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

Weepsie

I imagine sportives which are organised may require some form of public liability cover, plus we have an ever growing claim culture which doesn't help. Doing it through CI was probably easier. Maybe I'm very wrong though

Chips Lovell

If you run an event independent of CI, it means that all of the stuff CI takes care of is now your responsibility, such as insurance, letters of indemnity etc. Some event organisers are happy enough to take that on. Others would prefer not to.

CramCycle

Weepsie wrote: »

I imagine sportives which are organised may require some form of public liability cover, plus we have an ever growing claim culture which doesn't help. Doing it through CI was probably easier. Maybe I'm very wrong though

These are painful, time consuming and possibly quite expensive

morana

but not much will get done on boards.ie as the beast pointed out people need to get to provincial and national agms to make their point. Is there a leisure commission in place? not as far as i know so there is an opportunity for people to become involved at that level to try dictate how value can be given to the majority of members.

Raam

Beasty wrote: »

Racers take a disproportionate amount of that by a long way. Think there was something over 300 claims in 2014, but suspect most were from racing incidents (and I'll admit to representing over 1% of the total cost in 2014 myself, resulting from racing).

suspect or know? Does anyone have a breakdown of leisure v racer claims?

Beasty

Raam wrote: »

suspect or know? Does anyone have a breakdown of leisure v racer claims?

Don't exactly "know" but someone quite senior within CI suggested this to me earlier this year

There is no public breakdown. I do know of a number of relatively high claims resulting from racing and training for racing

There are not that many claims in total and I do know mine was one of the few that actually got to the €2,500 medical expense limit in 2014

saccades

bogmanfan wrote: »

As a leisure member of CI I can't see what value I get for my fee. I only do a couple of sportives a year, and the only reason I join CI every year is that it's a requirement for my club (MTB). The club also get little to no support from CI, yet we have over 100 members split between leisure and limited competition licences. I for one am sick of CI acting like road racing is the only activity in the sport. And I don't like the idea of my fee subsidising a branch of the sport that I have no interest in either as a spectator or participant. I would wholly support any breakaway organisation aimed at leisure or off-road cycling.

/me waves. Same club and pretty much the same as you but signed up for a limited race license before I worked out how many races I could do :picard:

The club did that to get more "voting" power vs road orientated clubs and in theory you are insured, but I've not heard of a mtber taking advantage of the insurance. Numbers of mtbers in CI was tiny due to just the racers needing a license, a small proportion so most of the mtb clubs say CI membership is a requirement of club membership to boost numbers.

I need to check my insurance here, but in the UK most people are insured via their house insurance for general cycling.

As for CI - they are recognised by UCI as the irish cycling body, so if you want to be a proper racer and gain points that count in the rest of the world you need to ride in a CI approved race to gain points from them.

Apart from that I'm not sure what I get apart from awful discounts at an oddball on-line sports shop and the chance to win a bike worth 500e everynow and then...

Beasty

saccades wrote: »

I need to check my insurance here, but in the UK most people are insured via their house insurance for general cycling.

Insured for what? Public liability? House insurance will not provide personal accident cover.

harringtonp

morana wrote: »

I thought the "one day Licence" aspect of a leisure event was simply getting them to sign on and the sheets plus the appropriate amount being returned to CI? Wasn't aware of numbers etc to be distributed.
.

An event runs without incident, what is there to stop the organising club not returning any amount to CI or doing the "Irish" thing and returning a much reduced amount ?

Actually I'm perhaps being naive here but what is there to stop a group of people or a club (ignore CI rules) organising a cycle and not bothering with insurance ?

I know of cycling cases where "stuff happens" outside of the official pathway and everybody seems happy with it.

Organisers first port of call is always doing things properly but if this is proving prohibitive those with huevos go their own way.

harringtonp

Beasty wrote: »

As a general point CI will, I guess, continue to milk leisure cyclists as long as they think they can get away with it.

Racing cyclists are very vocal at CI AGMs with their whinges although the leisure side (despite dominating the total membership) is generally very quiet.

The solution to me is for those who are not happy to make their feelings known, and in particular turn up to the AGMs, propose relevant resolutions etc. I would personally prefer any efforts for change to build up within the organisation as they are less likely to listen once people have left.

