstances of my accident so you’d do well not to speculate.
One thing is perfectly clear, that is, that a helmet saved me from much greater injury. If you seek to convince yourself otherwise then you’re an idiot. If you try to convince others then you should be ashamed.
drosco wrote:
It’s a reasonable assumption to make that if you were car-doored you were riding in the door zone. I don’t/can’t speak for ww but I interpreted their post as flipping yours on its head.
Many helmet evangelists make the argument that a helmet protects them from harm. Many antis counter with ‘ride safer’ – and quote cause and effect and studies that show that risk-taking increases, via the impression of safety, when safety equipment is worn. So your post is one aspect of the debate in a microcosm.
Generalisms like ‘people arguing against helmets must be insane’ because of your experience, due to what some might interpret* as risky/naive riding, really don’t further the debate.
*whose fault is this interpretation? You’ve provided exactly the right amount of detail to assume that you were riding in the door zone, and to try to use as justification for wearing a helmet.
davel wrote:
After going into a car door this weekend, anyone who is advocating not wearing a helmet must be insane.
— davel People who ride in the door zone must be insane. Not wearing s helmet is a small increase in risk. Riding in thr door zone is much bigger. Wearing a plastic helmet will not save you if you are knocked down in front of a cat or bus.— drosco You know precisely nothing about the circumstances of my accident so you’d do well not to speculate. One thing is perfectly clear, that is, that a helmet saved me from much greater injury. If you seek to convince yourself otherwise then you’re an idiot. If you try to convince others then you should be ashamed.— wycombewheeler It’s a reasonable assumption to make that if you were car-doored you were riding in the door zone. I don’t/can’t speak for ww but I interpreted their post as flipping yours on its head. Many helmet evangelists make the argument that a helmet protects them from harm. Many antis counter with ‘ride safer’ – and quote cause and effect and studies that show that risk-taking increases, via the impression of safety, when safety equipment is worn. So your post is one aspect of the debate in a microcosm. Generalisms like ‘people arguing against helmets must be insane’ because of your experience, due to what some might interpret* as risky/naive riding, really don’t further the debate. *whose fault is this interpretation? You’ve provided exactly the right amount of detail to assume that you were riding in the door zone, and to try to use as justification for wearing a helmet.— drosco
You know what, interpret it whatever way you want, I could not be less interested in your opinion on my accident. I just hope any person who is unfortunate to be involved in a similar accident has read this and will have the common sense to be wearing a helmet too. If you choose not to that’s your doing.
Enough.
drosco wrote:
To be fair, drosco, you brought it in as a topic in a helmet debate.
And ‘common sense’ (ie biases and preconceptions) should be left at the door in any sensible cause and effect discussion.
drosco wrote:
OK, I’ll bite: so what *were* the exact circumstances of your collision, that the helmet demonstrably saved you from greater head injury and that “any person who is unfortunate to be involved in a similar accident … will have the common sense to be wearing a helmet too.”?
I just think if you’re going to use your anecdote as evidence in your argument then we need to know the circumstances. You never know: it might be the data that tips someone from anti- to pro-helmet
brooksby wrote:
Nooooo!!!
You’ve really opened the floodgates now 😉
Seriously, I’m right with you re. anecdote not equalling evidence. Unfortunately the helmet & hi-viz complusionists don’t care, they just want to pummel you into submission with their ignorance.
I suspect it makes them feel better about themselves instead of stopping to ask whether something is genuinely effective.
Not sure whether this People’s Touring Front has anything to offer disaffected CTC/CUK members but I’d rather my money help support the lobbying power and history of CUK, not to mention the Cyclists’ Defence Fund. At first glance it just seems just another club (nothing wrong with that, of course).
brooksby wrote:
Come on, drosco: we need to know your perfect piece of anecdotal data. I am genuinely interested.
drosco wrote:
You do realise these two sentences contradict each other? How can it be ‘perfectly clear’ when we don’t know the circumstances?
Why are helmet-pushers so obnoxious about it, insisting that anyone who challenges their One True Faith must be ‘insane’?
As it happens, the ‘dooring’ issue is one reason why I usually wear a helmet. It’s the one case where I could imagine having an impact at low enough speed that a helmet might make a difference.
But I don’t think its nearly a strong enough reason to condemn those who make a different choice. I’d rather condemn those who allow on-street parking where there isn’t enough space, which is what creates the dooring risk in the first place. It’s those guys that seem ‘insane’ to me.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
You do realise these two sentences contradict each other? How can it be ‘perfectly clear’ when we don’t know the circumstances?
Why are helmet-pushers so obnoxious about it, insisting that anyone who challenges their One True Faith must be ‘insane’?
