Are CUK now pro or anti flights?

Tompsk
Posts: 112
Joined: 6 Nov 2014, 9:35am

Are CUK now pro or anti flights?

Post by Tompsk »

Having read the 'We would like to propose that the Club adopts a progressive strategy to reduce, and ultimately stop, promotion of cycling holidays that involve flying' in the AGM resolutions did this pass and is it now in force?

I ask as the web page of 'CTC Cycling Holidays' (which is "... is wholly owned by Cycling UK ...") is advertising a cycling holiday to Taiwan including flights: "Taiwan South to North (With Flight), 1st November 2021 - 17th November 2021 (17 days)"

https://www.cyclingholidays.org/worldwi ... php?id=556

I see that any operating arm of the charity needs to make a profit, especially as the gift aid "£100,00 per annum" is no longer available, but is this holiday compliant with the aims of CUK now?
Last edited by Tompsk on 13 Apr 2021, 1:03pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jdsk
Posts: 7678
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Are CUK now pro or anti flights?

Post by Jdsk »

Which resolution included 'no promotion of flights'?

The one discussed over here in October 2020 had "We would like to propose that the Club adopts a progressive strategy to reduce, and ultimately stop, promotion of cycling holidays that involve flying.".
viewtopic.php?p=1541772#p1541772

Jonathan
Tompsk
Posts: 112
Joined: 6 Nov 2014, 9:35am

Re: Are CUK now pro or anti flights?

Post by Tompsk »

Jdsk wrote: 13 Apr 2021, 12:55pm Which resolution included 'no promotion of flights'?

The one discussed over here in October 2020 had "We would like to propose that the Club adopts a progressive strategy to reduce, and ultimately stop, promotion of cycling holidays that involve flying.".
viewtopic.php?p=1541772#p1541772

Jonathan
Good point, I couldn't find the original wording and as this is an important aspect I've updated my original post, so many thanks for the clarification. I think the question is valid if the resolution was passed. CUK should put it into effect their own policies, unless 'progressive' is there as a get-out option to be used as seen fit.
mattheus
Posts: 1658
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Are CUK now pro or anti flights?

Post by mattheus »

Tompsk wrote: 13 Apr 2021, 12:45pm Having read the 'We would like to propose that the Club adopts a progressive strategy to reduce, and ultimately stop, promotion of cycling holidays that involve flying' in the AGM resolutions did this pass and is it now in force?
I believe the AGM resolutions, votes etc are distributed in Cycle magazine. Have you checked your back-issues?
Tompsk
Posts: 112
Joined: 6 Nov 2014, 9:35am

Re: Are CUK now pro or anti flights?

Post by Tompsk »

Wrong info - deleted post.
Last edited by Tompsk on 13 Apr 2021, 2:29pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tompsk
Posts: 112
Joined: 6 Nov 2014, 9:35am

Re: Are CUK now pro or anti flights?

Post by Tompsk »

mattheus wrote: 13 Apr 2021, 1:55pm
Tompsk wrote: 13 Apr 2021, 12:45pm Having read the 'We would like to propose that the Club adopts a progressive strategy to reduce, and ultimately stop, promotion of cycling holidays that involve flying' in the AGM resolutions did this pass and is it now in force?
I believe the AGM resolutions, votes etc are distributed in Cycle magazine. Have you checked your back-issues?
Thanks for the advice. I've searched the CUK website for 'agm' and 'resolutions', the votes for the 2020 agm are given but not the resolutions. From this forum I found that the resolution about being 'anti' flights passed 78.54% for.

viewtopic.php?f=56&t=139788&start=15

So this did pass, what actions are the board putting in place to enact it? CUK's own company don't seem to be implementing the resolution yet.

[Edited as wrong link]
mattheus
Posts: 1658
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Are CUK now pro or anti flights?

Post by mattheus »

Did you vote for or against?
Tompsk
Posts: 112
Joined: 6 Nov 2014, 9:35am

Re: Are CUK now pro or anti flights?

Post by Tompsk »

mattheus wrote: 13 Apr 2021, 3:13pm Did you vote for or against?
And you?
PH
Posts: 10138
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Are CUK now pro or anti flights?

