British Cycling decision to end sportive insurance cover for National Escort Group riders branded "foolish"

Here's an idea, how about sportive organisers pay for insurance for NEG riders out of their own ridiculous profits that they get from charging £25/head and more for people to ride it? What a bunch of whining greedy idiots.

I'm with BC 100% on this, for a change.

Agree with BC decision on this, far better for them to concentrate on road racing and let the sportive organisers dip into their massive piles of cash to fund their own escort teams if required.

BC shouldn't be funding commercial events like sportives.
Thats the organisers job.
The same riders can still be used or another bunch can do the same job. It just that the commercial groups that run these events now have to put their hands in their pockets.
If the NRG only have so many man days available the rightly they should be used for races , the events created by those paying for the insurance.

I would agree with the British Cycling stance.

The vast majority of Sportifs are for profit and so should pay for any event costs.

The NEG was specifically created to help marshal road races, the majority of which are not-for-profit and organised on a low budget by local cycling clubs.

I have ridden road races with NEG support and they do a fantastic job. Why on earth they are needed for a sportif which is essentially a large Sunday club run is beyond me.

Well said Rothbags.

I can point you in the direction of a Sportive organiser who puts funds directly back into racing;

http://www.boudiccasportive.co.uk

Check it out, attend if you can. Really quiet roads and scenic route.....even if we did manage to have one incident sparking off the whole #bloodycyclists thing;-)

Thousands put back into racing last year and plenty to be seen going back into it again this year. I think the profit was split between those that made it happen (local clubs, host location/charity and one additional good cause).

I'm all for the Sportives etc. paying for this, if its down to a shortage of NEG volunteers, BC and Triathlon get the first shot. In fact, why not try and earn a dollar or two from it.

As for the older guys doing Sportives entering races, you guys know that there is a severe lack of availability in the low categories across the country, just as I do.

Remember too that BC gets funds from the lottery etc. as well as subs and clubs.

I've read some of the comments on here and the only 'foolish' thing about the article are the organisers naive comments, and road.cc 's decision to use the word 'foolish' in the headline.

Lets put things in perspective.

An average regionally organised RR with 80 riders will bring in £1600 at £20 a pop. Deduct £100 -£200 for village hall hire. Deduct event levies, rider levies, commissare fees, NEG fees and god forbid if anythings left prize money and it will probably run flat, just wash its face or more often than not make a loss thats provided for by club subs.

At the moment the organiser of the event who is branding the decision 'Foolish' is sitting on revenue of circa £38000. Obviously minus overheads. Not withstanding that i dare say that theres a profit at the end of it, and nothing of that goes back into the community sport.

The irony of it is that BC do provide the event insurance, and no doubt include the particpation figures in its submissions / stats to UK sport which eventually fund the elite & development programmes via the UK sport surveys.

I could go out tommorow, dig out an old audax route. create a GPX from it. buy a catchy named website. offer a goody bag and water stops and charge folk a shed load of money.

But i wouldn't put it back into my bank account against my house, i could not ethically do that.

If i were to promote a sportive , I'd do it upfront and say X % of profits is going direct back into the sport, promoting new races, developing riders, and put it on year after year after year ensuring that the competitive sport is not left scraping the barrel as it is at the moment relying on the goodwill of aging volunteers giving up their own time for nothing.

So far, I've not seen a single sportive promoter do that. This sort of message that they are not prepared to have their profits eaten into frankly stinks when its pure commercial profit

so come on...
Have some perspective. 'Foolish' is what you think people are if they buy into this sort of Rhetoric.

Firstly, I understand that the Sportives have to pay the NEG guys (even if its just expenses) I'm not sure how these guys work, but have appreciated their work over the years if they don't, then they should.

secondly, as it's advised, lots of Sportive riders are BC members, as it keeps them insured.

Thirdly, they do a different job on Sportives than races, they don't close junctions etc.,they police and safety check what becomes (unlike a RR) a very long field, and advise unruly riders.

I believe this is to do with the insurance which up until now has applied to competitive and non competitive events, blanket. Now its competitive only.

I would imagine that the organiser or NEG rider having to get separate insurance on an event by event basis would be expensive, and difficult.

Why don't BC charge a fee to Sportives to allow them to make use of the blanket cover?

I'm not a BC member, so have no real right to moan, but this seems a bit political.

