Where are "We are CUK" wrt aggression against cyclists ?

Halla
Posts: 141
Joined: 27 Apr 2008, 9:28pm

Where are "We are CUK" wrt aggression against cyclists ?

Postby Halla » 27 Oct 2017, 9:55am

Hello all

Too often on here and in conversations with cycling mates, there is discussion about aggression and violence from motorists, as well as close passes.

There have been numerous deaths and injuries over the last couple of years of riders participating in Audax rides and Trans Continental Races in addition to those killed during their daily commute or out on a leisure ride.

I never see any support for us the (members/supporters) from CUK at Guildford.

We had a post on here from Beekeeper who had twice been run off the road in Kent, and he did not know what to do about it!! Where was the support and advice from CUK at Guildford.

Every time I meet up with mates I now hear tales of assaults and being run off the road.

Yes historically there has always been a bit of anti cycling aggression but it now seems to be a daily occurrence.

I have been assaulted a number of times in the last 10 years, but always felt safe prior to that time.

Is it time after 58 years of riding to turn my back on what is becoming an unsafe pass time.

No longer enjoying cycling!!

WHERE ARE CYCLING UK ON THIS ONE!!
Last edited by Graham on 29 Oct 2017, 9:37am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: So . . .

Username
Posts: 289
Joined: 21 Dec 2016, 12:46am

Re: So Where are "We are CUK"

Postby Username » 27 Oct 2017, 4:25pm

Halla wrote:Hello all

WHERE ARE CYCLING UK ON THIS ONE!!


I believe they have moved on to space exploration or somethin. They may be working on getting the first mountain biking experience on Olympus Mons by the early 2040s.

MikeF
Posts: 3706
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: So Where are "We are CUK"

Postby MikeF » 27 Oct 2017, 5:03pm

CUK seems to be too keen on plugging trails for Wales at the moment. That's probably where some motorists think cyclists should be anyway - miles away and off the roads. :(
Roads seemed to be rather busy today. Two closer than desirable passes and both accompanied by totally unnecessary horn blasts.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 13138
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: So Where are "We are CUK"

Postby mjr » 27 Oct 2017, 5:39pm

Halla wrote:I never see any support for us the (members/supporters) from CUK at Guildford.

CUK is a charity. It is limited by law in how much it can support its members. "Legal requirement: charities must not define their beneficiaries in the following ways as these will not benefit a sufficient section of the public: [...] a purpose which exists for the benefit of an organisation’s members only unless: a sufficient section of the public can access those benefits by becoming members and; the membership is a suitable way of carrying out the charity’s purpose for the public benefit" (from https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... the-public )

Halla wrote:We had a post on here from Beekeeper who had twice been run off the road in Kent, and he did not know what to do about it!! Where was the support and advice from CUK at Guildford.

Guildford do not participate on the forum much.

Halla wrote:Every time I meet up with mates I now hear tales of assaults and being run off the road.

Yes historically there has always been a bit of anti cycling aggression but it now seems to be a daily occurrence.

Sounds much worse where you ride than where I do (mostly Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and London). I feel it's gotten much better in these places over the last few years.

MikeF wrote:Roads seemed to be rather busy today. Two closer than desirable passes and both accompanied by totally unnecessary horn blasts.

It's half-term. They really shouldn't let the kids drive.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13583
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: So Where are "We are Cycling UK"

Postby gaz » 27 Oct 2017, 7:16pm

Halla wrote:WHERE ARE CYCLING UK ON THIS ONE!!

https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaign/road-justice
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

BakfietsUK
Posts: 219
Joined: 4 Jul 2015, 10:35am

Re: So Where are "We are CUK"

Postby BakfietsUK » 28 Oct 2017, 1:37pm

CUK needs a reality check and to listen to it's members. Otherwise it is in real danger of becoming irrelevant. It's not the 1950's when BTF could film us in Warwickshire having a lovely day out with no close passes of bad mouthing. In 2017 there are more important issues than which scenic routes to ride. If CUK want to encourage this then I have no problem, just don't claim to represent us without listening to what a growing proportion of us need. Primarily, at the moment to stay alive.

thirdcrank
Posts: 28648
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: So Where are "We are Cycling UK"

Postby thirdcrank » 28 Oct 2017, 2:05pm

gaz wrote:
Halla wrote:WHERE ARE CYCLING UK ON THIS ONE!!

https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaign/road-justice


FWIW, I think this is better than it used to be some years ago. My impression is that there was a time when the CTC sought to discourage or even suppress any talk about the dangers faced by riders so as not to discourage potential cyclists. The obvious thing being that if you don't recognise that something is happening, it's impossible to campaign to have it stopped. At least, there is now a national campaign.

