Cycling UK Forum

mjr wrote:

PH wrote:

mjr wrote:Yes and there are some restrictions on CUK-non-members participating in rides - only so many per ride and so many rides per non-member.

Now you have completely misunderstood the nature of affiliated clubs . There is no requirement for riders to be a member of anything other than the affiliated club.

Quite possibly because it's horrendously unclear with affiliated clubs probably interpreting http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... ance_0.pdf in different ways. In short, when CUK's then membership manager asked at the CN/CUK campaigners' conference in Leicester why KLWNBUG isn't double-affiliated, I mentioned this restriction as one reason and wasn't corrected, but maybe not even he understood what he was selling. That insurance guidance also witters on about officers (which we don't have as such) and vaguely mentions obeying all CUK guidance without defining it and I'm not sure exactly what it means. Maybe it's a way to weasel out of any claims.

Like I wrote earlier, this is going to end in tears sooner or later: the wide range of interpretations can't all be correct.

I didn't find it unclear at all, but as it says in the first paragraph a full copy of the policy is available on request.
The important point is

Affiliated bodies (‘You’) may organise rides primarily for their members.

That's it, their members, not cycling UK members.
As for officers, it's just terminology, it'll include the person who's registered it and anyone organising or registered as a ride leader.
The guidance is covered in the ride leaders handbook, it's basic stuff.
The reality is it's all very simple, there's no need to make it complicated.

PH wrote:

mjr wrote:I wrote earlier, this is going to end in tears sooner or later: the wide range of interpretations can't all be correct.

I didn't find it unclear at all, but as it says in the first paragraph a full copy of the policy is available on request.
The important point is

Affiliated bodies (‘You’) may organise rides primarily for their members.

That's it, their members, not cycling UK members.

Which still doesn't apply to any cycling campaign group anyway, which organises public-participation rides.

PH wrote:As for officers, it's just terminology, it'll include the person who's registered it and anyone organising or registered as a ride leader.
The guidance is covered in the ride leaders handbook, it's basic stuff.
The reality is it's all very simple, there's no need to make it complicated.

It it's simple, why does CUK make it all so complicated with terminology and having to guess that it means some handbook which they don't even name, let alone link?

Is the guidance really all contained in that handbook? Is it http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... 2016_1.pdf ? That seems aimed at formal led rides, requiring a Ride Leader that assess participants' health and bikes, fills out various forms before, during and after the ride - generally, almost the same level of bureaucratic overkill that at least three local groups rejected from the county council, except that CUK isn't saying that we have to provide food, drink and hi-vis jackets. The sample sign-in sheets have only a space for CUK membership number, not any space for their affiliate group membership number, which makes me doubt PH's interpretation of member/non-member. Is that it, or is there another handbook for social group rides?

For our rides you automatically become a group member by taking part in a ride. Thus everyone on our rides is a member.....if you'll excuse the phrase.

Obviously this wont work for everyone, but its free to be a member of our group so no subs to collect....if youride withus you are one of us.

Good points there. I've had a look at Cuk Affiliation and it is a tad ambiguous to say the least.
If it's so opaque at the beginning, Gods alone knows what it might be like should a claim arise.
Along the lines of it being easier to seek forgiveness rather than ask permission we may simply continue with our informal weekly bimbles-out on our bikes.
Were I to organise insurance than I might become personally liable as some sort of 'leader-organiser' which I am not nor seek to be.

HaroldBriercliffe wrote:Good points there. I've had a look at Cuk Affiliation and it is a tad ambiguous to say the least.
If it's so opaque at the beginning, Gods alone knows what it might be like should a claim arise.
Along the lines of it being easier to seek forgiveness rather than ask permission we may simply continue with our informal weekly bimbles-out on our bikes.
Were I to organise insurance than I might become personally liable as some sort of 'leader-organiser' which I am not nor seek to be.

It's your choice, but really it's been over complicated in this thread, there are of course plenty of groups that meet and ride together without any formal membership and I've never heard of any problems.
You might ask Cycling UK if they're running the Ride Leaders Workshops again, the one I went to was interesting for the exchange of ideas and left me in no doubt about the scope of the insurance and the minimal requirements to comply with it.

They do have that workshop handbook on line and it's most informative.
Frankly I have rather been frightened off putting my head above the parapet on this one.
If nobody is organiser then no one is liable beyond their own insurance cover.
That's an individual choice.
I have the CUK member 3rd party cover, others may not.
We'll probs just carry on 'as is' in optimism.

If still in doubt (when I turned our group into an affiliate it was all very straight forward) one could always ring national office up and ask about the things that are causing an issue. I've found them to be very helpful concerning groups when I've talked directly to someone at national office.

Been watching this thread and I am NO legal expert so opinion:

I've wondered if announcing "I am not ride leading, there is no ride leader" and then acting as a ride leader might not legally be adequate to avoid responsibility or liability. In the event of somebody making a claim I wonder if somebody behaving and undertaking the tasks of a ride leader might then have the responsibilities of being a ride leader whatever has been said. Not only from the "I didn't hear them say they were not ride leading" but more that if you undertake something then you cannot always relinquish the responsibility for doing that just by saying "I'm not xyz'ing" and then doing what is effectively xyz'ing.

And my worry is that 99.99+% of the time it is not an issue but when somebody gets injured (even through their own fault) their attitude to "get compensation" can quickly change.

But the above is personal opinion (as to how I think things are NOT how I think they should be). I'm no expert.

Ian

I am a Sustrans Volunteer and some years ago another member of the local group was looking at organising a "team building" ride.

There was some correspondence between myself and the Sustrans regional office. In summary a ride organised by Sustrans Volunteers for the general public must have a qualified Ride Leader (plus a number of qualified Ride Supporters, dependent on numbers of riders attending). A ride which only involved Sustrans Volunters and which occured incidental to other Volunteer activity would not require a qualified Ride Leader, e.g. riding a section of NCN to check signing, a workday to clear vegetation, etc. Even then riding to a cafe after the workday had ended seemed to be in a bit of a "grey" area.

Different risk assessments applied to both activities.

IMO the key phrase was "... it comes down to how the ride is organised and the expectation of those attending ..."

IMO in a situation where people could be turning up "expecting to be led" no amount of telling them that it is not a led ride is going to count in the event of an incident leading to a claim against the organiser/leader.

You're both right. It is not enough to simply say it's not a led ride. You must also not lead the ride. No sign on. No bike checks. No marshalling crossings or snaking at junctions. No formation instructions. Just a group of people cycling from the same start to the agreed finish at roughly the same speed and having a chat, with maybe a bit of mutual support if needed.

And yes, you need to be as clear as possible in advertising that it's not led and do your level best to avoid anyone turning up expecting otherwise.

Maybe someone will try to sue a random rider one day but that's why most riders have insurance. It's definitely not going to be for leading among our group IMO.