# FNRttC - could it be a club?



## dellzeqq (1 Dec 2010)

I've got a bit of a problem. The CTC's 5x5 rule is catching me out, and I've also been warned that the insurers might see everybody playing a part in the ride as a sort of leader, which would mean that I would have to register _each and every one_ of the regulars as Rides Leaders - and, by extension, only CTC members could register as Rides Leaders, which would mean that LCC and BC members and those not members of any club (and that would include some of our most experienced and able riders) would be barred from assisting with the running of the ride. (Some of you - more of you than know about it - are already registered as Cheam and Morden Rides Leaders and your position is fine....).

There are ways forward - and I'm grateful to Rob Fuller of the CTC for his advice on this......

I could register each and every ride as an event. That could well mean that each and every one of you would have to sign a disclaimer prior to each ride. And it would mean that there would be notice in Cycle two or three months ahead of time, which would be a bit of a flop because people would be wanting to register in advance of the ride opening.........

or

I could start a club, and insist that all non-CTC members join a new FNRttC Club. This would mean that every rider would have to pay a quid at the beginning of the year, (whether they were members of the CTC or not), and all the non CTC/LCC/BC members could then join the CTC or LCC as affiliate members for £12. I'd have to ask about the Tandem Club and AUK. Anyway - this goes against the 'free ride' thing, which is a shame, and, given my inadequacies with spreadsheets would probably be regarded by those I have annoyed with my criticism of the CTC membership system as a petard-hoist of the first order. One benefit would be that people who affiliated to the CTC would get third party insurance, which from my point of view would be a good thing. Should 'B-52 Stu' bounce off a catseye and wipe out half a dozen Wayfinders they could all claim on his insurance...

To be frank either way is a pain in the butt. I don't mind (correction, I usually don't mind) the correspondence that goes with the job, particularly with new riders, but I do the list thing through gritted teeth, and the prospect of extra listery doesn't appeal BUT what I'm most concerned about is the reaction of the great number of people the ride relies on.

Anyway...your thoughts please......

oh, one thing. Techwizzery ideas are all well and good, but bear in mind who you're dealing with........


----------



## theclaud (1 Dec 2010)

It's a bit of a shame, as it's rather refreshing that at the moment people can be welcomed on the ride with so few caveats and so little administrative faff, but I'd say the club option sounds better than the event one. I'm unclear as to whether non-CTC/LCC members would be obliged to do the £12 affiliate membership thing, or whether the quid gets them on the ride and that's an optional benefit? Personally if I'd persuaded a newbie to come along I'd bung you the quid on their behalf without troubling them about it, but if they have to start filling in forms it's a different matter.


----------



## User169 (1 Dec 2010)

Could there be a vote on whether or not to convert the club into a charity?


----------



## Ravenbait (1 Dec 2010)

What's the 5x5 rule?

Sam


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Dec 2010)

theclaud said:


> It's a bit of a shame, as it's rather refreshing that at the moment people can be welcomed on the ride with so few caveats and so little administrative faff, but I'd say the club option sounds better than the event one. *I'm unclear as to whether non-CTC/LCC members would be obliged to do the £12 affiliate membership thing,* or whether the quid gets them on the ride and that's an optional benefit? Personally if I'd persuaded a newbie to come along I'd bung you the quid on their behalf without troubling them about it, but if they have to start filling in forms it's a different matter.


they wouldn't but I'd lean on them. I know that quite a few people have joined the CTC as a result of going on the ride, but I've never felt able to make a big point of it because £38 is a lot of money. £12 is more do-able.


----------



## Davywalnuts (1 Dec 2010)

Personal insurance issues and loyalties aside, would making the fnrttc a non-CTC and non-anything to the point ride, negate this predicament?


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Dec 2010)

Ravenbait said:


> What's the 5x5 rule?
> 
> Sam


remember.....you asked!

http://www.ctc.org.u...mber_Groups.pdf
right hand column toward the top....... 

and for affiliates
http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Go_Biking_with_CTC/2010_10_01_Insurance_Fact_Sheet-Affiliates.pdf


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Dec 2010)

Davywalnuts said:


> Personal insurance issues and loyalties aside, would making the fnrttc a non-CTC and non-anything to the point ride, negate this predicament?


it would mean that if I screwed up and you died your grieving relatives could sue me but they would have to make do with the proceeds of my selling Legg Villas. And I'd have to move in with RichP


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Dec 2010)

Delftse Post said:


> Could there be a vote on whether or not to convert the club into a charity?


there was always going to be one smartypants......it was just a matter of who


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Dec 2010)

theclaud said:


> It's a bit of a shame, as it's rather refreshing that at the moment people can be welcomed on the ride with so few caveats and so little administrative faff, but I'd say the club option sounds better than the event one. I'm unclear as to whether non-CTC/LCC members would be obliged to do the £12 affiliate membership thing, or whether the quid gets them on the ride and that's an optional benefit? Personally if I'd persuaded a newbie to come along I'd bung you the quid on their behalf without troubling them about it, *but if they have to start filling in forms it's a different matter.
> *


Whatever happens people are going to be filling in forms. Not least your ob'd'nt s'v'nt..

Let's be fair. I've got away with it so far, but, insurance being insurance it would be unreasonable to expect that you could get it with no effort for ever. And Rob is intent on helping because (the veil of modesty is about to slip, peeps) _There is no question about the high standards with which you run the FNRttC. I can honestly say that the rides are as well run as any I have seen or taken part in both within and external to, CTC. Equally your drive and commitment to sign up new members via the rides are well recognised.
_
It's simply this - the insurance is arranged around the traditional club run. We're a bit different.


----------



## StuAff (1 Dec 2010)

theclaud said:


> It's a bit of a shame, as it's rather refreshing that at the moment people can be welcomed on the ride with so few caveats and so little administrative faff, but I'd say the club option sounds better than the event one. I'm unclear as to whether non-CTC/LCC members would be obliged to do the £12 affiliate membership thing, or whether the quid gets them on the ride and that's an optional benefit? Personally if I'd persuaded a newbie to come along I'd bung you the quid on their behalf without troubling them about it, but if they have to start filling in forms it's a different matter.




+1.


----------



## Davywalnuts (1 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> it would mean that if I screwed up and you died your grieving relatives could sue me but they would have to make do with the proceeds of my selling Legg Villas. And I'd have to move in with RichP



Eeeek! Didnt realise it was that well regulated... kinda takes the enjoyment out of what is essentially our joy.


----------



## Ravenbait (1 Dec 2010)

Aha. Thanks.

I don't organise CTC rides, thankfully.

Sam


----------



## rich p (1 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> it would mean that if I screwed up and you died your grieving relatives could sue me but they would have to make do with the proceeds of my selling Legg Villas. And I'd have to move in with RichP




If Susie's in the deal I'm more than willing to consider it.


----------



## rich p (1 Dec 2010)

Is it not possible to advertise the ride 3 months in advance in Cycle with a later opening date for entries? Say, about 1 month ahead of the ride.


----------



## theclaud (1 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> Whatever happens people are going to be filling in forms. Not least your ob'd'nt s'v'nt..
> 
> Let's be fair. I've got away with it so far, but, insurance being insurance it would be unreasonable to expect that you could get it with no effort for ever. And Rob is intent on helping because (*the veil of modesty is about to slip, peeps*) _There is no question about the high standards with which you run the FNRttC. I can honestly say that the rides are as well run as any I have seen or taken part in both within and external to, CTC. Equally your drive and commitment to sign up new members via the rides are well recognised.
> _
> It's simply this - the insurance is arranged around the traditional club run. We're a bit different.



Who'd have thought it? 

Once you get them on the ride, as far as I'm concerned you can corner them in the Madeira and threaten that unless they join the CTC immediately, Rich will repeat the toilet story _ad nauseam_. You can even march them to the cashpoint. It's the slight barrier to getting them there in the first place I'm thinking about. People have either not heard of the CTC, or they think it's weird/don't really get it. You used the word "carefree" somewhere else about the ride - I think that's part of its attraction.


----------



## redjedi (1 Dec 2010)

I would have no problem with paying £13 a year to attend the FNRs as I try to make as many as possible, for me it would work out at less than £1 a ride.

I'm not a member of CTC/LCC but I do have personal and third party cycle insurance which also covers racing events.

But I can see that it would then be a problem trying to get new riders joined up. Paying £13 for possibly going on only one ride could be a big turn off for a lot of beginners. 
I know a couple of people who are eager to give it a try next year, but I doubt they would be a regular and having to pay may put them off altogether.


----------



## Origamist (1 Dec 2010)

I'd not want to join any club that would accept Rich P as member.


----------



## theclaud (1 Dec 2010)

Origamist said:


> I'd not want to join any club that would accept Rich P as member.



Oi! I was going to say that. That's two obvious gags I've been beaten to.


----------



## rich p (1 Dec 2010)

Origamist said:


> I'd not want to join any club that would accept Rich P as member.




Grouchy Matts if I'm not mistaken


----------



## frank9755 (1 Dec 2010)

The club idea sounds best to me. 

Getting 70-odd disclaimers signed and filed away on a dark, wet, windy night at HPC sounds dull and fraught with potential for omissions (and you would need a saddlebag to put them all in).

The problem with the club is, as others point out, that it raises the entry barriers for new joiners. But many clubs, including of course CTC sections, allow people to do a couple of rides before they are then obliged to join. Could we/you do that? If so, I think that removes the barrier. Then if new member wants to keep coming, s/he is, presumably, happy to join the club.


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Dec 2010)

rich p said:


> Is it not possible to advertise the ride 3 months in advance in Cycle with a later opening date for entries? Say, about 1 month ahead of the ride.


that's what I'd do, but, trust me on this, they would be e-mailing me from the moment that the mag hits the doormat. I do the four week thing for a reason - people try to block book in advance in a way that makes one fear for the admissions tutor at Eton.


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Dec 2010)

frank9755 said:


> The club idea sounds best to me.
> 
> Getting 70-odd disclaimers signed and filed away on a dark, wet, windy night at HPC sounds dull and fraught with potential for omissions (and you would need a saddlebag to put them all in).
> 
> The problem with the club is, as others point out, that it raises the entry barriers for new joiners. But many clubs, including of course CTC sections, allow people to do a couple of rides before they are then obliged to join. Could we/you do that? If so, I think that removes the barrier. Then if new member wants to keep coming, s/he is, presumably, happy to join the club.


I see where you and TC are coming from. First time, just give me the thing on the basics. The day after the ride, e-mail asking if they've enjoyed themselves, and, if you want to come a second time, it's a quid to join and why don't you go for the affiliate membership while you're about it (I genuinely think that you're nuts if you ride out without third party insurance). It's a possibility. I would have to limit this to five first timers, but most non-CTC first timers are brought in on personal recommendations, amd I take TC's point about the quid not being too big a deal in that case.

Thanks, Frank and TC. That's a pretty buff team effort! 

By the way, I have asked Rob if each rider could just sign one disclaimer at the beginning of the year, which would save aggravation, and I imagine he's having to go back to the underwriters.....


----------



## ChrisKH (1 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> it would mean that if I screwed up and you died your grieving relatives could sue me but they would have to make do with the proceeds of my selling Legg Villas. *And I'd have to move in with RichP
> *



That really is above and beyond. What with all the used crisp packets and the subscription to 'Titanium Hip Joint Weekly' (unabridged audio version) coming through the post.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Dec 2010)

Right now I'd rather eat worms than renew my CTC membership. I'll be sourcing my own 3rd party insurance via another route in future.

I'd happily pay £25-a-year to keep Dell in talc for his tubes. I'd even chuck some beer tokens such a clubs way, if asked nicely by a Susie or a Claud, to subsidise a keep it free for noobs fund. Which could be a charitable endeavour and eligible for gift aid btw.

Such largesse is one of the benefits of middle age middle income ism!

My local club has a simple rule for noobs 5 rides and you join or don't ride with us again.


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Dec 2010)

hhhmmm....talcum powder...(ruminates)


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Dec 2010)

got to be some perks for the club president surely?


----------



## Wobblers (1 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> that's what I'd do, but, trust me on this, they would be e-mailing me from the moment that the mag hits the doormat. I do the four week thing for a reason - people try to block book in advance in a way that makes one fear for the admissions tutor at Eton.



You could always set up an email address exclusively for FNRttC registrations and have it automatically reply to such emails with a standard "come back when registrations are open message" such as:

_Thank you for your interest. Please note the date for registration is still in the future, you unobservant clot. Kindly email me then. In the meantime, your message has been redirected to electronic oblivion.

_Only perhaps with less politeness


----------



## Wobblers (1 Dec 2010)

Actually, I like the idea of a FNRttC club. Especially if it gets its own FNRttC jersey! Most clubs allow non-members to join their club runs on a trial basis so it could still be free to try for new riders. A quid is a nominal sum and, well, the third party insurance is the reason I'm a CTC member anyway. But the admin would doubtless take up an incredible amount of time.


----------



## clivedb (1 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> I see where you and TC are coming from. First time, just give me the thing on the basics. The day after the ride, e-mail asking if they've enjoyed themselves, and, if you want to come a second time, it's a quid to join and why don't you go for the affiliate membership while you're about it (I genuinely think that you're nuts if you ride out without third party insurance). It's a possibility. I would have to limit this to five first timers, but most non-CTC first timers are brought in on personal recommendations, amd I take TC's point about the quid not being too big a deal in that case.
> 
> Thanks, Frank and TC. That's a pretty buff team effort!



Sorry that you're faced with this, Simon. However, if it's not possible to carry on as before, then this version of the club seems the best option. It should avoid losing the openness of the ride, which is crucial to the ambience you have fostered. However, to take up your point about managing yet more lists, and so on, if there is a club then you could surely recruit some help to deal with the admin in the same way as you have for the actual rides. I would offer myself, but you would need someone a bit more efficient and competent with spreadsheets than I am.


----------



## StuAff (1 Dec 2010)

AdrianC said:


> "Do you believe society will be better off if CTC works to bring the benefits of cycling to all, or do you believe CTC is a self serving members club? If you instinctively know the answer to that question you know whether you support Cyclists’ Touring Club becoming a charity."
> 
> Perhaps an example can be set be arranging a more inclusive rides insurance




Well said. That 5x5 rule is flawed, and could be said to illustrate the pro-charity lobby's attitude towards the membership.


----------



## StuAff (1 Dec 2010)

McWobble said:


> Actually, I like the idea of a FNRttC. Especially if it gets its own FNRttC jersey! Most clubs allow non-members to join their club runs on a trial basis so it could still be free to try for new riders. A quid is a nominal sum and, well, the third party insurance is the reason I'm a CTC member anyway. But the admin would doubtless take up an incredible amount of time.




Oh yes, a jersey would be great!


----------



## StuAff (1 Dec 2010)

AdrianC said:


> So long as it is black


----------



## ianrauk (1 Dec 2010)

AdrianC said:


> So long as it is black



And no red........


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Dec 2010)

actually there is no need for spreadsheets at all. plenty of low cost small club membership systems out there hosted on line. Wild Apricot is one example $50 per month for 500 members/contacts ($25 per month for 250) I've implemented in another context.


----------



## Aperitif (1 Dec 2010)

I'm late to this thread.
I think the jersey could be in *black* with a subtle outline of Dennis Norden plastered all over the Madeira back.
No matter what, the jersey would be
"All white on the night".

Or adorn it with some topical 'standards' perhaps? 
Video shirts - let's go for it!
[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crFQpOCDfEc[/media]


It has been a long day.


