Home

I'm currently a member of British Cycling (Commute Membership), for the legal and liability insurance. My membership expires soon, wasn't sure whether to renew it or join Cycling UK instead.

Benefits seem very similar, as does the cost. I've no interest in Racing (I've done a couple of duathlons, but that's nothing to do with British Cycling) or Touring so I can't see much reason to favour one over the other.

So which is best? Or should I be looking elsewhere - Wiggle? My home insurer?

 

11 comments

Avatar
Simon E [3813 posts] 1 month ago
5 likes

There is more to CUK than touring, sandals and beards, I think that's a bit of an outdated image. The bi-monthly magazine is varied and interesting, they are very inclusive, they have a long history of championing cyclists' rights etc and cover all sorts of cycle-related matters.

The campaigning side is something BC have only started doing recently and, although #thisgirlcan, Breeze etc are good and Chris Boardman should be PM, I don't ever see that aspect as being a core part of their purpose. I'm a member of both. I only joined BC to administer club membership purchased through the BC website.

If you're only interested in liability / legal cover then check your household insurance. If you care about cycling in general then join CUK.

Avatar
Bobbinogs [338 posts] 1 month ago
3 likes

Yes, to be fair to CUK they recognised the problems with being called Cycling Touring Club and that the name no longer matched their remit of generally promoting cyling within the UK.  The membership took a lot of convincing about the name change but Cycling UK is much more apt.  I think the problem with BC is that it is still seen as racing organisation and that really does not represent the majority of cyclists (let's face it, not everyone who cycles wears lycra and rides a racer bike).  OP, have a good look through the literature available and make the choice, worst case scenario is you just change your mind and swap after a year.  Both offer very good liability insurance but you do need to read the small print an ensure that the membership bought (BC offers various levels) includes what you are looking for.

Avatar
Tom_77 [27 posts] 1 month ago
1 like

Thanks for the replies. I've decided to go with Cycling UK, going to get the Household Membership so my wife is covered too. She doesn't cycle very often, but hopefully will be doing more in the future.

 

Avatar
Simon E [3813 posts] 1 month ago
1 like

Anyone that has been following the recent fuss over the Velolife cafe in Windsor may notice that Cycling UK is the organisation that is willing to take up the cyclists' cause.

https://road.cc/content/news/265343-cycling-uk-wants-hear-clubs-affected...

CUK's involvement and their efforts with cases such as that of Michael Mason along with their many campaigns about the wider issues about cyclists' safety, access to RoWs, inclusive cycling etc etc lead me to feel that my annual membership sub is not being wasted.

Although BC can call on Chris Boardman to provide brilliant logic the organisation doesn't really exist to make things better for everyday pedallers.

Avatar
Simon_MacMichael [2530 posts] 1 month ago
3 likes

Anyone that has been following the recent fuss over the Velolife cafe in Windsor may notice that Cycling UK is the organisation that is willing to take up the cyclists' cause.

Not true in this specific case, both organisations have been involved in trying to sort out the mess.

Avatar
muhasib [78 posts] 1 month ago
0 likes

If you have an HSBC account you can get the British Cycling membership at £24 discount to whatever level you join.

Avatar
Simon E [3813 posts] 1 month ago
0 likes
Simon_MacMichael wrote:

Anyone that has been following the recent fuss over the Velolife cafe in Windsor may notice that Cycling UK is the organisation that is willing to take up the cyclists' cause.

Not true in this specific case, both organisations have been involved in trying to sort out the mess.

I've not seen anything except a couple of personal tweets by CB. Perhaps I missed earlier references to British Cycling's involvment.

When you say "sort out the mess" I hope you mean "give the anti-cyclist bar stewards at the council a proper dressing-down".

Avatar
crazy-legs [1126 posts] 1 month ago
2 likes
Simon E wrote:

Anyone that has been following the recent fuss over the Velolife cafe in Windsor may notice that Cycling UK is the organisation that is willing to take up the cyclists' cause.

https://road.cc/content/news/265343-cycling-uk-wants-hear-clubs-affected...

