Cycling UK Forum

Si wrote:The reality is that all of these organisations have something to offer, and there is something that most do better than others. There are good arguments for them uniting, but there are equally goodbones for them staying seperate and concentrating on their specialisms. Perhaps the ideal is that they just work together more closely?

Couldn't agree more. I must point out that Cycling UK (or more correctly the Cyclists' Touring Club which is its legal rather than trading name) is a registered charity and as such can never be merged with the British Cycling Federation (which uses British Cycling as its trading name) and promotes both professional and amateur cycle racing. Professional cycling can never qualify as charitable.

So while the organisations cannot merge they could unite under a single trading name and obviously British Cycling is the larger brand. We could have British Cycling (Racing) and British Cycling (Leisure). A jointly owned company could be set up to provide administrative services (which could actually use the name British Cycling Ltd) to both companies for which each would pay, dependent on usage. Thus the same systems for databases, websites, accountancy could be used and economies of scale obtained.

This would produce 3 executives (BCF, CTC and Admin) who would sort out combined policies to maximise the clout of the organisations. Otherwise Cycling UK would concentrate on leisure/utility cyclists and the BCF on competition cyclists. The BCF has been moving into CTC territory because one of the main targets it has to achieve to justify government funding through the Sports Council is increasing physical activity in the general population. It should be possible to persuade it that this could achieve more success in this working with CTC rather than treating it as a rival.

Their annual report http://www.goo.gl/3iZW3i shows that getting people involved in cycling features ahead of competitive results and failure is highlighted as a risk to the organisation.

CJ wrote:So: had the bicycle been invented in the 17th century, cycle touring might perhaps have been called sport. But it wasn't and the key phrase I take from the above passage is: "in the modern sense".

In the modern sense, as defined by the Sports England a few years ago (much to Kevin Mayne's misplaced indignation) the kind of cycling CTC is, was and IMHO should be concerned with, is NOT sporty.

I'd point out that for the purposes of the CTC M&AA it is the definition used for charity law that applies. To quote from LawInSport http://www.lawinsport.com/blog/blackstone-chambers/item/how-does-the-law-define-a-sport

S.2(2)(g) of the Charites Act 2006 includes the “advancement of amateur sport” in the list of descriptions of purposes that are capable of being charitable if advanced for the public benefit. That Act contains a specific (and broad) definition of “sport”: “sports or games which promote health by involving physical or mental skill or exertion”. Perhaps unsurprisingly in the light of that definition, the Charity Commission decided on 28 February 2011 in Hitchin Bridge Club2 that bridge was “a game involving high level mental skill and exertion of the type which Parliament would have contemplated as falling within ‘the advancement of amateur sport’”. It also relied on research evidence of the potential health benefits of playing bridge.

Steady rider wrote:If good reasons can be provided for allowing proxy voting it may be worth keeping

The good reason for keeping it is that it is a requirement of Section 324 of the Comanies Act . See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/324

Regulator wrote:

honesty wrote:Haven't you just hit on a key point there though. These people are elected to vote one behalf of the members. They have done this and gone for a new logo. To then request a full member vote seems to go against the original principle of having elected representatives...

They're not "elected to vote on behalf of the members" - they're elected to represent the members and their interests. There are certain things, such as the change of am organisations name or status, that you would normally expect to be put to a vote of the full membership.

What the rules allow and what is right and proper are often two different things.

The official name of the Cyclists' Touring Club is not being changed. That would require a resolution with the support of 75% of those voting in a General Meeting. What is being changed and is at the discetion of Council is the branding. The decision to use CTC as a trading name was a similar decision taken in the past by Council. As I understand it the member groups will continue to operate under the CTC/Cyclists' Touring Club brand as they so choose.

Branding is not permanent and can be changed again if it is not deemed to be working.

As company directors/charity trustees, councillors have a duty to work within the objects of the organisation (regardless of what members might wish) and have a fiduciary duty to take decisions that they believe to be in the best interests of the organisation.

I had a play

Reviewing this discussion - I wonder if members have checked out the existing CTC policies - see http://www.ctc.org.uk/campaigning/views-and-briefings .

Campaigning for a change in the law on passing distances - when the current law if properly enforced would require this - seems strange when the problem is enforcement of existing laws - see http://www.ctc.org.uk/campaigning/views ... ur-and-law .

Steady rider wrote:The selection process/requirements for nomination of Council members was changed some years ago, requiring more nominees, and is an area that would probably not be generally discussed by cyclists. Each year all members can potentially influence what the CTC does by voting for motions or presenting motions or via CTC Councillors.