----------



## frank9755 (1 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> it would mean that if I screwed up and you died your grieving relatives could sue me but they would have to make do with the proceeds of my selling Legg Villas. *And I'd have to move in with RichP*



Would a court really enforce that sort of community punishment? Ken Clarke is even more fiendishly creative than I hitherto gave him credit for!


----------



## Aperitif (1 Dec 2010)

If you were in Ken Clarke's shoes, Frank, you could be easily suede.

(and you wouldn't be prime suspect in the great buffnick scandal that is rocking brighton)


----------



## StuAff (1 Dec 2010)

ianrauk said:


> And no red........



You'd prefer Chel Pompey blue obviously


----------



## StuAff (1 Dec 2010)

How about a KOTM-style design with black polka dots? Representing holes, or bollards as viewed from above


----------



## Aperitif (1 Dec 2010)

Yes. Bollards, Stu


----------



## Flying Dodo (1 Dec 2010)

Although there may well be scope for getting the insurers to look at changing their criteria to cover the FNRttC anyway, long term it may be best to look at making it as a standalone FNRttC Club. *

With the uncertainty concerning the CTC, if at some point in the future you decided you were unable to continue the affiliation to the CTC, as a FNRttCC, it would make it easier to move across to another organisation, such as the LCC. I'm not saying you should or would be considering any changes, just saying it would make life easier.

I'd also agree with Greg's comments about looking at an on-line system. It would make your life so much easier, in being able to automate sending of emails and collate the lists, rather than having to manually build up a mailing list each month.




* would there be enough room on the back of a jersey to fit FNRttCC?


----------



## StuAff (1 Dec 2010)

Flying Dodo said:


> Although there may well be scope for getting the insurers to look at changing their criteria to cover the FNRttC anyway, long term it may be best to look at making it as a standalone FNRttC Club. *
> 
> With the uncertainty concerning the CTC, if at some point in the future you decided you were unable to continue the affiliation to the CTC, as a FNRttCC, it would make it easier to move across to another organisation, such as the LCC. I'm not saying you should or would be considering any changes, just saying it would make life easier.
> 
> ...



+1 to all the above.


----------



## Aperitif (1 Dec 2010)

Can we have a huge '+1' on the jersey too?


----------



## Dan B (1 Dec 2010)

GregCollins said:


> actually there is no need for spreadsheets at all. plenty of low cost small club membership systems out there hosted on line. Wild Apricot is one example $50 per month for 500 members/contacts ($25 per month for 250) I've implemented in another context.


What does it actually do for that money? If all you need is to allow people to self-register, Google Forms is free and will save to a Google Docs spreadsheet.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Dec 2010)

coruskate said:


> What does it actually do for that money? If all you need is to allow people to self-register, Google Forms is free and will save to a Google Docs spreadsheet.



Google forms is a valid option. 

As for Wild Apricot. Quite a bit. Take a look at http://www.ssrfur.com/ as an example, all built on their platform. Not that impressive unless you know it was built and is administered by someone with zero technical knowledge or website skills. The event stuff is quite slick too, esp for 'normal' peeps who don't do this stuff for a living. More info http://www.wildapricot.com/pricing.aspx

I've no connection with them, other than as a user.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Dec 2010)

Jersey; could we have dell's safety talk diagrams in hiviz on the back please?


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Dec 2010)

was my thought.....obviously the piping would be red, white and green rather than the allsorts colours. And it would say FNRttC rather than MOLTENI. But then you knew that. 

I like this quote from the sales blurb _#11 If you know anything about bikes then you certainly know and can respect the Campagnol*a* brand. But did you now they make one helluva nice corkscrew? _


----------



## User482 (2 Dec 2010)

Having only been vaguely aware of the plans for the CTC to become a charity, I meandered over to the CTC forum. Alarming stuff indeed, and in my view in no way in the best interests of its members. I'd be happy to contribute to whatever it costs to arrange and insure the FNRttC, but I wouldn't be keen on any more than the loosest of ties with the CTC.


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Dec 2010)

Hang on there! Forget, for a second, the CTC as a national organisation and think of the CTC as the South West London District Association (and many other local groups and Right to Ride reps) who represent all that's finest in cycling. There's a lot about the organisation that is exemplary. Now and FNRttC club might affiliate to the LCC, but there would be clever reasons for doing that......(money being one)

http://www.flickr.co...nts/2541539675/ shows the jersey to best advantage.................


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> was my thought.....obviously the piping would be red, white and green rather than the allsorts colours. And it would say FNRttC rather than MOLTENI. But then you knew that.
> 
> I like this quote from the sales blurb _#11 If you know anything about bikes then you certainly know and can respect the Campagnol*a* brand. But did you now they make one helluva nice corkscrew? _



Needs an H and a D hand written in either side of the AR in ARCORE


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> Hang on there! Forget, for a second, the CTC as a national organisation and think of the CTC as the South West London District Association (and many other local groups and Right to Ride reps) who represent all that's finest in cycling. There's a lot about the organisation that is exemplary. Now and FNRttC club might affiliate to the LCC, but there would be clever reasons for doing that......(money being one)
> 
> http://www.flickr.co...nts/2541539675/ shows the jersey to best advantage.................



There's a lot about the SW London DA that is exceptional. But no one pays their subs to the SW London DA worse luck.


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Dec 2010)

GregCollins said:


> There's a lot about the SW London DA that is exceptional. But no one pays their subs to the SW London DA worse luck.


very true. It's one of the odd things about the CTC - the local groups only get 18p back from National Office. If the active members of the DA simply walked out and affiliated to the LCC they could save the members paying annually a good deal of money - but the Life Members would be stuffed.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> very true. It's one of the odd things about the CTC - the local groups only get 18p back from National Office. If the active members of the DA simply walked out and affiliated to the LCC they could save the members paying annually a good deal of money - but the Life Members would be stuffed.



a far better model, and one I'm told in days of yore, high wheelers, and gothic typescript the CTC used to use, you pay your subs to your branch, your branch takes their cut and passes the remainder onto the national organisation. 

But very few membership orgs. work that way nowadays, more is the pity. Central control of local activities, it is all a bit 80's.


----------



## PpPete (2 Dec 2010)

GregCollins said:


> Needs an H and a D hand written in either side of the AR in ARCORE



a non-blinding "flasher" on the back...







like this


----------



## Aperitif (2 Dec 2010)

Yes to Molteni style.
Yes to the safety signals fun graphics.
Yes to "Were on our way"
MacB and Topcat1, or Al and Dave, got bespoke merinos from the US. The bulk order price would be very reasonable - they would know more.

£12 p.a. 'subscription - one ride or a dozen&c... the proceeds being invested in the National Lottery as appropriate, with any benefits being used, also appropriately - even returned to the 'investors' as a 'dividend'.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (2 Dec 2010)

Aperitif said:


> Yes to Molteni style.
> Yes to the safety signals fun graphics.
> Yes to "Were on our way"
> MacB and Topcat1, or Al and Dave, got bespoke merinos from the US. The bulk order price would be very reasonable - they would know more.
> ...



Tax on bulk orders (_talking of bulk_...) from the US could possibly do away with any savings.

Subs sound good, monies left over could go to a renewal discount or spent on beer - which I'm taking is 'investors' and 'dividend'


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Dec 2010)

if we went the Club route I'd simply collect the £1, spend it on talcum powder, and pressure those not already signed up to an organisation to take out affiliate membership with our chosen organisation (I suppose there's no reason why the Club could not be affiliated to _both_ LCC and CTC). The affiliate membership fee would go straight to the LCC or the CTC, so there wouldn't be any money within the Club. 

The Martlets ride is a different thing - having every rider covered by 3rd party insurance would be good. Very good.


----------



## PpPete (2 Dec 2010)

Or maybe, to avoid the import duty issue, licence a chinese or HK outfit to produce our design and sell & send direct to individual members? I have a few contacts....
Spin-off benefit is getting supplier to understand that there is a market other than their knock-off copies of pro-team strip.

I've only been on one ride, but hope to go on many more in the future. My £12 is ready & waiting to go...


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Dec 2010)

sorry - I should have said. There's a great shirt maker in Scotland that will do the job for £32 - my TRAT shirt is six years old and still looks good. And JT has put me in touch with somebody who will do the job for about £28. These are obviously printed shirts rather than the real knitted jobs, which might disappoint the fashionistas amongst us. I may be round later with a tape measure....

JT had a clever idea. Why not give all those marshalling on the Martlets ride a shirt? When they joined the ride and (generally) made their way forward, the rest of the riders would recognise them as marshals and would have somebody to ask questions of.


----------



## rich p (2 Dec 2010)

US, marshalls?

Wyatt eaRP please for me


----------



## Ravenbait (2 Dec 2010)

I'm not sure I really have anything to contribute as regards to the Club aspect, sadly. Much as I would like to go on one, I'm far too far north to make it to more than one as a special occasion. Our single overnight century is the Dumb Run, which isn't really organised so much as has a date set for it, and I'm already involved with that (plus it happens on a Saturday).

For those reasons I wouldn't be especially keen to join a club if I had to do so to come on a ride. On the other hand, I'm already a CTC member. And a Tri Scotland race licence holder. I have 3rd party insurance.

Sam


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Dec 2010)

I entirely take your point, Sam. The first person I discussed this with expressed a strong preference for the simplicity of the present arrangement - a preference I share. I just don't think that it's available, so I'm sort of casting around for the next best thing


----------



## mistral (2 Dec 2010)

Well this is most unfair. You can't even get a few mates together for a little ride without .....

I'd agree with many of the others, that the club option is the least worst choice. And without knowing what might be involved, I would be happy to lend a hand in any admin capacity that might be useful, however menial.


----------



## hatler (2 Dec 2010)

Can I foresee a NtOFNRttC in the offing ? (Not the Official FNRttC)


----------



## StuAff (2 Dec 2010)

hatler said:


> Can I foresee a NtOFNRttC in the offing ? (Not the Official FNRttC)




Well, there would have been one tomorrow night but for the snow......!


----------



## gbs (2 Dec 2010)

I did three successive FNRttC rides this year; each ride, in their separate ways, provided a great learning experience for me in my second year on the road. Part of the charm of FNRttC is the somewhat random collection of riders and the relaxed carefree spirit. However I feel that carefree can be over done. Frankly I now think FNRttC should be open only to those who can prove they have third party cover; just consider the risk factors

1. large numbers

2. unspecified requirements re skills/experience/common sense

3. dark

4. tiredness

Two instances form my view. On the Bognor ride those present will recall Stu’s fall on Reigate Hill. Within 500 m of leaving that spot and whilst Stu was being attended to by the ambulance team, I was undertaken (passed on the LHS) by two prats on mountain bikes. I was descending at about 35kph – they must have been travelling at 45kph. I was somewhat shaken. In October, on a group potter in daylight a rider toward the front of a peloton fell into a pothole and 5 riders further back were brought down. I broke my forearm and thumb and another fellow a collarbone. In the first instance had there been accident prat’s insurance would have responded. In the second incident random bad luck has played its part and we have to accept that risk (or have personal injury insurance). 


This does not cover the position of our tireless leader, Simon. Perhaps we should draw an analogy with offshore yacht races in which I was very active some 20 years ago; everyone starts on his own risk and gives an explicit waiver of any claim against the organising club. I do not know if such waivers are effective in the modern nanny state but does this provide a way forward that avoids the administration that would be required to form a club or hold a CTC event?


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Dec 2010)

in the end I have to ask myself - was I negligent? 'B-52 Stu went off the rails approximately two minutes after I told the group 'don't take the piss' but I didn't actually say 'don't run over the catseyes' which, in all honesty, I might have done. Equally the April shenanigans might have been avoided if I'd chosen a different approach down the A1306 - but, then again, there were sound reasons for restricting the speed of the front end of the ride. And what am I supposed to say on Lonesome Lane? - 'don't tear up this tarmac despite it being probably the most fabulous cycling experience you'll ever have'

I'm reminded of this one 

http://www.architect...y.co.uk/?p=4991 _Southwark Primary Care Trust sued the *architects*, engineer Haskins Robinson Waters, contractor YJL London and specialist subcontractor In Situ Rammed Earth for breach of contract and negligence. _Now, according to me (not personally involved, by the way), Southwark PCT had no claim whatsoever, much less the £4M they claimed on a £1.2M building, but the insurance company settled on the courtroom steps and recouped their losses through the next umpteen years' insurance. 

So I do my best. And, actually, the FNRttC's is pretty good. But, yes, it would be a great relief if all those on the ride had 3rd party insurance. A great relief.


----------



## Fab Foodie (2 Dec 2010)

Arrived ath this thread too late to go through all of it other than the opening Salvoes...

FWIW, Freewheeling had to become a 'Club' with a £1 membership fee and a register of riders in order to cover leaders liability insurance. To my mind it's an absolute arse, but there didn't seem to be any way around it to get the necessary insurance.
I just wouldn't want to join a club that would have me as a member....


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Dec 2010)

they insured this lot!!!!! There's hope for us yet!


----------



## StuAff (2 Dec 2010)

Geoffrey's made some good points about third-party insurance. Something I'll have to look at (and no, not because of what happened to me), with LeJOG and Pedal to Paris 2011 in mind. Perhaps I'll join the CTC ('Cycle' usually has an article or two worth reading, and I can vote 'no' to the charity thing!).
And Simon, please, it wasn't your fault. I'd been down there before, safely, several times, so I knew the risks etc, and what went wrong that time I honestly don't know (on account of having no recollection of it whatsoever). Ditto with poor old Andrew in April. It could have happened to anyone, regardless of experience, and regardless of what you said.


----------



## Bollo (2 Dec 2010)

The FNRttC Club was 95% of the way there the moment a jersey was mentioned. I'm firing up Illustrator now.......


----------



## Fab Foodie (2 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> they insured this lot!!!!! There's hope for us yet!



That was taken before the beautiful people joined...


----------



## zigzag (2 Dec 2010)

a bit late to this topic, but i agree with whatever works best to keep the rides going. i tend to avoid belonging to any clubs unless absolutely necessary. the less paperwork, the better. i buy multi-trip travel insurance every year anyway and i hope it covers trips within uk (such as fnrttc or audax) as well. need to reed the fine print.. if it does, i'd be reluctant to pay for cycling insurance twice by joining ctc or other c.


----------



## Dan B (2 Dec 2010)

zigzag said:


> . i buy multi-trip travel insurance every year anyway and i hope it covers trips within uk (such as fnrttc or audax) as well.


I would be surprised if it did. But yes, you need to read the fine print.


----------



## gbs (3 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> in the end I have to ask myself - was I negligent? 'B-52 Stu went off the rails approximately two minutes after I told the group 'don't take the piss' but I didn't actually say 'don't run over the catseyes' which, in all honesty, I might have done.



DLZQ, the answer to yr qn is NO. Thinking like that will lead to safety briefings at HPC that last until dawn! 

In any mass activity with a minimum of regulation (travelling on the tube for example) we have to rely upon the common sense of others. FNRttC has no regulation other than the moral suasion that you as leader can exert. We have to recognise that accidents happpen on group rides, sometimes trivial sometimes not; in the jargon - low probability and potential high impact. Hence, l feel that a requirement to have insurance to provide for any damage to fellow riders is not unreasonable. Recognising the general wish for minimum interference at the level of the individual, refuseniks are free to find their individual cover and others can join CTC, BC or whatever organisation appeals.


----------



## srw (3 Dec 2010)

AdrianC said:


> How much would it cost to get a reasonable level of insurance, covering intra group and 3rd party risks, for a year's worth of FNRttC for up to X riders on any given ride? Preferably without having to specify who those riders are at all.



