Candidates for the 2013 Board of Trustees

The election results were published on 19 October 2013, and can be read here. Congratulations to the winners, and thanks to all the candidates who took part, and to those members who voted. 

Candidate 1: MUSTAFA ARIF

MUSTAFA SAYS "I’m seeking re-election as the current Chair of Campaigns. We’ve succeeded in shifting London’s political landscape for cycling with Love London, Go Dutch. Now we must ensure promises are delivered. I’ll focus on developing the local grassroots campaigning capacity we need to secure lasting change in our city."

 

Candidate 2: DANIEL BARNES

DANIEL SAYS "I’m a passionate, experienced fundraiser for the LCC, having helped to raise over £8000 in the last two years. I want to use my experience in this area to help the LCC develop its engagement and reach within event fundraising, and to find innovative and creative ways to help connect with new members."

 

Candidate 3: KIERAN DRAKE

KIERAN SAYS "I cycle every day, in all weather, pretty much everywhere I need to go. I’m passionate about Go Dutch and making London the amazing city it could be for cyclists so that many more Londoners can enjoy it. I’d bring expertise in designing and delivering policy to strengthen the board."

 

Candidate 4: ANN KENRICK 

ANNE SAYS "For many years I’ve contributed my marketing, governance and fundraising experience to LCC. I’ve given speeches protesting about cycle safety, initiated a kids ride in Southwark, been interviewed on LBC radio, visited local groups, written cycling blogs, contributed to newspaper articles, and written a book encouraging cycling to school."

 

Candidate 5: TONY LEVENE

TONY SAYS "I’ve been LCC Treasurer and chair of the Finance and Administration Committee since 2011. I’ve overseen resolving long-standing VAT difficulties, our move to problem-free accounts, updating company articles, and selection of new auditors, I’m a freelance financial journalist working for the BBC, The Guardian and specialist websites."

 

Candidate 6: RICHARD MILLER

RICHARD SAYS "I’m a business consultant in the creative industries and professor at University of Hertfordshire (see www.alighta.com). I have rediscovered a passion for cycling after 20 years. I am very keen to support its growth. I know about business planning, strategy, policy and governance and believe I would be a useful trustee."

 

Candidate 7: CRAIG NICOL

CRAIG SAYS "I’m a former IT analyst, now teacher, and an experienced cycle training instructor who has worked on cycling projects across London. I’m passionate about making London a better city through cycling and will consult widely to find practical ways to increase cycling participation."

 

Candidate 8: OLIVER SCHICK

OLIVER SAYS "I’ve been a campaigner with the Hackney group for 14 years and have also been a member of the Board before. I’m passionate about transport policy and want to help the LCC develop a ‘Vision for London’ to set the agenda with a broad coalition of organisations campaigning for change."

 

Candidate 9: FRANCIS SEDGEMORE

FRANCIS SAYS "To better represent London cyclists LCC should focus on rapid membership growth, with income generation from subscriptions taking priority over corporate sponsorship. We also require dynamic leadership while enhancing democratic accountability and local group autonomy. With others, let us campaign positively for responsible and considerate behaviour from all road users."

 

Candidate 10: GRANT SMITH

GRANT SAYS "In 2013 I cycled from Portland, Oregon, to Portland Place, London, researching cycling infrastructure in cities en route. Drivers in America were more considerate towards cyclists, largely due to more effective enforcement of laws introduced to protect cyclists. Enforcement and improved infrastructure are needed to make cycling in London safer."

 

Candidate 11: RAY WHITEHOUSE

RAY SAYS "I’m a lifelong cyclist and active member of and campaigner for LCC and Havering Cyclists. My aim is to encourage cyclists of all ages to enjoy the pleasures of cycling through safer environments. As a member of the London Waterways board I champion cycling facilities along the canals of Greater London."

 

Candidate Q&A

Members can vote now using their electronic ballot form, or you can post a question below in the comments section, and candidates will be invited to respond in the same place.

Replies

  • By li52jw at 05:05pm 16 Sep 2013

Video 2. No idea.

