Cycling Ireland AGM 2017

Inquitus · 23-10-2017 9:20pm

CramCycle wrote: »

I have crashed twice this year and claimed nothing from CI.

I crashed racing, and incurred about 600 euro of medical costs, the CI insurance was no use at all, to be honest all its good for is a safety net if things really go horribly wrong, it's not going to do anything for run of the mill crashes and the like. But even at that it does have value, because you never know what might happen.

CramCycle · 23-10-2017 9:31pm

Inquitus wrote: »

I crashed racing, and incurred about 600 euro of medical costs, the CI insurance was no use at all, to be honest all its good for is a safety net if things really go horribly wrong, it's not going to do anything for run of the mill crashes and the like. But even at that it does have value, because you never know what might happen.

100%. I am lucky in that my wife insists on medical insurance, which would kick in far quicker than CI cover. It's expensive and if she didn't insist, I wouldn't pay it, but I am an idiot. This said, I am not married that long and the CI insurance was a nice safety net in case anything did go horrendously wrong. This said, most crashes in CI, I imagine don't reach the limit, and alot are not even reported. I certainly never went up and recorded mine.

This said, in relation to the proposed increases and the comments relating to insurance. Cycling Ireland operated at a loss the year before last, I have no idea what it is like this year but one thing I do know, is that Insurance had nothing to do with it, from the AGM last year, one of the notes from the treasurer:

· An insurance summary was presented, with the following points of note:
o The insurance cost for members has gone up in 5 years, from €11.46 per member to what will be €13.33 per member in 2017.
o The split of the claims comes roughly from a third in races, a third in leisure events and a third people out training on club spins.

So based on last years numbers, racing does at best costs the same as leisure, at worst, is a 2:1 split on cost for insurance, although I suspect the training spins included non racers as well.

Anyway, back to my point a few posts ago, has the treasurer released a justification for the increases? I find it hard as a club member to push my club to vote any way without some indication as to the rationale. now I am sure there is one, I just want to hear it.

ford2600 · 23-10-2017 9:33pm

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

CI is not the only customer of the insurer though. The premiums collected would most probably extend far beyond that collected from CI. The basis of insurance premiums is that the premiums of many pay for the claims of the few.

Exactly, sportive riders subsidise racing.

I understand insurance pretty well

py · 23-10-2017 9:59pm

2nd year as an unattached CI leisure license holder, it'll be my last unless I join a club and am forced to purchase it. €50 is ludicrous given there's not a whole lot provided in return. In addition, any query I've put to them has either gone untouched for months or been met with snark even though they've not followed through on their promises. Given it's €5 for a one day license for audax/sportives, i'll go with that for next year as I won't get to 10 events.

Beasty · 23-10-2017 10:24pm

ford2600 wrote: »

Almost exactly 1000 registered mens race licences in 2017.

That's 125,000 to pay for all claims from A1 to A4, pay some to administer it, and pay from CI costs.

To be fair there are a lot more CI members with racing licences than 1,000

I can see 3,700 listed in the rider rankings and that ignores Limited Competition. I reckon there must be at least 20% of the membership with racing licences, but would still contrast CI with the likes of British Cycling who engage their whole membership. They certainly don't adopt an attitude that the non-racers are there to help fund the racers (and I think certain senior officials in CI do adopt that approach). I get a lot more info from British Cycling than CI, and only a small proportion of that is racing-related

Lusk_Doyle · 23-10-2017 10:33pm

ford2600 wrote: »

Exactly, sportive riders subsidise racing.

I understand insurance pretty well

Yes, that may indeed be the case but that is how ALL insurance works. It's not a CI or racers v leisure issue.

Robxxx7 · 24-10-2017 8:42am

py wrote: »

2nd year as an unattached CI leisure license holder, it'll be my last unless I join a club and am forced to purchase it. €50 is ludicrous given there's not a whole lot provided in return. In addition, any query I've put to them has either gone untouched for months or been met with snark even though they've not followed through on their promises. Given it's €5 for a one day license for audax/sportives, i'll go with that for next year as I won't get to 10 events.

My feelings exactly, i've been an unattached CI license holder for the last 6-7 years and don't feel i've had my monies worth .. apart from just being a money contributor to Cycling Ireland ..
The main reason i have a license is for the insurance .. i did have it verified via email some years ago that as long as i'm training for a CI event .. then i am covered .. I only do about 5 or 6 CI sportives a year ... but i also have private medical insurance ..so not sure whether renewing my CI license for next year is even worth it ..

ford2600 · 24-10-2017 8:57am

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Yes, that may indeed be the case but that is how ALL insurance works. It's not a CI or racers v leisure issue.