A trip to an insurance broker would tell Simon that.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Dec 2010)

a company perhaps, a co-operative, a band of sisters and brothers, a society, a club in all but name, each perhaps contributing voluntarily according to their means above a basic level of subscription of £12 for a year?

it had not occurred to me that others on the ride might not have 3rd party insurance. Nor until now had I considered that my own tactics on Reigate Hill, don't touch the brakes, drop like a stone, overtake on the right, might actually scare the wotsits out of others.

food for thought.


----------



## gbs (3 Dec 2010)

GregCollins said:


> y own tactics on Reigate Hill, don't touch the brakes, drop like a stone, overtake on the right, might actually scare the wotsits out of others.
> 
> food for thought.



Greg, go as fast as you like on the *outside*.

The prats I mentioned in my earlier post passed on the inside, with no warning call, into a gap between me and the roadside of about 5 feet. There was plenty of room on the outside so I cannot imagine what was going through their minds at the time.


----------



## PpPete (3 Dec 2010)

AdrianC said:


> What about effectively creating a club but without the word club in the title or any of the detail? My concern here being that clubs can readily be more about excluding than including and many people could be put off having a go if it were so described. It could just be called the FNRttC group insurance policy but just sit in the background.
> 
> To make life easier, the online registration idea has lots of advantages. Tim would be able to write his script to register as soon as it opens whilst he is still asleep after the previous ride. A clever person would be able to get all the names, mobiles and emergency contact numbers uplifted to your phone. A rider sheet can be printed off just before setting off to HPC, or Sloane Sq. Once registered the first time riders can have a rider number (avoiding the word member) which would fill in all their details for them. Certain names could be pre-selected requiring personal contact before confirming registration. It can make people tick the terms and conditions, confirming that the basics have been read. It can confirm the insurance details with options:
> 
> ...




Seems eminently sensible to me.... maybe just add a waiver to be "signed" agreeing that the individual rider will not hold the organisers (Simon principally, but also TECs and wayfinders) liable for anything whatsoever...

I'm thinking along the lines of the audax entry form here - although the circmstances are admittedly somewhat different.

Also... thinking about TECs... when I trained as an unpaid instructor for cycling proficiency scheme (or rather our local council's version thereof - before they decided that it was more cost effective to pay a Bikeability provider) 
I was told that the scheme's insurance covered us to inspect the kids bikes and report any defects - but under no circumstances were we undertake any maintenance or adjustment however simple.	I'm thinking that if a TEC (unless holding some sort of paper that says he is a competent person - like a Cytech qualification?) fixes a riders bike, it opens up a whole minefield of potential liability beyond that of participation in a FNR


----------



## Aperitif (3 Dec 2010)

Pete! You...you don't mean...I'm....going...to get....put...away...for trying to...blow up....this bike?


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Dec 2010)

Actually, Geoff, if you can recall who they are I'd like to know. I've taken to telling people off and warning them not to do stuff again. Overtaking on the left is a particular bugbear.


----------



## deckertim (3 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> I've got a bit of a problem. The CTC's 5x5 rule is catching me out,


I just read the notes on the cover
"A CTC guideline is therefore that there should not be more than 5 non-members on any one ​​*ride*, nor should a non-member participate in a CTC *ride *more than 5 times."​
So it is not a rule, but a guideline. Does this change anything?


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Dec 2010)

deckertim said:


> I just read the notes on the cover
> "A CTC guideline is therefore that there should not be more than 5 non-members on any one ​​*ride*, nor should a non-member participate in a CTC *ride *more than 5 times."​
> So it is not a rule, but a guideline. Does this change anything?


I have taken advice on this, and having it placed on the factsheet gives it some effect. 

Put it this way - if I was applying the guideline and, on one ride, seven non-members turned up then I would argue that a guideline is just a guideline. On the other hand.......having an average number of non-members in excess of 20 is outside of the guideline even if I manage to get a good half of them to join up eventually.


----------



## PpPete (3 Dec 2010)

Aperitif said:


> Pete! You...you don't mean...I'm....going...to get....put...away...for trying to...blow up....this bike?



No, that be classed as mercy killing... you are emigrating to Switzerland aren't you?


----------



## PpPete (3 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> Actually, Geoff, if you can recall who they are I'd like to know. I've taken to telling people off and warning them not to do stuff again. Overtaking on the left is a particular bugbear.



Hands up - I'm guilty.
Mitigating circumstances: up hill, trying to get legs going again after cabin stop, wanting to go quicker (for once) than small group of riders who were all clustered on right hand side of road.
Sorreee!


----------



## Bollo (3 Dec 2010)

PpPete said:


> Hands up - I'm guilty.
> Mitigating circumstances: up hill, trying to get legs going again after cabin stop, wanting to go quicker (for once) than small group of riders who were all clustered on right hand side of road.
> Sorreee!


I found this on the last ride in particular. There were a number of occasions where I came across little groups either spread across the road or certainly taking enough of it to make any sort of safe pass difficult. I'm cool with that generally, but as I'm a little mono-paced up the hills it did become a problem when I was trying to maintain a cadence. Also I witnessed the odd occasion where motorists were held up without good cause because a group was either completely oblivious or unconcerned.

This segues into my personal safety gripe - observation! My commuter instincts have my head swivelling like an owl on speed, especially at the start. I don't expect everyone to share my levels of paranoia, but the odd glance back when changing road position or when you're having a chat and taking the lane would help smooth the flow, allow people past on the right side and reassure me no end. I think some of the problem is that the big group tends to give people a false sense of security and empowerment, causing all those little safety checks to be neglected.

Having said that, there's a difficult balance to strike between keeping safe and turning the ride into an overly regimented club run. 'Echelons to Bognor' would make a great Battle of Britain film title, but it's not what the FNR is about. I guess the trick is to educate newer or less experienced riders enough for them to ride responsibly while not frightening them off with an intimating list of rules and regulations.


----------



## Aperitif (3 Dec 2010)

...or even being an arse like me and falling foul of the Felinfoel - something like that anyway!


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Dec 2010)

PpPete said:


> Seems eminently sensible to me.... maybe just add a waiver to be "signed" agreeing that the individual rider will not hold the organisers (Simon principally, but also TECs and wayfinders) liable for anything whatsoever...
> 
> I'm thinking along the lines of the audax entry form here - although the circmstances are admittedly somewhat different.


I've been thinking through the admin thing.

Cost of affiliating the Club - (say) £75 annually
Subs from each and every rider £1 - which probably gives us £250 in a year. Everybody pays on their first ride of the year. Mercifully the first ride of the year is Southend, but you may see me struggling up Bread and Cheese...
Stick it in a moneybox and use as a float for sandwiches at Rochester or for the occasional taxi fare, or for inner tubes (pre-talced). So everybody is a member of the Club. Except that it's not called a Club. It's called The Friday Night Familiars. Or whatever. The Friday Night Fancy. The Friday Night Fandango and Flapdoodle. The Fridays (very rock and roll). I like The Fridays. 

The basics would be revised 

CTC/LCC/BC number or other 3rd party insurance.
If somebody doesn't have 3rd party I sell them the £12 affiliate thing before their second ride. The £12 just goes straight to CTC/LCC

The basics don't include a waiver, but, to be honest, I've always had my doubts about these. I'm sure that the courts would strike out the standard Events waiver within seconds if there was a sniff of negligence on the part of the organisers

running that off a spreadsheet would be scarcely more onerous than the present system.



PpPete said:


> Also... thinking about TECs... when I trained as an unpaid instructor for cycling proficiency scheme (or rather our local council's version thereof - before they decided that it was more cost effective to pay a Bikeability provider)
> I was told that the scheme's insurance covered us to inspect the kids bikes and report any defects - but under no circumstances were we undertake any maintenance or adjustment however simple. I'm thinking that if a TEC (unless holding some sort of paper that says he is a competent person - like a Cytech qualification?) fixes a riders bike, it opens up a whole minefield of potential liability beyond that of participation in a FNR


All the TECs are experts. The standard of mechanical talent is way higher than the average branch of Evans, and the scope of work considerably smaller. I am, however, toying with the idea of registering all CTC members who TEC as Rides Leaders.


----------



## gbs (3 Dec 2010)

PpPete said:


> Hands up - I'm guilty.
> Mitigating circumstances: up hill, trying to get legs going again after cabin stop, wanting to go quicker (for once) than small group of riders who were all clustered on right hand side of road.
> Sorreee!



PP: No certainly not you; the location was *down *Reigate Hill immediately after Stu's crash.

PS not often am I overtaken going up hill except by young whippets.


----------



## Aperitif (3 Dec 2010)

"The Wellington Architecs" or "The Reigate Hill Mob" (starring Alistair Simplex)


----------



## StuAff (3 Dec 2010)

gbs said:


> PP: No certainly not you; the location was *down *Reigate Hill immediately after Stu's crash.
> 
> PS not often am I overtaken going up hill except by young whippets.




I think Pete was referring to the last ride, not the genteel (he wasn't on that one!)....


----------



## gbs (3 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> I've been thinking through the admin thing.
> 
> 
> 
> The basics don't include a waiver, but, to be honest, I've always had my doubts about these.



Simon, I think you could be a little more optimistic. Waivers should be effective unless gross negligence or wilful misconduct could be proven. The nil payment to leaders should clarify the free asssociation nature of FNTttC so it could be agued that leaders do not have a duty of care. I am not a lawyer so the value of my advice is less than the cost of a postage stamp and my fee invoice will not follow. I expect that someone on the forum will have an authorative view.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Dec 2010)

gbs said:


> Greg, go as fast as you like on the *outside*.
> 
> The prats I mentioned in my earlier post passed on the inside, with no warning call, into a gap between me and the roadside of about 5 feet. There was plenty of room on the outside so I cannot imagine what was going through their minds at the time.


I think the problem arises when THEY are going around the outside and I am going around the outside of them. Overtakers seldom seem to look over the right shoulder on FNRttC and never ever look when in the act of overtaking. I've been the 4th man on the outside, the winger, the guy in the wrong side of the road before now.

My avoir dupois combined with gravity insists I either wear out my brake blocks or overtake.


----------



## gbs (3 Dec 2010)

GregCollins said:


> I think the problem arises when THEY are going around the outside and I am going around the outside of them. Overtakers seldom seem to look over the right shoulder on FNRttC and never ever look when in the act of overtaking. I've been the 4th man on the outside, the winger, the guy in the wrong side of the road before now.



UhHuh - penny has dropped! Never go that fast downhill myself. Happy landings.


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Dec 2010)

I think we're going to have to have a 20mph speed limit on Reigate Hill.

I'm reminded of the Martlets ride. Two stern marshals pulled the riders over at the top of the hll and told them to go down slowly. Chastened, the Martleteers pottered down the hill. When the tail of the ride released the marshals what did they do? All I can tell you is that I heard one of them go 'wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee....' as their brake lights zipped out of sight.


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Dec 2010)

Right, so I'm looking for a blonde.....


----------



## PpPete (3 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> All the TECs are experts. The standard of mechanical talent is way higher than the average branch of Evans, and the scope of work considerably smaller. I am, however, toying with the idea of registering all CTC members who TEC as Rides Leaders.



None of us doubt their expertise.... but in the unlikely event of litigation how would that stand up?

Imagine the BANG on the Brighton ride happening not immediately after puncture had been mended as on that occasion, but halfway down a fast descent a few minutes later...potential for serious accident. Did the TEC check the maximum pressure printed on the sidewall of the tyre? did he have a recently calibrated gauge on his pump ?

We all know this is pretty fanciful....but would a potential insurer see it that way? Does making the TECs "Ride Leaders" give them any particular standing or protection from malicious prosecution?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Dec 2010)

gbs said:


> UhHuh - penny has dropped! Never go that fast downhill myself. Happy landings.



It's because all my instincts are those of an mtb-er where

Speed is your friend
Brakes are for stopping
If applying the brakes without intending to stop you were not going fast enough in the first place.


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Dec 2010)

PpPete said:


> None of us doubt their expertise.... but in the unlikely event of litigation how would that stand up?
> 
> Imagine the BANG on the Brighton ride happening not immediately after puncture had been mended as on that occasion, but halfway down a fast descent a few minutes later...potential for serious accident. Did the TEC check the maximum pressure printed on the sidewall of the tyre? did he have a recently calibrated gauge on his pump ?
> 
> We all know this is pretty fanciful....but would a potential insurer see it that way? Does making the TECs "Ride Leaders" give them any particular standing or protection from malicious prosecution?


it is fanciful. But it raises another question, that I might return to later - which is that each rider has read the basics and said they understand them. That particular tyre was no good (and I can take steps to prevent a repetition). But, in general, if the TEC's is no less careful than one would normally expect, and it's clear that people have a responsibility for their bikes and you consider the risk........


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Dec 2010)

AdrianC said:


> Oh I do hope not. We deliberated at the top of Reigate for quite some time and decided that the warning should end with the phrase "and no ****ing about" with the "about" to be pronounced "abaht". All I can say is that one of them, blonder of hair than the other, spent some time perfecting the correct pronunciation. I would hate to think that, as soon as the rest of us had left, they forgot.



An interesting point. I do a bit of risk management professionally, and have had the safety of others drummed into me in one of my other hobbies (ret'd). So here is my take...

isn't the essence of FNRttC, at least in part, that on your own head be it?

I remember one bike at HPC, a BSO, and me thinking "**** that for a game of soldiers" Sure enough by Gatwick it and its owner were done. If we set off down the road of insisting that people moderate their speed on Reigate or Ditchling or Lonesome or Slugwash, rather than sternly advising them to do so, might we not need to do a Dr Bike before every ride to ensure their bike is safe?

Point is, in short, they are all grown ups, riding on public roads, on a route that has been recce'd by sensible risk averse types, and thus it is up to each rider if it goes Pete Tong unless someone else has been reckless then the victim might have a case. But even then in organised 'sports', like my beloved rugby union, this principle is well established in case law; you know what you are getting into, you know what you might reasonably expect risk wise, and no one forces you to participate. So if the risk triggers, even if the consequences are catastrophic; tough.

Our much maligned H&S culture does seek to remove risk, it seeks to reduce it to levels that are reasonable in relation to the nature of the activity. Cycling, and cycling in a group, and cycling in a group at night, is not without its risks. (Not least burnt out retina if last month's rear lights were owt to go by)

That is not to say lawyers cannot argue another point of view but then disputation is their stock-in-trade.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> it is fanciful. But it raises another question, that I might return to later - which is that each rider has read the basics and said they understand them. That particular tyre was no good (and I can take steps to prevent a repetition). But, in general, if the TEC's is no less careful than one would normally expect, and it's clear that people have a responsibility for their bikes and you consider the risk........



tyre goes bang down Dyke Road Drive. Four other rider, following at speed come off in the ensuing crash, one breaks spinal column, in a chair for life, another is hit by the taxi impatiently tail gating the group, etc., etc.. Evening Argus has a field day. No more night time fun?

Therein lies the reason(s) why I won't let anyone else fix my bikes, (and make the tyres as ******** proof as I can at some expense) and why I have 3rd party insurance. But I do wonder if I need 1st part cover too sometimes. Pothole, cat eye, manhole, bosh, down I go. Goodnight Vienna. Nasty.


----------



## Aperitif (3 Dec 2010)

I think Susie and Claudine, riding together, present an awful hazard to the passing cyclist; one's eyes are immediately averted from the highway and it is an extreme effort to return to the task in hand...
Could this be risque-assessement epitomised?
I'm a bit behind in all this sort of stuff.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Dec 2010)

^ 

I've often thought it, but never said it out loud!


