Hi fellow cyclist
I note the effort in producing a title for the debate but would ask that any final decision allows one to show the societal assumptions and actions that prevent people with learning difficulties achieving equal and inclusive opportunites to cycle. This will be the underlying argument in my abstract to VeloCity and hopefully of use to our organisation as an all embracing vehicle of change. As for title of debate i thought a play on the conference theme may be useful ie Cycling and Society: Sharing the Vision Healing the Division. There again  it may be too Naff for srious consideration. Finally I will be vacating my University  home  and return to NHS and semi retirement thus from OCt 1st my e-mail will be [log in to unmask] Dont forget me will you. Jeff Bartley The slowest cycle member.



 In message  <005701c49bf5$24127a20$0100007f@dave>     Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list              <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> Hi all, and thanks to John
>
> My main desired change to the draft abstracts concerns the title of the
> debate (especially as I seem to have been press-ganged into contributing!!).
>
> As it is, I think it might be a little difficult for people to grasp the
> likely content of the debate ('This house believes that infrastructure and
> technology are irrelevant to cycling policy as cycling is a cultural
> activity and this realisation should determine the direction of research').
>
> So, unless it means we lose something important, I'd suggest a slightly more
> straightforward title. How about, for example, 'This house believes that
> getting more people cycling is neither an infrastructural nor a
> technological, but a cultural, challenge'?
>
> I'd also suggest we don't need the last bit (currently 'and this realisation
> should determine the direction of research'), because - well chaired
> (Paul!) - the potential consequences (for policy, research, whatever)
> following on from either side of the argument should be articulated during
> the debate.
>
> I'd also suggest that the para. starting 'The debate is designed to ..'
> might be re-worded to say 'The debate is designed to: a) emphasise important
> and potentially contrasting approaches to both cycling promotion and
> research into cycling; b) demonstrate possible reconciliations between these
> initially contrasting approaches', before continuing 'It is intended to be
> informative ....'.
>
> Finally, although obviously this is very subjective, in terms of fitting
> into the conference themes, how about:
> theme 1: policy and promotion
> and theme 3: promoting positive attitudes
> and factors that make cycling a real choice?
>
> all for now
> Dave
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Parkin" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 11:16 AM
> Subject: Velo-City Dublin
>
>
> > Dear CSRG list members,
> >
> > Please find attached two documents, one is an abstract for a
> > debate at Velo-City and thank you to those who made
> > comments on what shape they thought the debate might take.
> > The other is a proposal to the organisers for a fringe meeting
> > to be hosted by CSRG.
> >
> > I have carefully considered all the debate suggestions and
> > hope that you find the proposed title acceptable. I have been,
> > as Ben Fincham would say, fascist in may allocation of
> > people to be chair, proposers and seconders. I stand ready,
> > like all fascists should, to be shot at the stake, but who else
> > was going to annunciate potential speakers?
> >
> > I would make two other points on the selection of the debate
> > topic:
> > a) I rejected the idea of a debate on every day covering many
> > different topic areas, as I think we need to make sure that we
> > can do one, and do it well before we try to stretch ourselves
> > too far
> > b) I rejected the idea of a qualitative versus quantitative debate
> > as I think this may be rather internecine and turn off many
> > "practitioner" delegates. We might like to take up this theme a
> > little more forcefully in our fringe meeting.
> >
> > I should have sent the proposal for the fringe meeting to Ollie
> > Hatch before now and apologise for my delay in preparing it. I
> > would be grateful for comments on this and the debate
> > abstract before the end of the week so that I can send them
> > both to Ollie directly. Sorry for the suggested shortness of the
> > deadline. I propose to send in the final version of the absract
> > at the end of the following week 24th September 2004, through
> > the web based conference portal.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > John Parkin.
> > Built Environment, Bolton Institute, Deane Road, Bolton BL3 5AB UK
> > DirTel:+44(0)1204 903027 Fax:+44(0)1204 399074 www.bolton.ac.uk
> >
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
>
> > The following section of this message contains a file attachment
> > prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.
> > If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any another MIME-compliant system,
> > you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer.
> > If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance.
> >
> >    ---- File information -----------
> >      File:  CSRG request for a fringe meeting.doc
> >      Date:  15 Sep 2004, 11:16
> >      Size:  26112 bytes.
> >      Type:  Unknown
> >
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
>
> > The following section of this message contains a file attachment
> > prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.
> > If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any another MIME-compliant system,
> > you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer.
> > If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance.
> >
> >    ---- File information -----------
> >      File:  CSRG Abstract.doc
> >      Date:  15 Sep 2004, 11:00
> >      Size:  26624 bytes.
> >      Type:  Unknown
> >