join ctc ?

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Doobrie, Aug 15, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Doobrie

    Doobrie Guest

    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
     
    Tags:


  2. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    In news:[email protected], doobrie <[email protected]> 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
     
  3. I'm an Irish member.

    It's worth it for the excellent magazine and on the one occasion I sought it (a touring Route in
    Scotland), the excellent touring advice.
     
  4. Tony W

    Tony W Guest

    "doobrie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > apart from the ctc legal protection what other benefits are there?

    If you join make sure you DO NOT take the Introductory Membership. This is not Introductory -- it is
    a CON -- a second class membership without any of the important benefits.

    In particular it comes WITHOUT insurance,

    Avoid it -- it is a cheap plastic imitation membership.

    T
     
  5. Peter B

    Peter B Guest

    "doobrie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > 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
     
  6. Jp

    Jp Guest

    "Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "doobrie" <[email protected]yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > apart from the ctc legal protection what other benefits are there?
    >
    > If you join make sure you DO NOT take the Introductory Membership. This
    is
    > not Introductory -- it is a CON -- a second class membership without any
    of
    > the important benefits.
    >
    > In particular it comes WITHOUT insurance,
    >
    > Avoid it -- it is a cheap plastic imitation membership.
    >
    > T

    Why is it a con seems they are being very open about it?

    http://www.ctc.org.uk/about/MemCosts.aspx Special 1st Yr Rate Restricted Benefits call 0870 873 0061

    Which part didn't you understand?
     
  7. Tony W

    Tony W Guest

    "JP" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:iOk%[email protected]...
    >
    > Why is it a con seems they are being very open about it?
    >
    > http://www.ctc.org.uk/about/MemCosts.aspx Special 1st Yr Rate Restricted Benefits call 0870
    > 873 0061
    >
    > Which part didn't you understand?

    They are open about it now.

    Which part didn't I understand? The part about no insurance, no access to services and no access to
    any staff that gave a shit about the problem -- indeed there was 'no problem' according to senior
    CTC people.

    I battled long and hard with CTC because they did not make the restrictions clear when I joined --
    and, indeed, removed benefits after I had raised the issue. If they have improved their description
    I am pleased (and I probably had more than a little to do with getting it changed). However, I still
    feel I was conned (despite a miserly offer to 'correct' the situation).

    CTC at Godswaitingroom know my opinion of 'Introductory Membership' -- its shit. Its not worth the
    money. It is a second class, third rate membership that no-one in their right mind would take.

    I am only still a member of CTC because of the local activity. Normally I would walk away from any
    organisation that provided me with such shoddy, second class service.

    T
     
  8. Jp

    Jp Guest

    "Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "JP" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:iOk%[email protected]...
    > >
    > > Why is it a con seems they are being very open about it?
    > >
    > > http://www.ctc.org.uk/about/MemCosts.aspx Special 1st Yr Rate Restricted Benefits call 0870
    > > 873 0061
    > >
    > > Which part didn't you understand?
    >
    >
    > They are open about it now.
    >
    > Which part didn't I understand? The part about no insurance, no access to services and no access
    > to any staff that gave a shit about the problem -- indeed there was 'no problem' according to
    > senior CTC people.
    >
    > I battled long and hard with CTC because they did not make the
    restrictions
    > clear when I joined -- and, indeed, removed benefits after I had raised
    the
    > issue. If they have improved their description I am pleased (and I
    probably
    > had more than a little to do with getting it changed). However, I still feel I was conned (despite
    > a miserly offer to 'correct' the situation).
    >
    > CTC at Godswaitingroom know my opinion of 'Introductory Membership' -- its shit. Its not worth the
    > money. It is a second class, third rate
    membership
    > that no-one in their right mind would take.

    That's up to other to decide.

    > I am only still a member of CTC because of the local activity. Normally I would walk away from any
    > organisation that provided me with such shoddy, second class service.
    >
    > T

    So as they are now (according to you ) clear about the restrictions; you should retract your earlier
    rant., since your comments clearly no longer apply.
     
  9. Ian Smith

    Ian Smith Guest

    On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 22:33:47 +0100, doobrie <[email protected]> wrote:

    > 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)

    In order of usefulness:

    1: gets another person classed as cyclist, so when campaigning CTC can point out that x,000 people
    are interested in cycling

    2: Equipment reviews that consider issues other than how cool it is, what colour it is. (Like, will
    it still work when it's not spanking brand new, and how useful is it anyway).

    3: A magazine apparently intended to be read by adults

    4: Insurance

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

    Tony W Guest

    "JP" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:EEp%[email protected]...
    >
    > So as they are now (according to you ) clear about the restrictions; you should retract your
    > earlier rant., since your comments clearly no longer apply.

    No -- my warning that its a second rate form of membership stands. It does the CTC no credit that
    they offer this -- and it does them less credit that they mis-sold it at any time. I do accept that
    they now warn you that it is a restricted membership -- something they were not doing when I joined
    and something that it took considerable effort for them to 'clarify'. Since they have never accepted
    they were at fault I continue to feel justified in calling it a con.