Is there any information on what the board of trustees is required to do? For instance, while I might ask a questions about LCC engaging wider with other possibly likeminded stakeholders (e.g. disability campaigns, pedestrian campaigns, small business campaigns, green campaigns) - I'm not sure this is actually in the trustees' remit. Presumably they just ensure the LCC executive isn't doing anything too crazy or out of kilter with what members want. 

Is my presumption correct?

A charity board of trustees is tasked with overseeing the charitable activities of the organisation, but LCC is more than a charity. In our case the board is the elected leadership body of LCC, and as such the questions raised by Charlie Ullman are pertinent.

As regards Charlie's question concerning wider engagement with possibly likeminded stakeholders, this is something I am particularly keen to promote.

We talk much about driver behaviour, and rightly so, given that motor vehicles present the biggest physical danger on the roads. But when it comes to behaviour, we are in effect talking about engineering or re-engineering behaviour via campaigning and consciousness-raising. To that end we need to to focus on reinforcing good behaviour across the board, acknowledging that drivers, cyclists and pedestrians share the roads, and we are all in this together. That is certainly the attitude of road safety organisations such as RoadPeace, and there is a great deal of wisdom in that approach.

I would like to see LCC engage more with likeminded stakeholders, including the sane wing of the motoring lobby, Living Streets representing pedestrians, and community associations responsible for managing shared spaces and thoroughfares in residential areas. We should promote good behaviour by all road users, and that includes cyclists and pedestrians as well as drivers.

There is a consensus to be forged in some areas, whilst at the same time having LCC do what it says on the tin - campaign for and represent the interest of cyclists.

  • By duncal at 11:53am 17 Sep 2013

Francis - i agree LCC needs to acknowledge the needs of other road users more effectively.  I would love to see the small minority of cyclists who break the law visibly prosecuted.  They give the majority a bad name and endanger not only themselves but others.

 

 

@duncal - Enforcing road regulations is one thing, but it's not enough to change people's behaviour. What's needed is a cultural shift, establishing new patterns of normative behaviour. Regulation is integral to that, but education is essential, and this is where we could work together with other organisations. That said, I wouldn't be averse to making the use of a mobile phone by pedestrians whilst crossing the road in the City of London a capital offence.

Oliver Schick - 

Do you support the provision of separate/protected cycle lanes or tracks on main roads in central London where there are high levels of motor traffic and/or significant numbers of buses and/or HGVs?

Hello Charlie Ullman, The trustees' core role is to ensure that we are doing everything we can to meet our objectives as a charity. This includes agreeing the organisation’s strategies, overseeing our finances and ensuring we comply with legislation and good practice. It's chiefly the staff team's role to build alliances, including with the types of organisations you quote. Indeed we actively collaborate with others, e.g. with we worked with national cycling organisations in relation to the Get Britain Cycling parliamentary report and debate and continue to collaborate with organisations such as Roadpeace, Living Streets and lorry operators on lorry safety. We do wish to build even more and better alliances, and our trustees are often able help build bridges between ourselves and other organisations. Doing this is not just in their remit but is in fact one of the best ways in which they can help LCC. Hope this answers your question.

 

Oliver,

I'm sure your 'vision for London' is great but not much seemed to happen when you were in charge of LCC's policy team. Dr Aldred seems to be moving much faster. We need people to make things happen not do navel-gazing.

  • By liz545 at 03:46pm 20 Sep 2013

Just a general suggestion for the next elections - it would be really helpful if all the candidates could be asked a few key questions about their policies on some issues so it's easier to know what they stand for and how they compare. This is my first time voting and it's a bit confusing trying to rank the candidates based on the videos (particularly where there's lots of background noise!) Anything that helps newer members get involved and feel that their contribution is meaningful has got to be a good idea.

@liz545 - The intention of this web page is to give LCC members the chance to ask questions of the candidates. But those questions should come from the members, and not be provided by LCC staff overseeing the election. Please feel free to ask questions of us, and direct them if you will to all candidates.

Videos with no transcript are not very user friendly - there's about 20 minutes of video there to watch. The contents could be read in 1/10th of the time.

@e11brompton - I agree. This video thing is a first for LCC, and I hope a last. Candidates were invited to provide a written statement with a maximum of 50 words, to accompany the two-minute YouTube. To my mind this approach elevates style over substance, and is not the way to conduct a serious election.

