Campaigning

[Ron]

An interesting crit here of cycle campaigning, I find myself in agreement with much of the article.
https://katsdekker.wordpress.com/2017/1 ... -politics/

[jgurney]

First I've heard about CUK leaving the ECF. Anyone know when and why?

[Vorpal]

They are no longer on the list of members https://ecf.com/community/our-members

There is nothing on the Cycling UK website about it.

[thirdcrank]

It does look as though somebody up there has been looking at this forum. Yesterday, I did the same check as Vorpal although I went via wiki, where the same list is presented in a slightly different format, with national flags as well as the names of the countries. When I looked, Cycling UK was one of two organisations next to the Union Flag, the other being Cyclenation. I've just looked again and three organisations are now listed: Cyclenation, Sustrans and Cycling Scotland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_ ... ll_members

[Vorpal]

I've just looked again and three organisations are now listed: Cyclenation, Sustrans and Cycling Scotland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_ ... ll_members

That is incorrect. Sustrans are an associate member.

All it takes, though, is signing up to be a Wikipedia volunteer.

[thirdcrank]

And as of now, Sustrans has moved to the associate member section.

[RickH]

It does look as though somebody up there has been looking at this forum. Yesterday, I did the same check as Vorpal although I went via wiki, where the same list is presented in a slightly different format, with national flags as well as the names of the countries. When I looked, Cycling UK was one of two organisations next to the Union Flag, the other being Cyclenation. I've just looked again and three organisations are now listed: Cyclenation, Sustrans and Cycling Scotland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_ ... ll_members

Sustrans aren't listed now on your link (as of 3pm)?

[thirdcrank]

...Sustrans aren't listed now on your link (as of 3pm)?

As I posted at 1.22pm today, Sustrans is now off the list of full members and on the list of associate members.

From her rather (cryptic, at least to me) post, I presume Vorpal has been doing a bit of editing.

I don't want to take this away from the gist of the thread. I looked at the article linked in the OP but found it wasn't sinking in. I suspect it's because I'm not sufficiently bothered about Cycling UK to make the effort.

[sirmy]

Interesting article, especially when you hear in mind the unfeasible utopian ideas Newcastle cycle campaign, of which Is. Lyendecker is something or other, come up with. Perhaps cycling uk just live in the real world

[mjr]

Interesting article, especially when you hear in mind the unfeasible utopian ideas Newcastle cycle campaign, of which Is. Lyendecker is something or other, come up with. Perhaps cycling uk just live in the real world

I wouldn't go that far... but would anyone like to apply a similar analysis to the OP to the Cycling Embassy of GB that katsdekker is a board member of?

CUK's withdrawal from the ECF seems like another step towards sport and away from travel and transport. That's OK, leaving Cycle nation doing the representation aspect and Sustrans advocating building good stuff (not always perfectly).

[AndyK]

CUK's withdrawal from the ECF seems like another step towards sport and away from travel and transport. That's OK, leaving Cycle nation doing the representation aspect and Sustrans advocating building good stuff (not always perfectly).

Except...

Cycling UK's registered charitable objectives #1 and #2:

Promote community participation in healthy recreation by promoting the amateur sport of cycling, cycle touring and associated amateur sports;
Preserve and protect the health and safety of the public by encouraging and facilitating cycling and the safety of cyclists;

ECF's primary aim:

To promote cycling as a sustainable and healthy means of transportation and recreation.

Leaving aside the debate over the meaning of the word "sport", those aims seem very well aligned with each other, especially as ECF then goes on to include "cycling tourism" in its remit, again something explicitly enshrined in CUK's objectives. CUK can't legally step away from travel.

Which begs the question as to why CUK has (apparently) parted company with an organisation that could help the charity achieve its aims.

Based on ECF's published rules (PDF), CUK would have been paying tens of thousands of Euros a year for membership of ECF. Judging from the minutes of the October 2016 CUK board meeting (PDF, publicly available), the chief exec questioned whether this was good value for money. It's not clear what the follow-up was but I'm guessing the membership was cancelled as a result.

