CTC AGM possible motions

Steady rider
Posts: 2172
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

CTC AGM possible motions

Postby Steady rider » 21 Dec 2015, 8:19pm

Edit - motions 1 and 2 below have now been sent to CTC HQ. Motions 3 and 4 regarding a bridge section could be very worthwhile, a seconder is required. The other motions the CTC may consider without an AGM motion. Edit see CTC AGM 2016 for actual motions submitted viewtopic.php?f=45&t=103240
1)
Asks for a legal requirement for minimum passing clearance when overtaking or near to cyclists, to try and reduce the frequency of vehicles passing too close. On roads with speed limits up to and including 30 mph/hr, a 1m minimum is suggested and on roads with higher speed limits, a 1.5m minimum passing distance is suggested.

Reasons
Trying to provide an extra incentive for drivers to take more care when overtaking cyclists, only overtaking when suitable space is available, http://cyclingtips.com.au/2015/10/south ... -cyclists/

2
The CTC to promote a European Union climate change policy of national governments funding cycling infrastructure, with a 3% minimum investment of transport spending on cycling infrastructure (built to CROW standards) or investment in relationship to the modal share of cycling.

Reasons
Trying to ensure that reasonable levels of funding are available to provide cycling infrastructure in all EU countries. The CTC may gain support via MEPs and in conjunction with the ECF.


Possible CTC AGM motions (reasons),

1
Ask for a trial of a minimum passing clearance when overtaking cyclists, to try and reduce the frequency of vehicles passing too close.

(trying to provide an extra incentive for drivers to take more care when overtaking cyclists, only overtaking when suitable space is available), http://cyclingtips.com.au/2015/10/south ... -cyclists/

2
The CTC to promote a European Union climate change policy of national governments funding cycling infrastructure. With a 3% minimum investment of transport spending on cycling or in relationship to the modal share of cycling.

(trying to ensure that reasonable levels of funding are available to provide cycling infrastructure in all EU countries, see viewtopic.php?f=6&t=102233)
http://www.ecf.com/wp-content/uploads/D ... t-Mode.pdf

3
The CTC to establish a ‘CTC Bridge charity group’, with the aims of assessing the need, advising on design, and assist in raising funds to provide extra bridges or crossing facilities for rivers, roads or rail in regards to cycling.

(CTC could assist in highlighting where an additional crossing may be worthwhile, provide design advice and help to raise funds. This could potentially get the CTC directly involved in providing more cycle routes and working with Sustrans or others to deliver them.)

4
The CTC to organise extra cycle rally/camping events with funds raised going to the ‘CTC Bridge charity’.

(Following the major cycling events successes in England and more people cycling in parts, providing extra events may help to promote cycling generally and raise funds in support of a ‘CTC Bridge charity.)

5
The CTC to take steps to ensure that when a road/section of road is proposed to be closed permanently to cyclists that at least 12 months notice is provided and publication of alternative routes and costs of improvements to existing routes or alternatives be published. Only after the details have been published and if no objection lodged could a closure be exacted.

(Some high speed roads without proper provision for cycling are closed to cyclists for safety reasons. A full assessment in each case is required to ensure all options are considered and cost estimate/s be provided regarding the options before a closure is enacted and if objections are lodged, a procedure to consider the options is required.)

6
The CTC to support introducing 25 mph limits for suitable roads.

(Suitable roads may be in moderately congested areas where a current 30 mph limit is too high for safety and a 20 mph limit may add to inconvenience due to speed humps/costs. For pedestrians the risk of death reaches 10% at an impact speed of 23 mph, 25% at 32 mph. https://www.aaafoundation.org/sites/def ... sSpeed.pdf )

7
The CTC take suitable action to have changes made to the Highway Code.
The Introduction to the Highway Code includes:
Although failure to comply with the other rules of The Highway Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.


By adding, “However, liability should not be based primarily on wearing extra safety aids in the case of pedestrians and cyclists.” This would help ensure that the Highway Code's advice is not used as an excuse to reduce fair compensation for cyclists or pedestrians who have been wearing normal cloths, without extra safety aids.
Last edited by Steady rider on 5 Feb 2016, 9:39am, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13745
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: CTC AGM possible motions

Postby gaz » 22 Dec 2015, 8:43pm

It is Council, not HQ that decides what can be submitted to an AGM. Incidentally even if a Motion is passed by the AGM Council are not bound by it.

I'd suggest that whilst many of these ideas are laudable aims, CTC will feel that most are covered by existing campaigning activities.

Subject to those caveats:

1. Needs to quote an actual minimum passing distance or better still a range dependent on speed. You'll find some ideas on p17 of LTN 2/08.

