How To Remove John Snow as CTC President

snowfall

How To Remove John Snow as CTC President

Postby snowfall » 3 Mar 2007, 8:52am

Can the CTC committee sack him? Can we have a motion at the AGM? Or a demonstration and cross examination?

The guy is really dangerous, he keeps going public saying we must have segregated cycle routes. He has no idea what he's talking about, but after a few months in the job he should have been told. Maybe he just doesn't listen.

He's done this in Cycle and in the Guardian too.

If the CTC pres isn't out there in public calling for lower speeds, cyclist training, better driving etc he isn't doing the job. And if instead he is making ignorant personal calls for dangerous "cycle routes" against CTC policy, he's got to go.

User avatar
Jac
Posts: 291
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 5:12pm
Location: Lincolnshire

Postby Jac » 3 Mar 2007, 10:16am

Whats wrong with campaigning for segregated cycle routes?

- it works in Belgium Holland and parts of Germany (there may be other countries but these are those I have experience of) and one such town was recently featured in the CTC magazine.

I much prefer to cycle away from traffic and not to have to fight for a bit of road along with Lorries and aggressive drivers.
Last edited by Jac on 3 Mar 2007, 10:43am, edited 1 time in total.

snowfall

Postby snowfall » 3 Mar 2007, 10:42am

Basically segregated routes are the last choice in the hieararchy that CTC and DfT follow. A lot of people who do not know this will say "we need cycle paths" also not knowing that research shows theyare more dangerous than roads anyway.

CTC Policy

Cyclists have the road network available to them for their use. Where use of this network is rendered unattractive or dangerous by traffic conditions, there is no single correct solution to providing a suitable infrastructure for cycling and local conditions will frequently dictate which solutions are possible.

However, the following hierarchy of solutions indicates the possible strategies in order of preference. Each strategy should be thoroughly considered before a solution is chosen.

1. Traffic reduction

2. Traffic calming and restraint

3. Junction treatment and traffic management

4. Redistribution of space on the carriageway

5. Cycle lanes and cycle tracks

Where special facilities are provided for cyclists these should, in principle, be taken from road space that is currently devoted to motor vehicles, rather than from pedestrians.


That's CTC policy! http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4693

There's a discussion at http://bikereader.com/forum/index.php?P ... a0ae13975&

snowfall

Postby snowfall » 3 Mar 2007, 11:04am

one such town was recently featured in the CTC magazine.


Maybe the mag needs a new editor. Joyce is too much into Sustrans - he printed Duffield's out of order promo of them - where is the article criticising Sustrans farcilities and anti-cycling activities?

User avatar
Jac
Posts: 291
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 5:12pm
Location: Lincolnshire

Postby Jac » 3 Mar 2007, 11:08am

I would be interested to know when these CTC policies and priorities were decided, and whether members were informed or had some oportunity to say what their priorities are.

I have just been through my 'welcome pack' and nowhere does it tell me that these are the CTC prioities or that campaigning for segregated cycle paths is definitely against the policy.

Tony
Posts: 408
Joined: 28 Jan 2007, 2:48pm

Postby Tony » 3 Mar 2007, 11:16am

There are a huge number of reasons to avoid campaigning for segregated facilities. What speed you ride at, whether you enjoy mixing it with pedestrians all the time, whether you enjoy having to stop and give way at every junction, coupled with a reinforcement of the motorists' view that you should not be on the road as well as an increase in danger to road cyclists because drivers do not expect them to be there.

The reason the CTC has this policy, and always has had from the days of confirming access AS OF RIGHT AND NOT BY LICENCE to the roads and bridleways of the UK is that it is clearly not in our interests to see those rights eroded.
I suggest you take a look at the Warrington Cycle Campaign site for an idea of why this stance is so unpopular, or read the Highway Code.

Tony
Posts: 408
Joined: 28 Jan 2007, 2:48pm

Postby Tony » 3 Mar 2007, 11:18am

And in reply to the thread title, I KNEW he would do this!

User avatar
Jac
Posts: 291
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 5:12pm
Location: Lincolnshire

Postby Jac » 3 Mar 2007, 11:28am

I have read the Warrington debate - and I am quite well aware of the Highway code.
Nor am I new to cycling or nervous of traffic.

I just prefer to cycle in the countries where there are segregated cycle paths. These are paths just for cyclists - not shared with pedestrians. Generally with good surfaces own traffic lights at junctions running parallel to roads - a real network on which you can travel long distances.

