CTC's economy with the veritas

I have been checking the claims of the CTC, as shown in:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/

Highway Code cracked: over 40 rules changed! Following a high-
profile campaign by CTC, the Government has agreed to amend the
Highway Code.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4568

Following a high-profile campaign from CTC, the Government has
agreed to amend the Highway Code to improve cyclists' safety and
to encourage drivers to take more care around vulnerable road users.

In total over 40 rules have been changed to the benefit of cyclists.

Well, the government's response is to change TWO rules from the draft
(in very beneficial ways, true).



I looked through "CTC's consultation response" on that page, and
classify the DSA's actual response (i.e. changes) as follows (using
their numbering):

Converse: 63/19

No: .../4, 11/7, 25/11, 56/17 x 2, 58/18, 60/18, 63/19 x 3, 64/19 x 2,
69/20, 70/20, 73+74/20, 79/21, 109/30, 120/34, 134/38, 135/38, 137/39,
138/39 x 2, 141/39, 142/40, 143/40, 145/41, 146/42, 157/45, 161/47,
162/47, 164/47, 172/50, 176/51, 177/51, 178/52, 179/52, 192/56, 193/56,
198/57, 201/58, 206/59 x 2, 221/62, 224/63 x 3, 227/64, 229/64, 231/65,
234/66, 237/67, 299/81, Signs/87, Annex 1/98

Irrelevant: 151+152/43, 207/59, 212/60, 233/66

Partially: 57/18, 59/18, 64/19, 282/78,

Yes: 67/19, 172/50, 205/58, 219/61, 224/63, 268-280/74-77, Annex 1/98,
Annex 3/100, Annex 3/101 x 2 [ note that many have little to do with
benefitting cyclists ]

Later: 58/18, 60/18

Benefit: 58/18, 60/18, 138/39, 157/45, 205/58, 207/59, 233/66, 268-280/74-77,
299/81

Degradation: 149/43

I also looked at the post-draft requirements:

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:M...ww.ctc.org.uk/
DesktopDefault.aspx%3FTabID%3D4303+www.ctc.org.uk+%22highway+code%
22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

1/2 of a comment (out of 4) taken on board.



And they are STILL pushing the racing bicycle line :-(

Some types of cycle (e.g. BMX's and full suspension mountain bikes)
are not very suitable for general road riding (particularly for
inexperienced cyclists), due to lack of gears, wide tyres and
excessive weight.



Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

And they are STILL pushing the racing bicycle line :-(

Some types of cycle (e.g. BMX's and full suspension mountain bikes)
are not very suitable for general road riding (particularly for
inexperienced cyclists), due to lack of gears, wide tyres and
excessive weight.



Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

That seems reasonable to me (although full supspension mountain bikes don't
tend to have a lack of gears). I fail to see why that statement means they
are pushing racing bikes, as there are other bikes (tourers) that aren't
covered in that statement.

Is it me or does there seems to be a unwritten urc rule that, as with
Sustrans, motorists and Matt B you have to hate the CTC?

In article ,
"Adam Lea" writes:
|
| And they are STILL pushing the racing bicycle line :-(
|
| Some types of cycle (e.g. BMX's and full suspension mountain bikes)
| are not very suitable for general road riding (particularly for
| inexperienced cyclists), due to lack of gears, wide tyres and
| excessive weight.
|
| That seems reasonable to me (although full supspension mountain bikes don't
| tend to have a lack of gears). I fail to see why that statement means they
| are pushing racing bikes, as there are other bikes (tourers) that aren't
| covered in that statement.

That figures :-(

What you probably call tourers ARE detuned racing bicycles, with a
large number of extras. A REAL tourer is just a bicycle set up for
touring, and is just as likely to be a traditional roadster as a
modified racer.

Let's deal with the points in turn:

Lack of gears. Except in hilly areas, a standard 3-speed hub gives
ample gearing; almost all of those have at least that amount of
gearing.

Wide tyres. Exactly WHAT is wrong with wide tyres for general road
riding? The traditional roadster widths are 1.5"-1.75", and 2" road
tyres are often used in other countries.

Those bicycles are negligibly heavier than a touring bicycle, and are
lighter than a traditional roadster, which is excellently suited for
general road riding. 10 pounds on the bicycle is neither here nor
there for such use - who cares about 2% extra trip time?

| Is it me or does there seems to be a unwritten urc rule that, as with
| Sustrans, motorists and Matt B you have to hate the CTC?

It's you. I don't give a damn if you want to riding racing bicycles
and call them 'tourers' or 'road bicycles', provided that you don't
cause trouble to other people, but I do care that you are harming
cycling by pushing them as the ONLY type of bicycle.

One of the major reasons that cycling has dropped off so badly as a
form of transport in the UK compared to most other European countries
is the attitude of cycling organisations here :-(


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren wrote:

[stuff]

I often agree with you Nick, but I think you're off on one here.

I read that paragraph and thought it perfectly sensible. It
would seem to be to clearly include things like roadsters,
hybrids, drop-bar tourers and all sorts of other, practical
bikes.

