Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Don't want to become a "cycle club" - whats wrong with that?

Hiya, 

myself and a few people and friends from the neighbouring villages - sometimes anywhere between 3 to 20-odd people (depending on who turns up) have starting regularly going for rides in the local area. We are quite happy doing this, and have absolutely no desire to race (we're a bit old for that), we just like going for a 35 mile ride every sunday and having a nice chat and a coffee. We all have British Cycling membership to cover us for 3rd party insurance. We dont really have a "ride leader", we just make a route on Strava, most of us download it to our Garmins and help plod our way round a route. It sounds simple and that is how we like it. A few people have commented that because of our regular Sunday rides, that somehow "we must be a club, and should become a club, because then we'd be insured". But - we dont want to. We dont want the hassle of a committee, we dont want to collect any subscription money, we dont want to have to start a "club" bank account, we don't want to bother affiliating to anyone, we don't want any "club politics", we really don't want to be THAT organised.        

 As far as I can see, a "club", by definition, has to "club together" to pay for membership, such as "club" affiliation to British Cycling or CTC. We dont want to do that. We just want to ride our bikes for 35 miles every Sunday and have a chat. Whats wrong with that? If thats all we want to do - can we just keep doing what we do?

If we are all members of British Cycling with Ride membership, so are therefore covered for 3rd party insurance in case we somehow ploughed into the back of a car and damaged it, surely thats fine isnt it? I've read back to front the terms and conditions of the British Cycling insurance, and basically it seems that as long as you are not racing, you are covered for cycling a bicycle.

I'd be interested in others opinions, as I bet there are thousands of loosely organised "village group cycling friends" that find themselves in the same position.

If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.

Add new comment

29 comments

Avatar
Judge dreadful | 8 years ago
2 likes

I'm in the same position as you (pretty much). I set up social rides on the Skyride site, then see who turns up. My rides vary in length from 10-15, to over 150 miles, and for the most part, it works very well. I don't want to be a 'cycling club', I have sampled one or two in the past, and they have mostly been the antithesis of what I'm about. As you have found, there are some people, who just have to have a club structure on their rides, which is fine, if you like that sort of thing. I don't enjoy that sort of thing,  I just like finding new and interesting routes, and I'm not remotely interested in 'Cadence' or 'power' or riding fast. I guess it's different strokes for different folks, but I do get irritated by people expecting me to form a 'club'.

Avatar
CommotionLotion | 8 years ago
2 likes

You don't have to join a club, just do what you want.

Avatar
chrismday | 8 years ago
1 like

There's an exclusion contained in BC's insurance that I wonder how many people are aware of:

"One member against another in a cycling competition, race, time trial or timed event"

A timed event is clarified as : "Typically, but not exclusively, a Sportive or other such organised mass participation event where times are recorded"

In other words, if the guy you bring down is also a BC member, you're on your own.

This doesn't apply to a club ride situation, but the exclusion applies even if you've taken out one of the "Race" levels of membership.

Avatar
SteppenHerring | 8 years ago
3 likes

I'm fairly involved with a club and its administration so I know what's involved.

If you just want to go for a ride then go for a ride.  Getting into the whole business of running a club is a faff. If you're not road racing then no need to have a club affiliated to BC. If you're not time trialling then no need to have a club affiliated to CTT. 

If you don't need to bureaucracy then don't do it. Club politics and committees lead to anger, anger leads to hate and hate leads to the dark side. (e.g. triathlons). 

Avatar
Choll15 | 8 years ago
0 likes

Interesting thread, and by the look of things, a lot of people these days have at least had a brief chat about it to their ride companions. Having just started up a cycling club we have decided to become affiliated to British Cycling, but unlike the original poster we have a few members that want to race and time trial under our new name so it seemed a no-brainer. We only have 30 or so members so far but if it grows, the BC website offers some good tools you can use to help the day to day running of the club. We don't intend to become bogged down in officialdom, but in my opinion having some structure to the club gives our riders some degree of comfort that we are 'doing things properly'. How the club runs and the safety of each ride is very much down to the attitude of everyone present, and we encourage unselfish riding and thinking of others as part and parcel of signing up. The subject of accidents, insurance, liability and litigation fills me with dread and I am at as much of a loss as the next man as to what I would do should any incident on any of our rides turn into something sinister and costly.