I much prefer seeing the candidates on video. The words are the same as they would be if written down, aren't they? So why shouldn't we see the candidates speak them? It's just wrong to say this puts style over subtance. Anyway, I am sure LCC supporters are quite able to decide for themselves whether any the speakers have anything real to say whatever the 'style' of their videos. A transcript would be good too, though.

  • By JHW at 06:33am 28 Sep 2013

Dear Candidates,

Firstly well done and thank you to you all for allowing yourselves to be nominated for this vital and demanding role. I wish you all luck in your campaigns.

I am uneasy about the demonstrations recently organised by the LCC. I have been on the three rides (Aldgate, Holborn and Parliament) and would readily agree thus far they have done little damage to the cause and perhaps some good. But I am also keenly aware that it is all too easy for such demonstrations to be infiltrated by people with a different agenda who would seek to turn peaceful protest into something more sinister.

What would you do as a board member:

  1. to ensure the executive is properly able to identify the correct time to mount a demonstration and ‘take to the streets’ and more importantly when not to?
  2. to ensure the executive protects the organisation from this sort of infiltration?

Kind regards.

John H Wood

This post was edited by JHW at 08:45am 28 Sep 2013.

  • By JHW at 08:44am 28 Sep 2013

Dear Candidates,

Another question for you all please.

Do you think that the LCC is sufficiently relevant to cycling in the outer boroughs?

If you don’t what do you think could be done to make it more so.

 

Kind regards.

John H Wood

John

I led the Holborn protest ride, and so may be a little biased, but in my view the recent mass rides are not something about which we should feel any unease. Far from it.

In a literal sense the recent protest rides were opportunistic, in that we made a strong political point on the back of two tragic cyclist deaths and a topical parliamentary debate. But politics aside, the Aldgate and Holborn rides honoured the two dead cyclists, Philippine de Gerin-Ricard and Alan Neve.

The rides were also very well organised, with full cooperation from the police, and with excellent support from experienced marshals. In the case of the Aldgate and Holborn rides, the mood was both sombre and positive, and, with such large numbers, it would have been impossible for small groups of sinister infiltrators to realise their nefarious aims.

I say that the rides were opportunistic, and this is to the credit of the LCC staff who planned and organised them. It was exactly the right thing to do in the circumstances, and I trust the judgement of those who made the decisions and carried them through. We must allow our LCC staff to make such executive decisions, with authority provided in a dynamic manner by members of the board of trustees. The decision-making process was sufficiently transparent, and those involved are fully accountable to the LCC membership as a whole.

We cannot afford to be too formulaic about such things. Better to react creatively to circumstance, as we did in the case of the recent protest rides.

As for your question concerning the relevance of LCC to the outer London boroughs, I would first ask how you define "outer". If you refer to the likes of Enfield and Bexley, then I would say that we have a long way to go. We must consider the nature of the roads in such outer boroughs, as compared with inner city London and the "Home" boroughs. 

I live in Lewisham. Now to some this is an outer London borough, though to my mind it is as urban as they come. These days I regularly cycle due north from Lewisham to North Hertfordshire, passing through such places as Waltham Cross, with their motorway-like ring roads. They are a world apart from inner-city London.

LCC is human and other resource strapped, and activity depends on human effort. What we can do is promote LCC more in the outer boroughs, and in doing so bring more people with local knowledge and expertise into the organisation. Having active members in the outer boroughs is what will make LCC relevant in those parts of Greater London. To bring that about, we might slightly re-prioritise our efforts at the centre.

  • By JHW at 07:45am 29 Sep 2013

Dear Francis,

Thank you for your response(s). Do any of the other candidates share this view?

Best wishes.

John

Hi John,

Thanks for your questions.  You're going to get my first response to this message board system... here goes!



With regards to the question about relevance to cyclists in outer boroughs, I think Francis' suggestion about recruiting more members from these areas offers a great way of ensuring good representation of the (often specific) needs of cyclists in outlying boroughs.  As the LCC grows as an organisation, seeking members who can act as 'local champions' is going to be critical to ensuring that all boroughs have a represented voice, and a voice that is loud enough to be heard.  