----------



## PpPete (3 Dec 2010)

Aperitif said:


> I think Susie and Claudine, riding together, present an awful hazard to the passing cyclist; one's eyes are immediately averted from the highway and it is an extreme effort to return to the task in hand...
> Could this be risque-assessement epitomised?
> I'm a bit behind in all this sort of stuff.



ROFL.... you ARE going to get some stick...


----------



## dellzeqq (4 Dec 2010)

I'm saying nothing..........

Having spoken to Werner at the LCC Awards ceremony (pauses to simper to camera) we're going to look at Reigate Hill again, and make changes. Werner made the point that with 1000 riders rather than 350 it might be safer - with fewer cyclist on their own crossing the path of cars turning left toward Merstham.


----------



## Flying Dodo (4 Dec 2010)

PpPete said:


> None of us doubt their expertise.... but in the unlikely event of litigation how would that stand up?
> 
> Imagine the BANG on the Brighton ride happening not immediately after puncture had been mended as on that occasion, but halfway down a fast descent a few minutes later...potential for serious accident. Did the TEC check the maximum pressure printed on the sidewall of the tyre? did he have a recently calibrated gauge on his pump ?
> 
> We all know this is pretty fanciful....but would a potential insurer see it that way? Does making the TECs "Ride Leaders" give them any particular standing or protection from malicious prosecution?



I've got witnesses - I told him that both tyres he'd been using were no good!!


----------



## User10119 (4 Dec 2010)

I know that the 'free' thing is important to the spirit of the ride, but I have to say that I think that a quid to try it out and then 12 quid to get the affiliated membership stuff with bonus 3rd party insurance is a blinding good deal. 

Dellzeqq made some comment in passing to me on the way to Cleethorpes about the fact that it was the CTC insurance and ride leader stuff that made it feasible for him to run these rides, so I went away and did a bit of looking on the internet and paid up up for a family membership for the lot of us (although I do believe that we already had 3rd party insurance under our household stuff), although it was and is fairly unlikely that I'l be taking part in a southern FNRTTC beause of geography and work stuff, not to mention The Fear that I have of That London. It seemed like a reasonable thing to do.


----------



## Aperitif (4 Dec 2010)

Flying Dodo said:


> I've got witnesses - I told him that both tyres he'd been using were no good!!


I'll witness that!
His spare tyre was rigid, ungiving, irregular, soft in parts and hard in others - completely the opposite to my spare tyre which is regular, rounded, smooth, equal, and of even consistency, and remains so when 'inflated'.

To be serious: If a rider puts his or her faith in the equipment they turn up with - that's the deal. Many times (not a problem) anyone who has had a little difficulty, has found themselves in a better state to continue than when they arrived. (Often thanks to Tim Os pannier, for the more exotic stuff, or Adrian disappearing into the night...)
New tubes, tyres, once a cable, 'missing links' for 6789 and 10 speed Campag and Shimano - whatever, are dispensed...to get people on the move again and restore confidence. It is part of the 'education' that goes on I guess, although Tim has never educated me into carrying all that c*** along 'just in case'. There would be no room for cake and hipflask(s).


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Dec 2010)

[QUOTE 1259467"]
I know that the 'free' thing is important to the spirit of the ride, but I have to say that I think that a quid to try it out and then 12 quid to get the affiliated membership stuff with bonus 3rd party insurance is a blinding good deal. 

Dellzeqq made some comment in passing to me on the way to Cleethorpes about the fact that it was the CTC insurance and ride leader stuff that made it feasible for him to run these rides, so I went away and did a bit of looking on the internet and paid up up for a family membership for the lot of us (although I do believe that we already had 3rd party insurance under our household stuff), although it was and is fairly unlikely that I'l be taking part in a southern FNRTTC beause of geography and work stuff, not to mention The Fear that I have of That London. It seemed like a reasonable thing to do.
[/quote]

I used to work in insurance. I would read your household policy very very carefully, and may even get confirmation in writing that it covers you for 3rd party risks whilst in charge of a bicycle on the public highways away from your home.


----------



## Ravenbait (4 Dec 2010)

I feel like a thicky.

What does TEC stand for?

Sam


----------



## User10119 (4 Dec 2010)

GregCollins said:


> I used to work in insurance. I would read your household policy very very carefully, and may even get confirmation in writing that it covers you for 3rd party risks whilst in charge of a bicycle on the public highways away from your home.



Well, it wouldn't matter either way since we are all dutifully 3rd partied up through the CTC as well now  

However that wasn't my motivation for joining - I joined primarily as a way of indirectly supporting the FNRttC and wouldn't have joined were it not for the FNRttC. If the FNRttC forms a club or whatever, in order to ensure that it can keep running and that Dellzeqq (supported by the TECs and so on) can keep running them without exposing himself to an unacceptable risk of in-sewer-ants rubbishness then I'd probably join that too, even if I'm not very likely to come along. Some ventures deserve support, and HPC is a bit far to bring you all a cake on a Friday night.


----------



## benborp (4 Dec 2010)

Ravenbait said:


> I feel like a thicky.
> 
> What does TEC stand for?
> 
> Sam




TECs are 'tail end charlies' that provide technical/moral support and sweep along the back of the ride. I believe they run on cake. Fluid levels also seem to require regular topping up.


----------



## benborp (4 Dec 2010)

Also, they often travel as a pack in close formation.


----------



## Aperitif (4 Dec 2010)

Now, now Ben.


----------



## frank9755 (4 Dec 2010)

I find that if you stand around at a junction on an FNRttC night, doing a spot of waymarking, eventually a group of them will roll up. They are recognisable from their distinctive cry of 'all up!'


----------



## benborp (4 Dec 2010)

Aperitif said:


> Now, now Ben.



Which is it you need? Cake or beer?


----------



## Aperitif (4 Dec 2010)




----------



## benborp (4 Dec 2010)

There you go. That should keep you rolling for another couple of miles.


----------



## Aperitif (4 Dec 2010)

Wow! - looks like Zimzum's old heap- but edible!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Dec 2010)

[QUOTE 1259471"]
Well, it wouldn't matter either way since we are all dutifully 3rd partied up through the CTC as well now  

However that wasn't my motivation for joining - I joined primarily as a way of indirectly supporting the FNRttC and wouldn't have joined were it not for the FNRttC. If the FNRttC forms a club or whatever, in order to ensure that it can keep running and that Dellzeqq (supported by the TECs and so on) can keep running them without exposing himself to an unacceptable risk of in-sewer-ants rubbishness then I'd probably join that too, even if I'm not very likely to come along. Some ventures deserve support, and HPC is a bit far to bring you all a cake on a Friday night.
[/quote]

When I first joined the CTC in the mid 90's the insurance was top of my agenda. As from next year the LCC will get my beer tokens for the same. Why? Well let's not go there. Now if FNRttC was a club and arranged said insurance....

I agree wholeheartedly with your "I'd probably support FNRttC even if I never rode one again" pov btw.


----------



## Speicher (4 Dec 2010)

Aperitif said:


>



What food colouring has been used on those? Pinar Yellow?


----------



## Flying Dodo (4 Dec 2010)

benborp said:


> Which is it you need? Cake or beer?



Cake and beer works for me.


----------



## frank9755 (5 Dec 2010)

AdrianC said:


> But not, for preference, at the same time.



Some people are so fussy!


----------



## gbs (5 Dec 2010)

Simon re Leader Liabilty: I spoke to my barrister friend today and he is quite clear that dear leader has no liability towards group riders; you are suggesting a route not guaranteeing its safety; you are not responsible for the competence of riders nor their solvency if they are held liable for damages. He made the interesting point that the courts have always assumed that people participate in sport at their own risk and traditionally the courts have not encouraged injured parties to come to court. This is not so in other areas of the law.


----------



## Aperitif (6 Dec 2010)

M'lud - one cannot possibly be a club if significant events are allowed to fall by the wayside. I refer my learned friends to the birthday of one Greg Collins - sometime of this parish - who arrived, unaided yet unfeted, at the station of his 50th birthday yesterday.
Happy Birthday Greg - sorry I was unable to post it yesterday. Good Health to you and


----------



## dellzeqq (6 Dec 2010)

yes, gratters on reaching the age of insensibility. You are now cleared to enjoy your teenage years all over again. 

Hold in mind the phrase that has seen me through the last six and a half years. 'I'm 50. What are they going to do, tell me off?'


----------



## dellzeqq (6 Dec 2010)

you'll have to ask RichP about that!


----------



## Tigerbiten (6 Dec 2010)

AdrianC said:


> And what when you reach 60?



A good poem about growing old ..........

_When I am an old woman I shall wear purple_
_With a red hat which doesn't go, and doesn't suit me._
_And I shall spend my pension on brandy and summer gloves_
_And satin sandals, and say we've no money for butter._
_I shall sit down on the pavement when I'm tired_
_And gobble up samples in shops and press alarm bells_
_And run my stick along the public railings_
_And make up for the sobriety of my youth._
_I shall go out in my slippers in the rain_
_And pick the flowers in other people's gardens_
_And learn to spit._


_You can wear terrible shirts and grow more fat_
_And eat three pounds of sausages at a go_
_Or only bread and pickle for a week_
_And hoard pens and pencils and beermats and things in boxes._


_But now we must have clothes that keep us dry_
_And pay our rent and not swear in the street_
_And set a good example for the children._
_We must have friends to dinner and read the papers._


_But maybe I ought to practice a little now?_
_So people who know me are not too shocked and surprised_
_When suddenly I am old, and start to wear purple
_
Luck ........


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Dec 2010)

Thanks one and all.

Twas a splendid b'day weekend. Started at 13:30 on Friday when 'working from home' was superceded by working in my local with my boss which in turn, was superceded by talking drunken nonsense in said pub with my boss and our CEO. Followed by a curry.

Saturday was spent wandering around the 'sham in the company of the Lovely Helen, watching the saffers come second, and drinking some rather good kiwi wine. Followed by a curry. 

Sunday - the big day - a delightful breakfast in a local brassierie, a spot of bombing down the woods on the mtb, getting very muddy and laughing a lot in the process, being told by bunnylake and samwise what a wonderful father they consider I am, being told by my father (90 next month!) that I've turned out better than he originally expected, a little more wine drinking. Followed by a curry.

I like being 50, the food is much better.


----------



## Aperitif (6 Dec 2010)

Nice poem Nigel - Jenny Joseph



> I like being 50, the food is much better



You're not on the liquidised menu already are you, Greg?  To me, you have looked 'mature' for the couple of years that I have had the pleasure of your company...  (But not now you are wearing the Shutt kid's stuff  )


----------



## Aperitif (7 Dec 2010)

It can be a Birthday Club!

Happy Birthday AdrianC! Dryer than Oloroso and full of flavoursome comment. Good health on this day.


----------



## Flying Dodo (7 Dec 2010)

It's definitely the birthday club, not a FNRttC club (although that's even more letters you'd have to try and stick on a jersey).

Happy birthday Adrian. Hopefully the only ice you'll encounter today will be in a glass.


----------



## Aperitif (9 Dec 2010)

Blimey! I saw the headline and thought fame had come-a-knocking...

BTW has Rich applied for member's hip yet?


----------



## dellzeqq (10 Dec 2010)

webblogthingy updated a bit. Still waiting on LCC. I've used that wonderful photo by Tim D for 'The Fridays'


----------



## Aperitif (10 Dec 2010)

AdrianC said:


> Does he have the old one as some sort of trophy?



He's in disc ussions about it, with a view to arriving at a joint decision.


----------



## rich p (10 Dec 2010)

The old hip was ground to a paste and is being sold in nano quantites in all good Chinese herbal remedy shops as an aphrodisiac. 
If it proves to be a bit of an earner, I may cut other bits off to fund my retirement years - well we are often legless at the end of an fnrttc anyway.


----------



## Tigerbiten (10 Dec 2010)

You may all get legless.

But I'm the only armless one around ............


----------



## Aperitif (10 Dec 2010)

Nigel and Rich. They make a fine pair one.


----------



## rich p (10 Dec 2010)

Tigerbiten said:


> You may all get legless.
> 
> But I'm the only armless one around ............


----------



## Tim Hall (11 Dec 2010)

Simon, somewhere back up the thread you mentioned you were going to see where Tandem Club and AUK members stood with respect to the insurance thing.

Any news on that?


----------



## Tim Hall (11 Dec 2010)

Scratch that. Looking at the AUK website, their insurance seems to provide cover when on AUK events only.

And the Tandem Club doesn't seem to provide cover. Hmm, wonder if they're affiliated to the CTC. I'll ask at tonight's dinner.

Anyway, delving into my household insurance it says:


> 15. Legal Liability Cover
> 
> We will pay up to £2,000,000
> (including costs and expenses
> ...




Seems OK to me.


----------



## dellzeqq (11 Dec 2010)

I like the bit about domestic staff and private pursuits. 

Somebody whose opinion I greatly respect was telling me last night that the Club thing was a shame, and I concede that it is - but, for the moment, this seems to be the way forward.


----------



## Speshact (11 Dec 2010)

Is there any value in 'deformalising' the rides along the lines of:

As it happens I'm cycling to Z on Saturday leaving at 9pm. The route I'm taking is A-Z on the public roads/tracks. I'm not leading a ride or looking out for others but if you want to follow me to avoid having to look at the map then feel free to do so (hey, they're public roads). Don't blame me if you're following me and I get lost. You need to look out for yourself and others - don't expect me or others to point out potholes or anything. I choose to have Third Party Insurance (which I buy from ...) in case I damage someone/thing and I choose to have personal accident insurance in case I damage myself. It's up to you whether you do likewise. I check my bike is well maintained and I bring a pump etc. What you choose to do is your own affair.

If that approach isn't workable, just get people to bring photo proof of ID and a copy of their CTC/lCC m/ship or other insurance certificate. A quick squizz at those before starting the ride and off you go. Tell people who haven't got it they can't join the group ride. If they tag along, well it's a public road so that's not your fault. You've taken reasonably practicable measures.


----------



## benborp (11 Dec 2010)

Part of the great success of the FNRttC and what has made them so appealing to people that wouldn't normally consider this sort of madness is the thorough yet unobtrusive organisation that goes into each ride.



Speshact said:


> As it happens I'm cycling to Z on Saturday leaving at 9pm. The route I'm taking is A-Z on the public roads/tracks. I'm not leading a ride or looking out for others but if you want to follow me to avoid having to look at the map then feel free to do so (hey, they're public roads). Don't blame me if you're following me and I get lost. You need to look out for yourself and others - don't expect me or others to point out potholes or anything. I choose to have Third Party Insurance (which I buy from ...) in case I damage someone/thing and I choose to have personal accident insurance in case I damage myself. It's up to you whether you do likewise. I check my bike is well maintained and I bring a pump etc. What you choose to do is your own affair.



I think that the above approach would go against an awful lot of what the FNRttC stand for, for many of the participants. Also, if the issue of liability did arise after an incident, even with a FNRttC being run in a 'deformalised' manner, it would be quite difficult to argue that these rides weren't organised. I think it would also be next to impossible to perform an identity and insurance check on 80 odd riders to any acceptable degree of diligence at midnight in the middle of Hyde Park Corner. Such a check would also be a substantial, clumsy off-putting first hurdle to newcomers.

Both approaches could be used on other rides I'm sure. The FNRttC popularity and character though seem to have developed hand in hand and I can understand Simon's wariness in making changes, but also his determination to make sure that the FNRttC uniqueness isn't eroded by bureaucracy and fear of litigation.


----------



## Eurygnomes (11 Dec 2010)

My tuppence'th. 

