Possible motions for AGM 2017

Steady rider
Posts: 2102
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby Steady rider » 7 Dec 2016, 8:45pm

Interesting points gaz
Article 4.4 of the current AoA requires subscription rates to be set by the membership.

and so they were the previous year or two, I suppose.
The law required such a Motion to be put to the meeting
- assuming this is correct, then you make a good point.

suggested in draft AoA
11. MEMBERSHIP FEES
The Charity may require Members to pay reasonable Membership fees to the Charity.


current AoA
4.4 The subscription for each class of Member shall be such and shall be payable at such time as the
Club may determine, from time to time in General Meeting. Every subscription so determined shall
be subject at the time of payment to the addition of Value Added Tax at the statutory rate then
applicable.


Another case of trying to remove members say and take control of the life membership fund at the same time.
The current safeguard allows members to overrule a proposal for fees. It also allows members to question or discuss any fees on an annual basis at the AGM. Members could vote for a £20 fee and ask for donations, I suppose. Some members have high incomes and others very low incomes.

The law required such a Motion to be put to the meeting

suggested
11. MEMBERSHIP FEES
The Charity may require Members to pay reasonable Membership fees to the Charity
.
Would this conflict with 'the law required such a Motion to be put to the meeting', it avoids the need for such a motion it seems.
Last edited by Steady rider on 7 Dec 2016, 9:08pm, edited 1 time in total.

Steady rider
Posts: 2102
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby Steady rider » 7 Dec 2016, 9:04pm

Gaz wrote
The members motion submission paperwork includes the following comment.

As you are drafting your motion we’d really like to hear from you to learn more about your ideas and to offer our help and guidance.

If you haven't already done so I would recommend that you follow that advice


In the December issue of Cycle normally details are provided about the AGM venue plus date to send motions in by. I have contacted the trustees about the draft AoA with concerns. Last year motions were asked to be submitted by 1 February.

Before knowing if the draft AoA will be proposed for the AGM and the contents, some of the motions may change. Currently most of the 7 motions suggested have had replies from members about some aspects. Perhaps by January the motions could be formally sent to HQ, but they may have seen them already, and could joint the discussion. The final version should be ready by late January but CTC HQ may suggest changes, that would be considered.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13188
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby gaz » 7 Dec 2016, 9:08pm

Steady rider wrote:Would this conflict with 'the law required such a Motion to be put to the meeting', it avoids the need for such a motion it seems.

In a nutshell the law requires the Trustees to follow our AoA, the clauses therein are binding on the Trustees.

The current AoA have a clause whereby the members are required to vote to "approve" the membership rates set by the Trustees. Incidentally I do not know what happens if the members "reject" the Trustees recommendations, presumably the current rates remain in force being the last "approved" by the members.

The consultation is proposing removing the vote of members. The Trustees are being completely transparent about this, it is one of the questions posed directly in the consultation as quoted above with a clear "yes/no" response.

We do not know the final version of AoA that the Trustees will present to the AGM following the consultation. Change the AoA and the Trustees will act in accordance with the new AoA.
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13188
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby gaz » 7 Dec 2016, 9:47pm

Steady rider wrote:Before knowing if the draft AoA will be proposed for the AGM and the contents, some of the motions may change. Currently most of the 7 motions suggested have had replies from members about some aspects. Perhaps by January the motions could be formally sent to HQ, but they may have seen them already, and could joint the discussion. The final version should be ready by late January but CTC HQ may suggest changes, that would be considered.

Given past performance and stated policy on such matters I expect the chance of any official comment from National Office or the Trustees on thread to be zero.

I would agree that you should take time to give matters due consideration and submit any proposals in good time. I would not worry too much about changes to the proposed draft AoA and the impact they may have on your motions.

Consider your motion 2 "That the details on ‘LIFE MEMBERSHIP ACCOUNT’ be retained as in the current version of the Articles of Association."

Should the Trustees decide to include the same clause in their proposed AoA then they will simply let you know in advance of the AGM that your motion is no longer required and will not be on the agenda.

Should the vote for the new AoA take place first and be rejected then your Motion, whilst on the agenda, will not be put to the meeting.

