Just joined this British Cycling

[skyhawk]

the British Cycling community

Never heard of them before hope I haven't wasted money

[Paulatic]

Value for money depends on the reason you joined.
I’ve only ever joined clubs for their group rides and insurance. Looked at BC a few times but never followed through because their helmet policy.
CUK rides have dried up in my area and I’m insured through my home policy so not bothering with any presently.

[mjr]

They're the cycle-sport governing body, formerly the British Cycling Federation, before that the National Cycling Union (formerly the Bicycle Union) and the British League of Racing Cyclists.

I don't like them because they've persuaded too many rides to adopt helmet rules.

[Cyril Haearn]

I do not like the bcf because it promotes events involving TDC

[fossala]

I do not like the bcf because it promotes events involving TDC

TDC?

[pwa]

They're the cycle-sport governing body, formerly the British Cycling Federation, before that the National Cycling Union (formerly the Bicycle Union) and the British League of Racing Cyclists.

I don't like them because they've persuaded too many rides to adopt helmet rules.

They certainly have been the racing organisation, and I do understand the annoyance about their helmet stance, but it could be the case that a wider range of cyclists joining might widen the perspective of this body. And it does look like the body with momentum these days.

When I was a child my extended family were mostly religious. All Christians of different flavours. Salvation Army, Roman Catholic, Baptist. And they bickered. But looking back from the vantage point of this more secular age, they had more in common than they had dividing them. I feel that cycling organisations are like that. They differ, and they disagree, but in the end they are all cycling organisations trying to make things better for people on bikes.

[Tangled Metal]

It's growing, CUK isn't. Helmet stance isn't harming then much, you think?

If you race you join I guess. Although the growth is possibly by it also going for the leisure cyclist who doesn't race. Plus those gear freaks who are always buying stuff like the BC discount which is widely offered.

Personally cycling is about getting out on your bike. I don't see the need for joining. I don't ride with people other than my family. Perhaps liability insurance might be worth it but I'm mid 40s and have never had liability insurance for cycling. I get holiday insurance for cycling tours but that's really for medical cover. I know people who've had to use it including repatriation in a special plane with medical staff on board. Liability is included in that.

So basically I take the view that joining a body like CUK or BC is down to what services they offer that you want, are they worth the money? Yes/no?

[Cugel]

(snip)

So basically I take the view that joining a body like CUK or BC is down to what services they offer that you want, are they worth the money? Yes/no?

There are many reasons for joining an organisation besides some sort of financial buying/selling or service contract. Another common reason is to support the activities of an organisation because you think it's doing something useful in general - some good; perhaps because it's resisting some bad. If you give to a charity, for example, you don't expect anything back personally.

Once I was a member of the BCF (as it was then) because I raced and membership was mandatory. At that time, the club I was a member of had a policy that all members had to join the BCF, whether they raced or not. This was partly for the 3rd party insurance but mostly to support the BCF as an organisation doing good for cycling.

The BCF and it's current manifestation BC are now little interested in amateur racing compared to their interest in the higher echelons, including what many see as an unhealthy relationship with professional cycling and "the industry". The club I have just left (because I moved from NW England to West Wales) gave up the rule that members must belong also to the BCF/BC a decade or more ago, as the organisation seemed to we amateur cyclists to be no longer doing good but promoting a poor model of sports cycling too involved with those professionals.

Cugel

[mattheus]

It's growing, CUK isn't. Helmet stance isn't harming then much, you think?

Growth? ISIS have a lot more members than 20 years ago! <please use less extreme analogy if it helps you understand my point >
I simply don't believe that growth is always good. Or indeed that a bigger org'n is better than a smaller one!

Also, there are stats that show much of BC membership growth is due to Sportive entrants i.e. they had to join to do the event. I don't think that proves much about what BC is doing right.

And finally, I have seen very little useful campaigning action from BC over the years. The marvellous Chris Boardman has done a huge amount in the last couple of years, but without him BC would be almost silent in these areas. For all their faults, this is the stuff that CUK has led on, decade-on-decade.

[mattheus]

<snippage>
...
I feel that cycling organisations are like that. They differ, and they disagree, but in the end they are all cycling organisations trying to make things better for people on bikes.

An excellent point.

[Mick F]

I don't like them because they've persuaded too many rides to adopt helmet rules.

Agree, and that was the tipping point for NOT joining them.
Not that I'm anti-helmet, but I am pro-choice and I do not like being dictated to.

Other reason, is that they don't do a discount for "older" people or the unwaged.

[skyhawk]

It's growing, CUK isn't. Helmet stance isn't harming then much, you think?

If you race you join I guess. Although the growth is possibly by it also going for the leisure cyclist who doesn't race. Plus those gear freaks who are always buying stuff like the BC discount which is widely offered.

Personally cycling is about getting out on your bike. I don't see the need for joining. I don't ride with people other than my family. Perhaps liability insurance might be worth it but I'm mid 40s and have never had liability insurance for cycling. I get holiday insurance for cycling tours but that's really for medical cover. I know people who've had to use it including repatriation in a special plane with medical staff on board. Liability is included in that.

So basically I take the view that joining a body like CUK or BC is down to what services they offer that you want, are they worth the money? Yes/no?

I joined mainly for the insurance, why, because if you hit a car/person and are not insured, good luck I would sue for all I could get if I was injured, and i have seen people sued for tens of thousands.

Helmet stance............. ?

If they insist on helmets, good, so do I, when living in Tavistock a woman was killed when she came off her bike, hit the kerb, fractured skull, her helmet was on the handle bars. My personal feelings.

[skyhawk]

I don't like them because they've persuaded too many rides to adopt helmet rules.

Agree, and that was the tipping point for NOT joining them.
Not that I'm anti-helmet, but I am pro-choice and I do not like being dictated to.

Other reason, is that they don't do a discount for "older" people or the unwaged.

Did you give up driving when you were dictated to that you will wear a seat belt ????
I am "older" and "unwaged", I don't think that 81p a week is a lot, do you ??? including insurance

[Syd]

I don't like them because they've persuaded too many rides to adopt helmet rules.

Agree, and that was the tipping point for NOT joining them.
Not that I'm anti-helmet, but I am pro-choice and I do not like being dictated to.

Other reason, is that they don't do a discount for "older" people or the unwaged.

If you are a volunteer is some of their roles you get free membership.

[mattheus]

He hasn't given up CYCLING. He has simply decided not to join/support a body that promotes ill-considered PPE rules, where it should be personal choice.