No this is an organisation with its roots and most active members from racing background benefiting from cheap insurance on basis of almost useless cover sold to most leisure members.

If leisure members wake up, and wal, racing cyclists will learn the real cost of racing on open potholed roads.

What loading iso put on someone who claims/causes a claim? None.

Show me some other profitable insurance model where that is the case? Or is it ALL insurance works in that pie in the sky fashion?

wexandproud · 24-10-2017 9:07am

Inquitus wrote: »

I crashed racing, and incurred about 600 euro of medical costs, the CI insurance was no use at all, to be honest all its good for is a safety net if things really go horribly wrong, it's not going to do anything for run of the mill crashes and the like. But even at that it does have value, because you never know what might happen.

i don't race any more , bar the very occasional club race . i did however have a fall on a sportive this year and their was a third party involved . CI and the broker were excellent in getting it sorted . thanks guys

I had an a&e bill and loss of earnings for about 2 weeks but didn't bother claiming so i cant say what that would have been like

Beasty · 24-10-2017 11:03am

wexandproud wrote: »

I had an a&e bill and loss of earnings for about 2 weeks but didn't bother claiming so i cant say what that would have been like

I used up pretty much the full €2.5k cover when I made a claim for medical expenses a couple of years ago (racing accident). It was fully itemized and supported with invoices and there were no qualms. Paid promptly and in full, subject to the excess (which was only €100 then)

RobFowl · 24-10-2017 11:11am

IVCA and CI need to grow up, bang heads together and merge or at least co-exist other than pretend the other doesn't exist..

(am a member of both)

wexandproud · 24-10-2017 11:13am

Beasty wrote: »

I used up pretty much the full €2.5k cover when I made a claim for medical expenses a couple of years ago (racing accident). It was fully itemized and supported with invoices and there were no qualms. Paid promptly and in full, subject to the excess (which was only €100 then)

they seemed very efficient alright . im self employed so quantifying earnings would have been difficult and apart from the copious quantities of plasters and a few tablets i wasn't really out of pocket in cash terms so i was happy enough to suck it up and just get the thing settled , didn't want the motorist being left with a bad impression if it dragged on

happy cycling

uck51js9zml2yt · 24-10-2017 1:44pm

Ok people..I have the definitive answer on the CI insurance coverage for leisure cyclists and its not "42"

From Michael in CI today by email..

"Under the personal accident cover they would be insured as the leisure cycle/commuting would be deemed training, O'Driscoll O'Neill our insurers confirm that.

Regards,
Michael"

My original question.....

"Can you clarify the position of leisure members with regards to insurance please?
Leisure members may not be taking part in sportifs or club training events by nature of their membership.Their usage of their bikes is probably limited to leisure cycles and commuting.
Are leisure members insured and if so in what circumstances?"

Weepsie · 24-10-2017 1:56pm

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Yes, that may indeed be the case but that is how ALL insurance works. It's not a CI or racers v leisure issue.

They should be clearer then in the licence cost : How much of it is directly covering your insurance in your category.

CI are given an overall quote, but they'd surely have an idea of which category are costing them the most and they could weight it then a bit more fairly over the different groups,

Lusk_Doyle · 24-10-2017 6:28pm

ford2600 wrote: »

No this is an organisation with its roots and most active members from racing background benefiting from cheap insurance on basis of almost useless cover sold to most leisure members.

If leisure members wake up, and wal, racing cyclists will learn the real cost of racing on open potholed roads.

What loading iso put on someone who claims/causes a claim? None.

Show me some other profitable insurance model where that is the case? Or is it ALL insurance works in that pie in the sky fashion?

All you have to do is look at any block policy for a development of apartments. Owners pay into a management fund, part of which goes towards the insurance for the block. Person in apt 3 has a claim. The impact is on the policy not on the individual. What flavour pie would you like?

ford2600 · 24-10-2017 6:40pm

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

All you have to do is look at any block policy for a development of apartments. Owners pay into a management fund, part of which goes towards the insurance for the block. Person in apt 3 has a claim. The impact is on the policy not on the individual. What flavour pie would you like?

So it's not ALL insurance? Not motor, home insurance, PII?