Northstar, how many sportives have support motorbikes? Sorry ive only done one (well, same one 3 times, the NorthernRock/Virgin Cyclone) and that didnt have any motorbikes that i noticed, some marshalls tho.

I can understand the need for motorbikes on closed road events, as some riders may ride on the wrong side of the road, risky if a car has sneaked onto the course.

Dont know how motorbikes can help on open road events tho, as there would be riders spread out everywhere, so you need static marshals (not mobile ones) at risky junctions.

It might be 'ignorance' that we are overlooking the fact that sportives get people cycling, something that is a BC objective, so maybe thats an issue here? otherwise sorry, I dont get your point, why cant sportives pay for this insurance.

For the fee most sportives charge, I'm sure they should be able to subsidise this myself? To be honest, it's news to me tonight that some of my British Cycling membership fee paid for private businesses to get this cover.

Some of the popular audaxes can have a large throng of riders, but that never seems to require an escort. As with all such rides, people string out into smaller groups.

As a BC member and Commissaire, there's no way BC should be subsidising the operating costs of a profit-making events - if sportive organisers want them, they can pay full costs for themselves.

Alternatively, if riders want escort riders, suggest they take out a race-licence and enter a race?

Northstar, I'm with you, don't worry, it seems many haven't even taken part in a sportive with some of the opinions voiced above

*sighs* Ignorance everywhere.

Why should BC pay insurance for NEG on a sportive run by a private (profit making) enterprise?? As others have said, if you want the warm blanket of motorbikes riding about in a sportive then shouldnt that insureance be covered in your entrance fee, rather than just getting a free bannana.

+1 for @Jimmy Ray Will. Let's not lose sight of the fact that the (vast) majority of sportives exist to make a profit for the organisers! To use a 'hackneyed' phrase - "costs should lie where they fall".

The racing scene needs all the help it can get and having NEG tied up with sportives does seem pretty silly.
The costs of racing also need to be considered and if that goes up dramatically to provide the support where will our next Wiggo and Cav etc come from? Grass roots needs support!

Sportives are great, but they are unlikely to produce our next great racers. I'd bet if you took a poll on the age groups in a sportive most of them are past being the next pro's!

If I am honest, I can only think of one or two sportives that I have done where the NEG have been there, or where vehicle support has actually been any good (Tour of Wessex being one). The majority don't use NEG and probably don't need it.
Should my 40 miles saturday morning club run have support? I don't see there is a huge difference.

Lets keep them protecting the racers and keeping them safe as we need as much protection between the race vehicles as possible!!!

I am aware that the insurance policy for BC is massive... as an organisation BC are not in the 'ideal candidate' category for insurers, in fact I believe the organisation has only one option and they are paying through the nose for it.

What I am saying is that should it be BC that has to carry the financial can for insuring NEG support at sportives, or should it sit with the organisers of what is by far, the most profitable side of event organisation?

Quote:

To me NEG is about controlling traffic, and that shouldn't need to be happening with a sportive.

Another one, yes it should, because EVEN if the public highways are closed, motorists WILL STILL try to use them, seen it many times, they have no limits as to what they will try and do when confronted with "obstacles".

Next?

Jesus, it's nothing to do with speed, it's do with the fact that there could be inexperienced people riding and motorists being very resentful of "sharing the public highway", the amount of open ignorance some people display is breathtaking.

I'm more or less in agreement with BC on this one. Certainly I agree that the requirements of a sportive are far different to that of a road race. Also, I'm not sure what sort of statement having NEG looking after these events makes...

To me NEG is about controlling traffic, and that shouldn't need to be happening with a sportive. For that to be necessary it would suggest that the basis of the insurance covering sportives (i.e. that it is not a competitive event) is false.

If you're going fast enough in a sportive to need a motorbike outrider to clear the road of traffic, you should probably enter a real race instead of pretending the sportive is one. Sportives are about taking part, not speed.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot for no reason, until these events are held on closed public highways (yeah right, hell with freeze over first) the NEG are essential, stupid decision.

I've seen the NEG at work on closed "roads" pro races and they are still needed because some people just can't accept closed public highways.

Given that the organiser can simply purchase cover themselves and still use the same riders, I would suggest that this is actually just about cost. Organiser pays for cover, increases the price of the event.

Of course, the frankly daft entry fee for some events is then brought into focus.