Are CUK now pro or anti flights?

belgiangoth
Posts: 1460
Joined: 29 Mar 2007, 4:10pm

Re: Are CUK now pro or anti flights?

Post by belgiangoth »

It's a fair point. I would say that taking a short-haul flight would be worse, as this is something that could be swapped easily for a train/boat/etc. A trip to Taiwan would be possible by train&boat, but would be significantly more expensive and take far longer. While the trip to Taiwan by train would be an end goal, it wouldn't be priority #1.
If I had a baby elephant, I would put it on a recumbent trike so that it would become invisible.
mattheus
Posts: 1688
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Are CUK now pro or anti flights?

Post by mattheus »

Flying to Taiwan is greener than flying to Europe?

Welcome to 2021.
PH
Posts: 10159
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Are CUK now pro or anti flights?

Post by PH »

mattheus wrote: 20 Apr 2021, 12:31pm Flying to Taiwan is greener than flying to Europe?

Welcome to 2021.
No one has said that, though mile V's mile it probably is.
It's like asking if driving across the country to visit relatives is greener than driving the kids to school a mile away?
mattheus
Posts: 1688
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Are CUK now pro or anti flights?

Post by mattheus »

PH wrote: 20 Apr 2021, 2:41pm
mattheus wrote: 20 Apr 2021, 12:31pm Flying to Taiwan is greener than flying to Europe?

Welcome to 2021.
No one has said that, though mile V's mile it probably is.
It's like asking if driving across the country to visit relatives is greener than driving the kids to school a mile away?
Perceptions and judgements are funny things. If you told me you drive the kids a mile to school, I admit I'd find it irksome; but the cold reality is that driving them 10 miles to school is worse for everyone!
User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1441
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: Are CUK now pro or anti flights?

Post by Philip Benstead »

CTC AGM 2020

IMHO The motion below is poorly drafted, I find it hard to believe it permitted in the current form.

Please note the Proposer’s note has no legal standing as part of the motion.
Only the word of the motion counts.

Therefore, the wording of the motion suggest that the CTC should stop all /any fight over the entire world used for the purpose of travel for holidays.

One of the guidelines for motion is that they are practical, this plainly is not.

I suggest an alternative wording below.

ORDINARY RESOLUTIONS
6) Reduction of promotion of holiday flights.

Proposer’s note: The CTC (Cycling UK)

Articles of Association state four Objectives of the Club. Three are related specially to cycling. The fourth states ‘promote the conservation and protection of the environment’. The member survey indicated 71% support for ‘Encouraging cycle use to benefit the environment’. We would like to propose that the Club adopts a progressive strategy to reduce, and ultimately stop, promotion of cycling holidays that involve flying. An organisation whose stated objective is to protect the environment should not be promoting flying as it so massively increases a person’s annual carbon footprint and hence contributes to climate change. The current promotion is in the form of CTC branded holidays, which involve flying; articles in the magazine; and the adverts in the magazine selling holidays involving flying.

Proposer: Martin Crane

Seconder: Alison Hill

The Board accepts this motion.
Cycling UK wishes to be part of both this and wider discussions on the part that flying
contributes to carbon footprints and climate change.

Cycling UK’s policy on climate change is downloadable from (and summarised at):

www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/viewsand- ... ate-change.

This is an issue that has already begun to be discussed within the Holidays and Tours
Subsidiary

https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default ... f_2019.pdf




A SUGGESTED REWORED VERSION0

COMMENTS WELCOMED

ORDINARY RESOLUTIONS

That CTC shall work toward a reduction and eventual cessation of activities under its control of the provision, promotion and marketing of cycle holiday/tours and activities involving air flights.

Proposer’s note: The CTC

One of CTC objectives relates specially to the ‘promote the conservation and protection of the environment’. That is negated if the use of air travel is encouraged by increasing a person’s annual carbon footprint and hence contributes to climate change.

The member survey indicated 71% support for ‘Encouraging cycle use to benefit the environment’.

We propose that a progressive strategy to reduce, and ultimately stop, promotion of cycling activities that involve flying.

The current promotion is in the form of CTC branded holidays, and other holidays, events, articles, and advertisements its publication.