I spend an awfully disproportionate amount of time talking about the FNRttC (vs. doing it - I've only been on a few!) and have obviously missed a career in sales. The enthusiasm I feel for it goes alongside the seeming carefree nature of it (though I've often considered the hardcore logistics for a short moment prior to the third pint afterwards). I'm trying to persuade (and think I have managed) some friends to bring their bikes over from Paris in 2011 for one of the rides. 

I can't tell them, "er, you have to join a club..." - but I would very willingly sneak £1 into a pot on their behalves, having paid my £12 affiliation fee if that's what's necessary to ensure that we're all legaled up on the nights in question. I mean, it's unlikely that it'd become a monthly thing for them (though there are at least two cyclists in Hamburg who are considering coming along to investigate how it's done so they could think about starting something there too...), so why would they join a club when their travel insurance keeps them (and others) reasonably safe?

Having said my piece, Simon, I'll happily go along with whatever decision you make. I'll keep coming on the rides for which I'm available, and I'll keep spouting off about them wherever I go too...

Oh - and a V. Happy Birthday AdrianC! I had no idea you were so chronologically advanced - I had you for not even 45 yet.


----------



## dellzeqq (13 Dec 2010)

Speshact said:


> Is there any value in 'deformalising' the rides along the lines of:
> 
> As it happens I'm cycling to Z on Saturday leaving at 9pm. The route I'm taking is A-Z on the public roads/tracks. I'm not leading a ride or looking out for others but if you want to follow me to avoid having to look at the map then feel free to do so (hey, they're public roads). Don't blame me if you're following me and I get lost. You need to look out for yourself and others - don't expect me or others to point out potholes or anything. I choose to have Third Party Insurance (which I buy from ...) in case I damage someone/thing and I choose to have personal accident insurance in case I damage myself. It's up to you whether you do likewise. I check my bike is well maintained and I bring a pump etc. What you choose to do is your own affair.
> 
> If that approach isn't workable, just get people to bring photo proof of ID and a copy of their CTC/lCC m/ship or other insurance certificate. A quick squizz at those before starting the ride and off you go. Tell people who haven't got it they can't join the group ride. If they tag along, well it's a public road so that's not your fault. You've taken reasonably practicable measures.


It'd be difficult to claim it wasn't an organised ride. Wayfinders, TECs and cafes opening at 3 in the morning.....

I take people's CTC numbers already, so the 3rd party thing is just an extension of that. Tell me you've got 3rd party and we're away. If you haven't then cough up the twelve quid (or whatever).


----------



## deckertim (14 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> webblogthingy updated a bit. Still waiting on LCC. I've used that wonderful photo by Tim D for 'The Fridays'


I am honoured. 

And happy birthday Adrian, 1960 is a great vintage


----------



## StuartG (15 Dec 2010)

Just a plug for the LCC against the CTC. There is a differential on who they consider 'old'. LCC have it by 5 years. And I am very content to be called anything if I can get a discount for it.

So if you are of a certain age - third party insurance with LCC is a darn lot cheaper than with the CTC ;-)


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Dec 2010)

StuartG said:


> Just a plug for the LCC against the CTC. There is a differential on who they consider 'old'. LCC have it by 5 years. And I am very content to be called anything if I can get a discount for it.
> 
> So if you are of a certain age - third party insurance with LCC is a darn lot cheaper than with the CTC ;-)


I've missed that. Do you get a better rate when you're 60?


----------



## StuartG (16 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> I've missed that. Do you get a better rate when you're 60?




LCC: 
Concessionary membership £14
Annual membership for full-time students, under 16s, over 60s, or those not in paid employment.

CTC:
Senior (over 65)	£23.00	
Senior '5 yrs for the price of 4'	£92.00	
Unwaged	£23.00	
Junior (under 18)	£12.00
So if you are over 60 or unwaged the LCC seems the better buy. I don't think there is any requirement to live, work or play in London so if you treat it as third party premium I would seriously consider it.

Returning to the main subject: Would it be simpler to insist that all riders were members of LCC/CTC and rely on that for rider liability? I understand it would not cover Leader/Wayfinder/TEC liability but that is a much lower risk than me just getting too sleepy and running into another rider.

Frankly I think it irresponsible to partake in any massed cycle event without Third Party Cover. Mistakes do happen and we do have a responsibility to our fellow riders that we can compensate them for our errors and not put our own family home/lifestyle at risk.


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Dec 2010)

StuartG said:


> LCC:
> Concessionary membership £14
> Annual membership for full-time students, under 16s, over 60s, or those not in paid employment.
> 
> ...


thankyou for that. Those approaching our seventh decade salute you.......

Ideally we would all join the CTC/LCC/BC - but for those who find the mainline CTC and LCC subs a bit of a strain, the affiliate route would provide the cover for less money. 

And, yes, I do think we all need 3rd party.


----------



## PpPete (16 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> And, yes, I do think we all need 3rd party.



Indeed we do.
Just been reading this, not strictly relevant, but shows what can happen.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (16 Dec 2010)

I can confirm you don't have to be resident or work in London to be an LCC member.


----------



## Flying Dodo (18 Dec 2010)

Just been reading the revamped FNRttC pages on the blog web. So it's "The Fridays" then! 


Some sensible words on bikes as well. Hopefully certain people will take note.........


----------



## Aperitif (18 Dec 2010)

Flying Dodo said:


> Just been reading the revamped FNRttC pages on the blog web. So it's *"The Fridays"* then!
> 
> 
> Some sensible words on bikes as well. Hopefully certain people will take note.........



Couldn't the log o selection be moved across a bit to obscure that mekon in red playing with a wheel? 

Adam - only joking, it's very fitting (unlike your coat )


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Dec 2010)

Flying Dodo said:


> Some sensible words on bikes as well. Hopefully certain people will take note.........



Some cranky views on mudguards certainly...... the man clearly has something against them


----------



## Aperitif (18 Dec 2010)

GregCollins said:


> Some cranky views on mudguards certainly...... the man clearly has something against them



The sub-text is that, 'no mudguards' is the last bastion of youth. Mudguards herald advancing years, Greg. (I have mudguards on some of my bikes - I'm of changeable mood...)


----------



## Flying Dodo (18 Dec 2010)

Aperitif said:


> Couldn't the log o selection be moved across a bit to obscure that mekon in red playing with a wheel?
> 
> Adam - only joking, it's very fitting (unlike your coat )



Mine's like the economy- room for growth.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Dec 2010)

Aperitif said:


> The sub-text is that, 'no mudguards' is the last bastion of youth. Mudguards herald advancing years, Greg. (I have mudguards on some of my bikes - I'm of changeable mood...)



Mudguards herald people who ride whatever the weather!

All my bikes have mudguards. How over the hill am I? Very.


----------



## Aperitif (18 Dec 2010)

GregCollins said:


> Mudguards herald people who ride whatever the weather!
> 
> All my bikes have mudguards. How over the hill am I? Very.



I hold memory of you being at the pinnacle of the 'hill' Greg 'hic'  - you'll never be over it. Lifetime peerage for you.


----------



## dellzeqq (18 Dec 2010)

I'm surprised nobody's taken me to task on the Christmas motif....


----------



## Aperitif (18 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> I'm surprised nobody's taken me to task on the Christmas motif....



"Friday's child is loving and giving..."

We thank you for that!


----------



## Aperitif (19 Dec 2010)

Here's a link for the 'Fridays' symbolmeister to peruse, then perhaps add, the cycling graphics?


----------



## Flying Dodo (19 Dec 2010)

Aperitif said:


> Here's a link for the 'Fridays' symbolmeister to peruse, then perhaps add, the cycling graphics?



The fire extinguisher one could come in handy for anyone zooming down Reigate Hill too fast and overheating their brakes. Stu can carry one in his rucksack.

Not sure about some of the others though. Where would you get a haircut at 3 am?


----------



## StuAff (19 Dec 2010)

Flying Dodo said:


> The fire extinguisher one could come in handy for anyone zooming down Reigate Hill too fast and overheating their brakes. Stu can carry one in his rucksack.
> 
> Not sure about some of the others though. Where would you get a haircut at 3 am?



If I tried to carry that, I'd need it when MY brakes overheated!


----------



## frank9755 (19 Dec 2010)

Just clicked through. Looks like the best conclusion. For a new person coming along for the first time, having to pay £12 for insurance, or a nominal £1 if they are already in a cycling organisation, doesn't feel like a the sort of barrier that will exclude people.

As ever, great pictures!



GregCollins said:


> Some cranky views on mudguards certainly...... the man clearly has something against them




Clearly had a bad experience with one in early life. Too late to do anything about it now. His Room 101 would be the SKS warehouse!


----------



## clivedb (24 Dec 2010)

Happy Christmas everyone - I look forward to the night rides in 2011!

Clive


----------



## Aperitif (25 Dec 2010)

clivedb said:


> Happy Christmas everyone - I look forward to the night rides in 2011!
> 
> Clive



+25 

Happy Christmas Clive!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 Dec 2010)

Merry Christmas lovely FNRttC peeps. Ride safe in 2011


----------



## StuAff (25 Dec 2010)

GregCollins said:


> Merry Christmas lovely FNRttC peeps. Ride safe in 2011



+1. I'll try to crash less, honest  See you on Friday!


----------



## ianrauk (31 Dec 2010)

StuAff said:


> +1. I'll try to crash less, honest  See you on Friday!



How about carry less too


----------



## StuAff (31 Dec 2010)

ianrauk said:


> How about carry less too


----------



## dellzeqq (12 Jan 2011)

I'm running in to the sand here......

the options are 
1. Continue as a Cheam and Morden ride. Except we can't because the issue of non-members rears its ugly head http://www.ctc.org.u...mber_Groups.pdf 
2. Make each ride a CTC event. That gets us off the non-member hook, but each ride to be advertised in Cycle and every rider has to sign a disclaimer for every ride - and it doesn't grant non-CTC members third party insurance
3. Become an affiliate of the CTC. Start-up cost £72. That's not entirely bad. I could insist that all non-CTC members pay their twelve quid to become members of the club. That's tough on LCC members and BC members and even those people who have pukka third party insurance through their house insurance. http://www.ctc.org.u...-Affiliates.pdf Membership of the Club would be a quid, but non-CTC members would be charged £12. The real worry is that there is no way of knowing whether the helpers (TECs and Wayfinders) would be covered.
4. Go for event insurance through BC. That covers everything, but costs £60 per 100 riders - effectively £720 a year - that would have to be recouped by charging people - anything up to a quid a ride. I'd be forever collecting money.
5. Become a BC affiliated club. Pretty much the same as 3 above, but start-up cost £88 and non-BC members would be charged £24 each.
6. Become an LCC affiliate. My first choice, but eight months of phone calls and promises have resulted in precisely nothing - they simply haven't got it together on the affiliates thing. The low point is receiving e-mails saying that they wanted to double the membership. The other low point was being told before Christmas that two people employed by the LCC couldn't get together because of the snow....
7. Join the LCC and run it as an LCC ride. I'm still working on this one

In the long run it's got to become a stand-alone club with a modest membership fee and access to insurance, but it looks as if 2011 will be a sort of halfway station.


----------



## theclaud (12 Jan 2011)

Can't open the link where I am. Sorry if I'm being thick but where does the 12 quid figure come from?


----------



## dellzeqq (12 Jan 2011)

The £12 is the cost of membership of the CTC via an affiliate. You don't get the mag, but, then again, you don't get to pay for £30,000 staff conferences.


----------



## HaloJ (12 Jan 2011)

I do hope that the LCC can deliver as reading the options and the terms and conditions of the others they each have an unpalatable problems.

Collecting money could be a rather unpleasant process. I'd not like to be carrying 100 £1 coins for the duration of the ride. Which would mean that a secretary would need to be on hand to collect all monies on the night and get it safely away whilst the event goes on. Any other method and you'll start requiring specific bank accounts, visits to the bank with cheques or being charged for the privilege by the likes of PayPal. :?


----------



## iLB (12 Jan 2011)

My club run a sportive style ride called the Kentish Killer to raise funds for the club and also support the air ambulance, with something like a 70-30 club-charity split. I know its not an identical situation but is there any way you could take say a 2% share from what is raised on the Martletts ride to cover expenses and keep the rides running cost free? With the premise being that by taking that small amount of money future Martletts ride will benefit.


----------



## PpPete (12 Jan 2011)

Whatever is decided about affiliation, I'd be happy to add on the little extra necessary to pay for the convenience of Paypal.


----------



## StuAff (12 Jan 2011)

What an absolute pain this all is...
An idea, that probably isn't better than any of the above. My LBS has its own club, that affiliates to the CTC. They do a 'second claim' membership that costs £5, plus £12.50 for the CTC third-party insurance. I had thought of signing up for that myself, insurance is of course the root of this problem. I appreciate that most of us wouldn't want to join a club based round here. Brixton Cycles (for example) do anything like this?


----------



## StuAff (12 Jan 2011)

PpPete said:


> Whatever is decided about affiliation, I'd be happy to add on the little extra necessary to pay for the convenience of Paypal.



+1. Darn sight easier than lugging a load of £1 coins and/or cheques around on a Friday night.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Jan 2011)

Run it on prosecco socialist lines; membership fees from each according to their means, to each according to their need. I've no doubt many of the riders would happily sheel out over the odds, as you've proposed them, to subsidise freebies for the noobs.

What does a 100km Audax cost to do? If we really want to compare apples with apples how much does a 100km sportive cost to ride? The Friday club is a year's worth of fun and a great community to be a part of, not a one off, so in my book the vfm aspect is off the scale.


----------



## PpPete (12 Jan 2011)

GregCollins said:


> Run it on prosecco socialist lines; membership fees from each according to their means, to each according to their need. I've no doubt many of the riders would happily sheel out over the odds, as you've proposed them, to subsidise freebies for the noobs.
> 
> What does a 100km Audax cost to do? *If we really want to compare apples with apples how much does a 100km sportive cost to ride?* The Friday club is a year's worth of fun and a great community to be a part of, not a one off, so in my book the vfm aspect is off the scale.



Too much... (as discussed elsewhere) 
If club membership were up around that level, I for one, might be having second thoughts, even for " a year's worth of fun"


----------



## dellzeqq (12 Jan 2011)

All this is great stuff, and I'm absolutely overwhelmed by Abs' offer to be treasurer not least because there is nobody else I'd rather slow down (it being a DZ rule not to be dropped by girlies). 

The affiliation via another club is good, but the only difference is the £72 which between us we can easily afford (and, in any case I'd be saving something like £35 on personal CTC membership). And, to be fair, it would be a bit of an imposition to go to the Anerley or Pollards Hill or even Brixton Cycles and ask if I could tack on a ride that is probably bigger than their rides. Going to Lambeth LCC is a bit of a wild card - they may jump at it.

I have spoken at length with Rob Fuller of the CTC, who is always as helpful, and to BC (who recommended going to the CTC). The trouble is that there are rules, and, however tangential they may be to the broad thrust of the insurance policies I don't fancy just ignoring them.

I'm now corresponding direct with Butterworth Spengler who offer insurance to both the CTC and to the LCC and something may come of that.


----------



## Wobblers (12 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> 3. Become an affiliate of the CTC. Start-up cost £72. That's not entirely bad. I could insist that all non-CTC members pay their twelve quid to become members of the club. That's tough on LCC members and BC members and even those people who have pukka third party insurance through their house insurance. http://www.ctc.org.u...-Affiliates.pdf Membership of the Club would be a quid, but non-CTC members would be charged £12. *The real worry is that there is no way of knowing whether the helpers (TECs and Wayfinders) would be covered.*



Wouldn't the TECs and wayfinders be classed as "officers"? In which case, as long as they're CTC members, they'd be covered, if I'm reading the terms correctly.

