CTC misleads on AGM motions

Steady rider
Posts: 2164
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

CTC misleads on AGM motions

Postby Steady rider » 16 Apr 2016, 8:56am

Motion Number 13 reads
13) European Union climate change
The CTC to promote a European Union climate change policy of national governments funding cycling infrastructure, with a 3% minimum investment of transport spending on cycling infrastructure (built to CROW standards) or investment in relationship to the modal share of cycling.
Proposer’s note: This motion aims to ensure that reasonable levels of funding are available to provide cycling infrastructure in all EU countries. The CTC may gain support via MEPs and in conjunction with the ECF.
Proposer Colin Clarke, seconder Tony Franklin

Council response: CTC Council disagrees with this motion. CTC fully supports the aspiration to secure significant EU funding for cycling, and for cycle-friendly infrastructure to be built to the Dutch ‘CROW’ (or similar) standards. However, campaigning for this is the role of the European Cyclists’ Federation (ECF). ECF is already running a ‘6 billion Euros for cycling’ campaign, and is far better geared up for this type of campaign than CTC’s office in Guildford. CTC will continue to support ECF’s campaigning, e.g. encouraging our members and supporters to contact their MEPs when ECF highlights opportunities to influence funding or other EU decisions affecting cycling. However, with the UK devolution agenda placing increasing pressure on CTC’s capacity to campaign effectively throughout the UK – including the ‘City Deal’ regions as well as the devolved nations – it would not be a good use of CTC’s finite campaigning capacity to attempt to duplicate ECF’s work in Brussels as well


The motion asks for
'The CTC to promote a European Union climate change policy of national governments funding cycling infrastructure
the reply includes
CTC fully supports the aspiration to secure significant EU funding for cycling, and for cycle-friendly infrastructure to be built to the Dutch ‘CROW’ (or similar) standards

The motion does not ask for EU funding of cycling, it requests a Climate change policy of national governments funding cycling.

The motion mentions
The CTC may gain support via MEPs and in conjunction with the ECF
it does not suggest that the CTC
attempt to duplicate ECF’s work in Brussels'


It appears that the CTC have not really understood the motion or have misrepresented it. in either case they have prompted members to vote against the motion based on misleading claims. In these circumstances they have ensured that a fair vote is impossible.

One option may be for the CTC Council to consult with the proposer about measures that could be taken to correct the situation.

Links to Climate change policy are provided
http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/climate/policy-context
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/tran ... dex_en.htm

A wide range of EU policies to lower emissions

As greenhouse gas emissions have been increasing for most modes of transport, the EU has so far put a range of policies in place aiming to lower emissions from the sector. These include:
aviation has been included in the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS);
a strategy is in place to reduce emissions from cars and vans, including emissions targets for new vehicles;
a strategy for reducing heavy duty vehicle fuel consumption and CO2 emissions;
a target is in place to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of fuels;
rolling resistance limits and tyre labelling requirements have been introduced and tyre pressure monitors made mandatory on new vehicles;
legislation encouraging national authorities to deploy gas and electricity infrastructure; and,
public authorities are required to take account of life time energy use and CO2 emissions when procuring vehicles.
In addition to these measures influencing vehicle emissions, it is also necessary to ensure that account is taken of the impact of transport policy actions and measures on greenhouse gas emissions. This helps to ensure consistent signals to transport users and vehicle manufacturers and to achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions at lowest cost


Cycling is not specifically mentioned and it appears that more could be done to include cycling as part of a climate change policy.

Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: CTC misleads on AGM motions

Postby Tonyf33 » 18 Apr 2016, 12:46am

The CTC have certainly attempted to make it as difficult as they could to sway things in their favour.
It'll come as no surprise that many charity donators/members will just give their vote to the chairman to use as they will.
Unfair representation of a motion is pretty shady to say the least

User avatar
honesty
Posts: 2510
Joined: 16 Mar 2012, 3:33pm
Location: Somerset
Contact:

Re: CTC misleads on AGM motions

Postby honesty » 18 Apr 2016, 7:53am

Motion and reply make perfect sense to me. Maybe you need to stop seeing the bogeyman everywhere?

iviehoff
Posts: 2411
Joined: 20 Jan 2009, 4:38pm

Re: CTC misleads on AGM motions

Postby iviehoff » 18 Apr 2016, 8:32am

I agree with the last poster. I don't see anything misleading about what the CTC said here.

But I also see some sense in what the proposers are saying. There does seem to be a very large pot of money to tap in the money being spent on climate change initiatives, and using some of it to promote cycling infrastructure might actually be more productively spent than some of the daft initiatives which have from time to time attracted funding, such as some of the biomass and ethanol schemes. But it does need political action to try and encourage that. Though there are also risks that it might displace other funding sources.

User avatar
al_yrpal
Posts: 7427
Joined: 25 Jul 2007, 9:47pm
Location: Where pasties are crimped at the top!
Contact:

Re: CTC misleads on AGM motions

Postby al_yrpal » 18 Apr 2016, 8:42am

More dishonesty here. Whats all that got to do with touring which is why most of us joined this club? I don't pay my sub to subsidise this sort of thing.

Al
Touring on a bicycle is a great way to explore and appreciate the countryside and towns you pass through. CTC gone but not forgotten!

