Cycling Ireland Increasing 1 day insurance from €2 to €10

ednwireland

ezra_ wrote: »

I've been a CI member for two years now.
I can't remember seeing anything about AGMs, accounts, etc

ask your committee who goes to the agm , if no-one goes offer your services.

when i suggested our club sent representation no-one was interested so i went as chairman (club leagues and leisure events is all i ever do)

Mercian Pro

Thanks wav1 for the clarification. Interesting that a typo resulting in a reduction in the fee went virtually unnoticed but an attempt to return to the previous fee level provoked such interest/ire/anger! As many politicians (and governments) have discovered, it's the small things that trip you up.
Hopefully the Board and staff will now be more aware of the some of the concerns of leisure members. While "leisure" seems to be one of the responsibilities of the Events Officer, no one at Board seems to deal with it even though BMX and track are listed. Maybe a debate (here?) on what leisure members want from CI could help inform matters at the AGM.

Beasty

lennymc wrote: »

my recollection was that the majority of claims came from the leisure licence holders (which makes sense to me given the greater number of leisure riders)

Do you remember that 200 quid I loaned you just before your crash?

There were 3 hospitalised following the crash I was involved in. I rarely hear of injuries in sportives. Only today I am aware is one CI member heading to hospital for x-rays following a crash in a race earlier on

In my view (as a racer) we get a lot for our subs. My question is what extra are leisure members getting in return for their extra fees. I think they gave simply accepted their lot to date but this thread (admitedly with a lot of input from me) is perhaps highlighting they should not be taken for granted

I for one would very much welcome it if leisure members would turn up to AGMs to make their feelings known. It's certainly not a case of "us against them" more ( in my mind anyway) making them feel part of CI and equally feeling they are getting value for money

And just to reiterate my own frustration on this stems from the fairly blatant comments from Munster supporting this levy with the only things they indicated it would be used for being racing related

Beasty

Oh and wav1 told me it was 500 so thanks for clarifying it's only 200. Will sort you out that night I am due to win the Mark Mullen race.....

Inquitus

Beasty wrote: »

Snip

Risks are higher racing, but more people with less experience ride on more challenging technical courses every weekend in Sportifs. The year I first did the WW200 they had to get a second ambulance for all the people who crashed at high speed coming down from Sally gap at that particularly deceiving bridge. Add to that the Cattle grids coming off of Mount Leinster or Mahon Falls, I would imagine leisure cycling gets at least it's fair share from insurance.

lennymc

@ Im not sure that we get three times the return on licence fee when comparing licence costs, but that is my opinion.

I have heard of lots of people crashing at sportives, and inquitus has given examples (ironically from an IVCA event )

I think I remember that now. 500 it is. 500 and I will make sure you win the mark mullen league #whatcorruption

It would be great if more leisure representation was given at AGMs, but from my experience, a large number of leisure riders have very little desire to provide input at AGMs or meetings so it is left to the usual crowd, who happen to represent a race perspective.

Beasty

lennymc wrote: »

It would be great if more leisure representation was given at AGMs, but from my experience, a large number of leisure riders have very little desire to provide input at AGMs or meetings so it is left to the usual crowd, who happen to represent a race perspective.

I hope debates like the the one we are having will encourage more to attend

Just thinking about claims from members of my own club ( which I am sure has a higher proportion of members with racing licences) I can think of 3 claims including my own where hospital attendance was required. All 3 had racing licences although only 2 of the accidents were in races (the other being in a club spin which is typically attended by racers)

I cannot think if a single one from the leisure side

Most (i acknowledge not all) the accidents in sportives result in "walking wounded" at worst. I can think of many more (plenty reported here), in some cases quite serious, claims resulting from racing. That's typically where the real costs are and I remain of the view/understanding that more of the insurance costs result from members with racing licences involved in racing or training for racing. I can also think of examples of racing accidents in other disciplines such as track and BMX. It the very nature of the sport that racing is much more dangerous than cycling for plessurr/leisure.

Maybe a point to clarify at the next AGM.

All My Stars Aligned

I'm just wondering if since the (accidental) reduction in the ODI have CI been running their insurance costs at a deficit? My understanding is that CI have little to no input into the organization of sportifs. If this is the case how can an €8 be justified?

morana

BTW this "typo" was there when i was on the board so thats 4 years ago. Its not as if they didnt have plenty of time to correct it and they were getting money from these sportives in that period so its nothing new.

