Possible motions for AGM 2017

landsurfer
Posts: 3300
Joined: 27 Oct 2012, 9:13pm
Location: Rotherham

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby landsurfer » 8 Dec 2016, 11:01pm

So possibly enacting current law would achieve parties goals without NEW laws .... yet again ....
'An old Tiger is still a Tiger"
Graham Obree.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 12650
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby gaz » 9 Dec 2016, 9:11am

Council responded to the 2016 "Legal minimum passing clearance" Motion with the following:
CTC Council disagrees with this motion. Council agrees that close overtaking should be tackled. It’s hazardous for cyclists and extremely intimidating. However, Council remains reluctant to specify a ‘headline’ overtaking distance because (for example) even 1.5m may not be enough in some circumstances and we don’t want to risk giving drivers the impression that it is.

The Highway Code (rather than the law) is better placed to explain optimum overtaking distances because it could state a standard minimum distance, and explain the circumstances in which more space is needed, e.g. on fast roads, in bad weather, etc. When the next revision is announced, we will campaign for various amendments, including clearer advice to drivers on overtaking.

The current CTC position is that close overtaking should be tackled. CTC have welcomed the approach taken by the West Midlands Police and are encouraging other forces to follow suit. CTC will campaign for various amendments to the Highway Code at its next revision.

Those activities are resourced within the current CTC budget.
PH wrote: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.

Passing an Ordinary Resolution at AGM obliges the Trustees to consider the action they will take in the light of that Motion, Ordinary Resolutions are not binding. Neither were they binding before we became a Charity.

If a motion was passed at AGM to commit resources to a human powered moonlanding the fact that it would not be binding on Council is much more obvious, the underlying principle is the same for every Ordinary Resolution.

PH wrote:You can't fight every battle, you need to choose those you at least have a chance of winning.

Before implementing a Motion the Trustees have to consider how CTC can best use the resources it has. Commissioning additional research and consultations requries additional resources, they can only be provided by removing funding from other projects (funding from external sources is often ringfenced, e.g. BBR). Even if a "Legal minimum passing clearance" motion were passed by AGM the Trustees may still decide their current approach is the best use of CTC's limited resources.
It's got nothing to do with vorsprung durch technic you know ...

Steady rider
Posts: 1983
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby Steady rider » 9 Dec 2016, 10:06am

It is quite confusing for members, with the objects of the charity and company to seek to improve safety, yet they opposed a motion with reasonable grounds for doing so. Last years motion read;
14) Legal minimum passing clearance
The AGM requests a legal requirement for minimum passing clearance when overtaking or near to cyclists, to try and reduce the frequency of motor vehicles passing too close. On roads with speed limits up to and including 30mph or when passing at a speed up to and including 30mph, a 1m minimum is suggested. On roads with higher speed limits, a 1.5m minimum passing distance is suggested. In addition, on narrow roads frequent passing places should be provided.

it stated, '1m minimum is suggested' and '1.5m minimum passing distance is suggested'
Council could have offered alternative phasing if they wished. The suggestion was in keeping with legislation already passed in Queensland https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety ... /cyclists/

even 1.5m may not be enough in some circumstances
This would probably be on very odd occasions, compared with what actually occurs, about 1 in 100 passes are within 0.8m, about 1 in 25 within 1.0m. What evidence is provided to show 'even 1.5m may not be enough in some circumstances', a large HGV turning a sharp corner may require more, but extra advice on such a situation could be given in the Highway Code. The motion did not try to restrict other advice being provided in the HC.

The Highway Code (rather than the law) is better placed to explain optimum overtaking distances because it could state a standard minimum distance, and explain the circumstances in which more space is needed, e.g. on fast roads, in bad weather, etc. When the next revision is announced, we will campaign for various amendments, including clearer advice to drivers on overtaking.


The HC states;
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’


Advice to pass with care or advice to leave X space, say 1.0m,
will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted


To be effective it needs legislation and have '‘MUST/MUST NOT’ included. so the motion was the right thing to do and should have been supported. There is no guarantees of legislation passing but without trying you cannot be sure.

Council in my view failed to meet their legal obligations to support the 'objects'.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 12650
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby gaz » 9 Dec 2016, 10:31am

Déjà vu.
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. West Midlands Police and other forces are already applying this principle quite succesfully.

