BV council elections

More dirt on Ray Beecher.

He drove to the RTWD breakfast, then drove back to his workplace! And
proceeded to canvas votes at his workplace! heh! Good one chum.

I'm not one for negative campaigning, FD, but golly, if
he gets elected and you don't .. something is *wrong*

Meeba said:

cfsmtb said:

Dear Readers,

Have a peruse at this:
http://www.bv.com.au/file/explanatory%20memorandum.20050826.pdf

Especially the third point under 'Members'.
Hey cfsmtb,thanks for the info
Do you happen to know how these changes affect "family" members?
l can't find definition of "family" re their insurance policy on web,l
have emailed BVI a query

Meeba, you may not have read the fine print in the BV
insurance page - the excess is $1000 (one thousand, that is not
a typo).

Don't count on it being much use unless you crash into a car and
it's your fault.

Bleve said:

Meeba, you may not have read the fine print in the BV
insurance page - the excess is $1000 (one thousand, that is not
a typo).

Don't count on it being much use unless you crash into a car and
it's your fault.

Joy. So what exactly would I get as a BV member? *looks at the website*

* "Member support for campaigns" ... that doesn't do anything for me
directly. Scratch one.
* "Australia's best bike crash insurance". Need to look into that.
* "Exclusive member deals". Those that are relevant to me, I can get by
asking nicely at my LBS. Scratch two.
* "Answers from experts". Um *looks at his usenet reader* Scratch
three.
* "Upholding your rights". Might conceivably be of use, but it's hard
to judge.

Looking at the insurance, the lump sums seem pretty poor to me. I also
find myself wondering how much of it is covered by TAC, rather than BV's
insurance cover, given that they say it's for collision with motor cycle
or other registered vehicle.

So in short, the only service they provide to me is the legal advice
line, basically. Big whoop. At $85 per annum, I don't see it as good
value for my money; if I did find myself in a position where I needed
that service, I'd take out the membership and then start asking
questions.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@ to usenet".

Stuart Lamble said:

Bleve said:

Meeba, you may not have read the fine print in the BV
insurance page - the excess is $1000 (one thousand, that is not
a typo).

Don't count on it being much use unless you crash into a car and
it's your fault.

Joy. So what exactly would I get as a BV member? *looks at the website*

* "Member support for campaigns" ... that doesn't do anything for me
directly. Scratch one.

That's the *only* reason I'm a member (the rest is [censored], alas).
But, it's a big reason. It doesn't do anything for me
directly either, but I believe it (BV) helps get more people riding,
which is better for everyone.

Bleve said:

Stuart Lamble said:

Joy. So what exactly would I get as a BV member? *looks at the website*

* "Member support for campaigns" ... that doesn't do anything for me
directly. Scratch one.

That's the *only* reason I'm a member (the rest is [censored], alas).
But, it's a big reason. It doesn't do anything for me
directly either, but I believe it (BV) helps get more people riding,
which is better for everyone.

The problem I have is that I'm on a fairly tight budget. Whilst I would
like to see more people on bikes and out of cars, and I fully agree with
the benefits to society as a whole, I don't feel as though BV is doing a
sufficiently good job of it for me to pay them $85 a year.

The best example I can give is last year's GVBR: for me, it was a fsckup
of collossal proportions. I can see how it could easily turn people off
cycling in general, although to be fair, my experiences may well be
atypical.

BV needs to get their game together. If and when they do, I'll
reconsider my membership. Until then, though ...

(All IMO, of course.)

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@ to usenet".

Stuart Lamble said:

Bleve said:

Stuart Lamble said:

Joy. So what exactly would I get as a BV member? *looks at the website*

* "Member support for campaigns" ... that doesn't do anything for me
directly. Scratch one.

That's the *only* reason I'm a member (the rest is [censored], alas).
But, it's a big reason. It doesn't do anything for me
directly either, but I believe it (BV) helps get more people riding,
which is better for everyone.

The problem I have is that I'm on a fairly tight budget. Whilst I would
like to see more people on bikes and out of cars, and I fully agree with
the benefits to society as a whole, I don't feel as though BV is doing a
sufficiently good job of it for me to pay them $85 a year.

That's a fair enough decision to make.

Quoted message said:

The best example I can give is last year's GVBR: for me, it was a fsckup
of collossal proportions. I can see how it could easily turn people off
cycling in general, although to be fair, my experiences may well be
atypical.

IMO, BV's problem is not that it makes mistakes (everyone and
everything makes mistakes). It's that it seems to struggle
to come clean afterwards. If an organisation or individual makes a
mistake,
I expect it/them to admit it, apologise for it and do what they can to
rectify
the situation. BV's writeups in the newsletter after the last GVBR was
pure [censored]. That's not acceptable. BV's volunteers etc work
very hard and their efforts are appreciated, it's the publicity/spin
machine that needs the [censored].

Quoted message said:

BV needs to get their game together. If and when they do, I'll
reconsider my membership. Until then, though ...