I think the key point is that the HC is aimed at most people,
and to most people the two full suspension bikes for 100 quid
from the back of the Sunday supplement are (thought of as)
a good choice for commuting. This paragraph just suggests
that maybe that's not true and they should look at other
things.

I think you're reading too much in here.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune PGP/GPG Key: http://www.clune.org/pubkey.txt
The struggle of people against power is the struggle
of memory against forgetting - Milan Kundera

in message , Nick Maclaren
') wrote:

And they are STILL pushing the racing bicycle line :-(

Some types of cycle (e.g. BMX's and full suspension mountain bikes)
are not very suitable for general road riding (particularly for
inexperienced cyclists), due to lack of gears, wide tyres and
excessive weight.

That's not pushing a racing bicycle line. In fact, I've never seen anything
from the CTC's output in favour of racing bikes. But it is simply true
that BMX bikes and full suspension mountain bikes are not very suitable
for road use. They don't say that touring bikes, utility bikes, hybrids,
bromptons, classic roadsters, recumbents, and dozens of other types of
bike are not suitable for general road riding, for the very good and
simple reason that these types /are/ suitable for general road riding -
and none of them remotely resemble a racing bike.

You're being an idiot. Again.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

...but have you *seen* the size of the world wide spider?

In article ,
Simon Brooke writes:
|
| And they are STILL pushing the racing bicycle line :-(
|
| Some types of cycle (e.g. BMX's and full suspension mountain bikes)
| are not very suitable for general road riding (particularly for
| inexperienced cyclists), due to lack of gears, wide tyres and
| excessive weight.
|
| That's not pushing a racing bicycle line. In fact, I've never seen anything
| from the CTC's output in favour of racing bikes.

There are none so blind as those who are not prepared to see.

| But it is simply true
| that BMX bikes and full suspension mountain bikes are not very suitable
| for road use.

Whether or not that is true, would you like to justify the reasons
that they gave as the ones why those are not suitable?

Come on, don't be shy, try justifying your abuse.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Adam Lea" wrote in message
...

Is it me or does there seems to be a unwritten urc rule that, as with
Sustrans, motorists and Matt B you have to hate the CTC?

I like the CTC :-)

cheers,
clive

in message , Nick Maclaren
') wrote:


In article ,
Simon Brooke writes:
|
| And they are STILL pushing the racing bicycle line :-(
|
| Some types of cycle (e.g. BMX's and full suspension mountain
| bikes) are not very suitable for general road riding
| (particularly for inexperienced cyclists), due to lack of gears,
| wide tyres and excessive weight.
|
| That's not pushing a racing bicycle line. In fact, I've never seen
| anything from the CTC's output in favour of racing bikes.

There are none so blind as those who are not prepared to see.

For he himself hath said is, and it's surely to his credit...

The Cyclists Touring Club is and always has been exclusively an
organisation for non-racers. Your suggestion (in other posts passim) that
drop handlebars and multi-speed gears are features of racing bikes betrays
your ignorance of the history of cycling: both these features (and many
others) were adopted into racing after having proved successful on touring
bikes.

You are simply too blinded by prejudice to have any idea what you are
talking about.

| But it is simply true
| that BMX bikes and full suspension mountain bikes are not very
| suitable for road use.

Whether or not that is true, would you like to justify the reasons
that they gave as the ones why those are not suitable?

Yes, absolutely. I have the benefit, after all, of having ridden all these
sorts of bikes, and owning two full suspension mountain bikes. BMX bikes
do indeed lack gears, do have excessively wide tyres for efficient road
use, and are mostly of excessive weight for general riding. Full
suspension mountain bikes are inevitably heavier, and some are very much
heavier, than typical road bikes, and are typically equipped with tyres
which are too wide for efficient road use. They do normally have a
sufficiency of gears. There are, of course, additionally further reasons
why mountain bikes are not suitable for use on the road, but those the CTC
gives are sufficient.

Come on, don't be shy, try justifying your abuse.

No difficulty there.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; So, before proceeding with definitive screwing, choose the
;; position most congenital.
-- instructions for fitting bicycle handlebars

"Clive George" wrote in message
...
"Adam Lea" wrote in message
...

Is it me or does there seems to be a unwritten urc rule that, as with
Sustrans, motorists and Matt B you have to hate the CTC?

I like the CTC :-)

cheers,
clive

I don't have anything against them but it seems that whenever there is a
post on here mentioning the CTC it always seems to be anti. It seems odd to
me to hate organizations that are there to represent us..

In article ,
"Adam Lea" writes:
|
| I don't have anything against them but it seems that whenever there is a
| post on here mentioning the CTC it always seems to be anti. It seems odd to
| me to hate organizations that are there to represent us..

That might tell you something, if you think about it.

To set the record straight, I don't hate the CTC. However, as with
many of the organisations that make the claim to represent various
interests, it is less than clear whether they are helping or harming
those interests. I was a member until, on balance, I felt that they
were doing more harm than good.

But, in THIS case, they were claiming credit that they did not deserve.
Even in terms of the (considerable) improvement since the published
draft, it is unclear whether they or the Cambridge Cycling Campaign
was the most influential organisation. And that is why I posted.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.