In order for CTC to campaign more aggressively for a "Legal minimum passing clearance", CTC would either need to find more income to pay for the costs of the campaign or to cut the funding of some other project.

Steady rider wrote:Council in my view failed to meet their legal obligations to support the 'objects'.

The Motion was rejected by the Members at the 2016 AGM. The Trustees have certainly followed the members wishes on that one, would you rather they had "ignored" them :wink: .

I've repeated the Trustees position on the "legal minimum passing clearance" issue above. In what way does that position fail to support our objects?
It's got nothing to do with vorsprung durch technic you know ...

Steady rider
Posts: 1983
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby Steady rider » 9 Dec 2016, 2:24pm

Costs are a red herring, not mentioned in the Councils reply and they have sufficient funds.

The information to date shows only a small number of forces are trying to enforce close passing. Probably 2 or 3 forces out of 25+, it seems.

The Highway Code points in two directions, one saying
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted,
and the other could be used in careless driving offences but may be subject to challenge.

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.


What liability would occur in a close passing event? no accident, no injury

This may require support from the CPS, not sure. It is not as clear to the public as a passing law requiring setting minimum distances that I think would be easier to issue fines for. The Code does not mention a minimum distance.

The Code has not be revised for about 10 years. When revised, a passing clearance requirement may still not be included, it may still leave room for uncertainty.

I've repeated the Trustees position on the "legal minimum passing clearance" issue above. In what way does that position fail to support our objects?


The motion was to seek new legislation by supporting a passing law proposal, they opposed the motion. The reasons provided were not sound, they relied on others actions, e.g. DfT reviewing the Highway Code and making suitable changes. This amounted to speculation on when the Code may be revised and what provisions are included. The objects require the charity/club

to support ........1.7.2 preserve and protect the health and safety of the public by encouraging and facilitating cycling and the safety of cyclists;


There is evidence showing a passing law would encourage more cycling and improve safety. The Chairman's discretionary votes were cast against the motion. Council opposed the motion and used the discretionary votes to cause the motion to fail. Council in my view failed to meet their legal obligations to support the 'objects'.
A Scrutiny Committee could be suitable for considering such an issue and failing to provide their full business name on membership cards, two legal issues.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 12650
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby gaz » 9 Dec 2016, 3:14pm

Steady rider wrote:This may require support from the CPS, not sure. ...

The police decide whether or not there is sufficient evidence of a crime to present a case to the CPS. The CPS first apply their evidential tests (is there a realistic prospect of conviction based upon the evidence) and then their public interest tests (is prosecution in the public interest) to decide whether a case proceeds. Every public prosecution requires the backing of the CPS.

Again I can't help but feel some déjà vu.

Private prosecutions are rare but possible, such as the CDF pursuing the Mick Mason case.

Steady rider wrote:... The Chairman's discretionary votes were cast against the motion. Council opposed the motion and used the discretionary votes to cause the motion to fail. Council in my view failed to meet their legal obligations to support the 'objects'.
A Scrutiny Committee could be suitable for considering such an issue.

I almost wish there was a Scrutiny Committee. The first thing it could apply scrutiny to is the concept of "Chairman's discretionary votes".

That would mean "Discretionary votes of the Chairman" and no such votes exist. The only votes are members' votes*. A member may wish to vote in person at the AGM or a member may wish to appoint a proxy to attend the AGM and cast that member's vote. A member may wish to direct their proxy on how they wish their vote to be cast. A member may wish to give discretion to their proxy on how their vote will be cast.

Every vote cast is a member's vote, every vote cast has equal validity, a motion is either passed or failed by the outcome of the members' votes.

I cannot see how a Scrutiny Committee would come to any other conclusion. Then again this is also déjà vu.

If you choose to bring another "close passing" motion to the AGM the members can choose how to vote on it.

*Save for an event where the tally of all member votes for and against is equal. In such a situation the Chair does indeed have an additional casting vote. I would expect that his legal obligation is to cast that vote in the best interests of the Charity, I am aware that tradition states such a vote should be cast for the status quo.
It's got nothing to do with vorsprung durch technic you know ...