Actually this is a carbon copy of how Mountaineering Ireland was years ago. People who turned up at AGM's were mainly climbers/mountaineers even though the vast majority of members were hill walkers. Walkers got fed up and one of the biggest clubs in the country (the ramblers) started rallying There was a big change in the board make up and resultant policy emphasis.

morana

harringtonp wrote: »

An event runs without incident, what is there to stop the organising club not returning any amount to CI or doing the "Irish" thing and returning a much reduced amount ?

Actually I'm perhaps being naive here but what is there to stop a group of people or a club (ignore CI rules) organising a cycle and not bothering with insurance ?

I know of cycling cases where "stuff happens" outside of the official pathway and everybody seems happy with it.

Organisers first port of call is always doing things properly but if this is proving prohibitive those with huevos go their own way.

nothing to stop them. they return sheets and an amount. there is an element of trust but thats up to individuals.

Anybody can organise a cycle outside of CI even a race if you want.

Beasty

harringtonp wrote: »

Actually I'm perhaps being naive here but what is there to stop a group of people or a club (ignore CI rules) organising a cycle and not bothering with insurance ?

The most important part of the insurance is certainly not the personal accident cover. It's the public liability cover that provides ultimate protection.

What happens when AGS turn up demanding a copy of your public liability cover? If you don't bother with insurance, presumably you don't bother with a risk assessment

What happens when something goes wrong? A participant ploughs into a kid at a pedestrian crossing. Who will that kid's parents sue? The cyclist obviously. The organising club also. On finding out there is no insurance the cyclist also sues the club. Then everyone sues the organisers.

Now I have a lot of assets to claim against - maybe some others around here are not too bothered at the prospect of being bankrupted

Of course there's also the possibility of criminal prosecution for not taking appropriate precautions. I would certainly not want to be the test case should anything go wrong.

Beasty

morana wrote: »

Anybody can organise a cycle outside of CI even a race if you want.

As do the IVCA and Triathlon organisations. However these "umbrella" organisations also give some legal protection (with limited liability)

In addition we also need to recognise the issues we have in certain parts of the island (north and south) with the relevant policing and local authorities (who's roads we use)

harringtonp

Beasty wrote: »

The most important part of the insurance is certainly not the personal accident cover. It's the public liability cover that provides ultimate protection.

What happens when AGS turn up demanding a copy of your public liability cover? If you don't bother with insurance, presumably you don't bother with a risk assessment

What happens when something goes wrong? A participant ploughs into a kid at a pedestrian crossing. Who will that kid's parents sue? The cyclist obviously. The organising club also. On finding out there is no insurance the cyclist also sues the club. Then everyone sues the organisers.

Now I have a lot of assets to claim against - maybe some others around here are not too bothered at the prospect of being bankrupted

Of course there's also the possibility of criminal prosecution for not taking appropriate precautions. I would certainly not want to be the test case should anything go wrong.

Who are AGS ?

Just following through with:

"A participant ploughs into a kid at a pedestrian crossing. Who will that kid's parents sue? The cyclist obviously. The organising club also. On finding out there is no insurance the cyclist also sues the club. Then everyone sues the organisers."

My own club is small and doesn't have funds worth talking about. Say they lose what they have and shut down. The guys will still all meet up for their regular Sunday spin, the email list is still there, what changes, well maybe from then on they do the same thing without paying anybody anything. A while later they they all join another club or form a new one.

A cyclist ploughs into a kid and the parents look to sue. That cyclist could be you, me or joe public out on the road, its a situation that arises anyway outside of events and without insurance. If the cyclist was wreckless criminal action is appropriate and has nothing to do insurance.

Basically any of the scenarios that can happen during an event can happen on the commute to work (where insurance is not there), though of course they are more likely to happen during an event.

Beasty

An Garda Siochana

If the club has little in the way of assets, the organisers of the event possibly do. They may get sued, as may members of the Club Committee in a personal capacity (for failing to take adequate steps to protect the public for example)

The organisers of an event are responsible for it. They may well be considered negligent if they do not appoint a Safety Officer (CI rules require that), undertake a Safety Assessment (CI rules require that), arrange insurance (CI provide that) etc

If the cyclist is me, I try to take adequate care and would use that in my defence. I also have some insurance cover to help protect me against any claim

As I've already said I would personally not want to be a test case

guanciale

Beasty wrote: »

The most important part of the insurance is certainly not the personal accident cover. It's the public liability cover that provides ultimate protection.