There may also be an advantage that you could let non-members try out a FNRttC once without having to pay anything and there would still be cover, though a limit of five per ride would be quite restrictive! But the lack of requirement of up-front commitment might make things look more welcoming.


----------



## dellzeqq (12 Jan 2011)

I've discussed the TEC and Wayfinder thing with Rob Fuller and we're not sure. Some of the regulars are registered as CTC rides leaders, and their position is pretty secure, but Andrij, for example, is an LCC member and can't therefore be a CTC rides leader. 

I'm probably going to bother Butterworth Spengler with it.


----------



## StuAff (12 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> I'm now corresponding direct with Butterworth Spengler who offer insurance to both the CTC and to the LCC and something may come of that.



I have bike insurance with them for two of the fleet, been pretty good so far.


----------



## MacB (12 Jan 2011)

Hmm, just had a read of this, firslty the colour scheme on the FNRTTC blog is sending my eyes skewy, can't look at it for long, is there an option to change schemes?(this is the white on black doing the damage). Next there are three distinct aspects here:-

1. the affiliation, or not, of the ride and how the structure fits into insurance requirements - it seems to be agreed that 3rd party insurance is essential for all riders
2. selecting the optimal structure for the future of the ride - obviously the 'happy go lucky' days are gone but that ethos is worth preserving as much as possible
3. the administration and maintenance of the changes - who, what and where

Being me I have had most of my thoughts around point 3 and feel that some of them may bear relevance to 1 & 2. Piggy backing is good, whether it's via CTC, LCC, whatever. But has anyone considered the glaringly obvious CycleChat itself, could CC be affiliated and then the rest handled via our CC registration process? I admit to being unclear as to the whole insurance and affiliation bit but, from an administrative point of view, there's no point reinventing the wheel. Obviously input required from Shaun here as well, but it's not like demanding people participate in the forum. You just have various options when registering an account here, one of which leads you down the signing disclaimers and coughing up dosh route. We also chuck in an admin fee, per registration, to go to CC. It wouldn't make any difference to normal joining of CC, people could just check the appropriate box. This would mean that CC became the club with sub branches like FNRTTC.


----------



## dellzeqq (12 Jan 2011)

I've briefly discussed this idea with Shaun. He has his hands full with the forum.

I do think that there is a place in the market for a low-cost cycling organisation that offers

- rides that are insured (this costs the CTC next to nothing)
- third party insurance (this costs the CTC about £4 per member per year)
- an internet-based newsletter (there are a couple already that are quite good)
- discounts at shops (this is dead easy to arrange, and CC would rapidly surpass the Cyclists Welcome offering

A tie-up with the ACT (Association of Cycle Traders) would be good. Getting bike shops to sell membership of cycling organisations is so obvious that it isn't until you work out that the CTC has spent the best part of 20 years shitting on the bike trade that you realise why it hasn't been done.

You could knock this out for about twelve pounds a year. Again, the key to this is Butterworth Spengler - they're the underwriters of all things cycling. And it's about critical mass - you'd need a couple of thousand people to get the unit cost within reasonable bounds.


----------



## Andrij (12 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> I've discussed the TEC and Wayfinder thing with Rob Fuller and we're not sure. Some of the regulars are registered as CTC rides leaders, and their position is pretty secure, but Andrij, for example, is an LCC member and can't therefore be a CTC rides leader.








LCC member: yes
AudaxUK member: yes
CTC member: YES

But I admit to never being 'registered as a CTC rides leader'.


----------



## User482 (12 Jan 2011)

I don't really have anything constructive to add, other than to say that the sums we're talking about represent excellent value to anyone thinking of taking part. So if it ends up costing a couple of quid each, then I shouldn't worry about charging it.


----------



## MacB (12 Jan 2011)

User482 said:


> I don't really have anything constructive to add, other than to say that the sums we're talking about represent excellent value to anyone thinking of taking part. So if it ends up costing a couple of quid each, then I shouldn't worry about charging it.



wot he said, I'll happily kick in £20 for the year, in advance, whether I ride or not and it would still be a bargain. Plus if you get dosh up front like that, paypal/bank transfer, then there's very little in the way of collecting money nonsense for you on the night. Without trying to overcomplicate it I'd also support the idea of a greatly reduced, or free, membership for younger folks, say under 25? I've spent most of my life involved in rugby and golf clubs, a lot of that as a younger member(I started at a rugby club at age 8 and golf at age 7). I received a lot of support and encouragement from older people with no obligation other than a genuine interest in the future of the sport they're involved in. Unless I read it very poorly that would also seem to fit in with the ethos of the FNRTTC.


----------



## dellzeqq (13 Jan 2011)

Andrij said:


> LCC member: yes
> AudaxUK member: yes
> CTC member: YES
> 
> But I admit to never being 'registered as a CTC rides leader'.


apologies - in casting around for the archetypal LCC member I lit upon your name!


----------



## PpPete (13 Jan 2011)

AdrianC said:


> You poor bastard. You can barely have any memory of a better life.


----------



## dellzeqq (13 Jan 2011)

I'm sorry that I used the words running in to the sand - because, one way or another it will be sorted.


----------



## dellzeqq (13 Jan 2011)

...but it's not getting better. The Cycle Activity Providers Insurance recommended by Butterworth Spengler is £80 per individual, or £50 if that individual is a CTC member. (Say) 18 regular TECs/Wayfinders.....£900. And there'd be no room for improvisation, which is to say I couldn't ask somebody who isn't covered to be a TEC.

Ho-hum!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Jan 2011)

You need a broker who can take it - a detailed explanation of what you want to achieve and need - to a specialist underwriter at Lloyds.


----------



## dellzeqq (13 Jan 2011)

Hence the conversations with Butterworh Spengler. 

But their broker's take on it was instructive. Basically insuring cycle events, clubs, what have you is (his words) 'Alice in Wonderland' stuff. Nobody actually has any idea - they just go on the claims record, and, since that is so devoid of pattern, they augment that with gut instinct.

They're pretty much the sole provider. Do you think it would be worth going elsewhere? I think we're just a hundred times too small to be of interest, but if you think it's worth asking around I'd really welcome some advice.


----------



## StuAff (13 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> Hence the conversations with Butterworh Spengler.
> 
> But their broker's take on it was instructive. Basically insuring cycle events, clubs, what have you is (his words) 'Alice in Wonderland' stuff. Nobody actually has any idea - they just go on the claims record, and, since that is so devoid of pattern, they augment that with gut instinct.
> 
> They're pretty much the sole provider. Do you think it would be worth going elsewhere? I think we're just a hundred times too small to be of interest, but if you think it's worth asking around I'd really welcome some advice.



Sportives have insurance- the blurb on UK Cycling Events' website (organisers of the Wiggle Super Series) says "All riders are covered by third party insurance for the duration of the event. The cost of this is included in your entry fee. In additional UK Cycling events is covered for civil party liability."
Might be worth dropping them (and/or a counterpart or two) a line, seeing who they use, what the criteria are...?
Phone number's 01243 379250, contact form on their web site, or direct line for head honcho Martin Barden: martin@ukcyclingevents.co.uk


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> Hence the conversations with Butterworh Spengler.
> 
> But their broker's take on it was instructive. Basically insuring cycle events, clubs, what have you is (his words) 'Alice in Wonderland' stuff. Nobody actually has any idea - they just go on the claims record, and, since that is so devoid of pattern, they augment that with gut instinct.
> 
> They're pretty much the sole provider. Do you think it would be worth going elsewhere? I think we're just a hundred times too small to be of interest, but if you think it's worth asking around I'd really welcome some advice.



Most of my contacts were on the underwriting side of business but I'll ask around. Underwriters will often (usually) negotiate if the broker is keen enough when the guts give a STUPID premium. It's like builders you see, if they don't want the business, and the broker isn't owed a favour, they just give an expensive quote.


----------



## dellzeqq (14 Jan 2011)

StuAff said:


> Sportives have insurance- the blurb on UK Cycling Events' website (organisers of the Wiggle Super Series) says "All riders are covered by third party insurance for the duration of the event. The cost of this is included in your entry fee. In additional UK Cycling events is covered for civil party liability."
> Might be worth dropping them (and/or a counterpart or two) a line, seeing who they use, what the criteria are...?
> Phone number's 01243 379250, contact form on their web site, or direct line for head honcho Martin Barden: martin@ukcyclingevents.co.uk


that's BC's events insurance which has a flat rate of £60 per 100 riders - although Wiggle have a tie-in with BC so they probably get a better rate. That doesn't sound like a great deal of money (it probably translates in to collecting a quid a ride from all the participants), and it's not something I've entirely written off, but, at risk of sounding both precious and lazy I don't want to bring that kind of money in to the ride, and I don't want to be dealing with it. 

Greg - any help would be appreciated.


----------



## StuAff (14 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> that's BC's events insurance which has a flat rate of £60 per 100 riders - although Wiggle have a tie-in with BC so they probably get a better rate. That doesn't sound like a great deal of money (it probably translates in to collecting a quid a ride from all the participants), and it's not something I've entirely written off, but, at risk of sounding both precious and lazy I don't want to bring that kind of money in to the ride, and I don't want to be dealing with it.



Fair enough.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> Greg - any help would be appreciated.




you've got pm


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Jan 2011)

AdrianC said:


> Just get someone with panniers to carry the sack of pound coins.




begining of the job spec for the club treasurer


----------



## Andrij (14 Jan 2011)

I think the fastest riders should be rewarded with the job of carrying much coinage. 

*said safe in the knowledge there are a dozen or two riders ahead of me*


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Jan 2011)

AdrianC said:


> And chief mechanic?




what use would the cheif mechanic have for a stack of pound coins, unless it was beer o'clock ;-)


----------



## Flying Dodo (14 Jan 2011)

AdrianC said:


> Just get someone with panniers to carry the sack of pound coins.



or a rucksack..........


----------



## dellzeqq (14 Jan 2011)

we are inching forward. I've had word from Butterworth Spengler. 

_I’ve just referred this to a colleague of mine who deals with the CTC. She stated that the Club who be covered for Organisers Liability and that the members would be covered under their own CTC membership for their participation in the ride even if they stopped to help a fellow rider etc.
_
So - if the TECs are CTC members they are ok. Deep sigh of relief. I just need to check that this holds good with affiliated club members, but I'm sure that it will

So - the current choices are

a) start up affiliate club and ask all non-CTC members to join the CTC through the Club. Club membership £1 and an additional £12 for non-members to the CTC. We're allowed five non-members on the ride, and those five places would be for LCC or BC members. From my point of view this is a decent deal because it will cost Susie and I just £24.
b) schlep along to the Lambeth LCC meet on Tuesday and ask if we can become a Lambeth CC ride, which will cost Susie and I our LCC membership fees (less than the CTC membership that has just run out), but maybe cost nothing for the rest of you - although I would probably still want everybody to have third party, and I would still set up a club if it helped people get third party for only £12. 

BC events insurance is looking a distant third on account of the cost. I've spoken to a broker recommended by GC, and he was very interested, and he may well come up with something.


----------



## StuAff (14 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> we are inching forward. I've had word from Butterworth Spengler.
> 
> _I’ve just referred this to a colleague of mine who deals with the CTC. She stated that the Club who be covered for Organisers Liability and that the members would be covered under their own CTC membership for their participation in the ride even if they stopped to help a fellow rider etc.
> _
> ...


Hurrah! Good positive news. And if CTC membership is required to ensure cover for TECs etc (unlikely, but...), happy to do so.


----------



## dellzeqq (14 Jan 2011)

and confirmation that affiliated members are covered. Excellent! 

And I'm in such a good mood that I'll gladly accept that 'The Fridays' was a bit of a silly name for a club. Any ideas?


----------



## theclaud (14 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> and confirmation that affiliated members are covered. Excellent!
> 
> And I'm in such a good mood that I'll gladly accept that 'The Fridays' was a bit of a silly name for a club. Any ideas?



Oh I don't know - I think I kinda like it, except for the slight involuntary association with The Happy Mondays. How's that jersey design coming along.

Sounds like progress. Go with whichever you prefer, of course, but my instinctive preference is the first option. Incidentally, if you want to have a one-off/occasional whip round the current FNRttCers for a sort of FNRttC contingency fund - affiliation for skint folks, unforeseen fees or whatever, then I'm sure we'll all bung a few quid in...


----------



## HaloJ (14 Jan 2011)

Best get my CTC membership then as I rather enjoy way-pointing even if I do, on occasion, take off at speed in entirely the wrong direction.


----------



## redjedi (14 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> a) start up affiliate club and ask all non-CTC members to join the CTC through the Club. Club membership £1 and an additional £12 for non-members to the CTC. We're allowed five non-members on the ride, and those five places would be for LCC or BC members. From my point of view this is a decent deal because it will cost Susie and I just £24.



If that's for a years membership to both CTC and the Friday Club, then that is more than acceptable for me.


----------



## dellzeqq (14 Jan 2011)

HaloJ said:


> Best get my CTC membership then as I rather enjoy way-pointing even if I do, on occasion, take off at speed in entirely the wrong direction.


get it through the affiliate and you get it for £12!!!!


----------



## StuAff (14 Jan 2011)

theclaud said:


> Oh I don't know - I think I kinda like it, except for the slight involuntary association with The Happy Mondays. How's that jersey design coming along.
> 
> Sounds like progress. Go with whichever you prefer, of course, but my instinctive preference is the first option. Incidentally, if you want to have a one-off/occasional whip round the current FNRttCers for a sort of FNRttC contingency fund - affiliation for skint folks, unforeseen fees or whatever, then I'm sure we'll all bung a few quid in...



Name's fine, contingency fund's a good idea....


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Jan 2011)

StuAff said:


> Name's fine, contingency fund's a good idea....



+1

and happy to put money in the contingency/startup pot.

less happy about continuing to give money to the ctc but if you insist.....


----------



## TimO (14 Jan 2011)

I'm a bit late to this discussion, but I'll put in my ha'penny worth.

I'd happily go with whatever option you eventually choose, £12 a year (or anything close to that) is a bargain as far as I'm concerned, and I already have CTC and LCC membership, but wouldn't worry if I had to pay another fee on top of that.

A greater issue with that is obviously if charges are seen as being a bar to people joining up, so I think whatever option is gone with, it needs to be one which doesn't dissuade people from coming along to try things out. I suspect charging people £1 to do a ride, and which it's clearly explained is to cover costs alone and that there is no profit element, shouldn't stop anyone joining. If you can't afford £1 for a ride, then you probably can't afford to keep you bike minimally safe either, in which case we probably don't want you along on the ride anyway.  Requiring something like £12 for annual membership when people may not know if they want to do any more rides would be a bad thing.

If we ended up being limited to 5 non-members only, as would appear to be one of the problems with the current CTC cover, that could be a problem, since I doubt any ride in 2010 had that few non-CTC members (with the exception of the Dieppe ride, but that was a special case). Whatever way things go, that has to be addressed, or things won't work anywhere near as well.

By the sound of things, I'm probably covered by the CTC when I'm TECing, but it wouldn't have worried me anyway. Simon makes it quite clear that your bike should be serviceable (and as others have pointed out that's *your* responsibility as a road user anyway). If something fails, then arguably you haven't entirely followed that, although this obviously depends on the exact nature of the failure.

I do my own maintenance, and wouldn't risk my own neck unless I considered myself to be largely competent. I wouldn't repair a bicycle if I didn't consider it safe to ride myself. On the odd occasion when there has been an issue (and the main offending bicycle/rider was mentioned earlier in the thread!) I've made the rider very aware of the risk that they are taking with their cycle operating like that. To an extent people ought to be aware that none of us are partaking in these rides as professional bicycle mechanics, ride leaders etc, and consider that when accepting aid. Everyone has a personal responsibility when taking part in the ride, and arguably that can be extended to them making an assessment over whether they wish to let someone else repair their bicycle. I'll admit that there is also an argument that Simon could be liable since by letting someone like me TEC, he's implying that I have some degree of competence in the TEC task.


