What do do about members group refusing to follow nat policy

[Karen Sutton]

I am sorry I disagree, this tread should remain in Public Policy. If 'The Club' is unable/unwilling, via the Members Groups, to offer encouragement to young riders it is clearly a matter of Public Policy. Don't just sweep it under the carpet.

Whatever way anyone tries to do this, it all comes down to volunteers in the end. CTC does encourage Groups to offer rides suitable for beginners and families. Many of the Groups already do this. Those that don't cannot be forced to do so. Any attempts to force this on Groups would only result in theGroups losing their volunteers.

However, a teenager who wishes to ride with a Group possibly wants to go on the normal day rides. They may not want to go on "family rides". They may be too strong/too experienced for Beginners' rides. If they are excluded because Ride Leaders are uncomfortable having them on the rides CTC cannot force the Ride Leaders to accept them. Ultimately if CTC were to say Groups have to accept absolutely anyone who turns up because to exclude would be discriminatory then you could not exclude someone who was clearly incapable of riding safely in a group, or somebody whose cycle was unroadworthy.

CTC can only offer guidance to Groups and Volunteers. Adding rules would spell the end of most of our Groups.

[Tonyf33]

Seems to me that if the hierachy aren't prepared to actually back up their own policies and pro-actively encourage those that should enforce the policies at club level to do so (like all the other policies?) what does that say about the state of the 'club'?
Really I'd be more than a little bit annoyed, yes a 13 year old isn't an adult but phil_Lee has already stated in his OP that the lad has been on rides previously and whilst maybe not the most experienced of riders it would seem churlish at best to exclude him because dad is unable to accompany due to disability when the club rules state this is fine anyway

What's the worst that could happen that another rider would be able to individually do much different? All this talk about nannying a younger rider who apparently is able to do the rides, hasn't I presume had an 'incident' and wants to participate in a group consisting of what is likely to be much much older people. Hardly the type to jack about & spoil it for others.

[Karen Sutton]

Seems to me that if the hierachy aren't prepared to actually back up their own policies and pro-actively encourage those that should enforce the policies at club level to do so (like all the other policies?) what does that say about the state of the 'club'?
Really I'd be more than a little bit annoyed, yes a 13 year old isn't an adult but phil_Lee has already stated in his OP that the lad has been on rides previously and whilst maybe not the most experienced of riders it would seem churlish at best to exclude him because dad is unable to accompany due to disability when the club rules state this is fine anyway

What's the worst that could happen that another rider would be able to individually do much different? All this talk about nannying a younger rider who apparently is able to do the rides, hasn't I presume had an 'incident' and wants to participate in a group consisting of what is likely to be much much older people. Hardly the type to jack about & spoil it for others.

It does seem harsh to exclude a teenager who has been on the rides previously. Maybe the ride leader who was happy to have him along does not lead all the rides or is no longer leading rides?

With regard to your point about the hierarchy backing up their own policies and pro-actively encouraging those at club level to do so; CTC already encourage Groups to welcome all riders. They cannot go out and check up that all groups are doing so. If a case such as this comes to light, as Kevin says, the complaint should be raised with himself if raising it at a local level does not achieve a satisfactory result. Then the Group in question could be asked to look at their policy of excluding this rider.

Of course if the issue is tackled in this way, as has previously been pointed out, the result could be a loss of Ride Leaders and other volunteers. Many have a fear of compensation claims and threats of Child Protection issues. It is the world we live in. I am fully aware that we do not need CRB checks in order to have children on rides. But I am clued up on Child Protection issues. Others may be worried about it.

[drossall]

I'm reminded that I myself went on my first club ride, with the Altrincham Ravens, at about the age of 17. I went with my brother - one of his teachers was a member. We were unprepared for a brisk 60+ miles, and ended up being pushed home.

[Karen Sutton]

I'm reminded that I myself went on my first club ride, with the Altrincham Ravens, at about the age of 17. I went with my brother - one of his teachers was a member. We were unprepared for a brisk 60+ miles, and ended up being pushed home.

I also remember joining our CTC Group when I was 19. My first ride was a hilly Derbyshire ride. We were mostly young and penniless. It was a "stove run" which involved taking the mini gas bottle or primus stoves to heat food for lunch. It was January and there was snow on the ground. I also remember being helped home by the Club Secretary (one of the only members around 40ish).