2. Possibly more of a matter for the ECF than the CTC. CTC can campaign for the UK governments do do their part, irrespective of European agreements.

3. Funding for bridges comes primarily from local/national transport funding. Only if you are aiming for a CTC that can outsustrans Sustrans does this becomes an interesting idea. At present I doubt that CTC has the staff resources to even consider it.

4. I'm not aware of National Office organising any events/rallies. Sometimes they organise a CTC presence at an event such as L'Eroica, Prudential RideLondon or The Great Tour. IMO that's about raising profile, not funds (at least not directly). Most other rallies are essentially down to local volunteers, raising funds for LMGs.

5. There are already processes in place for consultation on road closures / orders prohibiting cycling. There is always an alternative route. It may be hilly, it may be indirect, it may be a muddy bridleway but it's simple to publish it as part of a consultation. If your intention is to ensure that there are always direct, convenient and practical alternatives for cyclists before closures / prohibitions consultations won't achieve it on their own.

6. There are plenty of organisations campaigning for 20mph limits and zones, including CTC. I can't see anything to gain by campaigning solo for 25mph.

7. CTC always responds to consultations on the Highway Code, I expect this issue is already on the radar.
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

SA_SA_SA
Posts: 1770
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 1:46pm

Re: CTC AGM possible motions

Postby SA_SA_SA » 23 Dec 2015, 12:09am

7 Perhaps the Highway code should state that the advice on hi viz etc is just suggested defence against others negligence, and so cannot be used to claim that someone was negligent for not wearing it etc.
------------You may not use this post in Cycle or other magazine ------ 8)

Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: CTC AGM possible motions

Postby Tonyf33 » 23 Dec 2015, 6:09am

SA_SA_SA wrote:7 Perhaps the Highway code should state that the advice on hi viz etc is just suggested defence against others negligence, and so cannot be used to claim that someone was negligent for not wearing it etc.

Any mention of hi-vis and helmets should be removed completely unless they advocate exactly the same for motorists (helmet wearing) and their vehicles (hi-vis) and ensure this is advised (forcefully) to the extent you cannot become a learner unless you wear said helmet and have a hi-vis vehicle as being required as part of the learning curriculum/examination.

Additionally changing the wording regarding overtaking cyclists to give MORE space than you would a motorvehicle and making sure it is mentioned more prominently/forcefully, also greater detail about how to act/drive around vulnerable road users and to emphasise a motorists repsonsibility.

I'd back the 3% budget with an emphasis that local authorities MUST interact with the main cycling bodies, MUST NOT deviate from accepted plans on the back of pacifying motorists and some unfounded/made up notion of making it safer for cycling AND must not spend cycling money on other projects that are clearly not to the benefit of cycling.

jatindersangha
Posts: 118
Joined: 23 Jun 2015, 11:19am

Re: CTC AGM possible motions

Postby jatindersangha » 23 Dec 2015, 8:48am

Steady rider wrote:...
1
Ask for a trial of a minimum passing clearance when overtaking cyclists, to try and reduce the frequency of vehicles passing too close.

(trying to provide an extra incentive for drivers to take more care when overtaking cyclists, only overtaking when suitable space is available), http://cyclingtips.com.au/2015/10/south ... -cyclists/
...


I'm all for this one.

--Jatinder

Psamathe
Posts: 10603
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: CTC AGM possible motions

Postby Psamathe » 23 Dec 2015, 9:05am

Steady rider wrote:...
1
Ask for a trial of a minimum passing clearance when overtaking cyclists, to try and reduce the frequency of vehicles passing too close.

(trying to provide an extra incentive for drivers to take more care when overtaking cyclists, only overtaking when suitable space is available), http://cyclingtips.com.au/2015/10/south ... -cyclists/
...

(I'm not a CTC member so (should) have no say in their AGM Agenda but ...)
Whilst I agree that getting cars to give decent overtaking clearance would be fantastic, without any enforcement any new legislation would just be a few extra words on a document that is ignored. So I think that we need at least some enforcement of laws before worrying about introducing new ones. But I suspect it would be a bit beyond the CTC to start campaigning against what seems existing Police priorities.

That said I can appreciate that a law regarding adequate overtaking clearance might help in the rare occasion where an accident did occur and the rider was videoing and that video was considered adequate proof of too close a pass, etc. (which from what people say here about cyclist recorded video would seem unlikely).

So I'd take a step back and look at a "bigger picture" (and that way we'd maybe start preventing things like mobile phone use at the same time, just by a bit of enforcement).

Ian

User avatar
RickH
Posts: 4542
Joined: 5 Mar 2012, 6:39pm
Location: Horwich, Lancs.