Mike Sales
Posts: 2507
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: CTC misleads on AGM motions

Postby Mike Sales » 18 Apr 2016, 9:14am

al_yrpal wrote:More dishonesty here. Whats all that got to do with touring which is why most of us joined this club? I don't pay my sub to subsidise this sort of thing.

Al


I have never used the touring services of the club. I have never felt any particular need for assistance in my touring.
I did join in order to help promote cycling and safe road use. I was for a time a member of the Right to Ride network. I feel that this is important.
I feel that the club should be promoting ordinary cycling for commuting, shopping, going to school etc.
This is even more important because of the threat of climate change.

User avatar
honesty
Posts: 2510
Joined: 16 Mar 2012, 3:33pm
Location: Somerset
Contact:

Re: CTC misleads on AGM motions

Postby honesty » 18 Apr 2016, 9:21am

al_yrpal wrote:More dishonesty here. Whats all that got to do with touring which is why most of us joined this club? I don't pay my sub to subsidise this sort of thing.

Al


the same could be said about the passing distance motion. Whats that got to do with touring then?

User avatar
al_yrpal
Posts: 7427
Joined: 25 Jul 2007, 9:47pm
Location: Where pasties are crimped at the top!
Contact:

Re: CTC misleads on AGM motions

Postby al_yrpal » 18 Apr 2016, 9:36am

You get passed by vehicles all the time on a bike, touring or not. Vehicles are generally faster than bikes, havent you noticed? :lol: Rural roads are more dangerous than urban roads for cyclists, thats where tourists spend most of their time, not in towns and cities.

Al
Touring on a bicycle is a great way to explore and appreciate the countryside and towns you pass through. CTC gone but not forgotten!

Steady rider
Posts: 2164
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: CTC misleads on AGM motions

Postby Steady rider » 18 Apr 2016, 10:23am

http://www.cyclinguk.org/press-release/ ... gful-fundi

The government’s Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy “won’t be worth the paper it’s written on” unless backed by sustained funding, said CTC,


This called for investment in cycling of at least £10 per person annually, rising to £20, in order to boost cycle use to 10% of trips by 2025, and to 25% by 2050. By contrast, the draft Cycling & Walking Investment Strategy provides central Government funding of just over £300m for period 2015-20, amounting to just £1.38 per person outside London
.

UK Transport budget https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... udget-2016 Fig 1.8 Transport £29 billion,

The motion asks for
The CTC to promote a European Union climate change policy of national governments funding cycling infrastructure, with a 3% minimum investment of transport spending on cycling infrastructure (built to CROW standards) or investment in relationship to the modal share of cycling.
spend 3% minimum on cycling infrastructure for the UK.

0.03 x 29,000,000,000 = £870 million,
UK population is about 65 million, £13.38 per person per year roughly. A very similar figure to what the CTC is suggesting, but the motion suggests a way to promote such funding.

If spent on high quality cycling facilities, as suggested to CROW standards, they would help to promote cycling and assist in making the roads safer for all types of cycling.

PH
Posts: 7121
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: CTC misleads on AGM motions

Postby PH » 18 Apr 2016, 12:59pm

al_yrpal wrote:Vehicles are generally faster than bikes


My bike is a vehicle.

Bez
Posts: 1168
Joined: 10 Feb 2015, 10:41am
Contact:

Re: CTC misleads on AGM motions

Postby Bez » 18 Apr 2016, 1:09pm

al_yrpal wrote:I don't pay my sub to subsidise this sort of thing.


Image

;)

Bez
Posts: 1168
Joined: 10 Feb 2015, 10:41am
Contact:

Re: CTC misleads on AGM motions

Postby Bez » 18 Apr 2016, 1:25pm

FWIW I'm inclined to agree with the OP: the response seems to discuss the business of winning funding from the EU to be spent in the UK, whereas as far as I can see the motion discusses the need for UK organisations to raise the political profile of EU-driven policies of encouraging a certain level of domestic spend on cycling infrastructure. If I understand it correctly then the motion seems reasonable to me.

I should add that I do pay for This Sort of Thing ;)

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3660
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: CTC misleads on AGM motions

Postby pjclinch » 18 Apr 2016, 2:28pm

al_yrpal wrote:More dishonesty here. Whats all that got to do with touring which is why most of us joined this club?


For some values of "most of us"... Do you actually have numbers there, or is that just an assumption?

I'm quite capable of going touring by bike without a club to help me. I'm at a bit of a loss as to how I'd successfully run campaigns as CTC/CUK does if I was acting alone.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

Bez
Posts: 1168
Joined: 10 Feb 2015, 10:41am
Contact:

Re: CTC misleads on AGM motions

Postby Bez » 18 Apr 2016, 2:47pm

pjclinch wrote:I'm quite capable of going touring by bike without a club to help me. I'm at a bit of a loss as to how I'd successfully run campaigns as CTC/CUK does if I was acting alone.


QFT.

Steady rider
Posts: 2164
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: CTC misleads on AGM motions

Postby Steady rider » 18 Apr 2016, 3:17pm

In parts of Europe, Denmark I have in mind, they seems to add a charge at the campsites for camping without a local permit. perhaps CTC could ask the EFC if they could find a way to issue cycle-camping passes for Europe, giving cycle tourists a discount on the standard fees, say a standard charge of 5 euros per person for camping the night. Campsites agreeing could then be listed by the EFC or by country as friendly to cyclists. This could result in more cycle tourists meeting up at campsites and discussing their rides and routes etc.