The reality in this country is that everything is done on the cheap - a painted white line for a few hundred metres.

As for the Sustrans route - in this county it is just a few signs mainly on very fast dangerous roads - complete rubbish.

I still cant find where the members have been informed of CTC policy priorities.

Greg
Posts: 162
Joined: 9 Feb 2007, 8:39pm

Postby Greg » 3 Mar 2007, 11:45am

Are we all talking about cycle paths that are totally separate to roads, rather than just the (totally useless and dangerous) cycle lanes on the side of roads?

Tony
Posts: 408
Joined: 28 Jan 2007, 2:48pm

Postby Tony » 3 Mar 2007, 12:05pm

Jac wrote:I have read the Warrington debate - and I am quite well aware of the Highway code.
Nor am I new to cycling or nervous of traffic.

I just prefer to cycle in the countries where there are segregated cycle paths. These are paths just for cyclists - not shared with pedestrians. Generally with good surfaces own traffic lights at junctions running parallel to roads - a real network on which you can travel long distances.

The reality in this country is that everything is done on the cheap - a painted white line for a few hundred metres.

As for the Sustrans route - in this county it is just a few signs mainly on very fast dangerous roads - complete rubbish.

I still cant find where the members have been informed of CTC policy priorities.


See Snowfall's quote above re the Hierarchy of solutions. In common with most other members, I'll continue to fight to keep my right to use the roads.

User avatar
Jac
Posts: 291
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 5:12pm
Location: Lincolnshire

Postby Jac » 3 Mar 2007, 1:19pm

I have read snowfall's quote - and followed the link

My question was when did the CTC inform its members of its hierarchy of priorities.
I have gone through all the paperwork in my welcome pack and can find no mention of this or that campaigning for segregated cycle paths is at the bottom of the list.

Nor can I see anything in the Snow article that even suggests that cyclists do not have a right to cycle on the roads.
It seems to me to be a critism of govenment doing nothing to improve cyclists safety or encourage cycling.

User avatar
Simon L6
Posts: 1382
Joined: 4 Jan 2007, 12:43pm

Postby Simon L6 » 3 Mar 2007, 1:41pm

I think my objections are

that cycling in towns is described as dangerous. Cycling in London has never been safer.

that the Government does not encourage urban cycling. TfL (aided by the 7th July bombers) have brought about a 60% increase in cycling in the last five years. By contrast cycling in most other towns is flat, and declining in rural areas. All the Sustrans paths in the world haven't brought more people to the joys and convenience of riding a bike.

that segregated cycle lanes are the answer to all this imagined danger. Nothing could be further from the truth. Segregated cycle lanes are stop-start-stop-start affairs that offer little benefit to the user. Junctions abound and none of them work. Cyclists in London opt for speed and convenience. The bus lanes offer this, they offer an incentive to use the bus, and they make car driving less convenient. All of which leads to less car traffic, less congestion, less accidents, less pollution, less noise, less child athsma, more enjoyable cycling and in reducing the general traffic levels, contribute to the joy of cycling on roads other than bus routes.

carbon footprint. One of the reasons I cycle is that it's easy on the planet. Squillions of engineering works will not be easy on the planet.

The answer is not only to hand, it's being put in place. Central London has got to be one of the most pleasant places to cycle in the world. And the vast increase in the numbers suggest that I'm not alone in this view.

The CTC policy is smack on the money. Traffic has got to be civilised, and car traffic reduced. Building paths hither, thither and yon isn't going to do that. It will simply relegate cycling to the margins. Urban cycling is a powerful tool for the regeneration of cities. Instead of calling for something with a dubious track record we should be capitalising on our present success.

snowfall

Postby snowfall » 3 Mar 2007, 2:35pm


User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 50630
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Postby Mick F » 3 Mar 2007, 3:11pm

Define "Cycle Routes".

If a cycle route is reserved for ONLY cycles, it might work. If a cycle route is shared with buses, pedestrians or horses, or anything else, it certainly won't work!

Why can't all vehicles share the same road, showing consideration to all.

Mick F. Cornwall (on his new laptop)

http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObjects ... lm=MacBook

reohn2

Postby reohn2 » 3 Mar 2007, 3:26pm

Mick F wrote:Define "Cycle Routes"......
Why can't all vehicles share the same road, showing consideration to all.......

Mick F. Cornwall (on his new laptop)

http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObjects ... lm=MacBook


Because quite simply Mick the bigger ones(ie fourwheelers and more) are bullies.They don't won't to play and we are regarded as 'poor'.