One of my hobby-horses is s59 Police Reform Act 2002 which gives the police wide powers to deal with "anti social behaviour" involving motor vehicles when the evidence of identification isn't sufficient to prosecute an individual driver: evidence is gathered about the use of the vehicle which in certain circumstances can be seized. This is sufficiently widely known to be discussed on driving forums as "Section 59" without further explanation. However, in spite of me shamelessly plugging it on here at every opportunity, there seems to be no reference to it on the page in that road justice link.

We regularly get posts of the "is it worth reporting this?" kind. I'd suggest that for anybody reporting to the police the bullying mentioned in the OP, then, subject to having the reg details of the vehicle and being willing to give evidence if needed, then even if the police say there is insufficient to take action, request that it be recorded under this legislation. If it's a one-off, that would be the end of it but if a series of incidents were to be recorded involving one vehicle, then I think it would be reasonable to expect the police to take action. It would be useful to have some sort of national policy.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/30/section/59

(edit to correct spelling.)
Last edited by thirdcrank on 28 Oct 2017, 8:16pm, edited 1 time in total.

PH
Posts: 7146
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: So Where are "We are CUK"

Postby PH » 28 Oct 2017, 2:58pm

BakfietsUK wrote:CUK needs a reality check and to listen to it's members.

Which members?
A sizeable proportion of those on here think it should concentrate more on touring.
Those who are members for the insurance, would probably tell them to just make that cheaper.
Any reality check would have to acknowledge that it's a pretty small organisation, 65,000 members and a £5.4 million income, and realise the limits to what can be achieved.
The majority of people I ride with are members (Including several who've recently joined), I hear the odd grumble, but nothing like the dissatisfaction often expressed on this forum.
It's a shame Halla is no longer enjoying cycling, of course it could be better and of course Cycling UK should be aiming to make it so. But I believe it's individuals rather than organisations that could make the most difference.

Psamathe
Posts: 9791
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: So Where are "We are CUK"

Postby Psamathe » 28 Oct 2017, 3:14pm

Does CTC/CUK see it's role as getting more people cycling or making things better/safer for those who do cycle ?

Personally I think that to a degree, making cycling safer and easier will achieve both of these aims. Make roads safer for cycling and more "bike friendly" (get motor vehicles to stop hitting/scaring cyclists), get road maintenance to be appropriate for cyclists, etc. and existing cyclists will enjoy the improvements and others will no longer have "reservations" stopping them cycling (so they will become cyclists).

With the current situation with close passes, tipper lorries, potholes everywhere, etc., etc. there are a lot of things dissuading people from starting cycling. So I feel the main focus of cycling organisations should be to improve conditions and thus address both of these aims at the same time. But I wonder if that might (in some areas) become problematic for cycling organisations that are charities due to government rules about government grants and not disagreeing with government policy.

Ian

BakfietsUK
Posts: 219
Joined: 4 Jul 2015, 10:35am

Re: So Where are "We are CUK"

Postby BakfietsUK » 28 Oct 2017, 8:05pm

My understanding is that CUK claim to represent all cyclists. It sounds like it is not up to the job or has not got the appetite to push for the changes that some of the people on this forum, including me would benefit from.

I have no problem with CUK promoting leisure, but I would hope that it is not misleading us and mis-selling it's self in it's message and public persona.

I think it is wise to reflect on the lack of a consistent voice on cycling that this apparent mismatch may indicate all over the UK. OK if others think CUK is cutting it, then fair enough. It does not hurt to ask the question and check out what CUK's potential for growth is. If CUK are content and most of it's members are happy with the way it campaigns, no problem. If the members are represented accurately by this forum, then I would say that there is quite a fair degree of dissatisfaction with the cycling experience in this country and CUK needs to listen and adjust quickly to the demands of the 21st century. Maybe it's doing what it can within the rules of it's existence, but I joined in the hope that it was making progress. I see some progress, but the deaths and injuries still continue to rise. What's the point of cycle touring if you are not safe on the roads you are supposed to be enjoying.

If CUK does not want the job of improving cycling for it's members in terms defined by the evidence contained in this forum, then maybe it's time to re-engineer cycle campaigning in the UK and acknowledge the alarm bells. It seems like CUK is just one of many voices on cycling which may or may not be consistent with multitudes of other voices on cycling. The outcome of these mixed messages is surely a lack of general credibility and of a movement that is famed for it's internal conflicts of strategy and opinion. The only winners are those who would wish cycling to disappear.

PH
Posts: 7146
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: So Where are "We are CUK"

Postby PH » 28 Oct 2017, 11:22pm

BakfietsUK wrote: If the members are represented accurately by this forum

Do you think they are?
This forum probably has around 100 regular posters, many of whom are not members, and these discussions attract very few responses. It would be a huge assumption to think it was somehow representative.

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 14989
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: So Where are "We are CUK"

Postby Si » 29 Oct 2017, 9:09am

1. As PH says the views on this forum arenot represdntative how the membership as a whole feels....people are much more likely to complain about an issue they are unhappy with than to list all the things they are happy with.

