join ctc ?

apart from the ctc legal protection what other benefits are there? worth
joining? is it possible household insurance covers the same? (i will
check with them)

yes, i can read their website but i also want real world members/non
members views about it too

and whats all this about under 26's being young people therefore making
me at 32 a not so young person!!! ... ;)

i'll be commuting daily about 15 miles most days and after my hols
moving upto 30 mile as i'll do the return journey too

In news:MPG.19a76217aea667e3989732@news.gradwell.com,
doobrie <doobr1e@TAKEOUTyahoo.co.uk> typed:
> apart from the ctc legal protection what other benefits are there?
> worth joining? is it possible household insurance covers the same? (i
> will check with them)
>

The main reason the family & I belong is to support the main organisation
representing cyclists in the UK. You may or may not value some of the
other benefits.

Tony

--
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work.
I want to achieve immortality through not dying."
Woody Allen

"doobrie" <doobr1e@TAKEOUTyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.19a76217aea667e3989732@news.gradwell.com. ..
> apart from the ctc legal protection what other benefits are there? worth
> joining? is it possible household insurance covers the same? (i will
> check with them)

They lobby for cyclists rights.
If you feel you may enjoy a social ride they will accomodate you.
They are a source of cycling related info.

Pete

It also depends on where you live. I used to belong to the CTC, but living
near London, find the London Cycling Campaign represents my interests
better. They have similar benefits with discounted cycle insurance, etc. I
also found that the CTC often appeared to descend into futile debates as to
whether ATBs were real bikes, and one got the impression that some members
thought that only those who participated in the competitive events were real
events. To be fair, more recently the official line in the CTC magazine was
far more inclusive.

I'd agree with other correspondents that the technical reviews were good,
but tended to be aimed more towards £500+ bikes and the sort of equipment
you'd expect to go with these.

However, the above might be just what you want from an organisation, in
which case go for it.

Michael

"doobrie" <doobr1e@TAKEOUTyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.19a76217aea667e3989732@news.gradwell.com. ..
> apart from the ctc legal protection what other benefits are there? worth
> joining? is it possible household insurance covers the same? (i will
> check with them)
>
> yes, i can read their website but i also want real world members/non
> members views about it too
>
> and whats all this about under 26's being young people therefore making
> me at 32 a not so young person!!! ... ;)
>
> i'll be commuting daily about 15 miles most days and after my hols
> moving upto 30 mile as i'll do the return journey too

On Sat, 16 Aug Michael Harries <mharriesOMIT@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> also found that the CTC often appeared to descend into futile debates as to
> whether ATBs were real bikes, and one got the impression that some members
> thought that only those who participated in the competitive events were real
> events. To be fair, more recently the official line in the CTC magazine was
> far more inclusive.

I think the ATBs issue pretty much resolved yourself, and as you say
the apparent official line is now quite happy with them. However, I'm
a bit worried by the latest flurry of outrage at putting a picture of
some roadies on teh cover and some pictures of road bikes without
mudguards (gasp) inside. Here we go again...

(Also, did anyone understand the bit about wrong side of teh road in
one of the letters of outrage?)

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

"JP" <noone@noone.com> wrote in message
news:WCP%a.7972$z7.871747@wards.force9.net...

>
> I dont represent the CTC , except being a supporter.
> Nor do I like to see a campaigning organisation misreprented.
> Your out of date brush with them belongs in the past, and clearly your
post
> was very misplaced.
> If someone want a cheaper membership them let them get the information as
to
> what that memebership involves.
> The more people that join the CTC the better for all cyclists.
>
> Fine they may have got something wrong (in your eyes)-you're quibbling
over
> a tenner!.
> (I'll leave it for others to judge that if you pay less for something why
> anyone expects to get the same rights of memebership)
> But it does cycling in general no good to harp on over something so
trivial,
> which is now clearly resolved.
>
> get over it!
> Amen!

Because I believe in the need for a campaigning organisation I stood and
fought to get some errors corrected rather than just wave two fingers at
them and walk away. I failed to get them put right the errors (to my
satisfaction) but do seem to have managed to at least get to the situation
where it is now made clear that 'Introductory Membership' is a second class
membership -- that was not the case when I was missold it.

I think it entirely reasonable to have warned the OP that Introductory
Membership is a plastic imitation job -- that way (s)he is in a position to
reach an informed judgement.

What I was quibbling over was not a tenner -- rather it was finding that I
(and all other Introductory Members) was not covered by the CTC 3rd party
insurance. Since anyone joining through the web site was not informed of
this the CTC was placing itself at significant financial risk.

My actions in complaining were 100% justified.

I have not mis-represented the CTC. My original post remains valid -- IM is
a waste of space -- and I can do without some ill informed, self opinionated
busy body such as yourself jumping up & down shouting.

This discussion is closed.

T

PS -- I agree the more people that join the CTC the better.

"Tony W" <tonyREMOVE@chapmore.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bhoiqh$1i5bo$1@ID-161007.news.uni-berlin.de...
> and I can do without some ill informed, self opinionated
> busy body such as yourself jumping up & down shouting.
>
> This discussion is closed.

Flip......I thinked I've logged onto uk.tosspot by mistake...sorry ;-)

Pete

"Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3F408443.8090906@dundee.ac.uk...
> I'd been meaning to join for years, finally got around to it last year.

Likewise myself.
Also I hadn't realised the CTC had been instrumental in obtaining cyclists
rights to use bridleways, something I do a lot of so feel my contribution
worthwhile for that alone.

Pete

In message <slrnbjudhb.173.ian@phlegethon.smithnet>, Ian Smith
<ian@astounding.org.uk> writes
>
>I think the ATBs issue pretty much resolved yourself, and as you say
>the apparent official line is now quite happy with them. However, I'm
>a bit worried by the latest flurry of outrage at putting a picture of
>some roadies on teh cover and some pictures of road bikes without
>mudguards (gasp) inside. Here we go again...
Yeah I had to laugh. Some of the crusty old tourers are dead against
anything lycra and anything without mudguards and DT's.

>
>(Also, did anyone understand the bit about wrong side of teh road in
>one of the letters of outrage?)

Well I assumed the scenic background was European rather than UK, so
technically they should have been riding on the right.

--
Steven Briggs

"Ian Smith" <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnbjudhb.173.ian@phlegethon.smithnet...
>
> I think the ATBs issue pretty much resolved yourself, and as you say
> the apparent official line is now quite happy with them. However, I'm
> a bit worried by the latest flurry of outrage at putting a picture of
> some roadies on teh cover and some pictures of road bikes without
> mudguards (gasp) inside. Here we go again...

Mr Angry bleated on about "Lycra" and "aspirations" etc. What amused me is
that on a CTC organised event I partook of on Sunday the majority seemed to
be wearing some Lycra and/or team tops and/or had "racing bikes".

Pete