Cycling UK Forum

Maybe AUK can't be expected to check all insurance,

Too right they can't. Most household contents insurance policies include third party cover for family members whilst cycling - perhaps they could ask to see a copy of all non Audax/CUK members policies

mjr wrote:Maybe AUK can't be expected to check all insurance, but it seems they check none of them except CUK, so it's a CUK discount in effect - which is fine and it's up to AUK but it also seems unwelcoming to others.

The vast majority of audaxes were (and probably still are) organised and run by CTC DAs, with most of the resources and volunteer marshalls etc. provided by DA members, and the majority of the participants probably being CTC members. For smaller events most of the participants would be members of the DA that organised the event.

All that AUK did for those events was provide the framework, i.e. specify the rules that the event had to comply with to qualify as an audax, and supply (and validate) brevet cards and medals.

So most audaxes were actually essentially CTC events, and that''s probably still true today. It's not surprising therefore that those who run AUK and the organisers, who were/are mostly CTC members, took the view that CTC insurance was adequate.

In fact I'm pretty sure that to begin with AUK had no insurance cover for its members, and relied on the cover provided to individuals by their CTC membership.

If you take offence at the fact that AUK continues to accept CUK membership as removing the need to purchase one off cover under the arrangement they have for non-AUK members, that's your choice.

I first joined AUK in 1976. In those early days it was claimed that officialdom was not needed - keep it as simple as possible. Alas, over the years it has developed into a bureaucracy that would put the civil service to shame with more officers that you shake a stick at.

When I got the official notification of the increases I asked myself whether things were getting out of hand.

ianrobo wrote:I have no issue with 18 quid a year I mean still far less than one standard sportive and I feel part of a community I adore !!

and an extra quid or so for a ride, no issue is it ?

Agreed

pga wrote:I first joined AUK in 1976. In those early days it was claimed that officialdom was not needed - keep it as simple as possible. Alas, over the years it has developed into a bureaucracy that would put the civil service to shame with more officers that you shake a stick at.

When I got the official notification of the increases I asked myself whether things were getting out of hand.

I'm reading Parkinson's Law by Cyril Northcote Parkinson. Although he's known for saying that work expands to fit the available time, his Law is an equation (tongue in cheek I think) "proving" that bureacracies expand at 5% to 7% per annum.

pga wrote:I first joined AUK in 1976. In those early days it was claimed that officialdom was not needed - keep it as simple as possible. Alas, over the years it has developed into a bureaucracy that would put the civil service to shame with more officers that you shake a stick at.

When I got the official notification of the increases I asked myself whether things were getting out of hand.

The club officials and the organisers are volunteers who give up their free time to keep the club running and organise events. The officials are elected, and every member can vote on the changes to the organisation and rules that are proposed at the AGM.

Is your opinion that of someone who has himself performed one of those thankless roles or regularly organised an audax, or are you just someone who has been happy to enjoy the benefit of the work done by others, and is now carping from the sidelines?

slowster wrote:Is your opinion that of someone who has himself performed one of those thankless roles or regularly organised an audax, or are you just someone who has been happy to enjoy the benefit of the work done by others, and is now carping from the sidelines?

Ah, this is another unfair dismissal of almost all criticism. Not only must the critic have done Audaxes, not only must they have experience of delivering events, but they must have experience of delivering Audaxes! With all criticism so dismissed as illegitimate, we must therefore conclude that AUK is practically perfect in every way(!)

mjr wrote:

slowster wrote:Is your opinion that of someone who has himself performed one of those thankless roles or regularly organised an audax, or are you just someone who has been happy to enjoy the benefit of the work done by others, and is now carping from the sidelines?

Ah, this is another unfair dismissal of almost all criticism. Not only must the critic have done Audaxes, not only must they have experience of delivering events, but they must have experience of delivering Audaxes! With all criticism so dismissed as illegitimate, we must therefore conclude that AUK is practically perfect in every way(!)

If pga has been a regular organiser of events or an AUK officer, and is able to share with us insight into how and why the bureaucracy he refers to adversely affects organisers or is damaging the club's functioning, then I would be genuinely interested to learn about that.

However, if his sole involvement in AUK is as a member who just rides the events that others put on, and whose comment about "a bureaucracy that would put the civil service to shame with more officers that you shake a stick at" is just based on reading the reports by club officials and of the AGM in Arrivee, and making a judgement without having any experience or understanding of the work and effort put in by those people, then his 'criticism' is worthless. There's nothing wrong with constructive criticism, but uninformed sneering remarks on an internet forum about the volunteers without whom the club would not exist from someone who has benefitted from their work is not constructive criticism.

When I rode audaxes I was grateful to the people who made those events happen, and I made a point of thanking them whenever I met them.

There's some merit to that, but it's rather different to the previous dismissal.

mjr wrote:

PH wrote:

mjr wrote:The surcharge seems more like a discount deal for CUK members because I do have other insurance. That's fine and their choice but I wish they were honest about it and it still makes it feel like AUK isn't for the likes of me.

Seems to me you've decided they're not for you and then keep adding the reasons why. A £1 increase after about a decade isn't going to put them out of financial reach for anyone for whom that wasn't already the case.