(There may be a need to improve how the motion is phrased, particularly with regard to any additional commentary to accomodate the above procedural possibilities but the intention is clear and the submission process will deal with that better than I can).
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

Steady rider
Posts: 2102
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby Steady rider » 8 Dec 2016, 11:14am

The voting at the AGM is by a show of hands, not sure if the full results are provided at the same time or at the end of the motions.

An extra motion could be along the lines of;
The CTC website provide links to documents (grouped under one heading) that relate to governing the Club, e.g.
How the club is managed
1 Articles of Association
2 Company Act
3 Charity Act and any related documents
4 Standing Orders relating to meeting and conditions for proposed motions
5 Board meeting details
6 Any other documents that help in understanding how the Club is governed

Reasons
To assist members in understanding how the club is governed, legal obligations and procedures/requirements for meeting.

ps there is also the issue of lIfe members who may wish to leave the charity and have some of the contribution returned.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13188
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby gaz » 8 Dec 2016, 4:08pm

Steady rider wrote:The voting at the AGM is by a show of hands, not sure if the full results are provided at the same time or at the end of the motions.

The motions are considered in turn. All votes counted and the outcome known before the next motion is considered. Don't be concerned about the procedural side of things.
Steady rider wrote:ps there is also the issue of lIfe members who may wish to leave the charity and have some of the contribution returned.

IMO the basic premise of Life membership is a gamble. In return for an upfront payment you are guaranteed protection from all potential future price increases.

There is no guarantee prices won't fall. There is no guarantee how long you will live. There is no guarantee how long you will be an active cyclist. There is no guarantee how long you will support the aims of the Club. There is no guarantee how long the Club will continue to exist. There never has been.

You have already referred to the Life Membership Fund clause within the current AoA which is binding on the Trustees. At present life membership subscriptions go into a pot from which they must then be drip fed into general funds over 25 years. The Trustees can't give lump sums back from the pot.

You have proposed that we keep this arrangement in place. I do not know if any refund arrangements exist, I would be very surprised if they do. Refunds would have to be made form general funds. IMO "Life Membership" means "Life Membership*", not "Life Membership unless a member changes their mind about it", YMMV.

*There are circumstances in which Membership can be revoked by the Trustees and any Life Member can resign (IIRC the terminology is requesting that their nomination is placed in abeyance, which allows them to unresign at some future point).
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

Steady rider
Posts: 2102
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby Steady rider » 8 Dec 2016, 5:02pm

Currently 8 motions are suggested, probably enough to consider. If one allowing life members to leave with some refund, it may have a low chance of passing. I don't think most life members would want to leave the club. I will set that idea aside.

One issue could be that Council asks for proposers to attend the AGM. Sounds reasonable, but if say Mr Smith lives in Dundee and the AGM is in London, say nearly 500 miles apart, or Newcastle 280 miles say, Mr Smith may say too far to go and could cost £100 in travel costs, discouraging him from putting forward his motion. In any case if Mr Smith puts a motion, nearly all the votes will be by members not attending, probably 95%. If a motion is put and secondered, as per AoA, and then voted on by say 95% not attending, does it really need to be put again and secondered again at the AGM, it has already been accepted and checked by CTC HQ staff.

Psamathe
Posts: 9349
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby Psamathe » 8 Dec 2016, 5:30pm

Steady rider wrote:...
To request improvements to the advice and legal requirements for minimum passing clearance and passing speed, when vehicles overtake or pass near to cyclists, to try and reduce the frequency of vehicles passing too close or at too high a speed.

Reasons
To improve safety and discourage intimidating close passing. It would result in cyclists feeling less threatened, assist in promoting cycling and improve safety. Refer ‘Evidence of proposed UK law regarding motorists passing cyclists’ email colinclarkecycling@hotmail.co.uk for details on this or any other motion. At the 2016 AGM the Chairs discretionary votes prevented a similar motion from passing.
....

(I'm not a member and this can have no say and my opinions not relevant to the CTC AGM but).
I think the CTC was completely daft rejecting the passing clearance motion at the last AGM. I consider it a very important issue both for existing cyclists and to make cycling more acceptable to those who do not at present cycle.