As it happens, the ‘dooring’ issue is one reason why I usually wear a helmet. It’s the one case where I could imagine having an impact at low enough speed that a helmet might make a difference.
But I don’t think its nearly a strong enough reason to condemn those who make a different choice. I’d rather condemn those who allow on-street parking where there isn’t enough space, which is what creates the dooring risk in the first place. It’s those guys that seem ‘insane’ to me.— drosco
And the ones that paint/allow to be painted cycles lanes in the door zone. If anyone should be ashamed it is them.
On the cases where helmets may help add collision with other cyclist and slippery metalwork in road junction. The only time my lid ever hit the floor was washing out on a drain cover placed right in the wheel path at a roundabout. I was going so slowly too. Reckon it saved me a possible concussion as well as grazing of the ear. Pretty much what is is designed for, falling from head height to floor. Not impact with object at high closing speed.
drosco wrote:
I never said don’t wear helmet. If you read again you will see I said they offer a small risk reduction.
Head injuries to pedestrians involved on RTCs outnumber cyclists head injuries 11 to 1. Are pedestrians insane not to wear them? Your assertion completely over states the risk.
However much your helmet reduced the injury not being door ed would have been better.
As chris Boardman says there are many issues that need a dressing to improve cyclist safety before mandating helmets. PPE should be the last measure taken, but in cycling it seems to be the first/only measure people consider.
No country that has introduced a helmet law has seen a corresponding drop in rates of cyclist head injuries, but they have seen drops in cyclist numbers.
Stop obsessing on magic hats and look at real stuff that can save lives.
wycombewheeler wrote:
If you were knocked down in front of my cat you’d be at very serious risk of being shouted at until you fed him.
Oh dear, biscuit anyone?
Oh dear, biscuit anyone?
For a newcomer to the UK,
For a newcomer to the UK, what’s all this about then? Sounds a bit like the various factions of the IRA.
Jackson wrote:
The Cycling Touring Club (CTC) is an old organisation (over a 100 years old) and the top brass of this formidiable organisation decided they wanted to become a broader church (nothing wrong with that). However in trying to appeal to a wider range of people they abandoned the organisation’s name and it’s very ethos and reason for being becoming “Cycling UK”. They did this without consulting the membership instead using focus groups who seemed to think that the Touring bit put people joining the CTC because they don’t tour themselves (I don’t tour but I’m a CTC member). Also the Cycling UK name is likely to get the organisation confused with British Cycling which is another kind of cycling group altogether (they’re into the sport side of cycling)
Consequently this Touring Cyclist Club has formed for those who feel that the CTC/Cycling UK have moved away from the original organisation’s remit. I wish them luck
Don’t they know that they’ll
Don’t they know that they’ll all be dead within a few hours if they’re not constantly talking about helmets and wearing them?
They should rename it, ‘the
They should rename it, ‘the helmet refusenik organ donor cycle touring club’. You could get an organ donor card as a joining incentive.
Judge dreadful wrote:
Without wishing to re-open the helmet debate yet again, it would help if people didn’t post ludicrous comments like that above. For the record, nowhere with a helmet law can show any reduction in risk to cyclists and the biggest ever study found an increase in risk with helmet wearing. cyclehelmets.org
burtthebike wrote:
Here’s a nice link about the medical benefits of smoking. Maybe you could do that too?
http://www.livescience.com/15115-5-health-benefits-smoking-disease.html
Recent comments on this topic
Recent comments on this topic are all getting a bit tiresome . . . I think that imajez has hit the nail on the head with the comment :
“Because the newly rebadged CTC has upset an awful lot of its membership in various ways and possibly behaved a bit iffily with regard to voting such things in.
I’m not a CTC member myself, but I pay attention to most of the cycling groups and boy are there some pissed off folk in the CTC.”
CTC lost its way and had big arguments over the charity issue but has just careered down the same track hunting for project funding for survival – arguably some of the campaigns may have borne fruit but at the expense of a big section of the members that are happy to ride on roads. The recent issues with management, procedure and governance just dig a deeper hole.
I can certainly see the strengths of an alternative club with touring focus – more power to its elbow.
johngu wrote:
Thanks Dad.
How many national cycling
How many national cycling organisations are there?
British Cycling: Sport first, but doing quite a lot of advocacy for leisure and commuting. UCI recognised National Governing Body.
Cycling UK (ex CTC): Leisure cycling and campaigning
Cyclenation: Campaign federation, everyday cycling. Sort of symbiotic relationship with Cycling UK
Cycle Embassy of Great Britain: Campaigning, everyday cycling
Cycling Time Trials (or whatever it’s called, I get confused?): just Time Trials, nothing more
League of Veteran Racing Cyclists: racing only, for the not-young.