    Can I suggest you withdraw the accusation of a 'rant'. In my original post I made 3 statements:-

    1. If you join make sure you DO NOT take the Introductory Membership. This is not Introductory --
    it is a CON -- a second class membership without any of the important benefits.

    All TRUE except I am happy to withdraw 'it is a con' as the promotion of it has marginally improved
    -- though I still feel very strongly that in my particular case it was a CON.

    2. In particular it comes WITHOUT insurance,

    TRUE

    3. Avoid it -- it is a cheap plastic imitation membership.

    Colourful but TRUE

    If you represent the CTC in some official capacity may I suggest you convince them to improve their
    customer service. I remain a dissatisfied member for the local activity and because I believe
    cycling needs a body to represent it. They even do some good work and I am sure dedicated and
    underpaid people work hard and long to represent cycling. However, I am not in the least impressed
    by the way this particular issue was handled in general and remain angry at the way I was treated in
    particular.

    T
     
  11. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    in article [email protected], doobrie at [email protected] wrote
    on 15/8/2003 10:33 pm:

    > apart from the ctc legal protection what other benefits are there?

    They posted a job I could apply for - what better benefit could there be ;-)

    Please join. The CTC has important work to do in campaigning for cycling, and the more of us join
    the greater weight their campaigning has, and the more resources are available. And the insurance is
    worthwhile. And the mag is good.

    Guy
     
  12. 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > 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
     
  13. Ian Smith

    Ian Smith Guest

    On Sat, 16 Aug Michael Harries <[email protected]> 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|
    |/ \|
     
  14. Jp

    Jp Guest

    "Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "JP" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:EEp%[email protected]...
    > >
    > > So as they are now (according to you ) clear about the restrictions; you should retract your
    > > earlier rant., since your comments clearly no longer apply.
    >
    >
    > No -- my warning that its a second rate form of membership stands. It
    does
    > the CTC no credit that they offer this -- and it does them less credit
    that
    > they mis-sold it at any time. I do accept that they now warn you that it
    is
    > a restricted membership -- something they were not doing when I joined and something that it took
    > considerable effort for them to 'clarify'. Since they have never accepted they were at fault I
    > continue to feel justified
    in
    > calling it a con.
    >
    > Can I suggest you withdraw the accusation of a 'rant'. In my original
    post
    > I made 3 statements:-
    >
    > 1. If you join make sure you DO NOT take the Introductory Membership. This is not Introductory
    > -- it is a CON -- a second class membership without any
    of
    > the important benefits.

    That's up to the individual to acess what is an important benefit and what isnt.

    > All TRUE except I am happy to withdraw 'it is a con' as the promotion of
    it
    > has marginally improved -- though I still feel very strongly that in my particular case it
    > was a CON.

    Translation of 'now marginally improved'--bledding obvious.

    > 2. In particular it comes WITHOUT insurance,
    >
    > TRUE
    >
    > 3. Avoid it -- it is a cheap plastic imitation membership.
    >
    > Colourful but TRUE
    FALSE It's up to the individual to acess what is an important benefit and what isn't.

    > If you represent the CTC in some official capacity may I suggest you convince them to improve
    > their customer service. I remain a dissatisfied member for the local activity and because I
    > believe cycling needs a body
    to
    > represent it. They even do some good work and I am sure dedicated and underpaid people work hard
    > and long to represent cycling. However, I am
    not
    > in the least impressed by the way this particular issue was handled in general and remain angry at
    > the way I was treated in particular.
    >
    > T

    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!
     
  15. Tony W

    Tony W Guest

    "JP" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:WCP%[email protected]...

    >
    > 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.
     
  16. Tony R

    Tony R Guest

    "Michael Harries" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:_Ww%[email protected]...
    > 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.......
    >
    > Michael

    Seconded. when I lived in London I was a member of both for one year. I let the CTC membership
    lapse. The LCC was, not unnaturally, more in tune with the problems etc. of an urban commuter (I
    felt). Also, the magazine, though less professionally produced, wiped the floor with the CTC one. It
    was funnier, harder edged and less conservative. I should add the caveat that my year of dual
    membership was about 10 years ago so much may have changed. I'm actually thinking about rejoining
    the CTC. I believe some of their insurance/legal benefits may apply in Ireland . Anyone know for
    sure (Gearoid)? And do they campaign here? I can't recall hearing spokespersons on the radio whereas
    the AA seem to have a very strong presence. tony R.
     
  17. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    doobrie wrote:
    > 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)

    I'd been meaning to join for years, finally got around to it last year. The main reason to join up
    was to put a bit more power in the cycle lobby: I know I can live without the other benefits, I've
    been doing it for years, but no regrets with parting from the cash. They give the impression of
    having hearts and minds in more or less the right places, and actively campaigning for cycling from
    a cyclist's perspective (as opposed to the "well, my political party is for cycle paths, because
    even though I know nothing about them, they sound like they must be safe, and we all know the roads
    are too dangerous" noises others seem to make).

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
    http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
  18. Peter B

    Peter B Guest

    "Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > 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
     
  19. Peter B

    Peter B Guest

    "Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > 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
     
  20. In message <[email protected]>, Ian Smith <[email protected]> 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
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...