The majority of the group at that time were under 25. We had great times. Remembering those days meant that I just had to encourage the 13 year old who came out with our group (mentioned upthread) a few years ago.

[Simon L6]

there is no single right answer to this......

The CTC offers a service, for which it charges. So far so simple. If, by virtue of the child's association with a disabled person he is denied that service then the CTC is discriminating. So far so obvious. The Member Group may not be paid agents of the CTC, but their existence depends upon the insurance policy that covers the rides leader and people on the ride. So the member group has an obligation not to discriminate. So far so straightforward.

The complicating factor is that the unpaid rides leader may decide that he or she doesn't want to take the risk - and by risk I mean not an insurance risk, because asking the question of National Office would establish whether the rides leader was covered or not, but the human risk. I lead rides, albeit of a particular nature, and for an affiliate rather than a member group, and I'm telling you that I'm not going to let an unaccompanied thirteen year old that I don't know on those rides because I think that they would be at risk, and they would put others at risk. I've taken seventeen year olds with their parent's written permission, and younger riders when accompanied, but, while I'm open to persuasion that a particular rider under 18 has what it takes to do the ride safely, I'd not take a thirteen year old who had not previously been accompanied and had convinced me that he or she was sufficiently respoonsible.

What strikes me about this is that the OP hasn't got in touch with Kevin, who would have, I am sure, convened some kind of discussion or meeting to find a way forward. The average age of the CTC membership is about 107. Having a 13 year old on rides would be something of a boon.

There is an irony here. A few years ago a DA split off from the CTC because they wanted to take a disabled lad on the rides and they couldn't justify the risk of taking him on major roads. How times change....

[thirdcrank]

While road safety is an increasingly important issue, child protection more generally also now looms large. Drossall mentioned being pushed home on his first club run. Who would do that today with an unknown young person, especially a girl? I have a flawless enhanced CRB check, as conventionally respectable as they come. I've done voluntary reading work in a primary school, and there's so much talked about child protection that I began to feel people might suspect my motives for volunteering to work with children.

I mention the pushing a girl thing because a few years ago, as leader of an National Bike Week ride I ended up unexpectedly with an unchaperoned girl in the group. When the heavens opened I was able to supply her and others from the stock of Goretex I had packed into the longflap as a precaution, but I should have thought long and hard before even offering a push. Luckily - or rather by design - the last few miles home were mainly down hill.

We live in sad times.

[meic]

Seems to me that if the hierachy aren't prepared to actually back up their own policies and pro-actively encourage those that should enforce the policies at club level to do so (like all the other policies?) what does that say about the state of the 'club'?
Really I'd be more than a little bit annoyed, yes a 13 year old isn't an adult but phil_Lee has already stated in his OP that the lad has been on rides previously and whilst maybe not the most experienced of riders it would seem churlish at best to exclude him because dad is unable to accompany due to disability when the club rules state this is fine anyway

What's the worst that could happen that another rider would be able to individually do much different? All this talk about nannying a younger rider who apparently is able to do the rides, hasn't I presume had an 'incident' and wants to participate in a group consisting of what is likely to be much much older people. Hardly the type to jack about & spoil it for others.

The thing that the child can not do that another rider could do is to be [i]legally[/i] responsible for their own safety. The very fact that they are under age makes the ride leader and in his absence any other adult present, liable for that child's protection.

[meic]

there is no single right answer to this......

The CTC offers a service, for which it charges. So far so simple. If, by virtue of the child's association with a disabled person he is denied that service then the CTC is discriminating. So far so obvious. The Member Group may not be paid agents of the CTC, but their existence depends upon the insurance policy that covers the rides leader and people on the ride. So the member group has an obligation not to discriminate. So far so straightforward.

The complicating factor is that the unpaid rides leader may decide that he or she doesn't want to take the risk - and by risk I mean not an insurance risk, because asking the question of National Office would establish whether the rides leader was covered or not, but the human risk. I lead rides, albeit of a particular nature, and for an affiliate rather than a member group, and I'm telling you that I'm not going to let an unaccompanied thirteen year old that I don't know on those rides because I think that they would be at risk, and they would put others at risk. I've taken seventeen year olds with their parent's written permission, and younger riders when accompanied, but, while I'm open to persuasion that a particular rider under 18 has what it takes to do the ride safely, I'd not take a thirteen year old who had not previously been accompanied and had convinced me that he or she was sufficiently respoonsible.