CUK's involvement and their efforts with cases such as that of Michael Mason along with their many campaigns about the wider issues about cyclists' safety, access to RoWs, inclusive cycling etc etc lead me to feel that my annual membership sub is not being wasted.

Although BC can call on Chris Boardman to provide brilliant logic the organisation doesn't really exist to make things better for everyday pedallers.

On the flipside, when that Channel 5 programme "Scourge of the Streets" aired, BC were the only organisation to take up the argument, in fact the video that Chris did with British Cycling went on to become far and away the most viewed and shared video that BC have ever done.

https://twitter.com/britishcycling/status/1148622845695557632

They have done some stuff with the Velolife case, I know CB has been involved in some of the "behind the scenes" work on it.

Ultiumately, it's like the argument between Campag and Shimano! Both CUK and BC do some excellent work, both their insurance policies are good and thorough and which one you prefer will probably come down to the marketing messages, the "look and feel" of it and the particular benefits on offer at the time.

Avatar
brooksby [4875 posts] 1 month ago
1 like
crazy-legs wrote:
Simon E wrote:

Anyone that has been following the recent fuss over the Velolife cafe in Windsor may notice that Cycling UK is the organisation that is willing to take up the cyclists' cause.

https://road.cc/content/news/265343-cycling-uk-wants-hear-clubs-affected...

CUK's involvement and their efforts with cases such as that of Michael Mason along with their many campaigns about the wider issues about cyclists' safety, access to RoWs, inclusive cycling etc etc lead me to feel that my annual membership sub is not being wasted.

Although BC can call on Chris Boardman to provide brilliant logic the organisation doesn't really exist to make things better for everyday pedallers.

On the flipside, when that Channel 5 programme "Scourge of the Streets" aired, BC were the only organisation to take up the argument, in fact the video that Chris did with British Cycling went on to become far and away the most viewed and shared video that BC have ever done.

https://twitter.com/britishcycling/status/1148622845695557632

They have done some stuff with the Velolife case, I know CB has been involved in some of the "behind the scenes" work on it.

Ultiumately, it's like the argument between Campag and Shimano! Both CUK and BC do some excellent work, both their insurance policies are good and thorough and which one you prefer will probably come down to the marketing messages, the "look and feel" of it and the particular benefits on offer at the time.

Didnt CUK say that was a specific decision, so as not to give C5 the publicity?

Avatar
matthewn5 [1406 posts] 1 month ago
0 likes

I went with BC because at the time they were unequivocably supporting segregated infrastructure, whereas CTC (as was) had muddled messages and seemed to be supporting 'vehicular cycling'.

Since the change to CUK, theyre both supporting segregated infra, but I stuck with BC as it supports British cycle racing. Horses for courses!

Avatar
Simon E [3813 posts] 1 month ago
1 like
crazy-legs wrote:

when that Channel 5 programme "Scourge of the Streets" aired, BC were the only organisation to take up the argument, in fact the video that Chris did with British Cycling went on to become far and away the most viewed and shared video that BC have ever done.

https://twitter.com/britishcycling/status/1148622845695557632

They have done some stuff with the Velolife case, I know CB has been involved in some of the "behind the scenes" work on it.

Since my original comment I've seen that BC have also been involved in the Velolife case, which unfortunately continues to rumble on. CUK published a further statement today describing it as absurd. You're not kidding!

And I agree, the BC video with Chris Boardman re. Channel 5 was excellent. CUK's July campaign news email said "Cycling UK chose to not comment publicly, to avoid falling into the trap of boosting the programme’s profile." I doubt they could be as effective in the same way.

@matthewn5 regarding infrastructure, this has been discussed at great length over the years by CUK; it's all very well calling for separate cycling infrastructure but it's pie in the sky, that just isn't going to happen for the vast majority of the UK road network.

While BC runs (i.e. administers) most branches of cycle sport but sometimes one wonders just how much support they provide; being on the committee of a club that runs circuit races and cyclo-cross and hearing of the difficulties encountered by local road races organisers the feeling is that BC could do a lot better, especially considering the recent growth in membership and the revenue they get from these events.