Touring Cyclists Club: touring cyclists without “politics”. Good luck with that
Audax UK: long distance cycling events
Bikebiz: bike industry organisation
what have I missed?
Anyway, an extract from the
Anyway, an extract from the rules of the forum over at Touring Cyclist Club:
By all means discuss and comment on ideas BUT let’s not have the tortuous arguments, frequently veering way off-topic, that plague other fora.
Since ‘webmaster’ is not referring to matters of judicial and other public business found in ancient Roman cities I would have preferred to have seen the plural form written as ‘forums’.
That aside perhaps they’re on to something 😉
Of course, all the comments
Of course, all the comments on the side topic of ‘the dooring’ are assuming it (the door) was being opened into the rider’s path. It may have been a car pulling out of a side street into their path. Or it may have been a drunken wobble into the door of a stationary but empty vehicle. Or it may have been someone throwing a door (not attached to a vehicle at all) at someone wearing a helmet on the basis that it could do them no harm. We do need more information…
Just listen to yourselves.
Just listen to yourselves. Geez.
drosco wrote:
OK, as davel has said: you brought helmets up, in your story about an accident where the wearing of a helmet defnitely saved you from serious injury.
And yet when asked for more details about this accident (after all, you were the one saying that any right-minded person would have worn a helmet if they’d had an accident the same as your’s, so it’s not unreasonable to want more detail to know whether any of us ever have been in that exact same situation) you went very quiet.
I think it’s time to call BS on your anecdote.
There. I’ve said it.
We’d rather listen to you.
We’d rather listen to you.
You made this a helmet debate – you were the first one to post about helmets.
You justified calling anti-helmeters insane based on your experience of going into a car door.
When that level of generalisation was flipped, and someone said people riding in the door zone were insane, you appeared to miss the irony and had a go at them about knowing nothing about your accident (again, appearing to miss the irony of us only knowing what you have deemed us worthy of knowing).
When that was followed up, you said you didn’;t care about the opinions of posters (or just me? people with counter arguments?) again appearing to miss the irony that you started the debate on a Web forum.
In short: there’s a lot of irony being missed, and you’ve kind of brought this on yourself.
davel wrote:
Correction: drosco described “anyone who is advocating not wearing a helmet” as insane. Most of us are not anti-helmet, we’re pro-choice i.e. ANTI-COMPULSION. Is that so bad?
I find that blinkered, uninformed idiots like him don’t want to listen or engage, they just cover their ears and shout louder. Don’t waste your energy.
Also, it seems that nearly every other helmet-compulsion maniac has a “my polystyrene hat saved my life” anecdote they like to ram down your throat at every opportunity. Perhaps they just have poor road skills and/or spatial awareness issues?
Simon E wrote:
Correction: drosco described “anyone who is advocating not wearing a helmet” as insane. Most of us are not anti-helmet, we’re pro-choice i.e. ANTI-COMPULSION. Is that so bad?— davel
Sound correction: that is what I intended to articulate, and didn’t.
Simon E wrote:
Correction: drosco described “anyone who is advocating not wearing a helmet” as insane. Most of us are not anti-helmet, we’re pro-choice i.e. ANTI-COMPULSION. Is that so bad?
I find that blinkered, uninformed idiots like him don’t want to listen or engage, they just cover their ears and shout louder. Don’t waste your energy.
Also, it seems that nearly every other helmet-compulsion maniac has a “my polystyrene hat saved my life” anecdote they like to ram down your throat at every opportunity. Perhaps they just have poor road skills and/or spatial awareness issues?— davel
Thank you, you’ve summed up perfectly the sort of person I have absolutely no interest in sharing the details of a relatively serious accident and injuries on a public forum for. I’m neither a helmet compulsion maniac or someone with poor road skills, I’m just someone who had a nasty accident through no fault of my own, for whom wearing a helmet was key in avoiding more serious injury.
I suggest for those of you who want to try, run into the edge of a car door at speed with and without a helmet and see how you get on.
Good luck and goodbye..
drosco wrote:
I suggest for those of you who want to try, run into the edge of a car door at speed with and without a helmet and see how you get on.
Good luck and goodbye..
— droscoSadly, you have given an excellent demonstration of the phenomenon I described.
Perhaps you aren’t a helmet compulsion maniac but you are doing a terrific job of giving us that impression.
I was never interested in your crash or the resulting injuries, that’s something you chose to raise below this article. I certainly have no desire to replicate it and I sincerely hope you are thinking ways to avoid a similar incident in future instead of blindly insulting people who don’t agree with you about the efficacy of cycle helmets.