Our club mainly consists of members who used to belong to a cycle club in our area that was based from a shop. Initially they were part of BC, but when the annual subscription lapsed, they did not renew. Charging a membership fee as they did and having a few of us act as ride leaders, navigating and leading each group made up of differing people each week, some completely unknown, made a lot of people nervous about what would happen and worried about safety and the liability issues being in charge involved. The fact the club charged a membership fee but appeared to give nothing in return other than the priviledge of using the shops coffee area (Which was open to Joe public for free) seemed to be the last straw, hence the splinter group.

Did people feel a bit safer knowing the club was BC affiliated? Down to the individual I guess. Were they actually any safer in real life? Probably not. Having attended a BC ride leadership course (geared more towards your Sky-Ride type non-cyclists experiencing riding to be fair), it soon becomes apparent that if you nominate yourself as 'leader' the only way to enjoy full BC legal protection is to run your ride in the manner that BC dictate for a beginner type ride(Briefings, nominal role, Next of Kin form, Risk Assessment..) which no average club ride would ever do.

Avatar
Danger Dicko | 8 years ago
1 like

Shit, does this mean that me and my partner should form a club to protect us when we go on an afternoon jaunt around the lanes of South Yorkshire?

What is the numbers required for a club?

Why didn't we have clubs when I was 13? I wasn't insured at all for a good 35 years of my life. How dangerous was that?

Avatar
CXR94Di2 replied to Danger Dicko | 8 years ago
0 likes
Danger Dicko wrote:

Shit, does this mean that me and my partner should form a club to protect us when we go on an afternoon jaunt around the lanes of South Yorkshire?

What is the numbers required for a club?

Why didn't we have clubs when I was 13? I wasn't insured at all for a good 35 years of my life. How dangerous was that?

I suppose it's individuals who form a group. You probably weren't dangerous but the world has changed and it has become more litigious. Odds are you will never need to claim or be defended by insurance. Actuaries/are reasonably good at assessing risk, hence low premium for cover.

Avatar
Cyclespeed Tours | 8 years ago
1 like

Here's a scenario;

You're riding along happily in a group of 10, when the guy in Position 2 hits a pothole and has a catastrophic wheel failure, causing him to fall. 

He brings down 3 or 4 other riders behind him causing both material and physical damage.

To my mind, this falls under the 'sh1t happens' category. Things can and do fail. Maybe the rider should have avoided the pothole. So be it. You were riding only 30cm from his back wheel, so you're as much at fault as he is.

Insurance shouldn't be involved in situations like this.

Avatar
Stef Marazzi | 8 years ago
1 like

Exactly, stay on the point here, the question is "Do we need to become a "club" to have 3rd party liability, if all we are doing is going for a Sunday rides?". And the answer is: Being a member of a cycling club does NOT cover you for ANY third party liability. It only covers the elected officials of that " club". Don't pretend that it is anything that it isn't. It is right there in the small print. It does make me wonder, how many people have been coerced into joining a cycling club, thinking it magically covered them. It doesn't. They would need BC ride membership, or CTC or LCC equivalent, IF they want that 3rd party cover. And, as is quite rightly pointed out, there is nothing that says you "must" have it, either.

Avatar
Stef Marazzi | 8 years ago
0 likes

Who is the " Rider Leader" if everybody has downloaded the route to their Garmins and we all know where we are going?

Avatar
austinpowers | 8 years ago
1 like

What is a "ride leader"? Is it the person that hits the dog first?

Avatar
AJ101 | 8 years ago
0 likes

The insurance issue is the potential pitfall. If there's an accident on a ride and a private healthcare company looks to get it's money back from what they percieve to be the 'ride leader' on the day does the British Cycling 3rd party insurance cover ride leading? 

Our club enquired about this and our organisers were covered because of the club affiliation rather than the individual 3rd party cover.

You'll want to enquire to find out exactly if this is the case for you guys, but if it is then CTC affiliation will probably be less hassle than BC affiliation if you do choose to go down the formal route.

Avatar
Stef Marazzi | 8 years ago
0 likes

Wow, thats fascinating. Basically, a lot of the time then, if you are in a club, and paying money every year into it you are actually paying to insure the club officials, and not yourself! That's mad! You are actually better of with individual British cycling Ride membership instead! (Or the CTC equivalent) At least you cover yourself! Thanks for all the comments, I think we are definitely doing the right thing NOT wanting to be a club!

Avatar
Simon E replied to Stef Marazzi | 8 years ago
0 likes

cyclesteffer wrote:

Wow, thats fascinating. Basically, a lot of the time then, if you are in a club, and paying money every year into it you are actually paying to insure the club officials, and not yourself!

Would anyone really join a cycling club in the misguided belief that its purpose was to insure themselves in the event of a crash?