- Andy (currently being a good little trustee-elect and catching up on the past few years' worth of board minutes )

[Edited to correct hyperlink]

[mjr]

Based on ECF's published rules (PDF), CUK would have been paying tens of thousands of Euros a year for membership of ECF.

Or to put it another way, about 55p from each £70 household membership and less from others, if I've understood the explanation I was given on facebook.

When you've got thousands of members, even a per-member fee can look like a big number, but it's really not that big compared to the annual income of £6,278,501 (2015).

Judging from the minutes of the October 2016 CUK board meeting (PDF, publicly available), the chief exec questioned whether this was good value for money.

That PDF seems to be the agenda not the minutes. Replacing "agenda" with "minutes" brings up a search results page.

Remind me, the chief exec gets paid more than tens of thousands of Euros, doesn't he? Like just into hundreds of thousands of Euros by now, I estimate? And yet, for less money than one worker, CUK got a whole organisation. Oh, the irony(!)

[Bmblbzzz]

Interesting article, especially when you hear in mind the unfeasible utopian ideas Newcastle cycle campaign, of which Is. Lyendecker is something or other, come up with. Perhaps cycling uk just live in the real world

I wouldn't go that far... but would anyone like to apply a similar analysis to the OP to the Cycling Embassy of GB that katsdekker is a board member of?

CUK's withdrawal from the ECF seems like another step towards sport and away from travel and transport. That's OK, leaving Cycle nation doing the representation aspect and Sustrans advocating building good stuff (not always perfectly).

Interesting perception. I know that there's been discontent among longer-standing CTC people at CUK's (perceived) withdrawal from touring and social riding to campaigning and utility riding. Talk about lose-lose!

[AndyK]

Based on ECF's published rules (PDF), CUK would have been paying tens of thousands of Euros a year for membership of ECF.

Or to put it another way, about 55p from each £70 household membership and less from others, if I've understood the explanation I was given on facebook.

When you've got thousands of members, even a per-member fee can look like a big number, but it's really not that big compared to the annual income of £6,278,501 (2015).

Judging from the minutes of the October 2016 CUK board meeting (PDF, publicly available), the chief exec questioned whether this was good value for money.

That PDF seems to be the agenda not the minutes. Replacing "agenda" with "minutes" brings up a search results page.

Remind me, the chief exec gets paid more than tens of thousands of Euros, doesn't he? Like just into hundreds of thousands of Euros by now, I estimate? And yet, for less money than one worker, CUK got a whole organisation. Oh, the irony(!)

Oops, yes, I copied the address from the wrong tab. I've corrected the link in the original post now.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default ... utesv2.pdf

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it was the right decision, but it's a big enough expenditure that the chief exec and the board would be right to ask what benefit it brings. And it does give a hint as to why CUK has quietly disappeared from the ECF list.

It doesn't explain why CUK couldn't just opt for the relatively cheap Associate membership instead, if the fee was such a problem. Why cut all ties?

- Andy (trying really hard not to draw any parallels with Br*x*t )

[mjr]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it was the right decision, but it's a big enough expenditure that the chief exec and the board would be right to ask what benefit it brings.

Then I hope the chief exec will be asked what benefit he's brung in similar robust terms, as he's costing at least double that.

"Paul Tuohy stated that our strategy is clear and we cannot afford the annual fee as it is" - blimey! Cannot afford less than one percent of turnover? The charity may be on its last legs then, running on far too tight margins.

It doesn't explain why CUK couldn't just opt for the relatively cheap Associate membership instead, if the fee was such a problem. Why cut all ties?

Based on "Cycling UK has not resigned from the ECF and therefore should be paying the full fees for this year. If you do not, you will be in default and they will have to eject you" - I wonder whether CUK was expelled for non-payment and not eligible to be an associate. If so, that's rather poor, refusing to honour its commitments. I wonder if CUK members were still on the ECF board when it left.

- Andy (trying really hard not to draw any parallels with Br*x*t )

The ECF has members in 40+ countries and not only the EU, so thinking it was similar would be a bit iffy.