[Closed] Why dont you join the CTC? straw poll, serious question

I have. Insurance purposes mainly but also for the campaigning side too

been in since I was 16.

I'm a member of CTC, Sustrans and my local group ([url= http://newcycling.org/ ]Newcastle Cycle Campaign[/url]).

All striving for the same thing through differing means.

If you want anything to change then get behind organisations that are trying to change it. They may not be perfect but they are all we have!

That reminds me, need to renew my membership this week. I'm in it for the insurance, and cos it helps the cause (same reason I'm in CAMRA!)

Been a CTC member for 25 years. Mainly the same reasons as portlyone.

Its not very expensive.

I'm a member of the CTC, partly for the insurance, mainly for the fact that they seem to be the main advocacy group for cyclists. Like GrahamS says,

They may not be perfect but they are all we have!

Joined for the insurance, legal cover and the campaigning side. Really ought to make the effort to get to some of their local rides and events.

[MontyPython]I'm CTC and so is my wife [/MontyPython]

Actually, so are the kids.

i pay more to the bc to get insurance and legal cover

because the CTCs views on alot of things are antiquated and i do not agree with some of their more prominant campaigns so i dont want to be associated with or be funding them.

mostly its the daily mail esque bile that they present as fact on helmets

I haven't.
But I think my local MTB club have.

partially name, partially inertia, partially not sure of the 'benefits' (but then I'm not sure re our local MTB club and I'm still member there). So really no reason not to. Maybe treat myself soon. What's best route to join? Direct?

Do you have to willfully ignore thread titles to be in the CTC?

"Why don't you join..."

Question followed by lots of people saying ' I did and here's why' and one person saying 'I think I might be'.

BC here too, partially because we have to be for various reasons as part of Brownbacks Racing Ltd (i'm on the organisers' team).
the insurance and whatnot outside of our race series is nice to have too.

this is why i don't join the CTC!

I'm not a member of CTC but I am a member of British Cycling - does that count? 😀

Do you have to willfully ignore thread titles to be in the CTC?

No - but you do have to pay attention to the OP's question when he says:
[i]"Why havent you? [b]or indeed have you?[/b]"[/i]

😆

well that's just not fair.

Posing a separate question in the body of the post where no one but a member of the CTC would bother to read as far as.

😳

I've tried to get CTC interested in school projects that I have organised, all based around cycling. They have never even bothered to reply to an email or phone message, so I'm not sure I would want to give them my money.

er, i've just joined BCF, so that i can get lawyered up when i get run over by a *ing * in a car who thinks he's above such things as 'speed limits' because he's thought about going on an 'advanced' driving course, and he's watched Jeremy Clarkson do a power-slide on telly.

where was i?

oh yes, i had a choice: CTC or BCF, i thought it was better to join one, than join neither through indecision, and flipped the coin i keep in my head for just such purposes, which landed in favour of the BCF.

anyway, both seem spectacularly crap at representing mtb'ers and our access grumbles, so why join either? - from a mountain biking perspective, neither of them have done a sodding thing for me.

when my BCF membership comes up for renewal, i'll probably stick with them through laziness, but if see that CTC suddenly start to care about access and stuff, then maybe i'll reconsider...

(i don't expect for one moment that i'll have to reconsider)

Didn't the CTC support that niceway code nonsense?

I'm a BC member and the CTC seem to be happy to stick to "vehicular cycling" and keeping riding a bike as something for beardy old men to do on main roads. BC, or more specifically Chris Boardman in his BC role, sound like they support the safe cycling/'liveable cities' approach that I prefer.

I've tried to get CTC interested in school projects that I have organised, all based around cycling. They have never even bothered to reply to an email or phone message, so I'm not sure I would want to give them my money.

because I don't have spare cash

I'm not a member of any body or organisation to do with cycling (unless you count abcc, which doesn't really apply in this context).

Two reasons really. I'd been mountain biking long before I knew such things existed, so suddenly joining one wasn't going to change what I did, so seems a bit pointless.

The other reason is that I've had some experience of the local crc group through a previous job. I found them to be a bunch of crusty, stuck up, self important pillocks who still treat mountain biking as a passing fad and the poor bastard cousin to "proper" cycling.

Not saying I'm right, just offering an opinion, based on my experience, to answer to op's question.

I'd been mountain biking long before I knew such things existed, so suddenly joining one wasn't going to change what I did, so seems a bit pointless.

The other reason is that I've had some experience of the local crc group through a previous job. I found them to be a bunch of crusty, stuck up, self important pillocks who still treat mountain biking as a passing fad and the poor bastard cousin to "proper" cycling.

mostly its the daily mail esque bile that they present as fact on helmets

Are you sure about that? I am pretty sure the CTC are against helmet compulsion.

They also do a LOT of good work/lobbying on access

I've not joined the CTC, Because I already have a BC membership, I've nothing against the CTC and I would join but being a member of two national cycling organisations at the same time seems like a bit of a waste of money TBH...

BC appear to be more involved in the competition side of cycling generally, and are obviously the UCI sanctioned national level body, although I have seen clubs and events that used CTC affiliation (don't Aston Hill use the CTC?)...

I have noticed a few of the events they are involved in locally, but I've never gotten round to going on one...

Dare I say it, I've always partly assumed that the CTC was geared more towards dusty old fellas trundling about on a Dawes Galaxy with a flask of hot tea, a bird watchers guide and a national trust membership card than us Rad^Gnarr MTBists... I'm sure I'm wrong but I've just never thought of the [I]"Cyclists Touring Club"[/I] as being the default body to support MTBing...

In much the same way that the Caravan club aren't really involved in the British touring car series...

CTC-

[img] [/img]

BC-
[img] [/img]

Not because:

I'm insured under by house contents insuance 3rd party for damageing anything short of a jewl encrusted supercar.