Your example is a compulsory insurance in the unregulated property management industry.

Is that's your yardstick for a fair insurance?

The GMan · 24-10-2017 7:18pm

Following the conversation here highlights one of my concerns with Cycling Ireland as the perception many members have of the organisation.

The discussion was prompted by the proposal to increase membership fees, and the majority of the discussion continues to revert to a discussion around insurance. This would once again seem the highlight the fact that the main (maybe only) benefit that members see to CI is the insurance.

At the AGM last year (2016) the insurance was stated to be €13 a head which is less than one third of the leisure membership fee of €40. The questions asked then, that are still relevant, are what other benefits are leisure members getting for the other €27. In 2016 CI took in approx. €760,000 from leisure members, yet despite the commitment in the 2014 “Cycling Ireland Strategic Plan” and motions at last year AGM there is still no leisure commission in place.

It is to the benefit of all that we should have a strong single representative cycling organisation. It should be a major concern for CI that the main (only) benefit that members perceive to CI membership is insurance. Until this changes through more real benefits, CI is in real danger of continuing to loose members and I cannot see how they can justify any increases in membership fees.

Lusk_Doyle · 24-10-2017 7:33pm

@Ford2600 I'm not going to derail the thread any further by giving more examples of insurance or replying to your last post. This is not the place for it.

eeeee · 24-10-2017 7:37pm

The GMan wrote: »

Following the conversation here highlights one of my concerns with Cycling Ireland as the perception many members have of the organisation.

The discussion was prompted by the proposal to increase membership fees, and the majority of the discussion continues to revert to a discussion around insurance. This would once again seem the highlight the fact that the main (maybe only) benefit that members see to CI is the insurance.

At the AGM last year (2016) the insurance was stated to be €13 a head which is less than one third of the leisure membership fee of €40. The questions asked then, that are still relevant, are what other benefits are leisure members getting for the other €27. In 2016 CI took in approx. €760,000 from leisure members, yet despite the commitment in the 2014 “Cycling Ireland Strategic Plan” and motions at last year AGM there is still no leisure commission in place.

It is to the benefit of all that we should have a strong single representative cycling organisation. It should be a major concern for CI that the main (only) benefit that members perceive to CI membership is insurance. Until this changes through more real benefits, CI is in real danger of continuing to loose members and I cannot see how they can justify any increases in membership fees.

CI sent out an email asking for expressions of interest in the leisure commission, which would be the voice of leisure cycling in CI. If you feel strongly that's the way to go.
CI is a lot more permeable than you'd think.

CramCycle · 24-10-2017 8:16pm

The GMan wrote: »

It is to the benefit of all that we should have a strong single representative cycling organisation. It should be a major concern for CI that the main (only) benefit that members perceive to CI membership is insurance. Until this changes through more real benefits, CI is in real danger of continuing to loose members and I cannot see how they can justify any increases in membership fees.

True. This said, Cyclign Ireland is not a blanket cycling organisation, they are by their own definition a sports federation. This said, the membership base has changed hugely and it should probably shift some of it's focus to reflect this (which it has, but not hugely). The main reason for this, is despite those who speak being quite loud, there are very few of them speaking up. Until that changes, CI will follow its mandate (although the recent surveys across the membership may help drive change) to support the sporting side of things.

nee wrote: »

CI sent out an email asking for expressions of interest in the leisure commission, which would be the voice of leisure cycling in CI. If you feel strongly that's the way to go.
CI is a lot more permeable than you'd think.

Definitely, this said, the call for volunteers for a leisure commission, which everyone points out has the largest base of members, could only manage a bit over 100 names.

Alot of people talk about what they want CI to do or change, I have even asked for clarifications on things but unless they turn up at the various AGMs or get their club to voice their issues etc. then I fail to see what they expect to change. The truth is every motion that is uncontroversial should pass. Every one that benefits racers will pass, no matter the cost to other members, and so on. Unless people prove me wrong and have their club turn up with a mandate, then that is that.

The GMan · 27-10-2017 5:20pm

CramCycle wrote: »

…… CI will follow its mandate to support the sporting side of things.

I think that CI should always have a strong focus on the sporting side, all of the sporting sides not just road, and I say this as a leisure cyclist only. We all want to see success at local, national, and international level, new icons of the sport and glory days would be fanatic.