When they say 'officials' of course they mean volunteer marshals standing on a windswept roundabout in the rain for hours or the organiser and helpers who pull down signs and barriers long after everyone else has gone home. BC is, after all, a governing body for cycle sport and being a 'club official' is not a ticket to an easy life, it's a posh term for the few putting themselves out to do all the jobs for the benefit of the many. The subs aren't spent on the committee's beer quota; any affiliated club has to pay an annual fee to BC - and possibly CTT - as well as other costs, of which the membership are blissfully ignorant.

Avatar
austinpowers replied to Simon E | 8 years ago
1 like

Simon E wrote:

Would anyone really join a cycling club in the misguided belief that its purpose was to insure themselves in the event of a crash?

At least one person in a club near me thinks that you are putting your fellow riders "at risk" if you are not members of a club and therefore not "insured".

 

Avatar
Simon E replied to austinpowers | 8 years ago
0 likes

austinpowers wrote:

At least one person in a club near me thinks that you are putting your fellow riders "at risk" if you are not members of a club and therefore not "insured".

There are stupid, wilfully ignorant people everywhere so this comes as no surprise. They are easily identified since, like Daily Mail readers, they very quick to spout bollocks as hard facts and are crap at listening to anyone else.

If someone who rides a bicycle really wants Third Party insurance while cycling I'd advise they check their house and car insurance first; if those do not apply then they could try the £9.50 cover offered by LCC.

But surely if you are riding as the Highway Code instructs then you could not ever be considered at fault?

Avatar
CXR94Di2 replied to Simon E | 8 years ago
0 likes

Simon E wrote:

But surely if you are riding as the Highway Code instructs then you could not ever be considered at fault?

 

When it comes to litigation,  has common sense or being right come into it.  I have seen normal, placid people ripped apart emotionally/physically when having to deal with a litigant trying it on. It cost them more, alot more than the thousands in solictitor fees to defend themselves.

 

 Weigh up the cost a few quid to be a member and have cover or potentially face an ambulance chaser after your life savings over a silly little acident.

Avatar
Simon E replied to CXR94Di2 | 8 years ago
0 likes

CXR94Di2 wrote:

Weigh up the cost a few quid to be a member and have cover or potentially face an ambulance chaser after your life savings over a silly little acident.

I don't have a problem with this while it is a genuine choice.

However, this creeping need to protect oneself from an unlikely situation is like people pushing helmets & hi-viz, using fear to sell a product. Once these things appears to become the norm then it's harder to argue the case for someone without it when they are in fact doing nothing wrong.

Avatar
austinpowers replied to CXR94Di2 | 8 years ago
0 likes

CXR94Di2 wrote:

 

 Weigh up the cost a few quid to be a member and have cover or potentially face an ambulance chaser after your life savings over a silly little acident.

Yes, but a member of what? A member of British Cycling (Race or Ride cover) will cover you for liability but will being a member of a cycling club?

 

Avatar
Simon E replied to austinpowers | 8 years ago
0 likes

austinpowers wrote:

CXR94Di2 wrote:

 

 Weigh up the cost a few quid to be a member and have cover or potentially face an ambulance chaser after your life savings over a silly little acident.

Yes, but a member of what? A member of British Cycling (Race or Ride cover) will cover you for liability but will being a member of a cycling club?

Read the discussion, it's been said already.

Avatar
Simon E | 8 years ago
1 like

If you don't want to form a club then don't. Tell the busybodies: "on yer bike".

You don't need TP insurance but I can understand the wish to have some form of legal cover. The creation of an organisation only covers the club officials for public liability; one of the exclusions on BC's page on insurance is: "Individual club members (as opposed to club officials) are not covered unless they themselves are Ride, Silver or Gold members of British Cycling with personal liability insurance cover."

The only thing I'd suggest is that you ensure group riding discipline and consideration for other road users are maintained.

Avatar
allanj | 8 years ago
0 likes

£94 and we'd have to get our (fantastic) kit approved!!

Avatar
Man of Lard | 8 years ago
2 likes

I recently dropped out of the local village ride group here for exactly this reason - that one person (who liked to think of himself as the 'leader') started to impose (for want of a better term) "regulations" for taking part arbritrarily and riding on public roads. 

 

Bear in mind this was a group of 4 (maximum) chaps, often 3, sometimes even 2 just out for a Sunday morning bimble. All individually insured. Now they've lost 25% of the regular attendees.