I believe the only way for there to be a change to driving patterns is for there to be a law; Highway Code and "guidance" will make no difference (wont even be noticed by drivers let alone obeyed.

I think the phrasing of the motion (above) is not clear enough and a bit too "gentle" (like trying to avoid offending somebody you know wont like the idea. I believe it should be strong e.g. "The CTC will campaign for a minimum passing space law and for that law to be properly enforced". Could add "In addition (and at the same time) the CTC will carry out research and consultations on safe passing distances in preparation for any government consultation on the new passing clearance laws".

Ian

Steady rider
Posts: 2102
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby Steady rider » 8 Dec 2016, 8:15pm

I would have to agree to a good portion of your view. Not passing the 2016 motion was harmful to trying to get better conditions for cycling. The 2016 vote can be used to say Cycling UK is opposed to a close passing law. They would have better off saying Council will keep this under review as it is a serious issue, and not opposing the motion.

Roughly 1 million close passes (less than 0.8m) occur per day in the UK. It is a soft approach but asks 'To request improvements to the advice and legal requirements for minimum passing clearance and passing speed'

In the past year the CTC could have been collecting data on close passing from a number of locations and looking for the best way to improve the law and advice. In the USA more than half their states have passing laws.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/transporta ... lists.aspx some of their laws have distance requirements only, a few mention speed as well Delaware 21 Del. C. § 4116
Proceed with caution and reduce the speed of the vehicle to a safe speed and leave a reasonable and prudent distance by providing a minimum of three (3) feet of clearance while passing such bicyclist.


The CTC have the Space for cycling approach. This approach requires more space but can only deliver a limited benefit and not in all locations and not quickly. it would not deter motorist who deliberately pass very close, happened to me about 8 days ago, about 0.4-0.5m gap when the driver could have passed 1.5m away, road was clear.

http://www.harbug.org.uk/wp-content/upl ... -paper.pdf provides some details, a couple of minor errors, that were corrected in later versions and included the 1 million per day close passes estimate.

It is unknown if Council will support the motion. It needs a seconder at present.
Could also be considered in the context of motorist approaching or extended to include approaching motorists,
To request improvements to the advice and legal requirements for minimum passing clearance and passing speed, when vehicles overtake or pass near to cyclists,

Psamathe
Posts: 9349
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby Psamathe » 8 Dec 2016, 8:33pm

Steady rider wrote:I would have to agree to a good portion of your view. Not passing the 2016 motion was harmful to trying to get better conditions for cycling. The 2016 vote can be used to say Cycling UK is opposed to a close passing law. They would have better off saying Council will keep this under review as it is a serious issue, and not opposing the motion.

Roughly 1 million close passes (less than 0.8m) occur per day in the UK. It is a soft approach but asks 'To request improvements to the advice and legal requirements for minimum passing clearance and passing speed'

In the past year the CTC could have been collecting data on close passing from a number of locations and looking for the best way to improve the law and advice. In the USA more than half their states have passing laws.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/transporta ... lists.aspx some of their laws have distance requirements only, a few mention speed as well Delaware 21 Del. C. § 4116
Proceed with caution and reduce the speed of the vehicle to a safe speed and leave a reasonable and prudent distance by providing a minimum of three (3) feet of clearance while passing such bicyclist.


The CTC have the Space for cycling approach. This approach requires more space but can only deliver a limited benefit and not in all locations and not quickly. it would not deter motorist who deliberately pass very close, happened to me about 8 days ago, about 0.4-0.5m gap when the driver could have passed 1.5m away, road was clear.

http://www.harbug.org.uk/wp-content/upl ... -paper.pdf provides some details, a couple of minor errors, that were corrected in later versions.

It is unknown if Council will support the motion. It needs a seconder at present.
Could also be considered in the context of motorist approaching or extended to include approaching motorists,
To request improvements to the advice and legal requirements for minimum passing clearance and passing speed, when vehicles overtake or pass near to cyclists,

Partly why I put in the "In addition (and at the same time) the CTC will carry out research and consultations on safe passing distances in preparation for any government consultation on the new passing clearance laws" as from (probably flawed) memory when they rejected it last time, whilst the proposal was sensible (though I'd have gone for 1.5m everywhere) the Executive rejected it saying they were unsure about the distances etc. So adding the research would prevent them using the same excuse again - as it requires them to investigate and them be ready to propose what they have established at the point the government starts a consultation on a new passing distance law.

