CTC, BC or LCC

[dellzeqq]

Eh?

indeed

 

[peanut]

Nothing I've posted on these threads bothers me.

I've simply pointed out that those on here whinging about CTC seem to have one common trait - they're not members of CTC.

.

possibly the reason they are not members is because like me they are not happy to be members of the existing organisation.

Your support and defense of CTC is commendable and I am always willing to listen and be persuaded to change my view about anything with reasoned and informed debate.

Where that discussion resorts to throwing personal insults and critism at others for their different views I can only assume that the critisism may have some validity .

I ,like others, can only speak from personal experience and thus far my experience with CTC has not been a good one.

With respect to your suggestion that I apply to join CTC in order to bring about change ....the saying 'flogging a dead horse' comes to mind

 

[peanut]

The only criticism that I have made is that there are people whinging about CTC who are not members and not contributing to CTC.

does that mean that they do not have a valid viewpoint ?
I should have thought that given the general tone and vective used on this thread there must be something of substance in their critisism ?

I am glad that you pointed out that the CTC are taking a strong stance against compulsory helmets . I stand corrected as I strongly support that stance myself.

I am sure there are many other worthy things that CTC have achieved that have benefitted me and other cyclists . its a pity that they seem to have such a poor reputation outside of their own portals.

 

[dellzeqq]

the facts are fairly straightforward. Joining the CTC affords you certain benefits - not least the opportunity to join in the rides, but also a magazine that is better now than it's been in my memory, third party insurance without which you'e be daft to ride around, legal advice, technical advice, and so on and so forth.

As it happens the CTC's members also pay for a lot of campaigning work which benefits all cyclists, and the CTC's volunteers pass comment when consulted on highway schemes. CTC members also run Doctor Bike sessions.

If you don't want to be a member, that's fine. But, if you're not a member stop bleating about what the CTC hasn't done for you. I, and tens of thousands of others, pay our £36. If we don't think we're getting what we've paid for we'll complain to people like User.

I thnk the problem with BC is that it's not independent. I accept that the independence of the LCC and, to a degree, the CTC is compromised by their work for the government and local authorities, but you'd never have got BC to organise a mailing campaign that led to the offing of a Government minister in the way the CTC (with LCC support) organised the campaign over the Highway Code - which Peanut, Crankarm and Hilldodger all benefited from. Don't trouble to say thankyou.

 

[Hilldodger]

organised the campaign over the Highway Code - which Peanut, Crankarm and Hilldodger all benefited from. Don't trouble to say thankyou.

Typical CTC arrogance. We've done this and all cyclists should bow down and worship the CTC.

I'm glad I'm not a member and never will be with such arrogance about.

 

[peanut]

I wasn't criticising CTC I was criticising the attitude of some of its membership.

I was about to apply for membership of CTC when I was banned from their forum without warning or explanation. Its that kind of summary determination that has unfortunately coloured my judgement of CTC as a whole

 

[dellzeqq]

if its one thing I can't abide its the resentful attitude of club members who begrudge the benefit that non members derive from their membership subscription.

Nobody resents it. People pay their subs because they think that the campaigning arm of the CTC does some good.

As for getting banned from the forum - sorry, but if you weren't even a member at the time I really can't see the problem.

 

[Lizban]

So who do I join!!!!!!! Didn't mean to start ww3

 

[peanut]

I apologise . Its me that is being insulting now. I've removed the offending remark.
The manner in which I was treated has left me very resentful which is going to take time to dissipate.

 

[gavintc]

So who do I join!!!!!!! Didn't mean to start ww3

But, please join one (or more) of them. The legal / insurance support is, I suggest an essential aspect which every cyclist should take.

 

[wafflycat]

So who do I join!!!!!!! Didn't mean to start ww3

Join which ever one takes your fancy.

You don't have to be a cycle tourist to belong to the CTC and you don't have to be involved in cycle racing to belong to BC.

The Family Wafflycat are currently members of BC (silver) and are happy with that.

 

[dellzeqq]

But, please join one (or more) of them. The legal / insurance support is, I suggest an essential aspect which every cyclist should take.

All the more so nowadays - motor insurers have hit upon the wizard wheeze that is the counterclaim.

1. Car hits cyclist
2. Cyclists sends letter to car driver asking for money to fix bike/skull/whatever
3. Car driver sends letter to insurer
4. Insurer sends letter to cyclist saying 'we're claiming £x000 from you for the damage your bike/skull/whatever did to the front bumper of our customer's car.
5a. Cyclist without cover retreats not wishing to get in to expensive legal battle
or
5b. Cyclist with 3rd party cover and free legal advice and, possibly free legal help goes to law without fear of counterclaim

 

[Twanger]

So, it's who has the best lawyers?

I joined LCC, but out of whim, not because I had a reason not to join CTC.

 

[dellzeqq]

I think the lawyers are all pretty good. That's what they do. They don't lose many.

The barrister that defended ed o'brain at his appeal was stonkingly good. I just sat there feeling ever so slightly stupid as he squeezed the prosecution witnesses like so much toothpaste. He moved for aquittal after the prosecution case had finished, basically saying 'hey, you want the defence, you can have it, but these chumps are nowhere, so why don't we all piss off for an early lunch'. And he did it for free.

 

[ed_o_brain]

All the more so nowadays - motor insurers have hit upon the wizard wheeze that is the counterclaim.

1. Car hits cyclist
2. Cyclists sends letter to car driver asking for money to fix bike/skull/whatever
3. Car driver sends letter to insurer
4. Insurer sends letter to cyclist saying 'we're claiming £x000 from you for the damage your bike/skull/whatever did to the front bumper of our customer's car.
5a. Cyclist without cover retreats not wishing to get in to expensive legal battle
or
5b. Cyclist with 3rd party cover and free legal advice and, possibly free legal help goes to law without fear of counterclaim

It's absurd isn't it when you look at it from an objective standpoint?
By extrapolation pedestrians need to be insured too.

The law needs changing.

Which is another good reason why I am a CTC member.