2016 AGM

User avatar
al_yrpal
Posts: 9046
Joined: 25 Jul 2007, 9:47pm
Location: Think Cheddar and Cider
Contact:

Re: 2016 AGM

Postby al_yrpal » 10 Jul 2016, 1:50pm

I didnt ask for or receive a refund for the rest of my subscription, I simply sent an email. I was asked why and just stated that it was the same reason that so many members had either resigned or let their subscriptions lapse. I was told that I could rejoin and I believe the remainder of my 5 year sub would remain in credit.
But, like many others I now see a CUK subscription as pointless. As the recent BBC article clearly indicated the CTC has now become regarded as a minor organisation with the banner for Cycling in general being carried by British Cycling. And the CUK Chairmans arrogant disregard for the memberships overwhelming vote on the promotion on a Close Passing law took the biscuit. Its clearly an organisation not focussed on the interests or safety of its members.

Al
Touring on a bicycle is a great way to explore and appreciate the countryside and towns you pass through. Make a difference...

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14163
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, lorry park of England

Re: 2016 AGM

Postby gaz » 10 Jul 2016, 3:21pm

al_yrpal wrote:And the CUK Chairmans arrogant disregard for the memberships overwhelming vote on the promotion on a Close Passing law took the biscuit.

Every undirected proxy vote was a member's vote, with a member choosing who to appoint as their proxy. In the case of members appointing the Chair as proxy they knew he would follow Council's published position on the matter.

Proceduraly the members' undirected proxy votes cast by the Chair are the last to be counted, what of it? There was no outcome to the Motion until all the votes cast were counted. The motion was defeated by members' votes.
There'll be tarmac over, the white cliffs of Dover ...

Steady rider
Posts: 2287
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: 2016 AGM

Postby Steady rider » 10 Jul 2016, 7:04pm

British Cycling approach;

Former Team GB star Chris Boardman, now a policy adviser to British Cycling, said the new law should be brought in “without delay.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mo ... es-8102754
On the passing motion the Council made an error of judgement.

Wording of The Highway Code

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.

Wording of The Highway Code

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the 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’., 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’.


CUK suggested changes to the Code instead of a legal requirement,
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be
prosecuted,


Changes to advice, suggestions or recommendation about passing cyclists could not be used to prosecute a motorist for close passing. Only a legal requirement could be used, as the motion asked for. CUK made this error of suggesting changes to the Code may be the best option but failed to realize it required a legal requirement as well.
Last edited by Steady rider on 10 Jul 2016, 7:37pm, edited 2 times in total.

PH
Posts: 9964
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: 2016 AGM

Postby PH » 10 Jul 2016, 7:31pm

Steady rider wrote:British Cycling approach;

Former Team GB star Chris Boardman, now a policy adviser to British Cycling, said the new law should be brought in “without delay.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mo ... es-8102754
On the passing motion the Council made an error of judgement.


Thier approach is what?
The CB quote from the article is
“We hope that this inspires Mr Goodwill to put in place similar measures in Britain without delay.”

We hope? That's hardly a commitment to campaign for it. Expressing an opinion isn't the same as a policy decision.
How long do you think it will be before this is law? How long before you judge whether the BC approach has been a success or failure?
If BC with their higher profile and Murdoch backing can't get it at least to the white paper stage if five years, a complete parliamentary cycle, then there would have been no point CTC using up resource on it, if they can I'll be the first back here to say they made an error in not doing so. But you know as well as I, that the CEO gave a commitment to go away and look at the evidence, it may be that the CTC position changes, either way I expect to see a better basis for the position than BC or anyone else has offered.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14163
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, lorry park of England

Re: 2016 AGM

Postby gaz » 10 Jul 2016, 7:50pm

Steady rider wrote:Changes to advice, suggestions or recommendation about passing cyclists could not be used to prosecute a motorist for close passing. Only a legal requirement could be used, ...

Such as prosecuting a motorist under the existing offence of careless driving: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=106859&p=1023616#p1023616
There'll be tarmac over, the white cliffs of Dover ...

Steady rider
Posts: 2287
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: 2016 AGM

Postby Steady rider » 10 Jul 2016, 8:21pm

The CTC had the passing motion from January. They should have been looking at the outcome from Queensland where they had been trying out the law for 2 years.