I said it's a "go away newbies" message, not a financial hardship, so please stop putting up and knocking down that Aunt Sally. It's almost nothing to do with the complaint.

Apologies for misunderstanding your point, though I'm at a loss to understand what it is you think will put new riders off. Do you think people will feel unwelcome because those they're riding with, who have paid to join AUK/CUK, have entered the ride for a couple of quid less? I thought everyone accepted that memberships of all sorts of organisations had benefits. I participate in various things that would be cheaper if I joined, from the local gym to the National Trust, I don't feel any of them are intending to deter me.

I always thought that most of the changes were intended to put a particular type of old riders off. So that then the new riders would be more attracted to riding Audaxes.
They saw the large numbers attending Sportives and thought "we would like some of that", so then an active policy was done to encourage large attendance premiere events and to discourage those low attendance rides of less than a dozen old blokes on old bikes tramping through the countryside and kipping in bus stops.
Many of the organisers of such events quit due to changes which were designed to put them personally out of pocket if they had less than twenty riders, Audax (starting) in West Wales was pretty much decimated.

Well I seem to have produced some differing responses to my comment that Audax UK had become a bureaucracy. We are all entitled to our views in any healthy organisation but personal attacks are always unacceptable.

I have been a cyclist since 1948 and have seen the many ups and downs of cycling in that time. I was over fifty when I learnt to drive so cycling has always figured large in my life. I rode to school, college, university and to work. I have toured widely in the UK and abroad. I raced in all aspects of the sport. I have organised rides and races at every level from professional events down to Bike Week invitation rides. I was a club coach for many years. Yes I have organised Audax UK events, eg Tour of the Cotswolds, Cambridge-Oxford. I rode Paris-Harrogate in 1978. I have ridden PBP and the Brevet des Alpes. I have been an active cycling campaigner since the 1960's - founder member Wandsworth Cyclists, Greater Manchester Transport Action Group, Milton Keynes Cycling Campaign. I have done academic studies into cycling. I am a town planner and have been involved professionally in planning for cyclists.eg as a local authority cycling officer.

Up and down the country there are others of my age who have done much the same and like me would have been upset at a challenge to our right to freely express our view on a subject so close to our hearts. Fear not though, we are no longer in the age of challenges to a duel.

pga wrote:I first joined AUK in 1976. In those early days it was claimed that officialdom was not needed - keep it as simple as possible. Alas, over the years it has developed into a bureaucracy that would put the civil service to shame with more officers that you shake a stick at.

When I got the official notification of the increases I asked myself whether things were getting out of hand.

Since 1978 the membership has grown manifold.

The number of events likewise. Plus several new types of events have been added (DIY, ECE, GPS-validation etc).

Surely you'd expect more bureaucracy?

mattheus wrote:

pga wrote:I first joined AUK in 1976. In those early days it was claimed that officialdom was not needed - keep it as simple as possible. Alas, over the years it has developed into a bureaucracy that would put the civil service to shame with more officers that you shake a stick at.

When I got the official notification of the increases I asked myself whether things were getting out of hand.

Since 1978 the membership has grown manifold.

The number of events likewise. Plus several new types of events have been added (DIY, ECE, GPS-validation etc).

Surely you'd expect more bureaucracy?

We learn today that Membership has exceeded 8000 for the first time.

pga wrote:Well I seem to have produced some differing responses to my comment that Audax UK had become a bureaucracy. We are all entitled to our views in any healthy organisation but personal attacks are always unacceptable....

Up and down the country there are others of my age who have done much the same and like me would have been upset at a challenge to our right to freely express our view on a subject so close to our hearts.

I did not make a personal attack. You made a sweeping criticism of AUK which effectively denigrated the various people who have volunteered to perform the various duties and tasks necessary for the club to function. In response I criticised your criticism. You say that others in your place might have been upset by my criticism, but you yourself did not consider it necessary to extend the same concern for the impact of your criticism on those who give up their time to fulfil roles in AUK.

pga wrote:I have organised rides and races at every level from professional events down to Bike Week invitation rides. I was a club coach for many years. Yes I have organised Audax UK events, eg Tour of the Cotswolds, Cambridge-Oxford. I rode Paris-Harrogate in 1978. I have ridden PBP and the Brevet des Alpes. I have been an active cycling campaigner since the 1960's - founder member Wandsworth Cyclists, Greater Manchester Transport Action Group, Milton Keynes Cycling Campaign. I have done academic studies into cycling. I am a town planner and have been involved professionally in planning for cyclists.eg as a local authority cycling officer.

In that case, like I said, I am genuinely interested in why you consider the growth in the number of people in official roles in AUK to be a bad thing. From my hazy memory of reading Arrivee there were times when it seemed that the workload on the very small number of people who were elected or co-opted to the committee was simply too much, and they had to increase the numbers to spread that load.

Presumably that expanding workload was itself the result of the growth in membership, of internal decisions taken by the club, e.g. at AGMs etc., and also the result of external factors to which the club had to respond, e.g. the need for and cost of insurance. I think it's very doubtful that AUK could have kept things simple in the way they were when you joined.