I'd be happy with them throwing the spin doctors out the door with
a decent footprint in the [censored], and telling it like it is. If you
only ever read BV news, you'd think everything was perfect.

btw, according to the last financial statement, BV lost ~$200,000
last year, and about that the year before. That's with an income
of $9,000,000 or so! More spin [censored] in the statement,
it says they lost money, says how they earnt the $9mil, but not how
they spent it (ie: not admiting what went wrong, or even trying
to explain it).

Bleve said:

Stuart Lamble said:

The best example I can give is last year's GVBR: for me, it was a fsckup
of collossal proportions. I can see how it could easily turn people off
cycling in general, although to be fair, my experiences may well be
atypical.

IMO, BV's problem is not that it makes mistakes (everyone and
everything makes mistakes). It's that it seems to struggle
to come clean afterwards. If an organisation or individual makes a
mistake, I expect it/them to admit it, apologise for it and do what
they can to rectify the situation. BV's writeups in the newsletter
after the last GVBR was pure [censored]. That's not acceptable. BV's
volunteers etc work very hard and their efforts are appreciated, it's
the publicity/spin machine that needs the [censored].

Yup, indeed. You've just put your finger on the single biggest problem I
have with BV, but couldn't quite express. I could accept what happened
on the ride if BV had come out and said "yes, we had these problems;
here's why we think they happened [*cough* too many people *cough*], and
how we intend to make sure it doesn't happen again. [*cough* limit the
numbers to what we can handle *cough*]"

Interestingly, I seem to remember some long-time volunteers [censored]
about how BV was treating them all the way back on my fourth or so ride,
in '99. Seems that the problems go back at least that far, and maybe
further, but we're only lately starting to see the cracks appear in the
edifice. Wish I could remember the details. Might have been something
along the lines of "X is going, and he's the only one that really knows
how that equipment works; BV is going to be in trouble if they can't get
somebody as clued in to replace him." (All in the context of the GVBR,
that is.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

BV needs to get their game together. If and when they do, I'll
reconsider my membership. Until then, though ...

I'd be happy with them throwing the spin doctors out the door with
a decent footprint in the [censored], and telling it like it is. If you
only ever read BV news, you'd think everything was perfect.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Quoted message said:

btw, according to the last financial statement, BV lost ~$200,000
last year, and about that the year before. That's with an income
of $9,000,000 or so! More spin [censored] in the statement,
it says they lost money, says how they earnt the $9mil, but not how
they spent it (ie: not admiting what went wrong, or even trying
to explain it).

*sniff* *sniff* I smell something that's remarkably akin to gross
incompetence on somebody's part ... or maybe worse: embezzlement. No, I
don't seriously think it's that, but if they aren't willing to come
clean, people are automatically going to assume the worst.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@ to usenet".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The problem I have is that I'm on a fairly tight budget. Whilst I would
like to see more people on bikes and out of cars, and I fully agree with
the benefits to society as a whole, I don't feel as though BV is doing a
sufficiently good job of it for me to pay them $85 a year.

That's a fair enough decision to make.

Quoted message said:

The best example I can give is last year's GVBR: for me, it was a fsckup
of collossal proportions. I can see how it could easily turn people off
cycling in general, although to be fair, my experiences may well be
atypical.

IMO, BV's problem is not that it makes mistakes (everyone and
everything makes mistakes). It's that it seems to struggle
to come clean afterwards. If an organisation or individual makes a
mistake,
I expect it/them to admit it, apologise for it and do what they can to
rectify
the situation. BV's writeups in the newsletter after the last GVBR was
pure [censored]. That's not acceptable. BV's volunteers etc work
very hard and their efforts are appreciated, it's the publicity/spin
machine that needs the [censored].

Quoted message said:

BV needs to get their game together. If and when they do, I'll
reconsider my membership. Until then, though ...

I'd be happy with them throwing the spin doctors out the door with
a decent footprint in the [censored], and telling it like it is. If you
only ever read BV news, you'd think everything was perfect.

btw, according to the last financial statement, BV lost ~$200,000
last year, and about that the year before. That's with an income
of $9,000,000 or so! More spin [censored] in the statement,
it says they lost money, says how they earnt the $9mil, but not how
they spent it (ie: not admiting what went wrong, or even trying
to explain it).

Hmm...sounds like they really can't afford to be giving away those free
bikes after all. And perhaps the brochures don't really need to be *quite*
so glossy (screws the recycling process too...they should look at using
paper stock with a lower clay content).

Resound said:

And perhaps the brochures don't really need to be *quite*
so glossy (screws the recycling process too...they should look at using
paper stock with a lower clay content).