TGD

I haven't read all the post in this thread an maybe someone has made this point already.
I think there has been a problem where various groups - eg GAA clubs but not exclusively - piggy back onto local cycling clubs to get cheap insurance. So, they want a fundraising event and approach the local club to run it as one of its events - which is difficult to refuse in most cases and there can be some minor spinoff for the club. . But this is only a technicality - the rest of us are bearing most of the insurance costs and indemnyfing the real beneficiaries who contribute nothing to cycling.
This has been an abuse. Not sure if this is aimed at that problem though.

CramCycle

When was the 10% of the entrance fee in and scrapped, I remember that about 5 years ago. We found it odd in Audax as it was 50cent for insurance but the amount of paperwork you had to do.

Or have I completely misremembered that.

Inquitus

Clearly tagging your cycling fundraiser to CI via a Cycling Club is a huge saving in complexity, paperwork and cost. Perhaps a sensible solution would be €2 a pop for genuine Cycle Club Sportifs for fundraising or charity, and €10 a pop for GAA, Soccer, Rugby clubs etc. trying to bandwagon onto the explosion in cycling and raise a few bob for their sports?

Beasty

TGD wrote: »

I haven't read all the post in this thread an maybe someone has made this point already.
I think there has been a problem where various groups - eg GAA clubs but not exclusively - piggy back onto local cycling clubs to get cheap insurance. So, they want a fundraising event and approach the local club to run it as one of its events - which is difficult to refuse in most cases and there can be some minor spinoff for the club. . But this is only a technicality - the rest of us are bearing most of the insurance costs and indemnyfing the real beneficiaries who contribute nothing to cycling.
This has been an abuse. Not sure if this is aimed at that problem though.

At the last AGM the issue of getting 6 members to form a club was raised as it was felt it was being abused with some organisations setting themselves up as cycling clubs to allow them to run an event under the CI umbrella (benefiting from CI's insurance), only to disappear once the event was over

This was being looked at and it's possible that changes will be introduced to the way in which clubs are recognised to discourage this sort of thing

In terms of GAA and the like "piggybacking" on to existing clubs that is something the clubs themselves can deal with. They stand behind any events put on in their name and should recognise they are responsible if anything goes wrong. My own club "stood behind" a charity event to raise funds for someone who was seriously injured while cycling a couple of years previously. I don't see any problem in principle with supporting such events particularly if there is a cycling connection with the underlying cause.

AFAIK, GAA clubs can run their own fundraising events using their own insurance, so I'm not sure to what extent that specifically is a problem

jinkypolly

Right so it was a 'typo' and just some unnamed 'member of staff' decided to redress the situation. Ok right it all makes so much sense now.

Leroy42

It has been mentioned a number of times that Leisure riders should come to the AGM to highlight their areas of interest etc but is it not the case that to be heard at the AGM, or to put a motion forward you need a certain number of clubs to go in behind you?

Phil.x

afishyfish wrote: »

This is to increase the value of leisure membership to those who are already Cycling Ireland members, and makes membership more attractive to event participants.

This change will be effective from the 1st of June 2016.

Regards,

The Cycling Ireland Team

That's a politicians answer, totally meaningless and pointless and nothing to do with the point.

Beasty

Leroy42 wrote: »

It has been mentioned a number of times that Leisure riders should come to the AGM to highlight their areas of interest etc but is it not the case that to be heard at the AGM, or to put a motion forward you need a certain number of clubs to go in behind you?

All motions must be proposed by clubs. However most leisure cyclists are members of clubs. The Board can determine ahead of the meeting which resolutions are presented for discussion/vote and they may not entertain questions that are clearly not relevant "company business"

I would add though that they could turn up just to ask questions, be it of the finances (as the accounts are presented) or in connection with any of the other reports presented. Likewise the annual subscriptions are voted upon and there is an opportunity to ask questions before the vote. The chairperson can decide who is heard but will rarely (from what I have seen) prevent questions being asked of specific Board members or indeed the Board as a whole, be they from club delegates or unattached attendees.

lennymc

Leroy42 wrote: »

It has been mentioned a number of times that Leisure riders should come to the AGM to highlight their areas of interest etc but is it not the case that to be heard at the AGM, or to put a motion forward you need a certain number of clubs to go in behind you?

