Rebranding of Cycling Uk

[mjr]

Has anyone tried to fill the gap left by the change from CTC to Cycling UK?

I wonder what a replacement would look like. Web only?

Some tried soon after. None achieved a critical mass and launched fully. The debris is probably in the old posts on here, but definitely in C-UK's forum.

There is considerable overlap between what makes transport cycling easier and what makes cycle touring easier. Towns with bad roads can be difficult obstacles to a good tour, as so many roads go to or from them and most accommodation, food sale places and train stations are in them.

However, we may have lost a voice lobbying government for things useful to tourers that don't matter much to transport cycling. The finer points of the lighting laws, or needs for bridleways and byways to be recognised as such, not only footpaths.

 

[matticus]

The members voted against conversion but the Chairman used all the proxy votes, which didn't express a preference, to override it. It was banana republic stuff.

At the time I was a bit shocked, but I'm perfectly happy with the long-term changes that resulted

Anyone that thinks the CUK vote was dodgy should look into how the CTT Helmet rule came about ...

 

[mjr]

The normal practice is that proxy votes are used to support the indicated wish of voting members, not go against it.

Please cite that norm? In building societies, proxy votes given to the chair are assumed to support the board recommendations but allow the chair to change their mind if a compelling compatible alternative proposal arises.

I think some organisations assume proxy votes given to the chair are in favour of no change if possible, or the smallest possible change if not, but I don't have a link to such a norm handy.

But I don't think I know any which would use proxy votes to inflate a majority as you seem to say is normal.

Anyway, it should be stated explicitly in member education/briefing materials. I doubt it was, as it possibly wouldn't have helped the executives, so who knows what the proxied members thought they were doing?

 

[classic33]

The "voting paper" I was sent when it was the CTC stated that the Chair would use any proxy votes to back up their position.

 

[Dogtrousers]

When I read the magazine, which I do sometimes, I see a fair bit about touring (and general non-competitive leisure cycling). Glossy articles about people who have ridden across the Andes, nutters who ride to the coast at night, reviews of touring bikes, cycling route reviews. It's not all utility cycling and inclusivity, important as those things may be.

They may have dropped Touring from the name, but they haven't turned their backs on leisure cycling have they?

I'm putting touring under the heading of leisure because you can do touring style rides even if you start and finish at home.

 

[mjr]

The "voting paper" I was sent when it was the CTC stated that the Chair would use any proxy votes to back up their position.

Their position when the paper was sent out, or after considering the points made at the meeting?

 

[classic33]

Their position when the paper was sent out, or after considering the points made at the meeting?

Their position before the meeting was given, decision was to be made using that information. Not any that may come up in a meeting that you weren't able to attend.

 

[mjr]

Their position before the meeting was given, decision was to be made using that information. Not any that may come up in a meeting that you weren't able to attend.

Arguments that may come up in a meeting that you can't attend are the main reason to appoint the chair as proxy!

So, effectively both "For" and "Proxy" boxes on the CTC-rebranding voting paper were certain votes for conversion, with only "Against" being against? Sounds like a biased voting paper design!

 

[classic33]

Arguments that may come up in a meeting that you can't attend are the main reason to appoint the chair as proxy!

So, effectively both "For" and "Proxy" boxes on the CTC-rebranding voting paper were certain votes for conversion, with only "Against" being against? Sounds like a biased voting paper design!

I'd never have known that if you'd never mentioned it! But it does make your previous post, to which I was replying somewhat idiotic in your choice of words

If the Chair was for the rebranding/change or particular article being voted on.

Which seems the norm in proxy voting, where the voting power has been placed in the hands of someone else. Someone who may be voting for some entirely different reason.

 

[numbnuts]

I only use cycling UK for the insurance and I dislike some of the members on their forum, it seems it is very clicky and if you ain't in the click your posts get deleted..........mine you the same happens on here too

 

[mjr]

I only use cycling UK for the insurance and I dislike some of the members on their forum, it seems it is very clicky and if you ain't in the click your posts get deleted..........mine you the same happens on here too

🤦 of course it gets deleted if you discuss moderation, which there is a rule against.

 

[mjr]

Which seems the norm in proxy voting, where the voting power has been placed in the hands of someone else.

What norm? The main norm for this seems to be that there are many norms to choose between!

 

[Dogtrousers]

What norm? The main norm for this seems to be that there are many norms to choose between!

How about this one?

 

[wiggydiggy]

When I read the magazine, which I do sometimes, I see a fair bit about touring (and general non-competitive leisure cycling). Glossy articles about people who have ridden across the Andes, nutters who ride to the coast at night, reviews of touring bikes, cycling route reviews. It's not all utility cycling and inclusivity, important as those things may be.

They may have dropped Touring from the name, but they haven't turned their backs on leisure cycling have they?

I'm putting touring under the heading of leisure because you can do touring style rides even if you start and finish at home.

The magazine has had some flack in this thread, but generally I find it a pretty easy access general cycling magazine.

 

[Jameshow]

When I read the magazine, which I do sometimes, I see a fair bit about touring (and general non-competitive leisure cycling). Glossy articles about people who have ridden across the Andes, nutters who ride to the coast at night, reviews of touring bikes, cycling route reviews. It's not all utility cycling and inclusivity, important as those things may be.

They may have dropped Touring from the name, but they haven't turned their backs on leisure cycling have they?

I'm putting touring under the heading of leisure because you can do touring style rides even if you start and finish at home.

That's not touring - touring must use panniers ..🍿🍿🍿