The change was to require fewer nominees for those standing for Council. It is now down to 5. As I recall it was 12. See http://www.ctc.org.uk/about-ctc/ctc-nat ... et-elected .

I think it needs to be remembered that the CTC is a small organisation in political terms with very limited influence. To be effective it has to work tactically, concentrating on issues as they arise, where it can bring about changes to improve the environment for cycling. I don't think there would be much opposition in general to the suggested motions but I don't think they would make any difference to what the CTC does. If you want to get closer to the nitty gritty why not stand for Council? That is what it is for.

Council can always over-rule a Chief Executive if it so chooses, simply on the basis of Company Law, since they are the Directors. This will remain the case unless the M&AA are amended, which would require a 75% majority of the members voting. If Council choose to appoint an Executive Committee, that is their decision, but they can abolish this at any time on a simple majority of votes.

Looks as if Wiggle were looking for a way to promote their "Wiggle Legal" product to cyclists. As the CTC has a competing product there would have been no possibility of a deal with the CTC.

mjr wrote:I'm uncomfortable with flat rate subscriptions while we have such inequality.

I think this is a fair point. Our criteria are strict and hence in many cases unjust. I am a pensioner but have a good occupational pension. My disposable income is higher than many people in work supporting children, mortgage and car. I'm an ex trustee of the British Humanist Association and treasurer of Leicester Secular Society. Both offer "low income" membership which is self defined (the BHA states "student/unwaged/etc. see https://humanism.org.uk/join-the-bha/#0. The BHA doesn't believe if suffers badly from free loaders. The increased fees from the retired who don't classify themselves as low income, compensates for those on a wage who classify themselves as low income.

In the case of Leicester Secular Society http://www.leicestersecularsociety.org.uk/docs/LSSMembershipApplication.pdf I know that everyone could justify their decision and members who can afford to are encouraged to make additional donations.

Bearing in mind the religious are allegedly more honest than us Humanists, changing the system shouldn't be a problem .

I think this is a matter that CTC Council should be giving serious consideration to.

Regards,

John

J.Y.Kelly wrote:Are there any groups near Shepshed in Leicester ?

Nearest are probably Charnwood CTC and Loughborough Wednesday Cyclists.

You can meet many local CTC members at the annual carol service that this year is being held in Shepshed and at the Mince Pie Run that meets up in Belton on the last Sunday before Xmas. Detail on the Leicestershire and Rutland CTC website http://www.ctclr.org.uk.

Psamathe wrote:I think a lot depends on the organisation. Although I member I cannot find the accounts so I've no idea about income, membership, employees, etc. and the salary for the position would to a large degree depend on some of those factors.

Report and accounts can be found at http://www.ctc.org.uk/about-ctc/policies-and-procedures/annual-reports-and-accounts

mjr wrote: Nationally, CN has a collaboration agreement with CTC, but we were insulted as people who wear "false beards" on a recent CTC "blog" (it's not a good blog because it doesn't allow proper reader responses) http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/suzanne-foru ... nce-report - rather disappointing to see.

I was there as both a CTC member and Campaign Group member along with lots of CTC Right to Ride members. We are all campaigners, so I'm pretty certain that it was a light hearted comment rather than an insult directed at cyclenation.

Perhap some Australians should found a new "Helmetless" religion.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/bike-helmet-law-exemption-allowed-in-queensland-for-religious-beliefs-despite-safety-warnings/story-fnihsrf2-1226705233866

magical_mouse wrote:1. The new guidelines for runs leaders are beginning to sound prescriptive and (may) put leaders off.

Wonder which bits of the new guidance for ride leaders http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/events/ctc-guide-to-leading-a-group-ride-july-2013.pdf you perceive to be overly presciptive? They seem fairly innocuous to me.

These were issued at the same time as the new guide for group riding https://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/events/ctc-guide-to-group-riding-july-2013.pdf.

ericonabike wrote:Snap - Leicester Cycling Campaign Group was formed last year out of a similar sense of frustration. Am admiring your web site, which somewhat shades ours at http://leicesterccg.wordpress.com/

Facebook https://www.facebook.com/leicester.cyclecampaign Twitter @LeicesterCCG

If there exists a networking conference where the various local groups can get together to share ideas and best practice, I'd be glad to hear of it!

Lizzie has made my point about cyclenation.

You might like to sign up for their their forum (a Google Group) - there is a form for subscribing on their home page -http://www.cyclenation.org.uk/.

Regards,

John
http://www.ldcuc.org.uk