2. What specifically do you think the CUK should do? Its alright saying "wont somebody think of the children" but it doesnt actually help identify specific practical action that needs to be taken. Remember though, CUK cant actually build segregated cycleways, or imprison bad drivers, etc, it can only campaign to influence those with power.

3. Dont underestimate the power of getting bums on saddles...something that CUK is becoming good very at. Politicians do not make changes unless it benefits them. They do not bend over backwards or spend lots of money to help tiny minorities because there are few votes in it. The more voters we can get cycling, and indeed the more vocal voters, the more influence we have on politicians. I would give evidence for this approach in the form of the CCCs around me which have managed to get local and city councillors involved and have exerted influence on the city council despite it being in a time of serious troubles.

thirdcrank
Posts: 28648
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: So Where are "We are CUK"

Postby thirdcrank » 29 Oct 2017, 9:28am

It's self-evident that the members of this forum only represent themselves. It's a bit of a leap to conclude from that that the increasingly self-appointed trustees of this organisation have a greater knowledge of anything beyond running a charity.

BakfietsUK
Posts: 219
Joined: 4 Jul 2015, 10:35am

Re: Where are "We are CUK" wrt aggression against cyclists ?

Postby BakfietsUK » 29 Oct 2017, 11:01am

To PH, I am not sure how you know about the features of the posters here. Whatever the posters' attributes, they represent views in themselves like I do. I am a member and a regular poster. Just because posters may or may not be members is irrelevant, it's the view that matters. People are responding to real issues out on the road when they post here, like I do. If CUK is doing anything right it is in providing this forum, even when it's open to non members.

To Si, Perhaps people are complaining because they ARE unhappy. I am certainly unhappy about having to wonder if I am going to be killed this ride or the next. I agree, getting "bums on saddles" is one beneficial way ahead. From my experience, though the impact of more cyclists on other road users' behaviour can not be ignored. There's no point in getting more people to ride if they encounter a hostile environment. The increasing number of cyclists, in my experience seems linked to an increase in the level of hostility toward cyclists in general. At some point, I think there will be a counter reaction by drivers. This, it could be argued is happening already on an individual basis and to some extents on a systematic basis. If my experience of foreboding is common to many cyclists, then we have a massive problem. It's great to get more people cycling to perhaps neutralise the minority effect, but who are going to be the casualties of this culture change. There is perhaps greater potential for conflict in the period leading to when cycling has a status befitting it's benefit to this country. So maybe it will get worse before it gets better.

Specifically Si, CUK needs to look at what cycling IS actually like in the UK and get into urgent dialogue with cyclists specifically to gauge perceptions of safety. I.e. do some research. CUK needs to declare loudly it's distain for cyclists who break the law and to underline the fact that we don't all behave like that. CUK needs to develop a culture where Cycling speaks with ONE CLEAR voice throughout the UK and to show a coherent public persona. Once CUK has created a coherent, consistent message and culture within it's self then I think it will be better placed to get other organisations to join up their thinking too. Then maybe the authorities will have to listen, because at the moment I don't think they are. If CUK is limited by it's charitable status then it needs to review it's status to enable it to act in a manner concordant with it's motivation.

My vision is of a time which can be illustrated by a confidence that cycling and cyclists are taken seriously as a means of transport in the UK. When you go to authorities for help, they actually listen. That driving cars is not the be all and end all of transport in the UK and that if you tell someone in polite company that you are a cyclist, you don't get a lecture about "us" going through red lights.

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 14989
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: Where are "We are CUK" wrt aggression against cyclists ?

Postby Si » 29 Oct 2017, 2:35pm

Complaints: i dont think that you are quite following my meaning.....CUK has something between 50000 and 70000 memebers depending on how you gauge it. This forum has had, at a guess, over 10000 people sign up or visit it. We have a small handful of complaints about CUK campaigning policy. Thus the vast majority of members would seem not to be complaining about CUK. As stated, if something upsets us we will make an effort to complain about it, but if we think all is OK we seldom go to the effort to express this to a wider audience.

WRT research, i may be wrong but hasnt sustrans recently done a research project on perceptions of what its like to be a cyclist, and also on why people dont cycle? Or it may have just been a local thing...i cant remember. Furthermore CUK does survey members moderately regularly to get their opinions. Would spending more on this research really be cost effective?

As for actually taking action....do you think that CUK's priority should be spending money to distance itself from cyclists who break the law....im pretty sure that many on here would dissagree with that......much more important things to sort out first!

Likewise, saying cycling should have one clear voice, etc is all very well, but what are they supposed to be saying with that voice - what changes exactly should they be campaigning for....? How will we make it a better country to cycle in? For instance the close past inititive CUK has been heavily involved in and which has led a number of police forces to start to give more credence to cyclists' issues.

Dont get me wrong, im not saying everything is rosy: there's always more that can be done, and im sure that CUK would benefit from constructive criticism and practical ideas on improving campaigning. But unless we come up with specific practical action points arent we just brandishing our green ink pens to write "something must be done".