Re: CTC AGM possible motions

Postby RickH » 23 Dec 2015, 11:45am

6. You could always go for the 29mph limit that seems to be (or at least was in 2011) in operation in at least one location (StreetView link) :D

29mph.JPG
StreetView scereengrab
29mph.JPG (24.09 KiB) Viewed 1146 times

Rick.

Steady rider
Posts: 2172
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: CTC AGM possible motions

Postby Steady rider » 23 Dec 2015, 3:24pm

Thank you all for the comments. Some changes may help to clarify a few points in blue. I think the CTC have a hand in organising the Birthday Rides.

1
Ask for a trial of a legal requirement for minimum passing clearance when overtaking cyclists, to try and reduce the frequency of vehicles passing too close.

Enforcement is an issue but some drivers may pass further away giving a better view for motorist behind and some police vehicles may pick up on some offenders.

2
The CTC to promote a European Union climate change policy of national governments funding cycling infrastructure. With a 3% minimum investment of transport spending on cycling or in relationship to the modal share of cycling.

added to reason
The CTC and ECF would probably consider actions to assist, eg contacting MEPs in the UK and across Europe and in direct contact with governments.

3
The CTC to establish a ‘CTC Bridge charity group (initially expected to be based on volunteers) ’, with the aims of assessing the need, advising on design, and assist in raising funds to provide extra bridges or crossing facilities for rivers, roads or rail in regards to cycling.

6
reasons -detailed added
The 25 mph limit would be equivalent to a 40 km/hr limit, that is often used in Europe and would provide an additional option to improve safety on some roads that are now probably subject to a 30 mph limits.

7
By adding, “However, liability should not be based primarily on wearing extra safety aids in the case of pedestrians and cyclists.” or similar. This would help ensure that the Highway Code's advice is not used as an excuse to reduce fair compensation for cyclists or pedestrians who have been wearing normal cloths, without extra safety aids.
reasons - detailed added
In 2013 the CTC voted for changes to the Highway Code and the issue has been raised in the House of Lords. If the CTC takes suitable actions to achieve the changes needed this could be helpful.

A private members bill may be possible if the Government does not agree to a change.

Pete Owens
Posts: 1564
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: CTC AGM possible motions

Postby Pete Owens » 23 Dec 2015, 8:56pm

Steady rider wrote:1
Ask for a trial of a minimum passing clearance when overtaking cyclists, to try and reduce the frequency of vehicles passing too close.

(trying to provide an extra incentive for drivers to take more care when overtaking cyclists, only overtaking when suitable space is available),


I think it is worthwhile to campaign on safe passing clearances, but I'm not sure that a trial would be useful.

Introducing a law would help - but once it is introduced it should stay. Any law should be simple - one distance (say 1.5m) and clearly explained as the space between the wing mirror and a cyclists elbow. Do not hope for any enforcement whatsoever - but the act of introducing a law and the associated publicity should have an effect on most drivers who are basically well meaning but lack the confidence to hold up following traffic by choosing to wait until it is safe to overtake. The key issue is making it socially acceptable to slow down.

Pete Owens
Posts: 1564
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: CTC AGM possible motions

Postby Pete Owens » 23 Dec 2015, 9:09pm

gaz wrote:6. There are plenty of organisations campaigning for 20mph limits and zones, including CTC. I can't see anything to gain by campaigning solo for 25mph.

I would put it more strongly than that. There is momentum behind the 20s plenty campaign and starting to camplaign for 25mph would undermine that. Now that a lot of local authorities are starting to implement area wide 20mph schemes the best thing the CTC should do is campaign at a national level for 20mph to become the default urban speed limit.
http://www.20splenty.org/transitioning_to_national_20

Steady rider
Posts: 2172
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: CTC AGM possible motions

Postby Steady rider » 24 Dec 2015, 10:44am

http://www.securite-routiere.org/docacr ... ne2001.pdf

The 20 mph limits have a safety benefit and where suitable are worthwhile.
The UK approach, 20/30/40 mph limits uses the 10 mph changes and in Europe they use a 10 km/hr (6.21 mph) change that is better in allowing the most appropriate limit to suit the circumstances. A 25 mph limit could be used on many congested roads in urban areas and without speed humps, saving on costs and maintenance.

http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/ ... eycbd.html

It is an area of debate as to the best approach. The 20/30 mph option will never be the best approach, from what I can see.
The Netherlands have a cyclist fatality rate of about 6 per billion km and we have a rate of about 24 per billion km. The pollution aspects also have to be considered with more deaths due to pollution than road traffic.