----------



## dellzeqq (14 Jan 2011)

Tim is right - the last three rides had 

- 31 non-CTC members and one BC member
- 36 non-CTC members and three LCC members
- 26 non-CTC members and one LCC member

but......if it takes collecting the 12 quid of all the people who are not members of any organisation and giving the LCC and BC people a pass, then I'll do it. 

Let's see how it goes with the LCC on Tuesday.


----------



## TimO (14 Jan 2011)

There are two obvious solutions to the heap of £1 coins problem:

(i) Do it online with Paypal (and as an aside, if we wanted registration etc online, there are probably plenty of people out there who are knowledgeable and willing to help out setting up a suitable website).

(ii) Collect the money at the end.

...and no, I'm not carrying them, I've already got enough tools and spares to weigh me down!


----------



## Mark Grant (14 Jan 2011)

Another possible solution to the 'weighty' problem of £1 coins, several of us carry a fiver and take five coins from Simon in exchange. Spread the load and the cafe / pub ends up with plenty of change on Saturday.  

Mark.


----------



## slowmotion (14 Jan 2011)

Mark Grant said:


> Another possible solution to the 'weighty' problem of £1 coins, several of us carry a fiver and take five coins from Simon in exchange. Spread the load and the cafe / pub ends up with plenty of change on Saturday.
> 
> Mark.



Excellent solution...but I think Simon hands back four at HPC, surely?


----------



## slowmotion (14 Jan 2011)

Amongst the vagabonds, mountebanks and street-arabs that depart from HPC, I am sure that there are also some (ahem) "Creatives". No probs.


----------



## Tim Hall (15 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> we are inching forward. I've had word from Butterworth Spengler.
> 
> _I’ve just referred this to a colleague of mine who deals with the CTC. She stated that the Club who be covered for Organisers Liability and that the members would be covered under their own CTC membership for their participation in the ride even if they stopped to help a fellow rider etc.
> _
> So - if the TECs are CTC members they are ok. Deep sigh of relief. I just need to check that this holds good with affiliated club members, but I'm sure that it will




Leaving aside the typo from your Butterworth Spengler contact (should it be "would be covered.."?) Am I right in understanding this to mean if I as a non CTC member stump up a princely £12 pa I get affiliated to the CTC and can then point the way down Lonesome Lane with impunity? (By the way, the Big Hole at the junction with Lodge Lane has opened up again). 

Or will my having third party insurance (either through the Tandem Club or my household insurance) give me that pleasure?


----------



## MacB (15 Jan 2011)

AdrianC said:


> That raises an interesting point. If a new rider turns up and says "I am a member of the CTC and my membership number is x" then the quality of their insurance is known (assuming that they are not lying about the membership). If another new rider turns up and says "that's OK my household policy covers me" who is going to read the small print of that policy to make sure that it covers everything required?



Maybe we need registration plates on bikes, a little tax disc and a licence, could it all be starting here?


----------



## rusky (15 Jan 2011)

Just a thought, would helmets be compulsory


----------



## frank9755 (15 Jan 2011)

TimO said:


> There are two obvious solutions to the heap of £1 coins problem:
> 
> (i) Do it online with Paypal (and as an aside, if we wanted registration etc online, there are probably plenty of people out there who are knowledgeable and willing to help out setting up a suitable website).
> 
> ...



The £1 coin problem - I was seeing it as a good opportunity to finally clear out my loose change drawer in 2011!


----------



## Aperitif (15 Jan 2011)

I haven't contributed much because the majority of what I write struggles to be sensible - this may be no different. How would this pan out if the 'Saturdays' (Nothing happens on a Friday) Club was a charity? Would any better / other insurance deals for 3P coverage suddenly come to the fore? Quids could then go to Marlets / Dogs Trust / RNLI / Marie Curie etc on a rolling basis.


----------



## Andrij (15 Jan 2011)

Aren't charities restricted in spending only a limited percentage on 'member benefits'?


----------



## Flying Dodo (15 Jan 2011)

OK, just 3 pints each after every ride. Will that be OK?


----------



## Aperitif (15 Jan 2011)

Flying Dodo said:


> OK, just 3 pints each after every ride. Will that be OK?



75cl x 3 = < 3 pints


----------



## dellzeqq (15 Jan 2011)

Tim Hall said:


> Leaving aside the typo from your Butterworth Spengler contact (should it be "would be covered.."?) Am I right in understanding this to mean if I as a non CTC member stump up a princely £12 pa I get affiliated to the CTC and can then point the way down Lonesome Lane with impunity? (By the way, the Big Hole at the junction with Lodge Lane has opened up again).
> 
> Or will my having third party insurance (either through the Tandem Club or my household insurance) give me that pleasure?
> [/color][/size][/font]



a) yes
b) I don't know - only the Tandem Club and the household insurance company could give you that

I'm not entirely surprised that the Big Hole has opened up. No Geotextile. I remember saying to the Surrey County Council bod - 'you know more about this than me' - and then turning to Cobbett on roadmaking in the Weald......


----------



## dellzeqq (15 Jan 2011)

Aperitif said:


> I haven't contributed much because the majority of what I write struggles to be sensible - this may be no different. How would this pan out if the 'Saturdays' (Nothing happens on a Friday) Club was a charity? Would any better / other insurance deals for 3P coverage suddenly come to the fore? Quids could then go to Marlets / Dogs Trust / RNLI / Marie Curie etc on a rolling basis.


I think we're talking about tiny sums, but Greg has been kind enough to put me in touch with a broker who insures charities. I could ask.

The big deal is Tuesday night when I bust in to the Lambeth LCC meeting (and, possibly, get thrown out on my ear).


----------



## velovoice (15 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> I think we're talking about tiny sums, but Greg has been kind enough to put me in touch with a broker who insures charities. I could ask.
> 
> The big deal is Tuesday night when I bust in to the Lambeth LCC meeting (and, possibly, get thrown out on my ear).



Why Lambeth and not, for instance, Southwark? I think Southwark would be amenable...


----------



## dellzeqq (15 Jan 2011)

I live in Lambeth.

yhpm presently....


----------



## TimO (15 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> I live in Lambeth.



Well, if Lambeth wont go for it, we could work our way through the rest of the LCC groups, between us, we must have regulars in most of the areas!


----------



## Aperitif (16 Jan 2011)

http://www.cyclechat...ost__p__1531625

Your correction omits my default (some might say innovative) concept of sharing.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (16 Jan 2011)

how many pound coins would fit down a seat tube?


----------



## Aperitif (16 Jan 2011)

Be no use for the Sunday mob with Clive and Davy, Greg - they seem to want 50 pees wherever they go!


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Jan 2011)

McB - there's a new black and white page which, hopefully, will be easier to read

http://fnrttc.blogsp...-and-white.html


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Jan 2011)

The Quids In Cycle Club....


----------



## Aperitif (17 Jan 2011)

'Look Mum No Sands' - it would rock at Brighton!


----------



## Wobblers (17 Jan 2011)

The Brighton Rock Club?

Or how about "The League of Bad Puns"??


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Jan 2011)

'The Unholy Alliance of Punsters'


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Jan 2011)

The League of Mentalmen


----------



## StuAff (17 Jan 2011)

No Sleep Till Brighton.


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Jan 2011)

I like that. There's a group in Woking called the Woking BBT (Back Before 12).

I'm trying to find the lever marked Coen Borthers, but the best I can come up with is 

No Sleep for Young Women and Old Men (with apologies to ILB who is neither). It's got to be good, though. 'The Fidays' is all over the blogthingy 

http://3.bp.blogspot...600/Slide18.PNG 

I still love that photo, Tim!


----------



## Aperitif (17 Jan 2011)

You only love it because Adam looks like Michael Gove, and faintly geeky... about to let rip and give his assistant a fierce tongue-lashing. 

I might add that I read the whole thing last Saturday and it is polishing up nicely - well done!


----------



## Aperitif (17 Jan 2011)

'The Brighton Earlys' - "all up!"

To be serious - I vote for 'The Fridays' even though it sounds a bit week...


----------



## theclaud (17 Jan 2011)

Aperitif said:


> You only love it because* Adam looks like Michael Gove*, and faintly geeky... about to let rip and give his assistant a fierce tongue-lashing.
> 
> I might add that I read the whole thing last Saturday and it is polishing up nicely - well done!



 How very dare you! I'd like to reassure Adam that he looks absolutely nothing like Michael Gove! And they say P&L is cruel...


----------



## StuartG (17 Jan 2011)

Aperitif said:


> To be serious - I vote for 'The Fridays' even though it sounds a bit week...


Did anybody suggest 'Coasters'? Cos that fits my style of riding ...


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Jan 2011)

uphill and down pints


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Jan 2011)

User13710 said:


> Dellzeqq - "No sleep for young women and older men"? Does that mean older women are excluded?


theoretically they could be. It's just that all the women who come on the rides are getting more youthful by the day, and the men are (ILB and a few others aside) showing signs of advancing years


----------



## Flying Dodo (17 Jan 2011)

theclaud said:


> How very dare you! I'd like to reassure Adam that he looks absolutely nothing like Michael Gove! And they say P&L is cruel...






Anyway, I can't look like Michael Gove - I'm not that sort of Tory.


----------



## Flying Dodo (17 Jan 2011)

StuartG said:


> Did anybody suggest 'Coasters'? Cos that fits my style of riding ...



Actually, that's a pretty good idea. You don't want a name with Brighton in, as that just restricts things.

Coasters works on several levels.

Are we allowed a vote on the name?


----------



## Aperitif (17 Jan 2011)

theclaud said:


> How very dare you! I'd like to reassure Adam that he looks absolutely nothing like Michael Gove! And they say P&L is cruel...









Oh ok then - it is indisputable that Adam doesn't have a pair of elephant lamps, or indeed, a Manchu cabinet (fu may know this...) but...


----------



## Flying Dodo (17 Jan 2011)

And I haven't got a picture of Maggie, either!


----------



## Flying Dodo (17 Jan 2011)

Infamy


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Jan 2011)

User13710 said:


> On what grounds?
> 
> Edit - Sorry, that sounds a bit abrupt. It's just that I fall into the category, and am really hoping to do a FNRttC this year. Last year I was registered to do the Martlets ride, but my buddy was taken ill at the last minute and I wasn't brave enough to come on my own! (I worried about not being able to keep up, but I'm a lot fitter now.)


I was jesting with you. We have men and women of all ages (6 to 69). Not that we ask. About ages that is. And, generally speaking, we take a punt on the gender.


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Jan 2011)

Flying Dodo said:


> And I haven't got a picture of Maggie, either!


not even a small tattoo? An embroidered cushion cover. A souvenir teacup?

Our best man used to kiss the television when Maggie came on. It takes all sorts.


----------



## Aperitif (17 Jan 2011)

Here's a small tautou - will that do?


----------



## clivedb (17 Jan 2011)

The Insomnicyclists?


----------



## Mark Grant (17 Jan 2011)

I quite like 'coasters', or 'City Coasters'. I even thought 'Smoke City Coasters' but perhaps that sounds like a '70s custom car club.

Mark.


----------



## StuartG (18 Jan 2011)

Flying Dodo said:


> Coasters works on several levels.


Hadn't thought of that one ...


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jan 2011)

The Coasters is growing on me. It does work on a lot of levels. And they sit nicely on a table with a single malt on top. which describes the hardcore of the ride to a tee.


----------



## theclaud (18 Jan 2011)

GregCollins said:


> The Coasters is growing on me. It does work on a lot of levels. And they sit nicely on a table with a single malt on top. which *describes the hardcore of the ride to a tee*.



Are those the ones that can't be arsed to keep the pedals turning?


----------



## Aperitif (18 Jan 2011)

'Lunettcs' - as some nearly make spectacles of themselves under the moon.

'V.C. Lune Apres L'Autre' (should be Auteur really) San Fairy Ann did it - why can twee?


----------



## dellzeqq (18 Jan 2011)

VC Midnight? Or has the teenage vamp thing run its course?

The Full Mooners? Of course we'd have to kit ourselves out with some sparkling rims.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jan 2011)

The Moonstruck Cycle Club - _we ride at midnight_


----------



## MacB (18 Jan 2011)

AdrianC said:


> Good point. As a part time fixie rider I could take offense, were I not so easy going.




you could be part of a subset called the 'Sticky Coasters'


----------



## redjedi (18 Jan 2011)

GregCollins said:


> The Moonstruck Cycle Club - _we ride at midnight_



The Moonshine CC


----------



## frank9755 (18 Jan 2011)

I was vulnerable to two degrees of minsinterpretation. Was not nice. Suggest this one is ruled out. Quickly.


----------



## frank9755 (18 Jan 2011)

Aperitif said:


> Here's a small tautou - will that do?



I have a pair.


----------



## martint235 (18 Jan 2011)

frank9755 said:


> I have a pair.



Are they coming with us on the FNRttC from now on???


----------



## theclaud (18 Jan 2011)

martint235 said:


> Are they coming with us on the FNRttC from now on???



They kept registering, then cancelling out of disappointment when Davy didn't show.


----------



## martint235 (18 Jan 2011)

I knew it would be Davy's fault 

Sent whilst out and about via Tapatalk


----------



## dellzeqq (18 Jan 2011)

Women Who Are Too Small For Their Eyes are not welcome on the FNRttC unless they ride at the front and see potholes at 500 metres. Amelie Girl and Anne Hathaway please note.


----------



## rich p (18 Jan 2011)

Our theme song could be, Coast Riders in the (night) Sky

by Spoke Jones and his City Slicks


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> Women Who Are Too Small For Their Eyes are not welcome on the FNRttC unless they ride at the front and see potholes at 500 metres. Amelie Girl and Anne Hathaway please note.



Ann Hathaway has a lovely back.





and she rode a bike in 'Rachel Getting Married'

justsayin'


----------



## Aperitif (18 Jan 2011)

The carpet looks a right mess.


----------



## frank9755 (18 Jan 2011)

At least she saved a few quid on the fabric for the back.


Moss Bros used to do waistcoats like that for hire.


----------



## Aperitif (18 Jan 2011)

You must have looked like a bag of tish on your nights out then frank! 

(I bought suits in Moss Bros - twice - so I know what you mean). Bought a set of tungsten darts too - the best buy of all three as there was ultimately no point to the suits!


----------



## dellzeqq (19 Jan 2011)

Concentrate.........

Went to Lambeth Cycling Campaign last night, which is part of the London Cycling Campaign. TTCycle was there to make sure I didn't make a complete arse of myself, and she almost succeeded.

Anyway - they'd welcome the FNRttC as a Lambeth CC ride, if the insurance thing is sorted. E-mails have been sent, and it's now down to the LCC Office to get back to me.


----------



## dellzeqq (19 Jan 2011)

AdrianC said:


> Apologies I'm struggling to keep up here. Does this mean that a person can now give up their CTC membership or not?


Yes. If we go the LCC route then you can get LCC membership or affiliated CTC membership via the Anerley or The Fridays (when it's set up). If we don't go the LCC route then there's still the affiliate option.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Jan 2011)

Nah, it's dead easy once you make your mind up.


----------



## dellzeqq (19 Jan 2011)

AdrianC said:


> I have LCC membership already. Giving up the CTC membership would stil be a wrench though.


