London to Brighton night ride, March 6th

[mjr]

As the hole point of the memebership faff is to make sure that a rider who might be harmed by another participant of the ride can be sure his or her damages are covered by an insurance, my (eventually irrelevant) feeling is that LCC memebership should do the trick as well.

If that's the whole concern, why isn't third-party insurance not linked to any campaign or club accepted?

 

[Dogtrousers]

If that's the whole concern, why isn't third-party insurance not linked to any campaign or club accepted?

Going off topic rather, and was covered in detail in this thread but the limit of 5 non CTC members per ride is related to the CTC providing ride organiser insurance (I think). Others can provide fuller answers, but probably best not to clutter up this ride thread with them.

... and to keep things on topic, I too am not a Madeira fan on the basis of (a) the sausages and (b) the coffee. But I do tend to bring my own breakfast and turn round quite quickly after a coffee so my opinions shouldn't carry much weight.

 

[mjr]

Because that was the decision made in setting the club up. Why does this bother you?

Because otherwise this sort of group ride would be great for people like me. I think most cycling clubs have too many bizarre rules and it puts people off, maybe second only to the cult of high speed... but there are other topics in https://www.cyclechat.net/forums/cycling-clubs.49/ where that's discussed, so I'm reminded that FNRttC's 5 non-CTC limit (do you have a way of validating their membership numbers?) comes from the terms of CTC organiser insurance and let's leave it there.

 

[StuAff]

Because otherwise this sort of group ride would be great for people like me. I think most cycling clubs have too many bizarre rules and it puts people off, maybe second only to the cult of high speed... but there are other topics in https://www.cyclechat.net/forums/cycling-clubs.49/ where that's discussed, so I'm reminded that FNRttC's 5 non-CTC limit (do you have a way of validating their membership numbers?) comes from the terms of CTC organiser insurance and let's leave it there.

Bizarre rules? In this case, balderdash. I don't think any Fridays member would argue we have a cult of high speed. More a cult of pootling. And why do you insist on arguing about the rules of a club you don't want to join, and a ride you don't want to do? £18 a year for CTC 3rd party is hardly an onerous burden. Works out as about .25p per mile for last year in my case.
Feel free to organise a ride of your own. If you do, and you do it properly, you might just appreciate why the likes of myself, @redfalo and others (let alone DZ) insist on 3rd party insurance.

 

[Fred Simpson]

Well, I'm a bit new to this forum thing, but I'm not a fan of arguing the nuances of things that actually work pretty well - like the FNRttC. I don't care if we eat on Madeira Drive / Weatherspoon's or whether we stop at the Airport or the Scout Hut in Horley and I don't care if we turn left or right at Wivelsfield Green. I just want to ride and make sure I thank the Organizer (s) before I leave. Please confirm breakfast location though, I need to RV with the wife and my other bike when we are done !

 

[MisterStan]

Can you pop me down as a maybe please?

 

[mjr]

Bizarre rules? In this case, balderdash. I don't think any Fridays member would argue we have a cult of high speed. More a cult of pootling.

Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that FNRttC was one of the clubs where speed deters riders - which is part of why this ride interested me.

And why do you insist on arguing about the rules of a club you don't want to join, and a ride you don't want to do?

As mentioned earlier, I've done non-FNRttC FNRs elsewhere and was interested until I understood this was sort-of an FNRttC one.

£18 a year for CTC 3rd party is hardly an onerous burden. Works out as about .25p per mile for last year in my case.

But it seems daft to be double-insured. Possibly worse than having one insurance, given how some behave when they find out you're double-insured and start arguing over which insurer should handle a claim.

Feel free to organise a ride of your own. If you do, and you do it properly, you might just appreciate why the likes of myself, @redfalo and others (let alone DZ) insist on 3rd party insurance.

I do and I can appreciate why organisers want third-party insurance. It's a shame that CTC's insurance brings a CTC-boosting restriction on numbers of non-CTC riders. A CTC-insured group near me doesn't seem to have this restriction but I'm not sure I dare ask them about it because it may be a mistake (it's never popular to point those out), they ride too fast for me (I've tried and been left to make my own way home) and I'll probably get the "why do you care about a ride you don't do?" aggro from them too!

 

[ianrauk]

Come and do one with us, we are almost entirely lovely.

All of us?

 

[Dogtrousers]

All of us?

Almost

 

[AKA Bob]

@mjray the FNRttC are the most inclusive rides you will probably ever find. The rules have a purpose which once you experience a ride you might understand but I suspect you will never find yourself experienceing the magic......

 

[AKA Bob]

@mjray I imagine if you joined the conversation along the lines "If I don't have CTC membership but I do have XYZ..." the response maybe of been quite positive. It's a bit like ringing customer services and saying your product is xxxxx in the first sentence.........

 

[Wobblers]

I didn't want to get into any unpleasantness

That's most unlike you. Are you sure you're feeling all right?

 

[Wobblers]

Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that FNRttC was one of the clubs where speed deters riders - which is part of why this ride interested me.

As mentioned earlier, I've done non-FNRttC FNRs elsewhere and was interested until I understood this was sort-of an FNRttC one.

But it seems daft to be double-insured. Possibly worse than having one insurance, given how some behave when they find out you're double-insured and start arguing over which insurer should handle a claim.

I do and I can appreciate why organisers want third-party insurance. It's a shame that CTC's insurance brings a CTC-boosting restriction on numbers of non-CTC riders. A CTC-insured group near me doesn't seem to have this restriction but I'm not sure I dare ask them about it because it may be a mistake (it's never popular to point those out), they ride too fast for me (I've tried and been left to make my own way home) and I'll probably get the "why do you care about a ride you don't do?" aggro from them too!

I think it fair to point out that for a very long time, dellzeqq deliberately did not push the insurance angle. He wanted you to be a CTC member, because it was a CTC ride, but there was no obligation. It was only when the rides became very large that this became untenable from a liability point of view. In fact, the whole idea of wrapping the FNRttC into a club was to ensure that adequate insurance was in place. This wasn't a decision that was made lightly! All CTC rides have the maximum 5 non-CTC member restrictions. It's just that most aren't large enough or popular enough to have that as a major issue. The FNRttC is. It's a great shame, because I know it has discouraged some (perhaps many) people taking part in something that is unique and special. But I also know that dellzeqq put a great deal of effort into getting round this thorny insurance issue. This, alas, was the very best solution - all the others were worse, in that the rides would have been less inclusive, more limited, more conditions and much more expensive.

 

[mjr]

@mjray I imagine if you joined the conversation along the lines "If I don't have CTC membership but I do have XYZ..." the response maybe of been quite positive. It's a bit like ringing customer services and saying your product is xxxxx in the first sentence.........

Given the restriction from CTC's insurance, I'm not sure how the eventual understandable response could have been better. I didn't say anything was xxxxx - what I did was more like ringing customer service and asking why it only fits Presta valves...

 

[slowmotion]

Given the restriction from CTC's insurance, I'm not sure how the eventual understandable response could have been better. I didn't say anything was xxxxx - what I did was more like ringing customer service and asking why it only fits Presta valves...

McWobble gave the history. dellzeqq agonised about the insurance angle and consulted everybody at length. An agreement was reached by mutual consent from all those who were doing the FNRttCs. It inevitably meant compromises, but we live in an imperfect world. Please don't think that the rides are bound by a strict set of rules. Don't overtake on the inside, stop at red lights, and give way to old ladies pretty much sums them up. The other safety suggestions are just plain common sense.

Give it a spin.