membership

[peter236uk]

Hi I have been a member of the CTC for around 12 years at least and paid my dues ! however i really wonder if the CTC its worth it.

[daveg]

It will be if you ever have to use legal or insurance services.

For me I like belonging to a cyclists group and contributing to the upkeep of a body that is representing my interests as a cyclist. Equally I always enjoy the magazine.

I think I get value for my money - others may disagree.

[gaz]

Give it another 12 years or so and you'll get a badge!

Still VFM in my book.

[Si]

Horses for courses, swings and roundabouts, etc. Everyone will want something different from a cycling organisation so some will find it GVfM others will wonder what they are paying for.

In my case it's good: an excellent local group and local campaigning (yes, contrary to some popular opinion it does do this), national campaigning (ditto), a generally good magazine (well better than any other currently available cycling mag that I've tried), insurance and legal support, advice on touring and technical stuff, and of course a reasonable internet forum.

But if you don't like it then the thing to do is speak up and put forward alternative strategies and polices that you think would be beneficial. And if you are ignored and still feel short changed, vote with your wallet and find an alternative organisation that better suits your needs.

[Swallow]

As reported on another thread a member of our club was injured when hit by a motor cyclist while taking part in an Audax event recently. By chance, she and her partner joined the CTC only the week before. It seems they may need their help and have been in touch already. Since then several more club members have decided to join. It's a shame it took this incident to bring home the benefits of membership.

[Regulator]

It will be if you ever have to use legal or insurance services.

You can get equivalent legal and insurance services for ½ the price via British Cycling.

British Cycling is beginning to make inroads into CTC's traditional markets and is snapping members up. CTC is continuing to disenfranchise members (although we can hope that the new Chief Exec might reverse that trend - we shall have to wait and see).

With the charity changes being pushed through, member benefits will disappear and members' control of the club will go. There are many, including myself, who are asking whether it's really worth it any more.

[PaulB]

My membership is due at the end of April. I joined in 1988 but will not be renewing. I think the £39 fee is excessive and I put the magazine in the recycling bag within a day or two of its arrival - it is not a good read. British Cycling has insurance cover for their £24 membership and they don't get bogged down with charity debates and politics. I just want to ride my bike and share the experience with other like minded people. CTC has lost its way and will soon lose me.

[peter236uk]

I have to say I do not need the insurance I am fortunate to have plenty of cover through work. I do feel its a bit expensive now and for all the years I have been a member the only correspondence from CTC is to send raffle tickets.
There is not a local group to me either well around 12 miles away, I will have to think hard this time around

[mattheus]

It will be if you ever have to use legal or insurance services.

You can get equivalent legal and insurance services for ½ the price via British Cycling.

Is that the case if you get CTC affiliate membership? IAMFI!

[sirmy]

I renewed in January, pretty much for the insurance. There are several things about the direction the club appears to be heading in which I find hard to support. Might look at BC next year or for insurance as an add to to theft cover

[Mick F]

I joined CTC comparatively recently - 2006 - and I joined mainly for the insurance.

I never joined in the past because of the high membership fee, but now I'm retired, I am a member as "unwaged" at £24 per year. Seems good value at that price, and in five-odd years time at 65, it'll still be £24.

If CTC can charge £24 for unwaged and over65's, why do they charge £39 for other adults? Seems daft to me.

[meic]

I have to say I do not need the insurance I am fortunate to have plenty of cover through work. I do feel its a bit expensive now and for all the years I have been a member the only correspondence from CTC is to send raffle tickets.
There is not a local group to me either well around 12 miles away, I will have to think hard this time around

Its funny how people have a different perspective on things, I would consider a club 12 miles way as very local. My sections are about 40 miles away.

[thirdcrank]

I joined CTC comparatively recently - 2006 - and I joined mainly for the insurance.

I never joined in the past because of the high membership fee, but now I'm retired, I am a member as "unwaged" at £24 per year. Seems good value at that price, and in five-odd years time at 65, it'll still be £24.

If CTC can charge £24 for unwaged and over65's, why do they charge £39 for other adults? Seems daft to me.

I think that's because it is daft. There are all sorts of euphemisms for "poor" these days and "unwaged" is one of them. A moment's thought suggests that if "unwaged" is to be taken literally, the "idle rich" are at the front of the queue for "concessions" (another euphemism.) Even among people who have stopped work, retirement on a decent occupational pension does not equate with poverty. I suspect that the CTC is unusual in accepting a P45 as evidence that somebody should have discounted membership. I've no idea what the current DHSS forms are but in the days when I used to be involved in listing the contents of people's pockets they were the U12 and UB40.

I'd hasten to add that I'd not blame anybody who took advantage of this bit of daftness.

[gaz]

I cannot find a definition of the term "unwaged" in respect of membership on the main boards. There is one on the forum.

...Unwaged means someone who's currently receiving income support. So yes, it could mean someone who's currently unemployed, or perhaps somebody that's receiving incapacity benefit. ...

Clearly it's not intended to include "unwaged" Company Directors who receive income by way of Share Dividend rather than wages, thereby avoiding income tax; nor the Cameron's who were offered their family membership for free.

I'd hasten to add that I'd not blame anybody who took advantage of this bit of daftness.

I'd blame whoever was daft enough not to include a definition of "unwaged" on the application form.

[thirdcrank]

I only mentioned the P45 because when I retired at the ripe old age of 52½, that's exactly what the CTC membership application info said was suitable as evidence of being "unwaged."

PS All that quote from snakes says to me is that he doesn't understand the benefits system very well (which is understandable because many people are in the same boat.) Jobseekers' is a case in point. When I retired, I could have signed on, on the basis that I was looking for work and I'd have got contribution-based JSA for nine months, no matter what my income.

In any case, the reality - as MickF points out - is that if you have at least some forms of income - in his case a service pension following a long career in the Royal Navy - then you will be treated as "unwaged" so long as you are not working (when the P45 would have gone to the new employer.) And as he said a bit higher up, that's daft.