However just because it’s mainly the traditional roadies that populate the AGM it should not really be taken that CI are only mandated to focus on competitive road cycling. Many organisations take a lead in looking at the needs of their members and attempt to take a proactive leadership role rather than waiting to be forced into a reactive position.

CramCycle wrote: »

Definitely, this said, the call for volunteers for a leisure commission, which everyone points out has the largest base of members, could only manage a bit over 100 names.
Alot of people talk about what they want CI to do or change, I have even asked for clarifications on things but unless they turn up at the various AGMs or get their club to voice their issues etc. then I fail to see what they expect to change. The truth is every motion that is uncontroversial should pass. Every one that benefits racers will pass, no matter the cost to other members, and so on. Unless people prove me wrong and have their club turn up with a mandate, then that is that.

I think what leisure members want is probably fairly simple, some more engagement and responsiveness from CI and to stop being the milked cash cow.

I’d always agree that democratic organisations can and should be influenced and changed from within by people getting involved and voting for change.

128 expressions of interest was a great response for the leisure commission IMO, if every one of those turned up at the AGM they could probably have most anything passed.

JK.BMC · 10-11-2017 4:55pm

I had a look at the final agenda- more than 40 motions down for discussion, an awful.lot of which should be done via the specific commission I feel; for example why does an AGM have to discuss whether 11 year old girls get a jersey/medal etc??? Probably an important issue fie those concerned but hardly not for the 25,000 CI members- or why is it that the road commission, the CI board and individual clubs all have motions around calendar/grading when this could be agreed in some other forum?
Anyway, my real concern is that there is both a rugby and a soccer match on the telly Saturday evening so I'm wondering will we get out in time to have a pint or two in the bar, or will we be arguing g the toss all evening????? ðŸ˜€ðŸ˜€ðŸ˜€

wav1 · 10-11-2017 5:14pm

JK.BMC wrote: »

I had a look at the final agenda- more than 40 motions down for discussion, an awful.lot of which should be done via the specific commission I feel; for example why does an AGM have to discuss whether 11 year old girls get a jersey/medal etc??? Probably an important issue fie those concerned but hardly not for the 25,000 CI members- or why is it that the road commission, the CI board and individual clubs all have motions around calendar/grading when this could be agreed in some other forum?
Anyway, my real concern is that there is both a rugby and a soccer match on the telly Saturday evening so I'm wondering will we get out in time to have a pint or two in the bar, or will we be arguing g the toss all evening????? &#55357;&#56832;&#55357;&#56832;&#55357;&#56832;

As things stand at present the various commissions have to put the motions to AGM as they don't have the powers themselves.To give them the power would involve another motion to do so if you catch my drift.
Anyway the entertainment value at the AGM is far more attractive than watching a heap of lads chasing a ball around around a field in Copenhagen.

CramCycle · 10-11-2017 5:55pm

JK.BMC wrote: »

I had a look at the final agenda- more than 40 motions down for discussion, an awful.lot of which should be done via the specific commission I feel; for example why does an AGM have to discuss whether 11 year old girls get a jersey/medal etc??? Probably an important issue fie those concerned but hardly not for the 25,000 CI members- or why is it that the road commission, the CI board and individual clubs all have motions around calendar/grading when this could be agreed in some other forum?&#55357;&#56832;&#55357;&#56832;&#55357;&#56832;

Trying to figure out how long it is going to take, 40 of them. i am really hoping someone has the sense like in previous years to speed roll the basic ones and blend the similar ones to save time.

wav1 wrote: »

As things stand at present the various commissions have to put the motions to AGM as they don't have the powers themselves.To give them the power would involve another motion to do so if you catch my drift.
Anyway the entertainment value at the AGM is far more attractive than watching a heap of lads chasing a ball around around a field in Copenhagen.

Next year my motion will be too give the separate commissions the power to look after their areas on their own. Although I was under the impression that for the likes of track and MTB etc. that is what they already did and it is only road that has this need to do everything at the AGM.

They would hardly let us slip in an amended motion at the beginning diverting all road related motions to a road commission EGM to be held before the season starts? Maybe just get it in for next year.

This number of motions will undoubtedly have lots of fun little shouting matches, remember to bring popcorn.

morana · 11-11-2017 12:04pm

any commission can make a proposal to the board and the board can pass it outside of the agm. i seem to recall it takes 29 days for it to become a rule.

I was full sure that the board always wanted to give more power to the commissions to run the sport hence the governance review which was supposed to ensure they were fit for purpose from a governance point of view but that petered out......