Is it worth joining MAG (in 2019)?

[Bhud]

My bike insurance is coming up for renewal, and I need to shop around a bit because of the mods I've done and those I have planned. I've noticed that the GoCompare website always gives me a quote for "MAG" bike insurance, which is provided by Bikesure (I think) and is just £27 more than whatever the Bikesure quote is.

Looked up the MAG website, and membership is about £27.

I think of MAG as one of those lame ducks that belongs in the past but which persists as a way for old mates to get together and have a few beers. Nothing wrong with that, and fair play to them, but sort of pointless unless you're in that scene.

However, nowadays I'm getting increasingly concerned about some of the measures being taken nationally and locally. ULEZ, making roads less convenient and more unsafe on purpose, etc. Even a nearby council plans to narrow a busy dual carriageways to a single lane with lots of traffic islands, to build a tram line between places nobody wants to go (i.e. a dying town centre and an industrial estate). It's madness, and you notice these things more and more. With every never-will-be-used cycle route being proposed, there is no objection from people who actually use a particular road.

I'm rambling, but anyway, my point is that I feel some sort of coherent voice is needed to express a few points of reason and object to some of the downright lunatic measures. But then I look at the MAG website and it's crap. I look at my local MAG webpage and it looks like it's from 1995 and has a few pictures of fat guys and old birds posing with trikes in 2012... I mean, what the hell. £27 is a very reasonable membership cost if MAG does what it's supposed to do. But would I be pissing money up the wall if I chuck this in with my insurance renewal?

[Ste]

Waste of money.

[ThatDippyTwat]

https://www.visordown.com/news/general/mags-new-company-name-nice-employer-limited

That should tell you all you need to know. Liversausage is still an utter spunktrumpet. I was out of the loop for years, but they've sunk to new depths in that time.

Besides, Kahn and TfL are just ignoring them. They don't matter.

Bikesure usually team up with the BMF, who seem to be a bit more sane. My insurance is through them, with BMF membership included, or some sort of thing like that.
____________________
'98 VFR800 (touring) - '12 VFR800 Crosrunner (Commuting) - '01 KDX220 (Big Green Antisocial Machine)

[Robby]

You would probably have more effect by replying to consultations on matters that affect you with a reasonable argument.

So for the dual carriageway being narrowed, explain that this will increase traffic, make people more frustrated, and make the road less safe for vulnerable road users.

For the ULEZ, explain the financial impact. Good to show your numbers, and be clear that riding a bike is still cheaper than public transport and best overall solution, but cost of buying a newer bike will have a serious impact on your finances.

As a rule, just about anything which is seen as anti-biker can also be seen as pro-(insert vulnerable group here). So the argument to make is that this action will turn you into a member of a vulnerable group.

Consultation responses do have to be read and taken into account - but not always replied to.

Protest rides and the like do not work. That just means that the group in question stop being "people with a valid point" and become "nutters and political agitators".

To put it another way, Greenpeace don't secure political change by ramming whaling boats or blockading oil rigs, that just gives them news coverage. They secure political change by providing robust arguments with sound evidence.

A bunch of grumpy old men who keep talking about leg protectors aren't going to do anything.

[Bhud]

Yes, the more I look at MAG the more I see the shape of a set of failed opportunities. On the one hand there is a need for a national motorcycle rights advocacy group, and on the other, the strange policies and lack of coordination of MAG mean that MAG definitely isn't that motorcycle rights advocacy group (and I don't think it's even trying that hard).

That makes things easier - I've no interesting in joining MAG now - but it's also a bit disappointing that the only recourse left to us is to write to MPs and fill out consultations as individuals.

[ThatDippyTwat]

[sickpup]

[Bhud]

[ThatDippyTwat]

I'm only with it because it came with insurance, I know next to fuck all about them other than there's no Liversausage at the helm, so it might actually have footings on this realm of existence. Liversausage certainly was that mental last time I met him, and I can only surmise he's got worse with age.

I actively avoid giving MAG money though, So it's the difference between being ambivalent about the BMF, but disgusted with MAG.

The only org I give to and bother to promote is NABD. They've done a lot of good for mates of mine.
https://www.nabd.org.uk/
____________________
'98 VFR800 (touring) - '12 VFR800 Crosrunner (Commuting) - '01 KDX220 (Big Green Antisocial Machine)

[Robby]

[WD Forte]

Careful now.
We had bloke here called Rogerborg who was always ripping into MAG
then he suddenly disappeared
No warning, then poof! he was gone.
just sayin is all
____________________
bikers smell of wee

[Bhud]

The problem with ULEZ is that it disproportionately affects a class of people (old motorcycle users) that contributes next to zero in terms of the NOx pollutants cited as its 'justification'.

As a general rule, all motorcycle rights advocacy groups resist the encroachment of the State in matters of the individual freedom to use motorcycles. This is a basic tenet and an underpinning - any group that acquiesces to regulations and laws and doesn't object to them isn't worth its salt and couldn't call itself a motorcycle rights advocacy group.

Championing the right to not wear helmets is, naturally, redundant and completely pointless, several decades after the fact. But even the helmet issue is a genuine matter of individual freedoms and rights. How much more so, and more relevant and up-to-date, is the arbitrary decision to encompass motorcycles under ULEZ. They will move the goalposts again and again until you just can't score in them any more. The justification for helmets was the safety issue, and the justification for ULEZ is 'my children before everything'. And when your children reach maturity, the same justification will be used against them. Stuff this direction of 'progress'.

The ratchet only moves in one direction (more and more laws), and leads inexorably to complete abolition. That's why it's so important to have a voice in opposition.

[Shaft]

[Shaft]

[sickpup]

[thx1138]

I left MAG over that whole employment tribunal bollocks years back.

Then the TRF which I am a member of, affiliated with it, so I guess I'm an affiliate member, but I don't actually have anything to do with MAG, it's more of a default affiliation.

[iooi]

[Fizzoid]

[Ste]

[sickpup]

[Robby]

[sickpup]