But I think the notion of such 'local champions' is just as relevant to many inner-London locales as well; whilst there are many macro problems that affect the majority of people cycling in London, such as bike theft, provision of safe routes, and bike parking, it is also important to remember that the make-up of London is always likely to present issues of a more localised nature as well.  I have just moved from one zone 2 location to another (Hackney to Peckham Rye), and was surprised by the difference in traffic types, road conditions, and even driver attitudes that have now become part of the fabric of my daily rides.  



I think the question of how relevent the LCC is to cyclists in London generally should also be constantly evaluated, as should the effectiveness of all of the LCC's campaign activities. Whilst the organisation's profile, voice and membership base are certainly growing, how does this track against the growth in cycling generally, and across what demographics? I don't think the organisation should ever be afraid of challenging its own success in any of these areas; and in doing so I would hope its relevance to all groups could be improved.  I am extremely interested in helping the LCC expand its appeal across the cycling community, and I think this would include looking at which areas, or groups, are potentially underrepresented at present.

 

 

  • By JHW at 10:16am 30 Sep 2013

Thank you Daniel

Interesting comment from Daniel Barnes about underrepresented groups.

 

One such underrepresented group is that of the low-waged utility commuter, a species extant in all parts of the Greater London region, and which looks to be growing as fuel prices and public transport fares continue their inexorable rise.

 

The members of this group often buy their bikes from Halfords, Decathlon and the like, wouldn't be seen dead in cheap lycra, let alone designer cycling wear, and may not be at all interested in bikes for bikes' sake. However, they may be attracted by the third-party insurance that comes with LCC membership, road skills training opportunities, and shop discounts. Bring these people into the organisation, and I'm sure they will have something to say about the roads along which they cycle to work each day. As a locally-focused body, LCC may be in a better position to attract such people into paying membership than are UK-wide cycling organisations.

 

Expanding the membership of LCC, so that it better represents the London cycling community as a socio-economically and culturally diverse whole, will be the subject of a motion presented to the AGM later this month.

  • By JHW at 04:07pm 02 Oct 2013

Thank you Francis. These are thoughtful and useful observations.

I thought my initial post was quite contraversial - it was certainly intended to be. I am surprised it hasn't attracted more comment. I wonder if this page is sufficiently visible webmeister? I have a lot of difficulty finding it using the search engine.

These elections are quite important and the thoughts of our candidates should be given a wide exposure.

With kind regards

Yours 

John

  • By grant at 01:20pm 04 Oct 2013

Dear John

I have only been on one ride, the recent ‘Space for Cycling’ event, so I can only draw on my experience from that event. I rode in from Hackney with an LCC facilitator. I thought the event was well run, though I recognise that it is difficult to determine how effective the ride could be in bringing about a change in the available space for cyclists.  I didn’t see any evidence of the event being hijacked by others with a different agenda. However I do recognise this may be an issue, but it is one that would be difficult to regulate. Any public demonstration potentially runs the risk of being infiltrated by others with a different agenda. If the message of the campaigning group is strong and loud enough, I believe the chance of the event being upstaged will be lessened. Furthermore I think it is important that anyone who is concerned about cycling is welcomed at these events, provided they do not put others or themselves at risk.

Identifying the timing of demonstrations should be tied into key events, such as parliamentary sessions, committee hearings or other milestones. I think research carried out by the executive monitoring news feeds and parliamentary sessions will help in identifying the appropriate timing and location for any action. Any tragedy that occurs at busy sites, or on dedicated cycle ways should attract action such as a demonstration. When not to take the streets should be governed by advice that any demonstration or action may compromise the safety of participants.

As an inner city resident, my experience is of cycling on narrow roads, both at peak and off-peak times. I cycle to Essex once a week with my local club and recognise that there is not the same provision for cyclists as traffic moves faster and seems to have less awareness of cyclists. I think there is a lot be done in the outer boroughs to make cycling safer. I understand that Ealing has been particularly active in promoting safer cycling through infrastructure. It may be useful to highlight these advances against those boroughs that are less active in regarding cycling as a viable transport alternative.

Grant Smith

This post was edited by grant at 07:59pm 04 Oct 2013.

John, thanks for your questions.