Steady rider
Posts: 1983
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby Steady rider » 9 Dec 2016, 5:21pm

http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... esults.pdf
Motion 14
Total votes cast 1261 for and 1725 against

The meeting vote, Proxy votes, Chair's directed votes were all in favour of the motion, 1261 vs 844.

The Chairs discretionary votes 881, resulting in the motion failing.

The 1725 against, comprised 884 against plus 881 from the Chairs discretionary votes.

The council opposed the motion and voted against it. The Council/trustees are required to act in the best interests of the Charity and Club, as per 'object', they failed in the legal duty, that is my view. There is no independent system to hold them to account.

From this weeks Cycleclips
No offence: sentencing review not fit for purpose

As if one Ministry of (in)Justice issue wasn’t enough, like buses, here’s another bad policy in the same week! The Government’s consultation on motoring offences and sentencing, first promised to us back in May 2014 in response to Cycling UK’s Road Justice campaign, plans to increase sentences for the most serious offenders but falls short of what is needed to tackle driving standards on Great Britain’s roads. The Government originally promised to carry out a full review of all motoring offences and penalties, including the distinction between ‘careless’ and ‘dangerous’ driving. Instead, the proposals in the review only aim to increase maximum sentences for the most serious offences. Not one to shy away from speaking truth to power, Cycling UK’s Duncan Dollimore shares his views
.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 12650
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby gaz » 9 Dec 2016, 6:16pm

Steady rider wrote:Motion 14 Total votes cast 1261 for and 1725 against

Every vote was a member vote, every vote had equal validity. The members rejected the motion. I believe the ERS scrutinised the outcome.

No member subsequently exercised their right to call for a Poll of the Whole Club to vote on it all over again.

If you choose to bring another "close passing" motion to the AGM the members can choose how to vote on it. Every vote will be a member vote, every vote will have equal validity.

The result will not be binding on the Trustees.
It's got nothing to do with vorsprung durch technic you know ...

Steady rider
Posts: 1983
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby Steady rider » 9 Dec 2016, 7:41pm

It looks like number 1 motion would read;
To request improvements to the advice and legal requirements for minimum passing clearance and passing speed, when vehicles overtake or pass near to cyclists. The CTC should campaign for a minimum passing space law and for that law to be properly enforced. The CTC should carry out research and consultations on safe passing distances in preparation for any government consultation on new passing clearance laws.

Reasons
It is essential 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.

Psamathe
Posts: 8339
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby Psamathe » 9 Dec 2016, 9:27pm

Steady rider wrote:It looks like number 1 motion would read;
To request improvements to the advice and legal requirements for minimum passing clearance and passing speed, when vehicles overtake or pass near to cyclists. The CTC should campaign for a minimum passing space law and for that law to be properly enforced. The CTC should carry out research and consultations on safe passing distances in preparation for any government consultation on new passing clearance laws.

Reasons
It is essential 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.

Do remember that my input is irrelevant in that I am no longer a member of the CTC and as such my interest can only be as a cyclist. Do remember that when I make suggestions about such things (and I did hold back from posting to this thread and I do feel a bit guilty having commented).

Ian

Steady rider
Posts: 1983
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby Steady rider » 10 Dec 2016, 10:12am

With the CTC being a charity any suggestions, from members or non-members could be considered, but only members can propose and second them.

The motion could be extended,

To request improvements to the advice and legal requirements for minimum passing clearance and passing speed, when vehicles overtake or pass near to cyclists. The CTC should campaign for a minimum passing space law and for that law to be properly enforced. The CTC should carry out research and consultations on safe passing distances in preparation for any government consultation on new passing clearance laws. Where close passing is intentionally intimidating a more serious change should be considered.


another version could be, now replaced above version on page 1.
To request improvements to the advice and legal requirements for minimum passing clearance and passing speed, when vehicles overtake or pass near to pedestrians, cyclists and horses. The CTC should campaign with others where possible for a minimum passing space law and for that law to be properly enforced. The CTC should carry out research (e.g. the proportion of people who feel threatened by vehicles passing too close) and consultations on safe passing distances in preparation for any government consultation on new passing clearance laws. Deliberate close passing should be considered dangerous driving.