Ian

Steady rider
Posts: 2102
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby Steady rider » 8 Dec 2016, 9:02pm

Revising No 1, open to suggestions.

To request improvements to the advice and legal requirements for minimum passing clearance and passing speed, when vehicles overtake or pass near to cyclists, to try and reduce the frequency of vehicles passing too close or at too high a speed. In addition the CTC should conduct research and use consultations on safe passing distances in preparation for any government consultation on passing clearance laws.


Reasons
same or similar to stated.

Psamathe
Posts: 9349
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby Psamathe » 8 Dec 2016, 9:16pm

Steady rider wrote:Revising No 1, open to suggestions.

To request improvements to the advice and legal requirements for minimum passing clearance and passing speed, when vehicles overtake or pass near to cyclists, to try and reduce the frequency of vehicles passing too close or at too high a speed. In addition the CTC should conduct research and use consultations on safe passing distances in preparation for any government consultation on passing clearance laws.


Reasons
same or similar to stated.

Motion:
"To request improvements to the advice and legal requirement" -> "To campaign for laws"
"to try and reduce the frequency of ..." -> "to reduce the frequency of ..."
"or at too high speed" remove (covered by speed limits and appropriate passing space).

Reasons:
Close passes represent a significant concern for regular cyclists as well as a major discouragement for people considering starting cycling (i.e. represents a major barrier to taking up the activity). Often when cyclists suffer a dangerous close pass and record evidence Police can only use dangerous driving laws (and so invariable take no action against the driver). In addition, publicity on the introduction of a new law would help make drivers aware of the need to give cyclists more consideration. In summary , to make life safer for cyclists and to remove a significant hindrance to uptake of the activity.


Note: I'm assuming Police can only use dangerous driving laws for excessive close passes but others might know. Might be worth working in "cycling for transport" and parents own experiences meaning they discourage their children.

Ian

PH
Posts: 6143
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby PH » 8 Dec 2016, 9:42pm

Steady rider wrote: They would have better off saying Council will keep this under review as it is a serious issue,

Is that not exactly what was said at the end of the debate last year? That's certainly my recollection. It wasn't an option to pass the motion and then say they were keeping it under review, the motion would have obliged them to do something.
There are two reasons this doesn't get everyone's support, firstly that it isn't needed and the laws already exist when the will to use them is there, something that seems to have been demonstrated by West Midlands Police and other forces. Secondly, the belief that the Government would not support and progress such a bill. You can't fight every battle, you need to choose those you at least have a chance of winning.
I'm sick of hearing that anyone who didn't support this motion somehow doesn't care about the poor driving we see on the roads everyday, including close passes.

landsurfer
Posts: 3965
Joined: 27 Oct 2012, 9:13pm
Location: Rotherham

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby landsurfer » 8 Dec 2016, 9:44pm

Would someone please pm me with an explanation of how having something NEARLY HAPPEN as opposed to having something ACTUALLY HAPPEN can be pursued under English Law.

How will the distance between a cyclist and a 3rd party be measured.
What will be the approved measurement system.

How will the following be classified;
Near miss.
Dangerous pass.
Transient Assault.

I can not find any measure of these events within this Forum , which is probably a failing on my part.
Really, I am not being difficult , I just don't understand how this will work ...
The Road Goes On Forever.

PH
Posts: 6143
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby PH » 8 Dec 2016, 10:55pm

landsurfer wrote:Would someone please pm me with an explanation of how having something NEARLY HAPPEN as opposed to having something ACTUALLY HAPPEN can be pursued under English Law.

How will the distance between a cyclist and a 3rd party be measured.
What will be the approved measurement system.

How will the following be classified;
Near miss.
Dangerous pass.
Transient Assault.

I can not find any measure of these events within this Forum , which is probably a failing on my part.
Really, I am not being difficult , I just don't understand how this will work ...


Here is what can be done under the existing laws if there is the will
https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/lat ... px?id=4942