I have to say I completely disagree that we should be uneasy about the recent protest rides – they have proved a successful and highly visible means of demonstrating to our politicians the depth and strength of feeling that exists amongst Londoners about the need to improve conditions for cyclists and to reduce the horrendous numbers of cycling injuries and fatalities on our roads - with far more coverage and impact than, for example, a letter writing campaign alone would ever have. I’ve taken part in the rides and wholeheartedly support them. Crucially the rides have also been good fun – and at a time when so much attention has rightly been given to making cycling safe, it’s good to remind ourselves why many of us took up cycling in the first place: it is quite simply not just the quickest but also the most enjoyable way to get around, and the rides proved a great reminder of that.

I do agree with you that the timing of the rides, and indeed of any protest or campaign, is critical if they’re to have greatest impact. If elected I would use my 10 years experience working in Parliament and in Government - currently in the Treasury - to help the LCC develop and time it’s campaigns to have the greatest possible effect. I’m particularly interested in how we can use next year’s local elections to persuade candidates for all parties to prioritise cycling issues, as the LCC did so effectively during the Mayoral Elections.

In terms of what the LCC can do to make itself relevant to cycling in the outer boroughs, I think one of the priorities has to be holding the Mayor, TfL and the outer boroughs themselves to account to deliver the Mayor’s vision of improved SuperHighways from outer to inner London, and 1-3 “mini-Hollands” in outer-London with £3m dedicated investment. According to the initial proposals, the locations for the mini-Hollands would be announced late this year with work starting next year – we have a real opportunity to influence how those are delivered and to make them as successful as they can possibly be.

Thanks,

Kieran Drake   

This post was edited by Kierandrake at 12:46pm 05 Oct 2013.

  • By ma499 at 11:12pm 06 Oct 2013

@JHW, I'm sorry I've only noticed your questions now. This web page is better than what we've had in previous years (nowt!) but we still have a long way to go in facilitating genuine online debate for the Trustee elections. Transcripts are a good idea, but I do also think we should allow for more meaningful manifestos as well as more structured forms of online Q&A.

With respect to your questions:

1) I suspect I naturally share your concerns about the effectiveness of protest and the dangers of infiltration by groups with ulterior agendas. Nevertheless, the Campaigns & Active Membership Committee that I chair instigated the Blackfriars flashrides in 2011 which marked the resumption of high profile direct protest by LCC. More recently I took chair's action, with the committee's full support, to request the staff the organise the Aldgate Space for Cycling ride which subsequently developed into a second protest campaign. I think it's difficult to write hard and fast rules about when to call a protest and when to hold back but I think our judgement over the last couple of years has been sound. It must be the right balance of the opportunitistic and strategic. Opportunisitc to take maximum campaigning advantage of events (both political as well as tragedies); strategic to ensure that we use the events to push forward our strategic campaigning priorities rather than getting distracted.

2) The ultimate guard against infiltration is a strong turnout and clear message, which ultimately depends on making the right call in organising the protest in the first place. Having said that I was shocked and disappointed with some of the behaviour I observed of cyclists towards other road users on the informally organised feeder rides to the second (Holborn) Space for Cycling ride. Accordingly, for the third ride (Parliament) we made a conscious effort to ensure LCC-organised marshalls to cater for this demand for feeder rides.

3) Having been born and brought up in the suburbs of north west London I'm well aware of the differences in cycling environment in inner and outer London. That was one of my motivations in proposing that LCC adopt as its strategic priority for the 2014 local elections, the development of a ward-by-ward based locally-focussed campaigin within a coherent overall policy framework. Fellow Trustees and the AGM agreed and so this is now LCC policy and I'm really looking forward to kicking off the build up to the campaign at this year's AGM. I do have to say, however, that LCC's return to emphasising hard, physical measures on the road in the last couple of years have helped to renew our relevance in outer London where the lack of proper Space for Cycling has a much greater supression on cycling numbers.

All very worthy, but I feel that the business needs of the LCC are small compared to the reputation of cyclists and we are now at a crucial point with a huge momentum for good. How are these statements capitalising on this? How are these trustees going to clearly ensure that the LCC represents the vast majority of cyclists who are not rude, light running, law breaking, careless individuals? That the vast majority of cyclists want to distant themselves from the poor behaviour of the few and would be happy to discuss better regulation if it led to more harmony in our transport system. Which of these candidates stands for that? I'll vote for him/her - show me where to put my thumbprint!