What happens when AGS turn up demanding a copy of your public liability cover? If you don't bother with insurance, presumably you don't bother with a risk assessment

What happens when something goes wrong? A participant ploughs into a kid at a pedestrian crossing. Who will that kid's parents sue? The cyclist obviously. The organising club also. On finding out there is no insurance the cyclist also sues the club. Then everyone sues the organisers.

Now I have a lot of assets to claim against - maybe some others around here are not too bothered at the prospect of being bankrupted

Of course there's also the possibility of criminal prosecution for not taking appropriate precautions. I would certainly not want to be the test case should anything go wrong.

The Irish legal system is unlikely to contemplate an action for civil damages against a person without assets.
Best person to organise an event in that case is a heavily indebted mortgage holder whose circumstances have deteriorated in past decade.
The legal definition of a man of straw. Civil actions require a prospect of civil damages to be worthwhile.
Unless one could prove recklessness then a criminal case is remote

CramCycle

Mercian Pro wrote: »

Checking back here on the Mick Byrne from a few years ago there is mention of no extra charge for a day licence as it was a charity event and CI were covering the cost. I don't know if that was general practice but it might be considered for genuine charity sportives.

It was and certainly will be a propossal at the AGM I imagine.

guanciale wrote: »

I run a leisure event and I support the move but not the governance around this.
I support the move for admittedly selfish reasons. The event I run does not depend on joe or mary public showing up and riding for charity. It does depend on a tight number of reasonably experienced cyclists to enter my event and ride the route with some (minimal) support.
Administering ODLs is a pain in my ass for no obvious gain. My event would make for an unlikely gateway into cycling

I see your point but as a unselfish but nonetheless, selfish retort. Anything that promotes cycling among those who rarely do it or in fact never do it, has to be promoted. Low entry costs for those who are not members to give them a taste, followed by a reasonable cost for a year long licence once it bites has to be promoted. Unfortunately some higher elements in CI have forgotten that the organisation has changed from a solely sporting one, which it was and heavily still is, to one where a large portion of members are not in that area. This said, CI has been lucky to a point that very few members in this large cohort seem to have spoken up or worked the system, although a few have tried at EGMs and AGMs and unfortunately because they asked outside of the rules were largely ignored.

I am wondering whether some events following this will simply be outside the scope of events that CI is willing to extend insurance toward. Particularly vulnerable here would be events operating in a self-sufficiency/minimal manpower basis, thinking specifically of Audax events.

When Audax Ireland was reborn, it's sole purpose of joining CI was to simplify Insurance and take the annoyance away from members clubs, it suceeded, in fact, probably better than expected. The last AI AGM I went to had about 1/4 of the number of people who turn up at the CI AGM. Imagine if they mobilised with other leisure groups, what they could achieve, even if leisure groups within clubs spoke up at their own AGMs and mandated their clubs to push for more favourable terms.

It is like my old "lean" lectures. It is the value. Until this move, the value was there. Proven by the fact that people have been more than willing to pay. Now the value may still be there, this won't be visible until we see a years membership go by. A majority may still see it as value in that they are willing to pay, unless we see a plateau or a drop off, then we won't know the potential damage done. From a business persepective, I think they have pushed slightly over. From a personal perspective, I think the value of having more participants and more potential future members outweighs this potentially limited monetary gain for the organisation but thats just me.

These set of events are a wake up call for the non-racing cycling community. Taken in total CI may, hamfistedly have done us a favour. But I can say that I will seriously consider nit running my event in future and will also consider whether I should renew my CI license given that I do not race and have no inclination to go back.

Why not put forward a motion to force their hand, if your not in a club, why not contact friends in a club and see will they petition their club.

harringtonp wrote: »

Who are AGS ?

