Cycling UK Forum

Karen Sutton wrote: I was under the impression that Article 11 is still included. The CC has advised that it should be removed as soon as it can be done. IIRC they actually said it probably couldn't be done at the AGM this year because of the troublemakers (they didn't word it like that of course but that was the gist of it).

Agreed. My understanding is that Article 11 is still there. As of the implementation of charity conversion, it will become meaningless, because the Trustees can legally only decide the future of the charity in accordance with the Objectives, not in accordance with the wishes of the members. If Article 11 was used to pass a motion, the Trustees could well be legally obliged to ignore the motion. Because Article 11 has no effect on the decisions of the Trustees any more, the Charities Commission don't mind it still being there too much. But it is an anachronism, so they suggested removing it, and I'm sure the Trustees will seek to remove it at a future AGM when the dust has settled (and, sadly but in all probability, most of the "troublemakers" have ceased to be members).

I have used a Silva solar charger when hill walking to recharge AA batteries for a previous camera. I don't remember precise details but I think it would charge moderate capacity cells in a fullish day of reasonable sunshine. I see that someone says the Powermonkey now does the same thing better. The attraction of this was its waterproofness and general outdoor practicality.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Solar-Aa-Batter ... 63&sr=8-10

Simon L6 wrote:

John Catt wrote:Of course their ordinary membership has no involvement in how they are run, as their Directors are elected by representatives of the clubs - it remains the British Cycling Federation.

Article 11 anyone?

IMUIC, with both BC and, post-charity-conversion, CTC, the members can legally not give directions or make decisions about what the organisation does (even if article 11 remained and was used, the Trustees would be legally bound to ignore the result). The members' role in governance terms is confined to electing Trustees. In CTC the members elect Trustees directly, in BC, I gather, through the representatives of the clubs - CTC possibly therefore more democratic, but not, I suspect, significantly so, given that in both organisations members do not get to make decisions directly. This rather strengthens the strand of thought that the choice between them should be based pragmatically on what they offer, not because of any sentimental memory of the days when CTC was a club that represented the interests of its members.

John Catt wrote:Their "Whole Sport Plan 2009-13" also makes interesting reading - http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/zuvvi/media/bc_files/vacancies/Whole_Sport_Plan_2009-13.pdf

From the Plan:

The priority for British Cycling is to grow participation in the sport of cycling* and increase our
International successes. The diversification to encompass cycling as active recreation and active living
through working with other Government departments and agencies has been led by our desire to
create new pathways into cycle sport for participants.
* Cycle Sport has been defined by DCMS / Sport England as people cycling for at least one session per week at moderate
intensity excluding utility cycling sessions

That's fair enough viewed from their perspective: their objective is cycling-for-leisure and they have no interest in cycling-for-functional-transport. They are moving into organising "club rides" because they see increasing participation in cycling at that level as leading to improved sporting success - widening the base of the pyramid.

But this does mean that when they have driven CTC out of existence by the combination of (a) better, better supported, and better advertised rides for people who want to ride in a group and (b) cheaper individual membership for people who just want the insurance, there will be no-one left advocating cycling-for-functional-transport.

Actually, I agree with most of the locals' complaints - whether they intend it or not, I think many club runs do come over as lacking in courtesy and can easily be seen as a bit intimidating, and as a matter purely of fact they do sometimes delay motorists, and they certainly sometimes travel at speeds such that if a pedestrian stepped out it could be quite nasty. It's just that all of those criticisms apply to motorists as well, and probably more so. It's a sign of the distorted status quo in our society that motorists doing these things is seen as normal but cyclists doing them is seen as unacceptable. I think one respect in which cyclists differ amongst oursleves is in what the best response to this is. Some feel that going out of our way to show consideration and courtesy pays off, others that the best way is not to give in to the subordinate status but to assert our rights.

Perhaps this thread should now join with the one on riding two abreast! The perception of locals is that cyclists travel in aggressive packs, displaying an arrogance and lack of courtesy that impedes locals from their normal legitimate use of their local roads, is at times dangerous in its lack of thought for other road users, and verges on the intimidating.

That's how at least some locals see it. I'm just the messenger, don't shoot me.

http://www1.surreycc.gov.uk/highways/template3.cfm?id=4833&district=Mole%20Valley&town=MICKLEHAM&roadName=OLD%20LONDON%20ROAD

So I was being optimistic about resurfacing - looks like it's mainly just the roundabouts and removing traffic islands. And no mention of the road through Box Hill village unless it's on a different page.

Like you I am quite sure the speed humps will reappear straight after the Olympics. I'm not under any illusions that the Road Race will lead to much long-term improvements for cyclists. Since the route was announced, there's been a quite significant increase in cyclists coming to the area and it has created serious bad feeling in locals (there was a thread about the inappropriate Surrey Police reaction a while ago). Even normally quite reasonable people I know from church or other local contexts tend to froth at the mouth when the subject is raised.

Yes. As a local-ish resident we got notification of road closures - I haven't kept the details but I'm sure it involved closing the whole A24 from the Denbies roundabout to the Givon's Grove roundabout, and the road through Mickleham to Burford Bridge/Rykas's, all in stages, and presumably indicating resurfacing.