No. Any club can make submissions for motions.

CramCycle

Beasty wrote: »

At the last AGM the issue of getting 6 members to form a club was raised as it was felt it was being abused with some organisations setting themselves up as cycling clubs to allow them to run an event under the CI umbrella (benefiting from CI's insurance), only to disappear once the event was over

I am sure it does happen, but to what extent, is it really that large an issue that it needs a solution. If it does happen but one in two of these clubs promote cycling, if only once a year, then I think its worth leaving. Audax Ireland barely got the 6 people needed, 3 of them left their own clubs (on paper) and now, from the last AGM, they had almost a third as many people showed up as turn up to the entire CIs AGM. Very few are racers but they are passionate.

CI would do well to remember that this sleeping giant is a friend and not one to be abused.

I am sure that the act was not malicious or in badness, but it was ill thought out, if nothing else. It has done one good thing though, it may (or may not), activate a large portion of our membership into getting involved at a higher level. This can only be a good thing.

Leroy42

WIth the massive growth in the leisure side of cycling the old racing orintated set-up is starting to become obsolete.

Whilst it may be true that many leisure cyclists are members of clubs, they are not in the same sense that racing members are. They, at least in my club, are more about the social aspect (not to infer that they don't take the cycling seriously just that winning etc is not what its about, its about the club spins, the sportives, the social aspect etc).

I would wager that many Leisure cyclists aren't really to worried about AGM rules, delegate conferences, provincial set-ups, UCI affiliation etc. especially in a set-up that many believe is very much focused on racing and therefore not much in there for them. There needs are fairly simple. They don't need finish line equipment, national competitions, jerseys, international teams etc, they just want to be able to partake in an activity they enjoy.

I would think, though, that any move to significantly increase the costs for this section, with little or no justification, risks alienation them and possible make them look at the point of it at all.

A few have said on here that leisure cyclists need to make they feelings known at the AGM, which of course they need to go through a club to do, but why can't CI initiate a process to get their views? They know the make-up of the organisation has changed considerably in recent years but seem to be waiting for someone else to do anything about it.

Leroy42

Beasty wrote: »

At the last AGM the issue of getting 6 members to form a club was raised as it was felt it was being abused with some organisations setting themselves up as cycling clubs to allow them to run an event under the CI umbrella (benefiting from CI's insurance), only to disappear once the event was over

This was being looked at and it's possible that changes will be introduced to the way in which clubs are recognised to discourage this sort of thing

Why is this considered to be a problem?

If they undertake the necessary paperwork, pay whatever the joining fees are and comply with the rules whilst they are 'clubs' then why would CI care if they lasted a week, a year or 100 years?

CI's remit is to increase the participation in cycling, the club structure, which was designed based on racing, was a way of doing that but with the growth in other areas which are less like 'teams' then this set-up is less useful and CU should be encouraging as many to get involved rather than looking to only get those that are 'serious' involved.

Chips Lovell

Not every club is the same. Mine has a massive leisure membership. Leisure members are active on the comittee, turn out in force at the club AGM and play as much a part as competition members in deciding the club's position on motions before the Cycling Ireland AGM.

People have this impression of leisure cyclists only being interested in sportives and coffee stops and it isn't really true.

Beasty

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why is this considered to be a problem?

If they undertake the necessary paperwork, pay whatever the joining fees are and comply with the rules whilst they are 'clubs' then why would CI care if they lasted a week, a year or 100 years?

CI's remit is to increase the participation in cycling, the club structure, which was designed based on racing, was a way of doing that but with the growth in other areas which are less like 'teams' then this set-up is less useful and CU should be encouraging as many to get involved rather than looking to only get those that are 'serious' involved.

I personally don't see it as a major poroblem, but some at the CI AGM clearly did.