An Garda Siochana

Beasty

Just on the topic of Charity events, there was discussion at the last AGM of situations where organisations set up Cycling clubs simply to benefit from CI's insurance and then disappear once they have run their event. This may be part of the rationale for increasing the One Day Licence Fee (ie to discourage these "fly by night" clubs

However there are other ways of dealing with that but that may require changes to CI's constitution. Alas the EGM to discuss potential changes to the constitution has, as I understand it, been scrapped. It may be that some of those proposals may be resurrected at the AGM. In the meantime if this is part of a wider clampdown on such situations it has in my view backfired in a spectacular fashion and reflects very poorly on the new "regime" under Ciaran McKenna

ednwireland

having been to my first ci agm last year.
didn't think there was any focus on leisure cyclists, i would have said that most of the delegates were racing members. on the other hand the racing member's tend to be the organizers in clubs (i may be wrong on that ).
i do think this is a ridiculous rise without any consultation with the members an is a very poor refection on the current committee, in the actual rise and the way it was implemented.

Beasty

The ones that shout loudest are certainly the racers. I was at a meeting in Leinster prior to Ciaran McKenna's election last year and most of the people there had racing agendas. I was pretty much dismissed by many of those there when I mentioned the majority of members of CI are on the leisure side but there is little focus within the organisation on them, only to then be "almost sheepishly" supported by another attendee who admitted to being a leisure cyclist

The attitude of some in attendance was the leisure cyclists can look after themselves and all the issues were racing related

And to declare my own interest here - probably 90%+ of my own cycling is racing-related. However observing what goes on within CI I feel very strongly that the money leisure cyclists bring is in is pretty much taken for granted, but there is little in the way of focus on any issues specific to the leisure side as so many in the hierarchy are pretty obsessed with racing.

I would differentiate here the people who run cycling in Ireland from the full time employees who in my experience are simply doing what they are told within the framework they are provided. I have always found the CI staff very supportive and they will deal with any issues or queries I have efficiently and effectively

wav1

Don't know where the Ciaran Mc Kenna regime has come from.He is,as was stated many times only one board member and has done lots of good imo since his election,so I think its a bit unfair to be labelling this as something carried out by a regime.Most of the board including the money people were there from the previous regime?

Beasty

wav1 wrote: »

Don't know where the Ciaran Mc Kenna regime has come from.He is,as was stated many times only one board member and has done lots of good imo since his election

What has he delivered outside the male road racing environment?

wav1

Beasty wrote: »

What has he delivered outside the male road racing environment?

Actually lots.and lots more going on in going forward as well..Just this week was he was hugely involved in what was a difficult situation re the cancelling of Nat Champs and relocation etc and this has now been sorted.
I have no issues regarding peoples annoyance at the hike in the fee afwiw I probably agree that its wrong.But I do have a problem with the thread becoming a tool to witchunt one guy.Also my info is that the hike [for now anyway] is not going ahead.

morana

wav1 wrote: »

Actually lots.and lots more going on in going forward as well..Just this week was he was hugely involved in what was a difficult situation re the cancelling of Nat Champs and relocation etc and this has now been sorted.
I have no issues regarding peoples annoyance at the hike in the fee afwiw I probably agree that its wrong.But I do have a problem with the thread becoming a tool to witchunt one guy.Also my info is that the hike [for now anyway] is not going ahead.

I suppose whether we like it or not the president of the day will be associated with the decisions his board makes because i firmly believe that if the president doesnt support it it wont go thru. if it did then his position would be undermined and untenable imo.

I dont believe its a witch-hunt against Ciaran, there would be no justification for that whatsoever.

Inquitus

Beasty wrote: »

2014 accounts are in here

Balance sheet is at page 99 - around €300k of reserves

The important bit though is later

At page 111:

membership fees - €1.05m
20-25,000 members would be leisure accounting for 75%+ of that €1m. ie leisure membeship raised nearly €800k before the recent hike

Total membership costs are €160k with insurance another €200k - that covers racers as well as leisure. Let's say conservatively €300k of those costs relate to leisure. Then there are the overheads of running the office etc (€360k), although arguably a lot of that is supporting the racing side. I would estimate though that leisure was subsidising racing to the tune of €3-400k in 2014

I have little doubt that will have increased in 2015 and this year we may well find that figure is nearer (and probably over) half a million:eek:

I think your numbers are off beasty, we have 3297 open race license holders @ €125, ignoring juniors which would bring in about €400k in membership fees alone, and that ignores the limited competition side of it. I did some estimations on this last year and I think its close to a 50/50 split in terms of racers v leisure cyclist contributions.