Post by PH »

Tompsk wrote: 13 Apr 2021, 12:45pm I ask as the web page of 'CTC Cycling Holidays' (which is "... is wholly owned by Cycling UK ...") is advertising a cycling holiday to Taiwan including flights: "Taiwan South to North (With Flight), 1st November 2021 - 17th November 2021 (17 days)"

https://www.cyclingholidays.org/worldwi ... php?id=556
What a fantastic looking holiday. Probably not this year, but I'd be interested in something like that, I'd prefer the flexibility with flights, may as well stay a bit longer if you can spare the time, or as the flights are not direct maybe a longer stopover to see some other places.
I voted against the motion, no strong feelings about CUK's promotion and didn't think it was going to make a jot of difference to the number of cyclists flying. I'm more accepting of tours like the one above, which ought to be considered as a rare treat and for which, if you do it, there's no alternative but to fly, than I am about those who think little of jetting off to Europe half a dozen times a year.
irc
Posts: 4854
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: Are CUK now pro or anti flights?

Post by irc »

Why worry? Doing one thing while saying another is a perfectly acceptable thing. Especially for climate campaigners.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... y-want-to/
mattheus
Posts: 1658
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Are CUK now pro or anti flights?

Post by mattheus »

Tompsk wrote: 13 Apr 2021, 5:27pm
mattheus wrote: 13 Apr 2021, 3:13pm Did you vote for or against?
And you?
I abstained. (Which somewhat reduces my rights to moan about any outcome.)

You?
belgiangoth
Posts: 1459
Joined: 29 Mar 2007, 4:10pm

Re: Are CUK now pro or anti flights?

Post by belgiangoth »

irc wrote: 14 Apr 2021, 11:21am Why worry? Doing one thing while saying another is a perfectly acceptable thing. Especially for climate campaigners.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... y-want-to/
I would have thought the UK govt would have been a more obvious example.
If I had a baby elephant, I would put it on a recumbent trike so that it would become invisible.
irc
Posts: 4854
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: Are CUK now pro or anti flights?

Post by irc »

belgiangoth wrote: 16 Apr 2021, 11:39am
irc wrote: 14 Apr 2021, 11:21am Why worry? Doing one thing while saying another is a perfectly acceptable thing. Especially for climate campaigners.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... y-want-to/
I would have thought the UK govt would have been a more obvious example.
Really? The topic was about climate policies being advocated then ignored when it suited. I gave other examples. If you want to start a topic on govt failures go ahead.
belgiangoth
Posts: 1459
Joined: 29 Mar 2007, 4:10pm

Re: Are CUK now pro or anti flights?

Post by belgiangoth »

I disagree.

CUK has stated an ambition towards a goal, not said that they will 100% end all flights by all members by the next AGM. As such their continuing to offer holidays that feature flights is, if not a non-issue, only worth a brief mention.

The fact that politicians and campaigners tour the world campaigning against climate change has a hint of irony to it (unless your name is Greta and you take a boat instead) but if one/two people take a flight and in so doing convince 100 people not to fly there is a net advantage.

Harry and Megan are not climate campaigners, they are celebs who dabble in a bit of climate campaigning. That they have not themselves achieved the goals they would like us all to head towards is not the same thing as stating one thing and doing another.

Unlike the very clear examples of the current government doing just that.
If I had a baby elephant, I would put it on a recumbent trike so that it would become invisible.
irc
Posts: 4854
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: Are CUK now pro or anti flights?

Post by irc »

belgiangoth wrote: 16 Apr 2021, 4:15pm I disagree.

CUK has stated an ambition towards a goal, not said that they will 100% end all flights by all members by the next AGM. As such their continuing to offer holidays that feature flights is, if not a non-issue, only worth a brief mention.

Really? They set a goal but advertise holidays that conflict with thatgoal? Make their mind up. It isn't even like it's short haul. Taiwan?

I'm fine with long haul bike tours. I have done several. But if one of my goals was to cut my carbon footprint I would holoiday nearer home and wouldn't encourage others to fly to the far side of the world to cycle.
Post Reply