I've never actualy seen them do anything relavent to me. If they stood up and said they were goign to oppose any bridleway sanitation and campaign for footpath access, then maybe I'd join, otherwise, why bother?

I do pay my subs to the local Road club which by default pays for some sort of BC membership I think.

they are anti helmet - im pro helmet

its not just about compulsion with them they are trying to say helmets are a danger in themselves and cherry pick studies that back this without showing the full picture.

Because since they converted to a charity, their members' interests are no longer their primary concern.

Because... er... why would I?

they are anti helmet

On the other hand, CTC does not however take a view on whether or not it is beneficial for individual cyclists to wear helmets – in that respect, [b]we are neither 'pro-' nor 'anti'-helmet[/b]. The evidence on this question is complex and contradictory, providing as much support for those who are deeply sceptical of helmets as for those who swear by them.

Whether or not it is a good idea to wear a helmet may depend on both the rider and the type of cycling they are doing.

Never heard of it...

Which climbing forum?
Any chance of a link?

i can write anything i want on a website.

its the evidence and studies they provide while missing out other contradictory evidence thats just as relivent that makes me form MY opinion that they are anti helmet. Im not pro compulsion either but it wouldnt effect me in anyway as i dont leave the house without it - certainly not on purpose anyway.

Im not pro compulsion either but it wouldnt effect me in anyway as i dont leave the house without it

Trail rat walking to the corner shop:
[img] [/img]

is that how feet work ? be walking for a fair while if you left my house on foot for a pint of milk - unless you milked the cow for it

Having considered it a bit more, I really don't know what the CTC are for or what their charity status actually means, they've really not been all that busy promoting themselves to cyclists, let alone the general public IMO...

I'm possibly in line to be going on a Schools cycling coaching course in the next few weeks organised by... British Cycling.

BC seem to have taken the role of default UK body for just about all forms of competitive cycling from national to grass roots level, as well as being seen as promoters of general participation and training...
I just don't see the same involvement at all levels in all forms of cycling from the CTC... Yes I've just been to their website and it says they do pretty much all the same things as BC, but they're not really pushing themselves forwards as the go to organization...

What have the CTC done to really try and woo people like me into joining? I'm a keen cyclist, an MTBer, a regular commuter and Road cyclist, I enter the odd event, go on group rides, family rides, I own several bikes, spend time and money on various forms cycling, I must fall in their target demomgraphic somewhere, but they just don't seem to be pitching themselves my way really...

BMC member, lapsed 'but rejoining in to-do list' CTC member. Policy details don't over-ride the benefits of either imo and neither promotes anything I'm really against.

Also a Sustrans supporter, may not agree with them 100% either but if we only joined clubs that represented us personally 100% we'd all be in clubs of one ) Sustrans and the BMC, CTC are groups that do good work in areas that I have an interest in that's all. BC is worth supporting on the same basis but less important to me as I don't race, I think CTC/Sustrans covers enough.

Problem with MTB and access etc is that we're all waiting for someone to take the lead for us, meanwhile nothing happens. We're also a minority that's asking for things that proportionally need a lot of time and negotiation etc, so it may be a less-appealing prospect for these groups. Like it or not, wider access routes for school cycling, general transport etc is more important than techy trail access. I joined groups that are making some progress in those areas.

I've tried to get CTC interested in school projects that I have organised, all based around cycling. They have never even bothered to reply to an email or phone message

cookeaa - Member
Having considered it a bit more, I really don't know what the CTC are for or what their charity status actually means, they've really not been all that busy promoting themselves to cyclists, let alone the general public IMO...

I'm possibly in line to be going on a Schools cycling coaching course in the next few weeks organised by... British Cycling.

BC seem to have taken the role of default UK body for just about all forms of competitive cycling from national to grass roots level, as well as being seen as promoters of general participation and training...
I just don't see the same involvement at all levels in all forms of cycling from the CTC... Yes I've just been to their website and it says they do pretty much all the same things as BC, but they're not really pushing themselves forwards as the go to organization...

What have the CTC done to really try and woo people like me into joining? I'm a keen cyclist, an MTBer, a regular commuter and Road cyclist, I enter the odd event, go on group rides, family rides, I own several bikes, spend time and money on various forms cycling, I must fall in their target demomgraphic somewhere, but they just don't seem to be pitching themselves my way really...

Isn't that what I said? 🙂

because the CTCs views on alot of things are antiquated and i do not agree with some of their more prominant campaigns so i dont want to be associated with or be funding them.

This they take some entrenched views I dont always agree [helemts articles are some way from impartial IMHO] with and I view them as the Womens Institute of the cycling world - well meaning but old, outdated and a bit fusty.

BC member for insurance

spend a while deciding BC/CTC, but decided against CTC cos of the vehicular cycling cock. Attitudes like that are a part of the problem.

I joined the CTC for the first time this year. Thinking about getting more into touring as I get older, I've never been interested in racing.

I live on a National Cycle Route and regularly see more foreign tourists than UK riders. I met some guys in Oregon who thought our Sustrans routes were the model they should follow. Any organisation that gets more folks out to enjoy our landscape on a bike is worth the pound a week the membership costs.

I need to fill a flask and get out on a few runs with then local guys.

BC member, for insurance too, plus they are more competition focused.

Member of CTC for national campaigning, insurance and legal advice, and member of Tyne Valley MTB club for local trail/access development.

Which is a point, I need to renew my membership...

Why would I want to spend money and join a charity that does nothing for mountain bikers?

Many years ago CTC announced that mountain bikers no longer had access to the trails on Dartmoor. I was shortly to be holidaying there so gave them a call for more info. Nobody was able to explain this press release.

They were scare-mongering, pure and simple.