 

In the email announcing this to me (and he knew only I was going to take issue) he said there'd been pressure from the other "members" (of a club that I had no idea I'd joined, and nor did the other two) to impose it. Both confirmed to me that they had not agitated in any way to impose any conditions.

 

I still go out on a Sunday morning and since pulling out of the clique, I notice that they are riding even more slowly than before and not as far. Maybe that's the reason for the regulations being introduced.... hmmmmm

 

Their loss, not mine.

Avatar
Leviathan replied to Man of Lard | 8 years ago
0 likes

Man of Lard wrote:

I recently dropped out of the local village ride group here for exactly this reason - that one person (who liked to think of himself as the 'leader') started to impose (for want of a better term) "regulations" for taking part arbritrarily and riding on public roads.

Bear in mind this was a group of 4 (maximum) chaps, often 3, sometimes even 2 just out for a Sunday morning bimble. All individually insured. Now they've lost 25% of the regular attendees.

In the email announcing this to me (and he knew only I was going to take issue) he said there'd been pressure from the other "members" (of a club that I had no idea I'd joined, and nor did the other two) to impose it. Both confirmed to me that they had not agitated in any way to impose any conditions.

I still go out on a Sunday morning and since pulling out of the clique, I notice that they are riding even more slowly than before and not as far. Maybe that's the reason for the regulations being introduced.... hmmmmm

Their loss, not mine.

SPLITTER!*

Get the other two to ride with you instead.

 

*People's Front of Judea

Avatar
Man of Lard replied to Leviathan | 8 years ago
1 like

Leviathan wrote:

SPLITTER!*

Get the other two to ride with you instead.

 

*People's Front of Judea

At least one of them might do that on the basis of he & I being serial "bad eggs" and racing off - well matched to me in fact... But frankly I can't get agitated about it.

Avatar
Martyn_K | 8 years ago
0 likes

It's a tough one this and a decision that my club had a assess only a few years ago. You are right to excersise caution as generally once you step on to the road of officialdom it is very difficult to get off. 

There is nothing wrong with casual/ social clubs but there is a risk, however small, of being an unorganised (forgive this terminology) group.

One of the deciding factors for us becoming affiliated and going through all of the official club processes was litigation. As a casual group we cycled varied routes and as with any outdoor activity a certain amount of risk is involved. As a group we were confident that if someone had an accident there would be no comeback to others in the group. However we could not have the same confidence that members of the public would be the same.

Lets create a hypothetical situation. You are in a good size group, say 10 riders. All descending a hill at what you feel is a controlled speed but using all of your lane. On a bend one of your group flows out towards the white centre line and an oncoming car driver is spooked and swerves. That car crashes, injuring the driver who then can't work for a good period of time.

The driver decides that the blame should lie with the cycists (i know, i know) and sues. As an individual you have limited cover in this sort of situation but you would also have a great deal of stress dealing with the issue. As an organised club there are services provided with affiliation that can aide both the club and members involved in a case like this.

Official club status, affiliation and insurances are generally not required day to day. But they do offer stability in worst case scenarios.

Avatar
allanj | 8 years ago
0 likes

What you do sounds exactly like what we do.  We have club kit but no bank account, AGMs, office bearers etc etc.

 

It never occured to me that we as a group would need any kind of insurance- if one of us causes damage to something/someone that is their responsibilty and I can't see how it would be the club's.  

Avatar
Cyclespeed Tours | 8 years ago
3 likes

Cyclesteffer, I support you wholeheartedly in this.

What has happened to a bunch of mates meeting up and going for a ride?

Since when did insurance and lawyers come into it?

It is almost better to be informal as you are, then noone can point the finger of blame.  There is no ride leader, so it's noone's 'fault' if there's an accident.

And you all have 3rd party insurance anyway.

People need to accept that riding a bicycle is potentially dangerous - you could fall off. And riding in a peloton is even more dangerous - you could fall off through no fault of your own - but that's just the way it is. Accept it. Or we'll all become to scared too ride through fear of litigation.

The only winners? Lawyers.

Avatar
CXR94Di2 | 8 years ago
0 likes

Our club just had their agm. In that meeting it was highlighted that Sunday club rides were to properly run..meaning those that tagged along but weren't members are only allowed 3 rides then must join the club. Also leaders must be registered with BC so that leader insurance covers them incase an accident takes place and the other rider decided to sue the leader. Pretty much all adults in our club have become a leader at some point.

I suppose as long as all riders accept their own responsibility and undertake not to sue any other rider then you don't need to be a club. Accidents can/do happen, can you guarantee that not one rider would litigate in the case of a serious accident?

Latest Comments