I'm not encouraging you do give it up. I'll be staying on as an affiliate member until the LCC gets its act together and starts taking affiliates

I think that last summer I decided I would stay on only as long as the FNRttC needed me to stay on. Leaving the C+M is a bit of a wrench for me (I'm leading the ride on the 30th Jan) but it will also be a bit of a relief to leave the national organisation. It's no longer my problem. The Trust can burn cash, Campaigns can wither, the tie-up with Wiggle can be as squalid as can be, the subs can go through the roof and I can get used to the idea of not worrying about it. 

I think that both TTC and I were impressed by the campaigning 'weight' in the room last night. You could have comfortably lost the entire CTC campaigns team in the Lambeth CC committee.


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Feb 2011)

OK. Deep breath. The LCC thing has finally run in to the sand. Apparently the non-London (South Wales, York, Manchester) rides are a problem.

The Fridays page says it how it is
http://3.bp.blogspot...600/Slide18.PNG

So......if you're not a CTC member and you want to do a ride in 2011 - send me a cheque for *£12* made out to 'CTC'. I will then bundle these up, and take them along to Arvato in Twickenham. Address by return e-mail to fnrttc@yahoo.co.uk

I think that the deadline for each ride will be about two weeks ahead of time, so I'll open registration for the March ride now.

If you are a CTC member and want to switch to affiliate membership via The Fridays then let me know via fnrttc at yahoo.co.uk. If you're an LCC or BC member there will be a limited number of slots on the ride for non-CTC members - send me an e-mail if you're interested in the March ride.

I'm sorry it's come to this, but I've probably made sixty or seventy phone calls exploring all the options that made any kind of sense, and this is where we are at...................


----------



## redjedi (3 Feb 2011)

Sounds reasonable to me especially as I tend to do quite a few anyway, and I can always claim it back through discounts in Evans.

Is cheque the only way to pay? I haven't had a cheque book for years.
Can I get postal orders or will my bank issue a single cheque for this?


----------



## Dan B (3 Feb 2011)

Apologies if this has been asked already, but I'm not going to reread all 23 pages to find out: the differences in CTC membership benefits between full and affiliate membership are what? 

Perhaps answering my own question, I found a comparison at http://www.wheel-eas...ticle.asp?ID=64 - does this look about right? The summary seems to be "yes" to insurance and discounts, "no" to legal advice line, the paper magazine and the forum access.


----------



## StuartG (3 Feb 2011)

This is bad news. I'm with the LCC and will not join CTC on principle. So after two glorious seasons I shall have to bid FNRttC farewell. And only last month I added the London rides to our club calendar.

Still I might organise an Anerley concurrent ride to Newhaven. Provided you don't go too fast. Thinking about it joint rides (or rides to the same destination) does open up possibilities ...


----------



## rusky (3 Feb 2011)

Pardon my ignorance, but if you are already a CTC member can you just pay £1 for membership to The Fridays?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Feb 2011)

I'm still a CTC member until May. I've already joined the LCC and won't be renewing my CTC membership. It will grieve me immensely to have to write "CTC" on any cheque with my name on it. Grrrrr, and if I am joining The Fridays why does my cheque have to made out to the other load of numpties. And what is a cheque anyway, i can't remember the last time I wrote one.moan moan moan.

Not coming to Southend so i can dodge the issue for a month until april or....

Simon, do you have a paypal account?


----------



## Aperitif (3 Feb 2011)

I joined the CTC for 5 years...don't know how many I have left - don't care. If £12 = 4 beers?, or half an average shirt, then pay - forget principle. Simon's 'bit' becomes straightforward and one continues with the insouciance that adorns a Friday Night Ride...CTC? Cinema ticket? A gallon of petrol? (I have no idea)


----------



## theclaud (3 Feb 2011)

Aperitif said:


> I joined the CTC for 5 years...don't know how many I have left - don't care. *If £12 = 4 beers?, or half an average shirt, then pay - forget principle.* Simon's 'bit' becomes straightforward and one continues with the insouciance that adorns a Friday Night Ride...CTC? Cinema ticket? A gallon of petrol? (I have no idea)



Quite. I'm not sure it's terribly unprincipled anyway. I'm sticking with CTC for now as it happens, having accidentally agreed to take on a few things with CTC Cymru, and because there's still the Member Group.


----------



## redjedi (3 Feb 2011)

AdrianC said:


> Oh no, this is not how things should unfold.




Exactly. I don''t see it as paying £12 to CTC, I see it as paying £13 to join a club that organises some of the best rides around with some of the best company, and if it costs me £13 to help keep it running then I'm more than happy to pay.


----------



## StuAff (3 Feb 2011)

My cheque will be in the post shortly. I can appreciate the unwillingness of some to send any money the CTC's way. Can't say I'm happy about that either. But as 'teef rightly points out, £12 for a year's worth of splendid evenings out is small change.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Feb 2011)

so can I give one of you £13 in cash/or via paypal and you write out the cheque for £26 and all is square?

funny thing principles, bit like women; cant live with 'em, can't live without 'em.

just asked the lovely helen where the cheque book is. very blank 'what's a cheque book?' look

I know. I send Simon a cheque for £13 and don't write forget to write the payee on it! Sorted.


----------



## frank9755 (3 Feb 2011)

My CTC membership expires shortly so I will not renew and instead, take great pleasure in affiliating via the Happy Fridays. 

Simon, thanks for what I am sure has been man-weeks of time in finding a workable, pragmatic solution which protects everyone's interests, and which has just saved me about £25!



Dan B said:


> Apologies if this has been asked already, but I'm not going to reread all 23 pages to find out: the differences in CTC membership benefits between full and affiliate membership are what?
> 
> Perhaps answering my own question, I found a comparison at http://www.wheel-eas...ticle.asp?ID=64 - does this look about right? The summary seems to be "yes" to insurance and discounts, "no" to legal advice line, the paper magazine and the forum access.




Dan,
Almost. However, anyone can access the forum (which I have to say I have found more valuable than most other aspects of the CTC as there are some real technical experts there who have taught me many timely lessons in bike fixing and fettling).
What non-members can't access is certain areas of the website, such as the routes library. FWIW, in its day this was probably a great resource but is of little value now as it has been rendered obsolete by other sites such as Bikely and CGOAB, which are so much easier to use. 
IMHO the affiliate membership seems to offer all the useful bits of the full membership!


----------



## Tim Hall (3 Feb 2011)

So a dozen notes and it's a deal? <fx:spits on hand> Sounds like a bargain.


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Feb 2011)

StuartG said:


> This is bad news. I'm with the LCC and will not join CTC on principle. So after two glorious seasons I shall have to bid FNRttC farewell. And only last month I added the London rides to our club calendar.
> 
> Still I might organise an Anerley concurrent ride to Newhaven. Provided you don't go too fast. Thinking about it joint rides (or rides to the same destination) does open up possibilities ...


there are five spaces on each ride for LCC/BC members. And if we've never had more than five LCC/BC members who are not also members of the CTC.

Isn't the Anerley a CTC affiliate?


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Feb 2011)

GregCollins said:


> so can I give one of you £13 in cash/or via paypal and you write out the cheque for £26 and all is square?
> 
> funny thing principles, bit like women; cant live with 'em, can't live without 'em.
> 
> ...


think of it as a deposit to an affiliates buyers group with independent purchasing power in 2013. 

Here's the deal. Financially the CTC is screwed. What happens if the subs go skyward (officers proposed £42 for next year)? The affiliates have got to give themselves choices 

£12 by the way. I'll take a pound coin off you.


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Feb 2011)

rusky said:


> Pardon my ignorance, but if you are already a CTC member can you just pay £1 for membership to The Fridays?


yup


----------



## StuartG (4 Feb 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> Isn't the Anerley a CTC affiliate?


Nope - BC. For historic reasons methinks.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Feb 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> think of it as a deposit to an affiliates buyers group with independent purchasing power in 2013.
> 
> Here's the deal. Financially the CTC is screwed. What happens if the subs go skyward (officers proposed £42 for next year)? The affiliates have got to give themselves choices
> 
> £12 by the way. I'll take a pound coin off you.



we've hired a local archaeologist to find evidence of this cheque book technology, after which the cheque will be in the post.

a good night's sleep, and the wisdom of teff and others, does wonders when I get things out of proportion.


----------



## Aperitif (4 Feb 2011)

I have a wheeze for getting the dosh back, Greg.
£5 a puncture fix - payable in advance - then charge another £5 half way through (say it's something to do with inflation), £8.88 for a busted chain fix, and something like tightening the hidden allen bolt securing the mudguards on the front wheel of a custom build - with dynamo - <sucks air through teeth, tuts...> free estimates.


----------



## rb58 (4 Feb 2011)

frank9755 said:


> My CTC membership expires shortly so I will not renew and instead, take great pleasure in affiliating via the Happy Fridays.



+1 
I think mine expires in August


----------



## PpPete (4 Feb 2011)

As personal chequebook has been AWOL for some time, I'm wondering whether to write a cheque using my company chequebook... and tell the accountant (and thereby HMRC) it is membership of "Professional Associations".


Fortunately photographic evidence of " professionalism " is not usually required....


----------



## frank9755 (4 Feb 2011)

PpPete said:


> As personal chequebook has been AWOL for some time, I'm wondering whether to write a cheque using my company chequebook... and tell the accountant (and thereby HMRC) it is membership of "Professional Associations".
> 
> 
> Fortunately photographic evidence of " professionalism " is not usually required....



Or classify it as a donation to a charity


----------



## dellzeqq (4 Feb 2011)

*STOP!
*
This is embarrassing...

I went through the affiliation procedure in some detail, crossing and dotting t's and i's to the point of driving the CTC membership bod beg for mercy, and it turns out that he neglected to mention that their year begins on 1st October, and that all those that register as affiliated membership after 1st April get a reduction *to £8.

*So - if you're not coming on the Southend ride make the cheque out for the reduced amount and I will take another spin down to Twickenham in the beginning of April.


----------



## dellzeqq (4 Feb 2011)

PpPete said:


> As personal chequebook has been AWOL for some time, I'm wondering whether to write a cheque using my company chequebook... and tell the accountant (and thereby HMRC) it is membership of "Professional Associations".
> 
> 
> Fortunately photographic evidence of " professionalism " is not usually required....


ah. Yes. Would you like to run that by our resident HMRC investigator....


----------



## PpPete (4 Feb 2011)

and who is that then ? In my newbieness at all things FNRttC I honestly don't know. 

Oh Sh1t...it's not you, is it Simon ?


----------



## StuAff (4 Feb 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> *STOP!
> *
> This is embarrassing...
> 
> ...



I'd written my cheque out already. But not exactly a problem, as I'm planning to go to Southend!


----------



## ttcycle (4 Feb 2011)

Hi Simon sad to read the LCC option didn't come to fruition. You know my reasons on principle and a very severe lack of cash for a good while, will have to give these a miss for the coming future...feel quite sad about that as wad hoping to be able to do these again once I was fighting fit.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Feb 2011)

Simon

Could we not do something along the lines of £n waged £n-quite a bit unwaged/brassic/hardship?

Especially in this, the first year of The Fridays...

I hate to think people can't come for lack of bunce when I have a small surfiet of same and beleive that, as some sort of socialist it is my duty to redistribute my meagre private wealth.


----------



## Aperitif (4 Feb 2011)

"From each according to his bikeability, to each according to his knees"


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Feb 2011)

To the tune of "Friday I'm in Love" by the popular beat combo The Cure

I don't care if monday's blue
tuesday's grey and wednesday too
thursday i don't care about you
The Fridays Cycling Club

monday tyres can fall apart
tuesday wednesday break my heart
thursdays ride? Don't even start.
The Fridays Cycling Club

saturday wait
big full english on a plate
The Fridays never hesitate...

I don't care if monday's black
tuesday wednesday heart attack
thursday fixed my broken rack
The Fridays Cycling Club

monday you can bang your head
tuesday wednesday stay in bed
thursday honk the hills instead
The Fridays Cycling Club

saturday wait
big full english on the plate
The Fridays never hesitate...

dressed up to the eyes
it's a wonderful surprise
to see your shoes and your pedals rise
throwing out your frown
and just smiling at the sound
and as sleek as your wheels
spinning round and round
always take my best bike
it's such a gorgeous sight
to see them ride in the middle of the night
you can never get enough
enough of this stuff
The Fridays
Cycling Club

And I don't care if monday's blue
tuesday's grey and wednesday too
thursday I don't care about you
The Fridays Cycling Club

mondays tyres can fall apart
tuesday wednesday break my heart
thursdays ride? Don't even start
The Fridays Cycling Club


----------



## dellzeqq (4 Feb 2011)

GregCollins said:


> Simon
> 
> Could we not do something along the lines of £n waged £n-quite a bit unwaged/brassic/hardship?


I will sort it out


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Feb 2011)

AdrianC said:


> Very good. The Cure had no business recording a jolly upbeat number though.



Jolly upbeat lads the lot of them.


----------



## Tim Hall (4 Feb 2011)

GregCollins said:


> Jolly upbeat lads the lot of them.



And, if I'm not mistaken, a small detour off Lonesome Lane would take us past Mick Dempsey's childhood home.


----------



## Aperitif (4 Feb 2011)

I never knew that I have ridden in the company of a load of dusty old, head-nodders! I don't mean the head bangers like Stu (and I don't mean the Reigate Hill mob founder member - I mean the Koko queuemeister Stu) - the 'Carbon Maiden' (Iron is SO yesterday) lover of our time.
Will it be compulsory to learn this anthem so that it can wail through the night, permeating bedrooms everywhere...as the affiliated ones wend their way waterwards?


----------



## dellzeqq (4 Feb 2011)

PpPete said:


> and who is that then ? In my newbieness at all things FNRttC I honestly don't know.
> 
> Oh Sh1t...it's not you, is it Simon ?


not me. Apparently he doesn't get out of bed for less than twenty grand.....


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Feb 2011)

Tim Hall said:


> And, if I'm not mistaken, a small detour off Lonesome Lane would take us past Mick Dempsey's childhood home.



and indeed Robert Smith's early abode would only require a small detour.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Feb 2011)

Aperitif said:


> I never knew that I have ridden in the company of a load of dusty old, head-nodders! I don't mean the head bangers like Stu (and I don't mean the Reigate Hill mob founder member - I mean the Koko queuemeister Stu) - the 'Carbon Maiden' (Iron is SO yesterday) lover of our time.
> Will it be compulsory to learn this anthem so that it can wail through the night, permeating bedrooms everywhere...as the affiliated ones wend their way waterwards?




Once a head nodder always a head nodder. I'm going to see them play Bestival.

Every club needs a song or five to while away the wee small hours before a dram is taken......


----------



## Tim Hall (4 Feb 2011)

GregCollins said:


> and indeed Robert Smith's early abode would only require a small detour.



I remember when Mathieu Hartley threw up all over his geography book. He must have been 9 at the time.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Feb 2011)

Tim Hall said:


> I remember when Mathieu Hartley threw up all over his geography book. He must have been 9 at the time.




Sweet. 

I can honestly say that in all the years I've followed them I've not see a member of The Cure vomit, mainly because they can all drink an utter lightweight like me under the table. Boy can those boys party.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (5 Feb 2011)

ear worms are a terrible affliction on a long ride. especially if one's taste in easy listening is the work of the Dark Lord Robert Smith. 

Being of a God botherering disposition I use hymns to drive said chunes out of my head, so it you hear "To be a pilgrim" being quietly sung at dawn on turners hill, you know who to blame

I do find it odd that one Catholic Comprehensive School in Crawley could produce both The Cure and The Feeling, and had a heling hand in the Waterboys!


----------

