Philip Benstead wrote:I will not be carry a lump of wood on my shoulder at the agm, or may I should so everybody can identify me?.
We're already on to you cunning plan
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=104878
Philip Benstead wrote:I will not be carry a lump of wood on my shoulder at the agm, or may I should so everybody can identify me?.
Vorpal wrote:Actually I think (and I've said it before), an important role for a technical officer is to advise about interpretations of legislation, consult upon potential legislative changes, provide expert testimony to MPs, or parliamentary inquiries, etc.
If we take as an example, lighting standards...
We know that they are out of date and not well adhered to. How should they be changed? Should pedal reflectors still be required? If pedals should still have pedal erflectors, what reflectors are appropriate to require for all types of pedals? Should recumbents be exempted? Who can provide our legislators with the answers to these questions? Joe and Jane Cyclist? Rapha? Team Sky? I'm not interested in answering the technical questions on this thread; just posing them in answer to what a technical officer might do that is of value to more than just the touring members of CTC.
There are other things like this for which CJ was very well suited to support cyclists of all sorts. Whether or not one accepts that his services were still needed to answer technical questions for members, or people found his reviews of equipment useful, IMO the one area where he was most needed was dealing with the technical aspects of legislation.
Mick F wrote:Is that ash or sycamore?
Psamathe wrote:TonyR wrote:Psamathe wrote:A good example might be "mudguard clearance".
Can you not come up with anything other than the same old 30 year old example? Surely if what you say is true there should be plenty more examples to roll out as evidence that are more recent?
I could think of loads of examples. Sorry you don't like the example I gave - which I thought was a particularly good example, illustrating something that applied well to both touring and cycling for transport cyclists. Still, that's life, can't please everybody.
Surprises me if you can't see the advantages of a Technical Officer to provide guidance to less experienced (like myself) on so many technical aspects (gear ratios, different brake types, road regulations, light regs, security component compatibility and pros and cons of different systems, etc.).
Psamathe wrote:A good example might be "mudguard clearance".
Philip Benstead wrote:When I was elected for the se I was very unhappy about signing the code conduct, I took advice and in the end dined it. My doults about signing it have come to be true, as stated elsewhere by others on this forum the code is a gagging order. The council does not like debate.
gaz wrote:If he felt strongly that this matter should be transparent and open to the membership did he breach the code or follow it?
Bazza55 wrote:Gaz is right, I was NOT talking about Philip Benstead, the person who (thankfully) leaked the information is still a serving councilor. Though his card will be marked now.
3.4 I will participate in collective decision making, accept a majority decision of the Council and will not act individually unless specifically authorised to do so.
6.1 I understand that substantial breach of any part of this Code may result in procedures being put in motion that may result in my being asked to resign from Council as the trustee board.
mercalia wrote:TonyR wrote:The cycle touring community is a very small minority of the CTC membership these days although some of that community seem to think it should dominate other members' interests because of its history. Unfortunately real life is not like that.
eh what else do they do? I only now of the CTC thru these forums.
Labrat wrote:So, I am going to ask you very simply and very clearly again:
did you approve/assent to the approval of the minutes that you now claim to have not been an accurate representation of the discussions at council or not?
Bazza55 wrote:The voting slips wouldn't be sent out at all if it wasn't for one (unnamed) Councilor having a morals and standards by letting the membership know of the intended secret name and plan. Amazingly for which he has received much internal criticism from the Chair.
gaz wrote:TonyR wrote:... Remembert the rebranding decision was taken on 25 January and the petition did not arrive until 5 February ...
23 January and 4 March respectively.
Bazza55 wrote:So according to 'Cycleclips' the CTC officially becomes Cycling UK on April 5th. ;
The 600 plus members who petitioned for a ballot of the full membership have just been ignored, disregarded and insulted.
Ladies and Gentlemen, your new Cycling UK ENJOY IT!