What strikes me about this is that the OP hasn't got in touch with Kevin, who would have, I am sure, convened some kind of discussion or meeting to find a way forward. The average age of the CTC membership is about 107. Having a 13 year old on rides would be something of a boon.

There is an irony here. A few years ago a DA split off from the CTC because they wanted to take a disabled lad on the rides and they couldn't justify the risk of taking him on major roads. How times change....

Not obvious to me. It may be the case but it isnt obvious that the disability act exempts the children of disabled people from such restrictions. However it must have already been considered by other larger organisations like Theme parks and the answer to the question will be out there somewhere by now.

[thirdcrank]

.... Not obvious to me. It may be the case but it isnt obvious that the disability act exempts the children of disabled people from such restrictions. However it must have already been considered by other larger organisations like Theme parks and the answer to the question will be out there somewhere by now.

That's exactly why I said above that I thought disability was a red herring here. Without something definitive from somebody who really knows we can only surmise.

[Tonyf33]

Seems to me that if the hierachy aren't prepared to actually back up their own policies and pro-actively encourage those that should enforce the policies at club level to do so (like all the other policies?) what does that say about the state of the 'club'?
Really I'd be more than a little bit annoyed, yes a 13 year old isn't an adult but phil_Lee has already stated in his OP that the lad has been on rides previously and whilst maybe not the most experienced of riders it would seem churlish at best to exclude him because dad is unable to accompany due to disability when the club rules state this is fine anyway

What's the worst that could happen that another rider would be able to individually do much different? All this talk about nannying a younger rider who apparently is able to do the rides, hasn't I presume had an 'incident' and wants to participate in a group consisting of what is likely to be much much older people. Hardly the type to jack about & spoil it for others.

The thing that the child can not do that another rider could do is to be [i]legally[/i] responsible for their own safety. The very fact that they are under age makes the ride leader and in his absence any other adult present, liable for that child's protection.

Where does it say in the ctc terms/policies that a ride leader is legally responsible for anyone else? Why does it make them liable for the childs protection, my son at 13 could handle himself pretty well in any given situation. I'm not sure I could say the same for any given supposed 'responsible' adult?

[meic]

It doesnt say it anywhere in the CTC's policies etc. I am basing my assumptions on how I think that the British legal system works. It doesnt matter what it says in the CTC docs or any waivers that are signed, I think that a British Judge will hold you liable for whatever happens to that child as they will deem that you took on responsibility for them.

[Karen Sutton]

As far as the law is concerned a child is anyone under the age of 18. (Child Protection and Safeguarding cover up to 18). Whilst some children under 14 may be capable of riding with a Group there are many who would not be. It should be left to the discretion of the ride leader as to whether they are happy to have unaccompanied children on a ride. Yes, nothing is written down to say that anyone is legally responsible for a child on a ride. It is however accepted that a ride leader has a duty of care towards the riders with the group.

[thirdcrank]

... Where does it say in the ctc terms/policies that a ride leader is legally responsible for anyone else? ....

If you read the pdf download I linked to above setting out the guidelines for ride leaders it says they have a "duty of care."

I'm not going to open it again for the umpteenth time to lift a quote but that's what it says at the outset. That is a lawyers' expression so it suggests to me a lawyer was consulted about the wording of the guidelines. Its significance is that to prove the tort of negligence - ie to get compo when somebody allegedly didn't carry out their responsibilities towards somebody else - it's necessary to demonstrate that they had a duty of care.

[drossall]

And therein lies the issue. It's certainly possible to argue that, at least on a fairly informal club ride, the ride leader is just suggesting a route. If he goes down a dual carriageway and I don't like it, it's up to me to drop out. Now OK, I may then be lost, or feel under pressure to stay with the group.

I accept your view of the law, but I understand those who think that it is asking them to take on more than is reasonable, without good cause.

I sometimes wonder if informal social activity is incompatible with a legal framework that is heading for someone always having to be responsible for what is going on