  • By grant at 02:29pm 08 Oct 2013

Hi Steve,

I believe a cultural change in behaviour of all road users is required, not just vehicle drivers, but cyclists as well. Cyclists' poor road behaviour may be attributable to previous experience, if we can address those problems, which may or may not stem from other road users, we may be able to inhabit and share road space without fearing for our safety.

Grant Smith

@stevekemsley

The behaviour of all those who use the road is a primary concern of mine. As that nice Mr Cameron says, we are all in it together, and in the case of the roads this is especially true, often with tragic consequences.

Even when the consequences are not tragic, daily life on London streets is made less pleasant than it would otherwise be if road users - drivers, cyclists and pedestrians - acted at all times with good judgement and common courtesy.

What I am against, in addition to the "bloody cyclists" among us who have little or no regard for the Highway Code and other road users, especially the more vulnerable ones, is the sectionalising of cycling interests. LCC claims to represent the interests of cyclists in London, and that's just as well. We need that lobbying voice provided by LCC, its individual members and borough groups. But we also need to look at the roads as shared space.

A cultural shift in the behaviour of road users is required, and that is a big task. We have seen it work before, with such things as compulsory seat-belt use in motor vehicles, and the increasing marginalisation of smoking in public. Key to the success of such societal changes is effective public education, and community consensus wherever possible. Building tactical alliances is integral to this, and in the case of promoting and reinforcing good behaviour on the roads, it could take the form of tactical and topical alliances between cycling advocacy groups such as LCC on the one hand, and the sane wing of the motoring lobby on the other.

Where we sectionalise interests (of whatever kind), one consequence of this is media-mediated conflict where conflict need not exist. Where conflict is unavoidable, we must of course get stuck in and take no prisoners, but so often it is pointless and obstructs the cause.

Local newspapers regularly carry letters from, say, indignant pedestrians and cab drivers angry at red-light jumping and pavement-riding cyclists. They may have a point, but there is an agenda, sometimes hidden, sometimes overt. From a media perspective - and here I speak as a journalist - road user conflict makes for lively and interesting copy and broadcast fodder. It stimulates public debate, albeit often of a negative kind, but most important it sells newspapers and increases viewer and listener ratings.

We can surely turn this around, engage constructively with motorists, pedestrian groups and community interests, and still command public attention. I shall give you an example. 

Last month, together with two other LCC activists and an outgoing local councillor, I helped found a community group centred around the Greenwich and Woolwich Foot Tunnels. Over the years there has been much bad feeling about anti-social behaviour in the tunnels, by cyclists included. However, at the inaugural meeting of Fogwoft (www.fogwoft.com) there was an outbreak of peace and harmony between pedestrians and cycling users of the tunnels, with a mutual understanding of each others' needs, and a commitment to constructively and with an open mind work through any issues that arise.

I am keen to have the organised wing of the London cycling community - i.e., LCC - work closely with the likes of Living Streets, RoadPeace, the AA, RAC, etc. on the question of promoting and reinforcing good behaviour by all road users together. Hammering home the need for personal responsibility alongside rights is crucial, as is promoting greater awareness of the rules of the road in the form of the Highway Code. As regards the latter, the state appears to have abrogated its responsibility in this respect, what with the demise of public information broadcasts and education campaigns.

Where the state fails, civil society must take up the slack. I shall continue plugging away at this question of tactical alliances with other road user lobbies, whether or not I am elected to the LCC board. It would surely help to be on the board, but I am entirely realistic about this. It will take far more than central leadership within LCC to build the tactical alliances of which I speak. Borough cycling groups and individual members of LCC have a critical role to play in such initiatives, the success of which will require that they be grounded in the local community as well as Greater London-wide media space.

We have long talked of the need for cultural change. It's time now that we address the details.

Francis Sedgemore

  • By smsm1 at 07:33pm 14 Oct 2013

Unfortunately video streaming is blocked in some places such as on East Coast trains wifi, thus can't watch any of the videos. Textual versions required.

Post a reply

Sign in to post a reply.