<dons graphic designer/paper-specifier hat>
bit of a common misconception, actually.
Coated/Callandered stock is far cheaper (<50%) than uncoated/recycled stock, in general. This purely due to scales of economy.
I mostly try and push them, and certain clients use nothing but uncoated/recycled stock and obviously most clients are also coming round to this but show them the price and they will often baulk. Oh, and then, there's the issue of print quality. dot gain of 5-20% on coated versus 30-60% on most uncoated (unless chemically treated/not coated tho). Sometimes that actually adds to the finish but its rare...

I too would love to see BV do less print-based comms (not less comms per se) (email provides far more accurate feedback as to who/how many/when is reading what and if forwarding, etc statistics and is FAR cheaper. $200k worth? who knows... )
Taking advantage of the Mag distribution mechanism to ge tother bits and pieces out is another obvious easy-win too

Stuart Lamble wrote:

This is just 2c to give a different perspective. Personally I hate the
big rides for various reasons, but ....

Quoted message said:

Interestingly, I seem to remember some long-time volunteers [censored]
about how BV was treating them all the way back on my fourth or so ride,
in '99. Seems that the problems go back at least that far, and maybe
further, but we're only lately starting to see the cracks appear in the
edifice.

That is normal, unfortunately. People are volunteers for various reasons
and have different circumstances. Over time, their interests and
circumstances change, so people come and go.

Quoted message said:

Wish I could remember the details. Might have been something
along the lines of "X is going, and he's the only one that really knows
how that equipment works; BV is going to be in trouble if they can't get
somebody as clued in to replace him." (All in the context of the GVBR,
that is.)

This is actually indicative of an organisational problem that can
require delicate diplomacy to prevent. Some people revel in the power of
bing the "BLAH" organiser and will not share and pass on their skills in
an area. Ideally, you have a number of people who can do any job.

Unfortunately, it is often the case that the only way you can start to
fix the problem is to dislodge someone. which can lead to your comments
in the first paragraph.

Quoted message said:

*sniff* *sniff* I smell something that's remarkably akin to gross
incompetence on somebody's part ... or maybe worse: embezzlement. No, I
don't seriously think it's that, but if they aren't willing to come
clean, people are automatically going to assume the worst.

Naah, these rides are really run on the smell of an oily rag and propped
up by an immense volunteer effort. There is usually never enough
volunteers, which leads to pressure, which leads to mistakes and
mistakes can be costly to fix at commercial rates.

Then there is also the weather. I think BNSW blew the budget one year
when it rained and they had to put on buses to shift everyone along. And
a current thread is how BQLD is cancelling a ride because fuel costs
have blown out.

Seriously, they were probably told by the transport provider that costs
had gone up so much and that made it uneconomic, i.e. "the market" is
highly price resistant.

Personally, I once quoted on a Tassie trip and based food costs on local
prices. FAAAARRRKKK was the response on the first shopping trip in
Tassie. It was immense relief that "I broke even", aka no pay, but I
didn't have to spend my own money.

"flyingdutch" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Resound said:

And perhaps the brochures don't really need to be *quite*
so glossy (screws the recycling process too...they should look at
using
paper stock with a lower clay content).

<dons graphic designer/paper-specifier hat>
bit of a common misconception, actually.
Coated/Callandered stock is far cheaper (<50%) than uncoated/recycled
stock, in general. This purely due to scales of economy.
I mostly try and push them, and certain clients use nothing but
uncoated/recycled stock and obviously most clients are also coming
round to this but show them the price and they will often baulk. Oh,
and then, there's the issue of print quality. dot gain of 5-20% on
coated versus 30-60% on most uncoated (unless chemically treated/not
coated tho). Sometimes that actually adds to the finish but its
rare...

I too would love to see BV do less print-based comms (not less comms
per se) (email provides far more accurate feedback as to who/how
many/when is reading what and if forwarding, etc statistics and is FAR
cheaper. $200k worth? who knows... )
Taking advantage of the Mag distribution mechanism to ge tother bits
and pieces out is another obvious easy-win too

--
flyingdutch

There is that, but I was thinking about the card/paper stock that they use
as well. It's generally quite heavy and very glossy. That sort of printing
isn't cheap and when you're churning documents out by the thousands, it adds
up. While I'd agree that web based publishing is a good idea, anyone here is
likely to think that web based formats are good. Plenty of people see the
whole intarweb thingy as a bit scary and waaaay too complicated. You'll need
to retain print based comms, but go the recycled paper route. Put big
recycled/recycling symbols on them to make people feel warm and fuzzy about
it all.

Resound said:

Put big
recycled/recycling symbols on them to make people feel warm and fuzzy about
it all.

hehe. agree. FWIW the majority of the 'recycled' paper you see isnt 'truely' recycled at all. Not in the 'this paper has come from repulping already printed on paper' sense anyway.
Many most manufacturers can plonk a recycled logo on a stock simply bcos 'waste' in the production process is re-shovelled into the vats and, hey presto' we have just 'recycled' !!!
Some of the euro makers have this rather more holistic auditing system where you can see 'how does this benfit me/enviro' type results like:
How much water was NOT used, how mant trees were NOT cut down, etc