Embassy minutes (first draft) for you to pick apart and destroy!
3 February, 2011 - 08:19
I suppose that to make it look more professional I should give my surname – Rone – after all we are no longer anonymous. Please feel free to use it instead of fatbob!
The best bike is a used bike!
5 February, 2011 - 22:01
Hi, I’m Peter (and yes I am rather tall).
I couldn’t make it to the start-up meeting but I was there is spirit (17.5% proof if not 110%). It’s fantastic that decades of failed cycle campaigning is finally being addressed.
Anyway, here are my thoughts on the draft minutes:
One statement shone out: “Cycling needs to be regarded as transport”. Until that happens we’re tilting at windmills. When I attended the local Cycle Forum it became clear that it exists only to beg for section 106 money so that some pathetic and never-used “cycle facility” can be built. I don’t want section 106 money. I want my taxes (council and national) spent on building some decent cycle infrastructure.
We need to educate people at large that a lick of paint on a narrow pavement or a muddy off-road track is just not good enough. They should ask for better.
Regarding the CEoGB name, I like its quirkiness (for some reason it makes me think of the Ministry of Silly Walks!) but if we are aiming at the mainstream it may be confusing. Someone suggested having a tagline: how about “Making Cycling Normal”.
I agree about not going for membership fees, benefits etc. Therein lies the route to just another CTC/LCC. The more members we have the stronger we are, but we should stay focused on campaigning, disseminating information and promotion/marketing.
The goal is Dutch-style cycle infrastructure. Nothing else should distract us from that.
10 February, 2011 - 17:03
A polite query if I may?
The draft minutes record the declaration to “work with local authorities and relevant parties to redefine Cycling Infrastructure Design Standards” and to “work in collaboration with others”, all well and good.
However, the list of Partners lists groups like Living Streets, Roadpeace, Friends of the Earth, and
Campaign for Better Transport, all transport groups, but fails to mention London Cycling Campaign, which I’m involved with, or for that matter CTC.
I understand that CEoGB wishes to prioritise a different agenda to existing cycle campaign groups, and I’m perfectly happy that CEoGB wishes to pursue this. But should I infer anything from the omission of LCC and CTC? Is it a snub?
I am an active committee member of two local branch groups of the LCC in Kensington & Chelsea and Lambeth. I actively encouraged members of both groups to attend the first meeting on 29th January, which I see from photos that they did, which is great (I couldn’t make it).
My point is, as an ‘LCC person’ I am happy to work with CEoGB, and indeed several of the people at the meeting were active LCC members. I hope that CEoGB wishes to work with LCC and CTC, or at least offers to work with those members of those groups who happy and willing to do so.
© Cycling Embassy of Great Britain