Wider Acceptance

I've raced a couple of times, but I'm not a regular, or a member. I'm a commuter on my Cruzbike and generally interested in where recumbents are going other than eternal periphery, hence the discussion here. I'm not sure what the overall sense of the necessary or possible is, so I thought I'd poke the idea in and see what happens.

The 2 strands I see as worthwhile are
1. For the current community's benefit, which is acceptance into more events in various ways
2. To spread the idea to the wider world more effectively. The longer term benefits being increased pace of development, (sort of) mass production and better prices all round.

Picking up the 2 strands:
1. we should target specific organisations. British Cycling and CTT would seem to be top of the list. British Cycling is tax payer funded - yes we all pay for it! A first toe hold would IMHO be highlighting their discrimination against not-fully-able riders. Those who want to race at local club level but cannot due to some injury. Why are they banned from even participating?
2. For publicity, WE need to get articles out to the press (and yes I'm guilty too). LEL on recumbent/in velomobile in the Cycling UK (formerly CTC) magazine?

Finally, whever someone gives "insurance" as a reason please try to find out who provides the insurance. I know many people in commercial insurance in London and I wiil see what I can do to change the insurance aspect, if that is not just a smoke screen.

> What is the way forward?Lee has written a provisional letter and this is now with the committee to edit and the suggestion is to send this to local CTT reps. They can take this to their CTT AGM. We have two strong arguments to make with them: TT cycles are dangerous because they look down on the road, and HPVs are often safer because of the fairings protecting the rider.

Edited by atlas_shrugged - 28 August 2017 at 8:25am

jdp298 wrote: Bump! I'm going to re-start this for 2 reasons. 1. Did we get any feedback from the CTT reps to our letter? 2. Something else might be starting, which is a long game but is [kind of] linked to this topic. http://safercycling.org - http://safercycling.org It starts with the idea that since forever [1934] the design of the bike hasn't changed for safety reasons. So how do we test and quantify what's good and what's not? Bit more of an explanation here at 1:09.20   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGpUPNYcLXM&t=3353s - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGpUPNYcLXM&t=3353s

Edited by Gromit - 27 February 2018 at 11:25am

I got Sport England to agree to give the club a grant back in 1997 but as I was not a committee member it needed one to sign the paper application form and I gave it to the committee only for it to be completely ignored. Seemed like a foot in the door to me. I know we would all rather build and ride rather than do paperwork but......