Beasty

Inquitus wrote: »

I think your numbers are off beasty, we have 3297 open race license holders @ €125, ignoring juniors which would bring in about €400k in membership fees alone, and that ignores the limited competition side of it. I did some estimations on this last year and I think its close to a 50/50 split in terms of racers v leisure cyclist contributions.

Think that was the last year of the introductory €10 fee. My assumptions will probably not be too far off for 2015 and 2016

Bottom line is though that the racing side (any a lot of those racers are mainly interested in non-road disciplines) represents less than 20% of the membership and the non-racers appear to be subsidising the racing side to a significant amount

The whole argument put by Munster at the last AGM was any funds raised from the levy would allow them to spend more on the racing side of things

Pity I didn't manage to get to the Cycling Leinster AGM as I think they had accumulated quite a cash surplus before the levy was introduced. Maybe next time I'll get a chance to ask them what their intentions are with these resources.

Beasty

One of the ideas I've heard suggested about the provincial levy windfall is it could be used to fund full-time support within the provinces

If this was the intention I would support it as I do think the organisation as a whole is under resourced. In supporting it I would assume it would be a resource to support all aspects of support for clubs within a Province and not focussed on racing matters. Hence they could help co-ordinate risk assessments (which are equally relevant for leisure as well as racing events) and liaise with local authorities as required for example

If such appointments were to be made I could see an argument for passing some of the cost on in the form of additional charges for non-members, but certainly do not consider it would warrant an increase of €8 per person per event.

I have not heard if this idea has gathered any traction though.

outfox

wav1 wrote: »

Also my info is that the hike [for now anyway] is not going ahead.

Any update on this, wav? Is it a result of the backlash?

wav1

outfox wrote: »

Any update on this, wav? Is it a result of the backlash?

Not sure of the reason,but its not happening.
As I posted earlier I wouldn't agree at all with the hike,but as I am sure morana can verify it was not actually an increase at all.Confused?Well heres the facts as I took time this evening to trawl them.
In about 2009/2010 era the extra cost at a leisure/sportive event for a non licence holder was actually e10.
A typo in the handbook some yrs ago changed this [I have seen it] to read 9 sterling or euro 2.This was further confusing the following year when the handbook stated sterling2/euro2.When minutes of all the AGMs since circa 2010 were trawled there was actually never a decision to change it from the existing 10 down to 2,and hence now they tried to address this matter in the past week[The wrong way I may add]
Anyway as I understand it now it is on hold and will/would have to be discussed at the AGM in November.It was mentioned earlier that the racing types are always the most vocal etc at the AGMs so here it is now.Six full months notice that it will be addressed at the AGM so plenty of time for the leisure sector to get bodies there.And finally [AFAIK] this was not a presidential or even a board decision,but one taken by a member of staff,to attempt to restore the fees to what they perceived they actually should be.
Hope all this rambling makes.Anyway as a racing type I'm off to the sack now to try and get the guys safely around the next eight days of the ras.

wav1

Beasty wrote: »

One of the ideas I've heard suggested about the provincial levy windfall is it could be used to fund full-time support within the provinces

If this was the intention I would support it as I do think the organisation as a whole is under resourced. In supporting it I would assume it would be a resource to support all aspects of support for clubs within a Province and not focussed on racing matters. Hence they could help co-ordinate risk assessments (which are equally relevant for leisure as well as racing events) and liaise with local authorities as required for example

If such appointments were to be made I could see an argument for passing some of the cost on in the form of additional charges for non-members, but certainly do not consider it would warrant an increase of €8 per person per event.

I have not heard if this idea has gathered any traction though.

Cycling Leinster offered in January this year to fund a full time events person [from the extra levies] to oversee and moniter the ever increasing amount of leisure events and attempt in some way to make them safer etc.This offer was made via a meeting with governance review committee and again AFAIK this was passed on to the board where a decision on same is still awaited.We actually have no issues with giving 100% of the extra levies back to the leisure section,as we didn't/don't need the extra to carry on our business.