WORD COUNT 125
Last edited by Philip Benstead on 23 Apr 2021, 5:28pm, edited 1 time in total.
Philip Benstead | Life Member Former CTC Councillor/Trustee
Organizing events and representing cyclist in southeast since 1988
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic
Jdsk
Posts: 7755
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Are CUK now pro or anti flights?

Post by Jdsk »

Is this a suggested amendment for a future AGM?

Thanks

Jonathan
User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1441
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: Are CUK now pro or anti flights?

Post by Philip Benstead »

May be?
Philip Benstead | Life Member Former CTC Councillor/Trustee
Organizing events and representing cyclist in southeast since 1988
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic
Jdsk
Posts: 7755
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Are CUK now pro or anti flights?

Post by Jdsk »

What does that mean?

Are you suggesting this for the future, or recording that it should have happened in 2020. I can't tell from the way that it's written.

Thanks

Jonathan
User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1441
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: Are CUK now pro or anti flights?

Post by Philip Benstead »

That is how it should been done .

Note I have improved the wording.
Philip Benstead | Life Member Former CTC Councillor/Trustee
Organizing events and representing cyclist in southeast since 1988
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic
AndyK
Posts: 1010
Joined: 17 Aug 2007, 2:08pm

Re: Are CUK now pro or anti flights?

Post by AndyK »

Exact wording of the resolution and the proposers' notes:
6) Reduction of promotion of holiday flights.

Proposer’s note: The CTC (Cycling UK) Articles of Association state four Objectives of the Club. Three are related specially to cycling. The fourth states ‘promote the conservation and protection of the environment’. The member survey indicated 71% support for ‘Encouraging cycle use to benefit the environment’. We would like to propose that the Club adopts a progressive strategy to reduce, and ultimately stop,
promotion of cycling holidays that involve flying. An organisation whose stated objective is to protect the environment should not be promoting flying as it so massively increases a person’s annual carbon footprint and hence contributes to climate change. The current promotion is in the form of: CTC branded holidays, which involve flying; articles in the magazine; and the adverts in the magazine selling holidays involving flying.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default ... f_2019.pdf

That first line is what people were voting on. The rest is supporting notes by the proposers to explain their intentions in proposing it, their grounds for doing so and what they would like the ultimate direction to be. However those notes are not part of the motion.

So Cycling UK is required by this resolution to reduce its promotion of holiday flights, not abruptly eliminate such promotion altogether. You might reasonably ask whether the board has yet developed a long-term strategy for doing so and what timescale that strategy is aiming for, but I don't think you can claim the resolution is being ignored just because there's an ad in the magazine.

The motion does not direct Cycling UK to tell its members to stop taking flights.

Nor does it direct Cycling UK to stop providing information about taking your bike abroad by plane.

Nor does it mandate an immediate ban on including adverts for flight destinations in the magazine.

Nor does it mandate an immediate ban on talking about flight destinations in the magazine.

I should also note that the previous debate in this forum included a lot of ludicrous and in some cases deliberately misleading claims about the motion (CTC is banning its members from flying!!! It's an outrage!!!! Evil trustees will be standing guard at every airport in the country, waiting to confiscate your bike bag!!!!!!) - not to mention a rather desperate evidence-free claim that CTC Holidays tour groups magically generate less CO2 when flying than other, lesser, tourists.

The text above is what members voted on. A resolution to "reduce promotion" with a covering note suggesting that the organisation should aim "ultimately [to] stop" such promotion, without a timescale for "ultimately" being set.

As a trustee at the time, I was on the committee that looked at the members' motions and assessed whether we should support them. I looked at this one and said, "Yup, it's a fair cop." Our charitable objects include protection of the environment and it's pretty clear that actively encouraging people to fly off to foreign parts to take their cycling holidays does not sit comfortably with that. So the board supported it.

Incidentally one of my personal goals when I became a trustee was to get the membership/trustee relationship to a state where the board would actually endorse a member's motion at AGM, rather than dismissing it out of hand. I find it ironic that having reached that point, the response was an outpouring of vitriol from a minority who still chose to blame the board personally for a resolution that was put forward by the membership and accepted by the membership.

[edited for typo]
Post Reply