The ECF http://www.ecf.com/wp-content/uploads/E ... e30kph.pdf gives some info but is mainly focused on mph and little focus on the 40 km/hr zone effects.

http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac ... ug2012.pdf
stopping distances, Fig 5, 20 mph - 12 m, 30 mph - 23m, the 23 m is about a cricket pitch length,

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Safety/Driver ... ances.aspx
The figures do not seem to match the UK figures, 26m at 40km/hr (24.8mph), 35m at 50 km/hr (31mph), looks like the UK figures may be low compared with average stopping distances.

https://www.healthybydesignsa.com.au/wp ... b13.pdfThe
Heart Foundation (SA) is calling for 30 km/h in residential areas and 40 km/h on busy roads where there is high pedestrian and cyclist activity.


This is roughly the same approach for the 25 mph limit motion, 'on busy roads where there is high pedestrian and cyclist activity', for UK 'on busy roads where there is pedestrian and cyclist activity' may be better'.

Pete Owens
Posts: 1564
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: CTC AGM possible motions

Postby Pete Owens » 24 Dec 2015, 12:13pm

Steady rider wrote:http://www.securite-routiere.org/docacrobat/proggrandebretagne2001.pdf

The 20 mph limits have a safety benefit and where suitable are worthwhile.
The UK approach, 20/30/40 mph limits uses the 10 mph changes and in Europe they use a 10 km/hr (6.21 mph)

And the reason for that is that they use km rather than miles as their unit of measure - not that they have decided that the ideal increment in speed limit is 6.2 mph.

change that is better in allowing the most appropriate limit to suit the circumstances. A 25 mph limit could be used on many congested roads in urban areas and without speed humps, saving on costs and maintenance.

As can 20mph - and is starting to be rolled out for main roads in part of London.

It is an area of debate as to the best approach. The 20/30 mph option will never be the best approach, from what I can see.
The Netherlands have a cyclist fatality rate of about 6 per billion km and we have a rate of about 24 per billion km. The pollution aspects also have to be considered with more deaths due to pollution than road traffic.

And the principle reason for that is that their speed limits are lower - not that they are more finely grained.
The UK appoach is not 20/30/40, but 30/40/50(within towns) and 50/60/70(rural) - basically you look at the speed limit in for most roads in the UK and the Dutch would choose a lower limit for an equivalent environment. The only exception being Motorways.

We are campaigning to get 20mph implemented - and having success with individual local authorities. But, while 30kph is routine on the continent it is still the exception here. Every individual street has to be named and fought over to implement a TRO in the face of objection from the police.

The ECF http://www.ecf.com/wp-content/uploads/E ... e30kph.pdf gives some info but is mainly focused on mph and little focus on the 40 km/hr zone effects.

I can't find a single reference specifically to 40km/h in that document. Though it does mention the benefits of even lower speed regimes such as shared spaces.

The issue is purely tactical - what is the best way to achive more widespread use of lower speed limits.
Last edited by Pete Owens on 24 Dec 2015, 7:19pm, edited 1 time in total.

millimole
Posts: 476
Joined: 18 Feb 2007, 5:41pm
Location: Leicester

Re: CTC AGM possible motions

Postby millimole » 24 Dec 2015, 1:11pm

While these proposed motions are laudable, and while I might've argue around the details, I hate to say that they are almost certainly irrelevant to the new improved CTC.
These motions have the feel of the sort of proposals that would go before the 'old' club and be passed willingly (and then in all likelihood be forgotten). But in this brave new world where we are no longer members, but supporters, the management almost certainly have no interest in this type of 'micro-campaigning'.
The way that CTC is moving is toward working with other organisations, winning grants, and being a provider of services.
Sorry, but this ship has sailed.
Leicester; Riding my Hetchins since 1971; Audaxing on my Dawes; Riding to work on a Decathlon Hoprider

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: CTC AGM possible motions

Postby TonyR » 24 Dec 2015, 1:20pm

Steady rider wrote:The Netherlands have a cyclist fatality rate of about 6 per billion km and we have a rate of about 24 per billion km.


That's just Smeed's Law in action.

User avatar
robgul
Posts: 2911
Joined: 8 Jan 2007, 8:40pm
Contact:

Re: CTC AGM possible motions

Postby robgul » 24 Dec 2015, 4:29pm

millimole wrote:While these proposed motions are laudable, and while I might've argue around the details, I hate to say that they are almost certainly irrelevant to the new improved CTC.
These motions have the feel of the sort of proposals that would go before the 'old' club and be passed willingly (and then in all likelihood be forgotten). But in this brave new world where we are no longer members, but supporters, the management almost certainly have no interest in this type of 'micro-campaigning'.
The way that CTC is moving is toward working with other organisations, winning grants, and being a provider of services.
Sorry, but this ship has sailed.
#

I think the last word in your post is incorrect .... I would suggest "foundered" is more like the truth (and yes, your penultimate sentence about sums it all up I'm afraid) Horse, dead, flogging, no use .....

Rob