I guess part of it is about having sustainable growth and a fly by night operation does not achieve that. Secondly they are "taking advantage" of the cheap insurance offered by CI, but arguably are not putting anything back into the sport. Also events put on like this risk being done in a shambolic way due to lack of experience in the individuals involved and possibly leaving CI to pick up the pieces. Have organisers undertaken a full and proper risk assessment for example? (CI simply do not have the resource to check them all, but evcen if they did there is no way to police actual implementation of what is included except perhaps via random sampling of those that are submitted)

CramCycle

Leroy42 wrote: »

A few have said on here that leisure cyclists need to make they feelings known at the AGM, which of course they need to go through a club to do, but why can't CI initiate a process to get their views? They know the make-up of the organisation has changed considerably in recent years but seem to be waiting for someone else to do anything about it.

All it takes is one club to make the right motion at an AGM, although I thought there was workings on this two years ago to form a leisure commission (or whatever it would have been called) but I am not sure if this was moved forward or not.

This said, it looks positive that CI have listened and are not increasing the fees for awhile yet.

jamesd

Got confirmation vi email from CI this morning that the 2 is staying for now but with a rise to 5 then 10 on the way.

CramCycle

Leroy42 wrote: »

A few have said on here that leisure cyclists need to make they feelings known at the AGM, which of course they need to go through a club to do, but why can't CI initiate a process to get their views? They know the make-up of the organisation has changed considerably in recent years but seem to be waiting for someone else to do anything about it.

All any leisure cyclist needs to do is get a club to put forward a motion that addresses this issue, put together a clear and concise reasoning. Get the club to submit it for them and then make sure the reasoning is well advertised to all clubs before the AGM. Many clubs with a large Leisure base will most likely vote in favour via their own AGM processes before the CI AGM.

jamesd wrote: »

Got confirmation vi email from CI this morning that the 2 is staying for now but with a rise to 5 then 10 on the way.

Again, something to submit to CI as a motion that it be capped.

Beasty

CramCycle wrote: »

Again, something to submit to CI as a motion that it be capped.

Just to be clear on this -although it is the type of thing that is often raised at AGMs, it's really not "company business" (unlike CI subscriptions) and really should not be subject to a popular vote to determine whether it geos ahead. A discussion maybe if sufficient members want that but they should not (and technically cannot) be binding the Board on things like this (even if I am one of those shouting loudest that I think the leisure side should be heard)

Having said all that probably half the stuff voted on at CI's AGMs is technically non-binding

CramCycle

Beasty wrote: »

Just to be clear on this -although it is the type of thing that is often raised at AGMs, it's really not "company business" (unlike CI subscriptions) and really should not be subject to a popular vote to determine whether it geos ahead. A discussion maybe if sufficient members want that but they should not (and technically cannot) be binding the Board on things like this (even if I am one of those shouting loudest that I think the leisure side should be heard)

Having said all that probably half the stuff voted on at CI's AGMs is technically non-binding

This is why the road and leisure commission need to be reinstated and set up, respectively. The majority of things brought up at the AGM are not what it is there for AFAIK. I do remember you saying this several times before, and you are right. The AGM has effectively become the road commission

1. Motion to set up a leisure board or commission

2. Until such time as such a board is operational/functional, that the subscription fee for leisure members be frozen or maybe a direction to the board that unless the cost of insurance for leisure events rises, that there will be no rise in such costs to one day licenses for leisure events i.e. an effective cap unless costings rise, at which point they could be reviewed and raised proportionately.

Obviously far more detail and thought to be put in to both

morana

CramCycle wrote: »

This is why the road and leisure commission need to be reinstated and set up, respectively. The majority of things brought up at the AGM are not what it is there for AFAIK. I do remember you saying this several times before, and you are right. The AGM has effectively become the road commission

1. Motion to set up a leisure board or commission

2. Until such time as such a board is operational/functional, that the subscription fee for leisure members be frozen or maybe a direction to the board that unless the cost of insurance for leisure events rises, that there will be no rise in such costs to one day licenses for leisure events i.e. an effective cap unless costings rise, at which point they could be reviewed and raised proportionately.

Obviously far more detail and thought to be put in to both

CI were looking for people to go on a leisure commission but couldnt find anyone. SO if a group of ppl wanted to set it up now i am sure a note to geoff and a meeting would be enough to get it going.

CramCycle

morana wrote: »

CI were looking for people to go on a leisure commission but couldnt find anyone. SO if a group of ppl wanted to set it up now i am sure a note to geoff and a meeting would be enough to get it going.

