Cycling UK Forum

When will When will Paul Tuohy leave?
The Technical and Touring Officers gone, the secret rebrands been done, and the governance stuffs went thru: whats left to do/change....

He's yet to secure his legacy because I don't think the "Big Bike Revival" is going to be a good legacy as it stands.

Mr Tuohy spent 4 or 5 years in his last two posts, and joined CTC in 2014, so I expect him to leave in a year or two. The likes of him don't spend decades doing jobs they love - that's for volunteers and mugs like us.

I'd say 'watch out CAMRA' seems to be doing the ground work for it.

I met him once.

'nough said.

Mick F wrote:I met him once.

'nough said.

I have noted him yet, please enlighten me, diolch

Why - is he still at St Pancras?

Bonefishblues wrote:Why - is he still at St Pancras?

Isn't this a bit personal chaps? I don't approve of the direction CTC has taken but maybe we should focus on the what not the who?

geocycle wrote:Isn't this a bit personal chaps? I don't approve of the direction CTC has taken but maybe we should focus on the what not the who?

How do you think the direction is being steered if not by the CEO? There seems to have been a gutting, sorry I mean restructuring of council and further disconnection from member democratic control. PT appears to be trying to remake CTC in BC's image, with an ineffective remote elected body and powerful executives that really run things, possibly in the hope of being as successful as BC in getting grants, but I suspect he's twenty years too late.

This really is in bad taste - The changes that have been made have been approved by Council and supported by the majority, all be a silent one, of members.

If you don't like what has been done or where Cycling UK it is going, then stand for Council or leave. If you are not a member then just leave him and us alone to get on with things

I had a spell of feeling aggrieved after the name changed, but concluded that as a utility cyclist as well as a cycle tourist the "new" organisation, as people perceive it to be, was actually not doing a bad job of lobbying for better road conditions, encouraging new cyclists and protecting the rights of existing ones.

I have recently spent a large number of hours in the "corridors of power" dealing with issues around house building and have a lot of sympathy for those who are dealing with the DOT on cycling issues - no body does this sort of stuff for fun. It can be time consuming and frustrating, "stuff" doesn't just happen on its own somebody, has to put in the leg work to lobby and seek additional funding.

What about giving him and Council some support for what they are doing, instead of constantly chipping away from the anonymity of a forum pseudonym.

steady eddy wrote:... If you are not a member then just leave him and us alone to get on with things ...

That's a view I cannot share. Cycling UK is a Charity, it works for the benefit of the public; in its own words it is "The cyclists' champion".

Cycling UK's actions are carried out in the name of all cyclists, it is reasonable for all cyclists to be able to express their own opinions on those actions/inactions and to seek to influence them.

I'd agree the best way to seek to influence Cycling UK policy is to stand for election to the Board of Trustees, applications are currently being taken.

Probably the worst way to try and influence policy is to post on the Cycling UK forum. Cycling UK does not view this forum as an official communication channel. The chances that anyone in a position to act on your views will read your posts are very slim, the chances of an "official" reply on the forum are bordering on zero.

geocycle wrote:Isn't this a bit personal chaps? I don't approve of the direction CTC has taken but maybe we should focus on the what not the who?

+1 to that.

gaz wrote:

steady eddy wrote:... If you are not a member then just leave him and us alone to get on with things ...

That's a view I cannot share. Cycling UK is a Charity, it works for the benefit of the public..............

Oh gaz - I can't say +1 to that. The 'public' are substantially motorists, who despise cyclists...................but I can certainly understand eddy's response, and the sentiment that it suggests.

BUT

gaz wrote:..............Probably the worst way to try and influence policy is to post on the Cycling UK forum..................The chances that anyone in a position to act on your views will read your posts are very slim, the chances of an "official" reply on the forum are bordering on zero.

I'm sure is absolutely correct - although what they did to Philip Benstead does suggest that they do have some kind of an overview.

(Please note that this is not - repeat NOT - an attempt {and certainly NOT a desire} to re-ignite or re-start anything - I offer this only as an example).

But the public still benefit from reduced cyclists deaths, and increasingly healthy population, better cooperation with local authorities, and better information about the benefits of cycling.

Even the most rabid cyclist-hating person gains some benfits from increasing numebrs of cyclists, whether they believe there are benefits, or not.

Vorpal wrote:But the public still benefit from reduced cyclists deaths, an increasingly healthy population, better cooperation with local authorities, and better information about the benefits of cycling.

Even the most rabid cyclist-hating person gains some benfits from increasing numbers of cyclists, whether they believe there are benefits, or not.

Yes, that's certainly fair comment - although the motorists that you refer to wouldn't perceive the benefit, nor recognise it as a benefit.