Disagreement with AGM resolutions

[Jdsk]

if I was joining a cycling club/organisation I would expect them to promote cycling.

The relevant Charitable Objective has already been quoted. But every individual and every organisation should be thinking about the damage they do to our shared planet. Leaving litter in public places always seems a good analogy.

Jonathan

PS: Let's not accuse others of hypocrisy if it's only inconsistency. There's enough division around as it is.

[CJ]

The organisation's four registered Charitable Objectives include:

"4. PROMOTE THE CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT."

so I don't think it's unreasonable for Cycling UK to do its bit in this regard. It's one thing for members to fly off to foreign parts to have cycling holidays; it's quite another for Cycling UK to actively encourage them to do so.

I put it to you, that Cycling UK is NOT "doing its bit in this regard". Doing its bit would be to join forces with the ECF in campaigning for the green alternative to flying of taking your bike across Europe on the train. But CUK does not even publicise this vitally useful campaign.

A refusal to advertise or organise holidays that include flights is by comparison an EMPTY GESTURE - a cheap and easy absence of action, that contributes nothing towards the objective quoted above. For so long as it remains very difficult to take your bicycle abroad any other way, cyclists will continue to fly. And holidays in which one cannot easily participate without flying will continue to be advertised and organised by CUK - just without the flight included. Most European holidays already leave one to book one's own transport, it's so easy on the internet nowadays.

If, on the other hand, Cycling UK were to channel a good chunk of the funds contributed by it's many cycle-touring members into the ECF Bikes on Trains Campaign for at least 8 bikes on all European trains, that would really make a difference. CUK's failure to fund or even publicise this campaign is IMHO nothing short of a betrayal and a DERELICTION OF DUTY.

But of course, to publicise this campaign would be to expose the truth about bikes on trains in Europe, that it sucks, that it's nigh impossible - especially if there's more than two of you. And that would expose the lie that's been pedalled by all the letters and articles published in Cycle recently, that it's cheap and easy as pie to take your bike anywhere in Europe on the train, in a vote-rigging excercise running up to the last AGM.

[Philip Benstead]

Has anybody noticed the error in the motion below?

The motion asks for the Reduction of the promotion of holiday flights.

It does not mention who or how the notes are not part of the motion so can't be counted.

So if we take the motion at face value the CUK will have to campaign for the reduction in the promotion of any holiday flights in the entire world.

MOTION 6) Reduction of promotion of holiday flights.



Proposer’s note: The CTC (Cycling UK) Articles of Association state four Objectives of the Club. Three are related specially to cycling. The fourth states ‘promote
the conservation and protection of the environment’. The member survey indicated 71% support for ‘Encouraging cycle use to benefit the environment’. We would like to
propose that the Club adopts a progressive strategy to reduce, and ultimately stop, promotion of cycling holidays that involve flying. An organisation whose stated
objective is to protect the environment should not be promoting flying as it so massively increases a person’s annual carbon footprint and hence contributes to
climate change. The current promotion is in the form of: CTC branded holidays, which involve flying; articles in the magazine; and the adverts in the magazine selling holidays involving flying.
Proposer: Martin Crane
Seconder: Alison Hill
The Board accepts this motion.
Cycling UK wishes to be part of both this and wider discussions on the part that flying contributes to carbon footprints and climate change.
Cycling UK’s policy on climate change is downloadable from (and summarised at):
www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/viewsand- ... ate-change.
This is an issue that has already begun to be discussed within the Holidays and Tours subsidiary

[PH]

Has anybody noticed the error in the motion below?

The motion asks for the Reduction of the promotion of holiday flights.

It does not mention who or how the notes are not part of the motion so can't be counted.

So if we take the motion at face value the CUK will have to campaign for the reduction in the promotion of any holiday flights in the entire world.

MOTION 6) Reduction of promotion of holiday flights.

Can you see the word campaign in the motion?

[Philip Benstead]

Has anybody noticed the error in the motion below?

The motion asks for the Reduction of the promotion of holiday flights.

It does not mention who or how the notes are not part of the motion so can't be counted.

So if we take the motion at face value the CUK will have to campaign for the reduction in the promotion of any holiday flights in the entire world.

MOTION 6) Reduction of promotion of holiday flights.

Can you see the word campaign in the motion?

So if they are going to campaign what will they do because does not identify where who, when, or how

[PH]

Has anybody noticed the error in the motion below?

The motion asks for the Reduction of the promotion of holiday flights.

It does not mention who or how the notes are not part of the motion so can't be counted.

So if we take the motion at face value the CUK will have to campaign for the reduction in the promotion of any holiday flights in the entire world.

MOTION 6) Reduction of promotion of holiday flights.

Can you see the word campaign in the motion?

So if they are going to campaign what will they do because does not identify where who, when, or how

They're going to:
Reduce
the promotion
of
holiday flights

In the same way as I might reduce responding to your posts.
Which wouldn't involve me campaigning about anything.