I've cycled up the zig zags twice this weekend (last week I arrived when they were actually doing to resurfacing of the zig zags and had to cycle up the bridle path instead, and the fresh tar gave a distinctly interesting odour to the inevitable date slice at the cafe at the top). The surface is indeed nice but so is the absence of speed humps.

I am unusual in these circles in aspiring to one bike - not n+1 but n=1. I would love to have a single bike that can do everything I want, then I only have to store, maintain, clean, expend emotional energy over possible upgrades, and adjust one bike. I'm close - I have a Thorn Raven Tour on which I can commute, shop, do hundred mile day rides, tour fully laden and most things in between. But I'm not quite there because my wife and I share a Brompton, and we have two tandems as well (the second only because we also have two children).

Nettled Shin wrote:However, it made me think that in principle, such armoured cable locks aren't a bad idea. I say this because I also own some 18" bolt croppers, and the maximum possible jaw opening is 18mm. To achieve reasonable mechanical advantage, the jaw opening would have to be less than 15mm, roughly. So anything that is thick enough makes using bolt croppers impossible.

I'm not sure it's a safe assumption that thieves use 18" bolt croppers. I once needed to liberate my own bike (quite legitimately - long story). The bolt croppers I borrowed from the workshop at the lab where I was working had handles, from memory, about 4 feet long. Great fun to use.

I think this idea was mooted in another thread, but it was put back in my mind by this discussion. I would very much prefer to see the police and CPS take road traffic violations as seriously as any other crime. But the evidence is plain that they don't and this does not seem likely to change. So why not bite the bullet and privatise the entire enforcement of all non-injury road traffic law? Allow suitably licensed private firms to issue fixed-penalty notices for speeding, ASL offences, RLJ, driving with mobile phones etc. And give them say 50% of the takings - enough to give them a real incentive to catch these offences. We all know how often we see these offences andoboe easy it is to record them without really trying - if someone had a personal financial incentive, think how much more efficient they could be! It would further cement the idea that road traffic offences aren't really offences at all, a point of principle I would be loth to concede, but isn't the reality that that battle has been pretty well lost already? I reckon that if motorists knew that every other car could be an unmarked enforcement car taking video evidence, we'd see quite an improvement in driving standards.

flat tyre wrote:Very difficult call to make, to decide between breaking the law and driving in a manner that you know is annoying the drivers behind

I'm afraid I just love annoying drivers behind me by driving at the speed limit, because that is clear cut, as is not overtaking cyclists on a double white line. But the one I find harder is not overtaking cyclists when the white line is broken but the road is narrow, because that's a judgement call.

I live in an A road with a 30 limit, so not surprisingly many people speed. It makes my day to have someone following me, so that I can stick at exactly 30 right up until the point the limit changes.

But I sympathise with the OP: I wish there was a way of conveying to a cyclist whom you are following "relax, I have no problem following behind you for as long as necessary, I'm a cyclist myself".

Karen Sutton wrote:It wouldn't do to have members able to have a say in the running of things would it?

But surely that battle has already been lost? Wasn't one of the several reasons that many of us (sorry, "a small faction") opposed conversion to a charity precisely this point, that once converted to a charity, members cease to run the CTC? I thought the Charity Commissioners explained the situation very clearly. The Trustees now have a legal duty to run the charity according to its objectives and the views of the members are now largely irrelevant. I think the Charity Commissioners are dead right about Article 11. It is a provision that is relevant to a member oprganisation but not to a charity. The CTC has ceased to be a member organisation and become a charity. Article 11 - allowing the members to tell the Council how they want the organisation to proceed - has no place in the new CTC organisation, because in the new CTC organisation, members have ceased to be the final voice in the organisation's future.

It's an open question whether the membership at large realised they were voting themselves out of existence (as the ultimate controlling authority of the CTC, as opposed to the people who pay the bills, a function we still fulfill) and didn't care, or didn't realise. But I am absolutely sure that Kevin Mayne et al knew exactly what was happening.

On page 32 of the April/May Cycle, Kevin Mayne says, of the opposition to the charity conversion, "There's a very small group saying "my cycling is the only true path". I think part of the challenge is getting people to lift their heads from the 10 or 20 people they know, and reflect on the fact that cycling is really broad and pivotal."

That is not a characterisation that I particularly recognise of the people who have argued against the charity conversion under the present circumstances. It would seem a shame if, after all the ink that has been spilled on the subject, he really hasn't understood the reasons for objection. But it would be even more of a shame if he actually does understand and yet still chooses to portray it this way.

pete75 wrote:Contact detail for John Furey if anyone wants to make their feelings known.

81 New Haw Road
Addlestone
Surrey
KT15 2BZ
Email john.furey@surreycc.gov.uk
Telephone
Private: 01932 856623
Mobile: 077200 75440

Blimey, I am sitting at work right now on New Haw Road, albeit a bit further down than no 81, having cycled here as I do two or three times a week and have done for ten years. Should I regard my proximity to Mr Furey as a narrow escape ... or an opportunity?