CTC, Cycling UK.

[Drago]

Cycling UK is like The Ramblers Association 👅

And BC is the AA of cycling, with Chris Boredman fast becoming the new Edmund Kind. I once turned up for a BC ride without a helmet and was told I couldn't come along. I went anyway, just to make the point that it's a public road and I'll ride on it any bloody time I like and don't need their permission to do so. Their ride leaders are so poorly trained its frightening - to be fair, CUKs aren't any better, but they're not so far up their own backsides about it.

I dont think either CUK or BC are really fit for purpose in this day and age, at least where it comes to representing the interests of the run of the mill non competitive cyclist. Neither is worth championing over the other, and most people seem to join one or the other for some small tidbit that they offer, rather than any overriding brilliance of their manifesto.

 

[matticus]

*most* BC members joined because they needed it for racing, or
entered a Sportive (nearest thing to a race, right?), wanted insurance and saw the BC adverts.

It would be rude to suggest that leisure riders choosing BC (and often describing CUK as "like The Ramblers") are wannabe Chris Froomes/Hoys; so I won't! It goes without saying that they were already helmet brainwashed wearers, so didn't see a problem with that aspect.

 

[Sterlo]

Quick update,As an HSBC account holder,i can get a discount on British Cycling membership.So a fee of £23-50p for the year with all benefits except the magazine,also Mrs P is going to join,so a saving at this household.

I thought HSBC had dropped their sponsorship of British Cycling. I took advantage of the offer last year (mainly for the third party insurance) and saved a few quid, but the renewal was at normal price. I shopped around and found a good deal at Wiggle for £24, then just before I was going to arrange it, I got an email with 30% off all insurance, so ended up paying £17 for a year!

 

[vickster]

*most* BC members joined because they needed it for racing, or
entered a Sportive (nearest thing to a race, right?), wanted insurance and saw the BC adverts.

It would be rude to suggest that leisure riders choosing BC (and often describing CUK as "like The Ramblers") are wannabe Chris Froomes/Hoys; so I won't! It goes without saying that they were already helmet brainwashed wearers, so didn't see a problem with that aspect.

I went with BC Ride way back when as it was cheaper than CTC for the same legal and 3rd party cover. I’ve stayed with them as I had a decent experience on a injury claim and CUK is still more expensive I think. I’m not a fan of large corporate PI companies who advertise on TV as S&G do, so that also puts me off CUK

I wore a helmet long before joining 👍 and I’ve never raced (I have done the RL100 and RL46 though but I doubt I’ll ever do another sportive)

 

[matticus]

I wore a helmet long before joining 👍

QED.

 

[vickster]

QED.

That’s my choice, as it is yours to presumably not to 👍

 

[matticus]

That’s my choice, as it is yours to presumably not to 👍

Pretty much, yes

But I'm very reluctant to support pro-helmet organisations. (I've reluctantly paid for BC membership to do CX, but support CTC in heart and wallet. Despite the charity debacle )

 

[snorri]

Then your local group was sub-standard; what have BC done for your area?What do you think of CUK's work nationally?

I haven't heard of BC doing anything, but I'm not interested in sport cycling, as for CUK nationally now, I've lost interest.

 

[matticus]

...
as for CUK nationally now, I've lost interest.

Damning.

 

[GetFatty]

I've always thought CUK have done a very good job of protecting those members paid by the organisation. They stay in work. Not a lot of visibility in my area and I lost interest when the 3rd party insurance didn't even contest a cut and dried case.

 

[matticus]

I've always thought CUK have done a very good job of protecting those members paid by the organisation. They stay in work.

Sounds like BC, or any decent-sized charity. What is your point?

 

[matticus]

It does seem that most threatening to leave CTC (after years of unappreciated loyalty) either:
- begrudge paying a few extra quid. Or
- can't deal with their emphasis moving away from purely supporting touring cyclists.

I think it's a good thing that their aims are now more diverse. I'm not interested in hearing moaning penny-pinchers.

 

[GetFatty]

Sounds like BC, or any decent-sized charity. What is your point?

Just what I said. They exist for their own benefit, not that of their members. Most of what I see from CUK isn't really a campaign, it's floating an implausible idea but they can say "We've been campaigning on your behalf". I'd put them in the same bracket as LCC.

What would you say they've achieved for the average cyclist lately?

 

[matticus]

I'm not wasting my breath - you've made your position quite clear. Go and join the moaners on the CUK forum - I've been through this many times with them!

 

[GetFatty]

I'm not wasting my breath - you've made your position quite clear. Go and join the moaners on the CUK forum - I've been through this many times with them!

You're the one saying how good they are. I stopped subsidising them years ago so care not what you do with your money.

Good to see the level of debate remains so high on cyclechat though