Certainly plenty of people making noise. As a matter of interest, my understanding of the commisions is minimal. Would they just gather and make recommendations to the board as well as argue against board decisions they felt unfair?

Or would they be given autonomy in regards the development of leisure cycling in Ireland?

morana

CramCycle wrote: »

Certainly plenty of people making noise. As a matter of interest, my understanding of the commisions is minimal. Would they just gather and make recommendations to the board as well as argue against board decisions they felt unfair?

Or would they be given autonomy in regards the development of leisure cycling in Ireland?

both. They would be responsible for the development of leisure. if they wanted setup a lesiure league etc. They would also have a budget to conduct their business promotions etc.

in short the leisure side would be their responsibility.

The Ging and I

morana wrote: »

both. They would be responsible for the development of leisure. if they wanted setup a lesiure league etc. They would also have a budget to conduct their business promotions etc.

in short the leisure side would be their responsibility.

IMO the real solution would be getting 1/2 people on the committee.
CI should be totally involved in "cycling" in all its variants. Setting up a leisure group with a budget is not coming close to a CTC or FFCT structure.
If the leisure side is generating most of the money thats where it should be spent.
In the 80s I effectively was the touring secretary. I put a calendar to geather that was sponsored by Hardings bicycle shop- no cost or real interest from the then ICF. When Hardings closed the calendar went with it.

morana

The Ging and I wrote: »

IMO the real solution would be getting 1/2 people on the committee.
CI should be totally involved in "cycling" in all its variants. Setting up a leisure group with a budget is not coming close to a CTC or FFCT structure.
If the leisure side is generating most of the money thats where it should be spent.
In the 80s I effectively was the touring secretary. I put a calendar to geather that was sponsored by Hardings bicycle shop- no cost or real interest from the then ICF. When Hardings closed the calendar went with it.

Yes the board is made up of all racers and all male now. we need a more diverse group but people have to put themselves forward for the positions.

Beasty

morana wrote: »

Yes the board is made up of all racers and all male now. we need a more diverse group but people have to put themselves forward for the positions.

Siobhan has stepped down

Senan is still there I guess, but it's looking very dominated by male (road) racers now.

Beasty

CI have circulated this email

Dear club officials and event promoters,

Cycling Ireland has deferred the decision to increase the Leisure Event Insurance Fee from €2/£2 to €10/£9 for 2016 after receiving constructive feedback from event organisers. In 2009 the fee of €10/£9 was approved at the AGM as the Leisure Event Insurance Fee (formerly One Day Licence), but had not been enforced since 2013. The decision regarding increasing this fee for 2017 will be reviewed at the 2016 AGM on the 12th November.
Regards,

The Cycling Ireland Team

lennymc

At least we all know well in advance when the agm is on......

afishyfish

I love the term they used....... "constructive feedback"

Eamonnator

Have Cycling Ireland increased the One Day licence for charity cycles to €5?
It says on this poster, that €5 is to cover one day insurance

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057604404

greenspurs

Eamonnator wrote: »

Have Cycling Ireland increased the One Day licence for charity cycles to €5?
It says on this poster, that €5 is to cover one day insurance

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057604404

As far as i know, the "one day Licence" cost is €2 per rider for non members, well thats what i charged in a cycle i organised in April, but i have seen some cycles charge more ...

CramCycle

greenspurs wrote: »

As far as i know, the "one day Licence" cost is €2 per rider for non members, well thats what i charged in a cycle i organised in April, but i have seen some cycles charge more ...

It is 2euro from CI but some organisers add more to cover admin or just to make more money, or even just to put off non members so that they have less paperwork

Beasty

CramCycle wrote: »

It is 2euro from CI but some organisers add more to cover admin or just to make more money, or even just to put off non members so that they have less paperwork

Equally it's possible they went to print before the recent announcement reverting to €2

afishyfish

Beasty wrote: »

Equally it's possible they went to print before the recent announcement reverting to €2

Or they may have private insurance for non CI members.

CramCycle

Beasty wrote: »

Equally it's possible they went to print before the recent announcement reverting to €2

Doesn't add up with the 5euro charge (as opposed to the 10euro charge CI had put out). I think the most obvious is convenience as well for the organiser, nice round off to the nearest 5, not a huge jump, extra bit of cash for the charity or organiser.