Cycling UK Forum

[quote="Paulatic"]We have a campaign for Presumed Liability here in Scotland
http://www.roadshare.co.uk[/quote]

And I wish you the very best of luck with it - in your more enlightened country perhaps it will get somewhere. In England politicians appear to believe that they must at all costs keep the motoring lobby happy, or risk losing the votes upon which their seats on the gravy train depend.

However, CUK is not listed among that campaign's supporters. I expect that the CUK charity-sector management are afraid of upsetting the politicians who dish out the funding which beefs up their CVs.

If the emphasis of what-used-to-be-the-CTC is campaigning, then it isn't achieving much. The thing that makes cycling in continental Europe so pleasurable and safe is the strict liability which requires motorists to treat more vulnerable road users with care. That is by far the most needed change in Britain. As far as I am aware, no campaign to achieve it is in place or even on the horizon.

"...I want CTC to remain a true membership organisation..."

Eh? It hasn't been that since 2012.

I renewed my "membership" (that is to say, I became a supporter of CTC, the National Cycling Charity) to see how things turned out. That was a mistake which I won't be repeating.

I voted against the CTC becoming a charity.

Members of the Council are required to advance the aims of the charity. Why would I have any interest in choosing between or endorsing candidates for the Council?

corshamjim wrote:...what I will do if the proposal to increase the subs gets a 'yes' vote? I already pay subs to my local cycling club, and frankly wonder why CTC is asking for even more money at a time when most people including me are tightening our belts.

Why do they want more of your money? That's an easy one - to give it to the Trust, of course!

I don't think they'll be getting any more of mine.

[quote="Regulator"]...why does [the Trust] then need another £453,000 donation from the Club on top of the £417,000 paid by the Club for services to balance its books? John Meudell and I , and others have asked these and other questions multiple times and they have not been answered.[/quote]

And how can a failure (refusal?) to answer this question possibly be accompanied by a proposal to increase subscriptions? The effrontery of it is astonishing. It says, in effect: "Yes, we'll take your money - as much of it as we can get away with - and spend it as we see fit, and we won't consider ourselves obliged to tell you how we spent it".

My renewal is due soon; the CTC has one more issue of its magazine with which to persuade me that it is an organisation deserving of my support. Its chances are looking pretty slim.

Regulator wrote:...There is a rump of councillors who are determioned to push this through...

Well, I hope they are reading this forum. If they insist on shackling the Club I joined to the Trust in which I have little interest and on using my Club membership subscription for purposes other than those for which I pay it, they must expect me (and a fair few others, I would guess) not to renew our membership. Which in my case goes back to 1986.

To propose an increase in subscriptions when members cannot find out what the Club got for the £453,000 of their money which disappeared into the Trust black hole in 2008-2009 is downright insulting.

Simon, count two more votes from this housheold...

I can't see why we recumbent racers should feel any very pressing need to be included in the UCI's events. We have a very enjoyable sport of our own, thanks - an inclusive one, in which the best riders (people like Sam Whittingham and Barbara Buatois) are athletes of real stature, but in which mere mortals like me are welcome to compete too.

We don't know whether recumbents are faster than uprights in events such as stage races. We probably never will, because the UCI are too chicken to want to find out

If the "Special Resolution" is defeated on this occasion, will we simply see it re-proposed every year until its backers get the "correct" result?

And... even if the Special Resolution IS defeated, will it be possible for us (the members) to retrieve the assets which have been given away? If not, why should we wish to continue to pay our not insignificant subs, knowing that our money may be given away to be used for objectives which have little or nothing to do with our reasons for belonging to the Club?

I feel sorry for life members; I've been a member myself since 1986, so the CTC has had quite a lot of money from me. It won't be getting any more unless the Special Resolution is permanently rejected, and the members' assets returned in full to their rightful owners.

The prevailing design of bicycle is all very well for those whose neck, shoulders, wrists and posterior can stand it. Some people prefer to cycle in comfort. I'd say that those persisting with an inherently uncomfortable layout are the eccentrics.

And the Kingcycle is indeed a wonderful design, but it's not one of Mike Burrows' - we have the Kingsburys (father John and son Miles) of High Wycombe to thank for it. As I do every time I ride mine