Recently a submission by Roger Geffen; http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... _con_0.pdf
page 8 of 17 mentions;
A minimum passing distance, as called for in https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/128190.
Although we are dismayed at the Government’s response, we are pleased that the
Government is keeping its position on this under review. We believe it should be
incorporated into the next HC revision.


CTC Council may include the topic at their next meeting.

Unfortunately opposing the passing motion has caused uncertainty and put off some cyclists from supporting the petition. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/128190
It is always very important in trying to bring forward any legislation to show a united front if possible.

Steady rider
Posts: 2287
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: 2016 AGM

Postby Steady rider » 10 Jul 2016, 8:30pm

Postby gaz » 10 Jul 2016, 7:50pm

Steady rider wrote:
Changes to advice, suggestions or recommendation about passing cyclists could not be used to prosecute a motorist for close passing. Only a legal requirement could be used, ...

Such as prosecuting a motorist under the existing offence of careless driving: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=106859&p=1023616#p1023616


It would depend on the circumstances and if the CPS proceeded with the case and if the police considered it careless driving, say 0.8m wide from the cyclist, and if the case went to court and if the court agreed. If the Highway Code said motorists should not pass closer than say 1.0m, then the Code could be quoted,
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted


So a motorist could say it is only advice not to pass closer than 1.0m and the Code says it will not cause a person to be prosecuted. The 'careless driving' suggestion is a red hearing.

The Code would need to say;
Motorists MUST not pass closer than 1.0m .....30 mph....1.5m etc 30mph+, precise wording would be down to Parliament.

Please note, both the CTC via Roger Geffen and BC via Chris Boardman have shown support for including a minimum passing distance requirement.

PH
Posts: 9964
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: 2016 AGM

Postby PH » 10 Jul 2016, 8:39pm

Steady rider wrote:Unfortunately opposing the passing motion has caused uncertainty and put off some cyclists from supporting the petition. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/128190

It needs another 80,000 to get to the next hurdle, how many do you think have been put off?

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14163
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, lorry park of England

Re: 2016 AGM

Postby gaz » 10 Jul 2016, 9:23pm

Steady rider wrote:The 'careless driving' suggestion is a red hearing.

Red herring?
Steady rider wrote:
Wording of The Highway Code
... 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’.

In a prosecution for careless driving (under section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988), failure to follow any advisory wording in a revised Highway Code would be evidential in establishing liability.
There'll be tarmac over, the white cliffs of Dover ...

User avatar
robgul
Posts: 3017
Joined: 8 Jan 2007, 8:40pm
Contact:

Re: 2016 AGM

Postby robgul » 15 Jul 2016, 6:40pm

PH wrote:
Psamathe wrote:Others leaving have left immediately rather than waiting for their renewal to fall due. They have reported here that they get their outstanding membership fee refunded on a pro-rata basis (which as Al says can be given to more deserving organisations/causes).

I know this get's repeated in the plural many times on here, but does anyone know of another example other than that of robgul?
Might that have been a mistake? I can't see anything that would oblige them to refund and can't imagine why they would do so otherwise.


I looked at the Ts&Cs of membership very carefully and there was no "all sales are final" type of clause ... have to say I was surprised at the laxity of the conditions.

So - with no great expectation of success - I emailed and said I wanted to cancel my membership forthwith and received a message almost by return asking for the details to make a credit - which was received within about 72 hours IIRC. I wasn't asked why - but my line of argument if necessary would have been the changes in status of CTC and the (to me) much diminished value of membership and of money for non-existent or nebulous "benefits" [I only renewed my membership in 2015, subsequently partially refunded, to be able to vote in the CTC-HoE to HoECC conversion meeting in September 2015]

To answer the question about others receiving refunds -I did have 3 or 4 messages from people that said they had refunds ... I didn't bother to keep the messages.

Rob
E2E http://www.cycle-endtoend.org.uk
HoECC http://www.heartofenglandcyclingclub.org.uk
Cytech accredited mechanic . . . and woodworker

User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1417
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: 2016 AGM

Postby Philip Benstead » 7 Oct 2016, 8:22am

It should be noted that there has been not been a report of the CTC AGM in the magazine nor on the website. I wonder what the CTC Council have to hide.
I wonder how many CTC members realized the result of the AGM votes and how they affect the future of the CTC.
Philip Benstead | Life Member Former CTC Councillor/Trustee
Organizing events and representing cyclist in southeast since 1988
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic