Your Cycling UK membership expires today.

[MattHodges]

I joined the Cyclists Touring Club many decades ago.
It was a club for real touring and leisure cyclists and provided services for them.
The trustees are now trying to stop cyclists from touring far away countries that require them to fly there.
Political correctness rules.
They no longer value older members who have supported the club for decades except as a potential source of legacies.
I don’t recognise Cycling UK as the club I joined.
Why would I renew?

Matt

[rotavator]

Well it is a charity now so I suppose you would renew if you agreed with its aims and you consider that it is fulfilling them in a cost effective and fair manner. Also for the insurance.

One of the reasons that I joined was that I enjoyed reading the magazine, donated by a member, in my local library, in particular CJ's technical tips column, but the latter is long gone. There is very little of interest to me in most of the magazines although the latest edition was an exception. Also I am not aware of anything that CUK has achieved in my area; in contrast Sustrans, another charity that I used to support, did get the coastal cycle path built and that is a great asset. The focus of CUK, based on what I see in the magazine and requests for cash, seems to be on inner cities and getting minority goups onto bikes which is fair enough. I am debating whether to renew my membership or not.

[mjr]

The trustees are now trying to stop cyclists from touring far away countries that require them to fly there.

How are they doing this, pray tell? I may have missed spotting the CUK campaigns to stop airlines taking bikes, or barricading the cycle routes into the airports.

[Audax67]

The trustees are now trying to stop cyclists from touring far away countries that require them to fly there.
Political correctness rules.

It's unfortunate that trying to stop climate change is now damned as "political correctness" which clumps it with such hissy rubbish as bellyaching about men who leave toilet-seats up. Flying anywhere to go on holiday is bloody selfish.

[Mike Sales]

The trustees are now trying to stop cyclists from touring far away countries that require them to fly there.
Political correctness rules.

It's unfortunate that trying to stop climate change is now damned as "political correctness" which clumps it with such hissy rubbish as bellyaching about men who leave toilet-seats up. Flying anywhere to go on holiday is bloody selfish.

He is behind the message.
It is all cancel culture, or being woke, these days.

[rotavator]

It's unfortunate that trying to stop climate change is now damned as "political correctness" which clumps it with such hissy rubbish as bellyaching about men who leave toilet-seats up. Flying anywhere to go on holiday is bloody selfish.

But where do you draw the line when it comes to using fossil fuels? For example, is it acceptable to:
1. Drive to a supermarket to buy food if there is no public transport?
2. To take you children to school by car along busy roads if there is no public transport?
3. To use diesel powered trains and ferries on a cycle touring holiday?
4. To use a gas fire during cold winter evenings? (incidentally I remember a Tory MP suggesting that the elderly should go for walks in the evening to keep themselves warm and that did not go down well!)

The sad realities of life include:
1. the sparcity or non-existence of public transport in rural areas
2. the cheapness of fossil fuels in comparison to other fuels
3. Politician wanting to be elected to power so trying to avoid unpopular new taxes etc.

So as usual we need to weigh up the pros and cons of the issue and come to balanced judgement. Hopefully in the next few decades we will see the transition from fossil to renewable energy.

[Psamathe]

I used to be a member back in CTC days but Tooey and his changes made me ask the same questions as OP. Everybody is different but I was a member of a cycle touring club and when it changed to a domestic cycle campaign charity I reviewed my membership in the light of my priorities regarding charitable donations and whilst I agree with many of the cycle campaign aims, everybody has limited funds and prioritise their donations. Just because a particular campaigning group does not come high enough up ones list for available personal funds does not mean you disagree with their aims (though may not agree with the way they go about some campaigns).

So to me, money to be a member of a Cycle Touring Club and donating to a domestic UK Cycle Campaign Charity are different things.

Ian

[millimole]

So to me, money to be a member of a Cycle Touring Club and donating to a domestic UK Cycle Campaign Charity are different things.
Ian

And this is exactly what a lot of my generation of CTC members don't get - it's not a club, it's a campaigning charity.
The club worked on behalf of its members, the charity's aim is to secure funding to get bums on saddles.
I regret the passing of the old club (and sometimes it makes me livid) but we are where we are, and there is no going back.
Renew if you want to support the aims of the charity, don't if you don't. (I'm a life member, so it's moot for me).

[thirdcrank]

... Why would I renew? ...

For the insurance?

As a member of cUK ie as a supporter of a charity, you have little effective voice.

You now have a chance to make your feelings known by your decision now. ie your choices are exit or loyalty.

[Jdsk]

I like:
* Most of the campaigning and public representation.
* The magazine.
* The insurance, and I have seen the other options thanks to this forum.

Jonathan

[Oldjohnw]

I must say that little odd that people are now objecting to CUK becoming a charity. That change happened many years ago and was done following a majority vote.

[Psamathe]

I like:
* Most of the campaigning and public representation.
* The magazine.
* The insurance, and I have seen the other options thanks to this forum.

Jonathan

Many have the same cover bundled in with their house/contents policy (if we are talking about the same cover) - though clearly I can't talk about your own insurance.

Ian

[Psamathe]

I must say that little odd that people are now objecting to CUK becoming a charity. That change happened many years ago and was done following a majority vote.

I suspect it's not so much about charitable status but more about the change to the purpose of the club/organisation. For example, the astronomy club I'm a member of is a registered charity but a lot done for the membership, members get a big say in what is done, it is a members club though also does a lot of public outreach. The public outreach is done by the members and does not interfere with the club aspects. It all ties in together very well and it is very much a "club" with a membership, not a campaigning body with donations.

Maybe a telling moment was when they discarded their technical expert. They could have made their services available to everybody (members and non-members, advice on safe cycling, etc.) but instead made him redundant and ended that function.

Ian

[thirdcrank]

I fancy people are still disgruntled about the charity conversion because of the way it was ... er ... peddled at the time as a sort of have-your-cake-and-eat-it no-brainer with steady-as-she-goes plus a tax dodge. (With apologies for the mangled / mingled metaphors.)

Also, hiking the subs for some older members was always likely to trigger some gripes.

[mjr]

I fancy people are still disgruntled about the charity conversion because of the way it was ... er ... peddled at the time as a sort of have-your-cake-and-eat-it no-brainer with steady-as-she-goes plus a tax dodge. (With apologies for the mangled / mingled metaphors.)

It seems to me like the problem is not the charity conversion so much as the executive capture. When was the last time a vote wasn't won by the preferred option of the executives and then actually implemented in full?

I'm like 80% sure I remember reading that a vote on some campaign a few years ago was won by "rebel" members but then nothing much was done to actually implement the decision.