[Philip Benstead]

Can you see the word campaign in the motion?

So if they are going to campaign what will they do because does not identify where who, when, or how

They're going to:
Reduce
the promotion
of
holiday flights

In the same way as I might reduce responding to your posts.
Which wouldn't involve me campaigning about anything.

Let me say it another way, the MOTION not the notices does not say

what flights
whos flights
where the flights come from or go to.

The motion is poorly drafted and should have been picked up.

As it stands it either invalid or impossible to achieve..

[Cyril Haearn]

Reduce promotion of holiday flights, just less promotion than before, but still some promotion?

[Philip Benstead]

I like to suggest the motion could have been worded something like this

6) Promotion cycle holiday/events using air flights

MOTION
That CTC shall reduce, and eventually stop the promotion of holidays /events that involve the use of air flights.

PROPOSER’S NOTE:
We would like to propose that the Club adopts a progressive strategy to reduce, and ultimately stop, promotion of holidays/events that involve flying.

This includes CTC branded holidays and holidays/events by others including advertisement and article in the magazine.

[Philip Benstead]

CTC AGM 2021

I like to suggest with the passing of the motion to discourage air flights it seems we should go further

Promotion cycle holiday/events using the motor car powered by petrol /deiseal engine

MOTION

That CTC shall reduce, and eventually stop the promotion of holidays /events that involve the use of motor car powered by petrol /diesel engine

PROPOSER’S NOTE:
We would like to propose that the club adopts a progressive strategy to reduce, and ultimately stop, promotion of holidays/events that involve involving the use of motor car powered by petrol /diesel engine.

This includes CTC branded holidays and holidays/events by others in the UK or aboard including advertisement and article in the magazine.

A CTC members survey indicated 71% support for ‘encouraging cycle use to benefit the environment’. Given that one of CTC objectives states is to promote the conservation and protection of the environment, it seems rather hypocritical not to recognise the use of the petrol/diesel engine in cars contribute more pollution per person per kilometre and as the greater percentage (42%) than that of flying (14%) massively increases a person’s annual carbon footprint and hence contributes to climate change.

WORD COUNT 161

[Ianwhitwell]

. . . . I don't think it's unreasonable for Cycling UK to do its bit in this regard. It's one thing for members to fly off to foreign parts to have cycling holidays; it's quite another for Cycling UK to actively encourage them to do so.

My concern is the the reverse issue - i.e. that cycling UK seems to actively discouraging them from doing so - this is the bit that seems to be none of their business in my humble option. The environmental protection choices I make are my choice and I don't wish to be 'lectured to' effectively by an organisation I would have thought is there to primarily promote cyclist needs and concerns with regard to cycling.

[Graham]

I think it is encumbant upon every responsible organisation to try to influence an enviromentally positive change in . . . er, everyone they can influence.

After all - its only a climate & environmental emergency that we are racing towards . . . at ever increasing speed, it would seem.

[Jdsk]

Yes... only one planet currently available.

Jonathan

[Bonefishblues]

...and it's out of warranty, I understand.

[CJ]

You don't need to tell ME about only one planet etc. I was cycling everywhere, had no car, never flew and put my bike on the train wherever was too far to ride - including several continental holidays - back in the 70s and 80s. If everyone else (including many of the latterday converts to the green cause spouting on here) had followed my example BACK THEN, we might have nipped climate change in the bud.

But you didn't all follow my example. European governments meanwhile privatised or at least de-regulated their railways, relieving them of their obligations as a 'common carrier', to transport a passenger's accompanying baggage no matter how much there was of it - albeit at a price. Rail travel wasn't fast and it wasn't cheap, but it was easy and quick enough for one to undertake cycling holidays in any part of Europe (which IMHO is a big enough and sufficiently varied continent to keep one entertained for a whole lifetime). But by the late 80s the registered baggage system was gone and sleeper trains were being replaced by fast daytime services designed exclusively for the business traveller, that came with no space for bulky holiday luggage and no obligation to carry such things as bicycles. Holiday-makers were expected to fly and soon there was no practical alternative to that quick but squalid way of transporting oneself and ones bicycle - to almost any place with better weather and less traffic than the peculiarly cycling-hostile island we live on!

I don't object so much to the motion, as to the manner of Cycling UK's promotion of it, by repeatedly pretending that putting your bike on the train is a reasonable alternative. It really isn't. And ECF has Trains for Cyclists as its top campaign, precisely becasue the trains do NOT get us there - not with our essential bikes. And where is Cycling UK in this campaign? NOWHERE!

If you who are so happy with Cycling UK's empty gesture REALLY cared about how touring cyclists went on holiday, you would be castigating this organisation for its failure to support the ECF's useful campaign or actually DO anything else that might give us a reasonable rail alternative. So come on, let's have less of this negative cycle-tourist shaming and more positive action for real change.