The above approach includes horse riders, who have a similar agenda, seeking improved safety.
http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/5072.html

Steady rider
Posts: 1983
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby Steady rider » 12 Dec 2016, 5:31pm

An extra motion could be worth considering.

Proposed governance change

That amendment is made to the Governance documents to allow for an extra 6 elected trustees in addition to the 12 trustees planned for.

Reason
Currently the Nomination Committee can recommend a person with skills, knowledge and experience as a Trustee. In 2016 they selected 6 candidates who had been CTC members for less than 12 months and CTC members were not selected or discouraged from standing by the selection criteria. Currently Council has approximately 15 trustees, but can consist of between 5 and 22 elected trustees plus 4 members co-opted by the Council. The extra 6 trustees proposed, 3 for England and 1 each for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Nominations for the 6 trustee positions could by the membership, 4 seconders required, and voted in directly by the membership. From the current maximum of 26 the change would result in a possible 18, a net reduction of 30%, rather than the 50%+ reduction in the Governance document to 12. The benefits would be more trustees could attend AGMs, cycle rallies or events and be known to the membership. This could be of significant benefit in having direct contact with cycling groups and cyclists.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 12650
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby gaz » 12 Dec 2016, 7:46pm

Your proposal aims to increase the number of Trustees and reintroduce Electoral Divisions. Please take a moment to consider where you are starting from. At the 2016 AGM the members passed Ordinary Resolution 5.

5) Proposed governance changes
CTC Council (the charity trustees) invite members to:
(i) note the report of the Governance Working Group on the results of its Governance Review (see pages 11-12 of the April/May magazine);
(ii) approve the approach agreed by Council; and
(iii) approve the changes to the Orders in Council of CTC that are necessary to implement that approach (‘the Proposed Changes’)

The Members have only just approved a decrease in the size of the board and a change to a single Electoral Division, we are still working through the transitional arrangements. The ink on that decision is barely dry.

Unsurprisingly the Trustees' position on the size of the Board is unchanged. It was reiterated in the recent Governance Consultation documents.
The draft articles of association reflect the recommendations of the Governance review, which were approved by Cycling UK’s members at the 2016 AGM. We are not reopening for further discussion decisions made during that process.



It remains your right to seek to bring a Motion to the 2017 AGM.

From a procedural view point I expect the Trustees' Special Resolution "To adopt the proposed AoA" to follow Ordinary Business before any other resolutions are put to the meeting. If passed (75% majority required) your proposals seek to change our "new" AoA, if rejected your proposals seek to change our "old" AoA.

I suspect your desired outcome will need a different approach depending on which set of AoA and/or other governance documents (Orders in Council?) require revision.

Drafting a suitable proposal (or set of proposals) is far beyond my skills and knowledge, don't delay in seeking guidance.
It's got nothing to do with vorsprung durch technic you know ...

Steady rider
Posts: 1983
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby Steady rider » 12 Dec 2016, 9:38pm

2
That the Articles of Association remain unchanged for the time being and that additional consultation on proposals to amend the Articles of Association is undertaken.


I read some of the thinking behind the change in governance, basically people at Council could not agree or got bogged down on detail, so they have headed for a smaller team, via a selection process. This will eliminate most regular and experienced cyclists. We have learned how the system will operate, e.g.
In 2016 they selected 6 candidates who had been CTC members for less than 12 months


I will add No8 motion to the list because I think it should be discussed and the members were not given a choice of options to consider. They have been told 26 to 12 trustees is the way forward. The CTC is not in debt, has 60000 to 70000 members, good progress is possible without any change to the number of trustees.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 12650
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby gaz » 12 Dec 2016, 11:07pm

Steady rider wrote:I will add No8 motion to the list because I think it should be discussed and the members were not given a choice of options to consider.

I'm confused. How does your motion offer a choice of options?

Steady rider wrote:They have been told 26 to 12 trustees is the way forward.

No, we were asked if we agreed that 12 Trustees was the right way forward, we voted and passed the Motion.

Steady rider wrote:The CTC is not in debt, has 60000 to 70000 members, good progress is possible without any change to the number of trustees.

Then why are you proposing a change to the number of Trustees?
It's got nothing to do with vorsprung durch technic you know ...