Cycling UK Forum

mjr wrote:And googling ATE reveals that it is the past simple of eat,

How childish, no wonder you struggle to understand basic things, they have a context, in this case anyone with a bit of sense would google ATE insurance, which is in the post. And a comparison without context is just as useless, if you don't know what's included it's no comparison at all.

PH wrote:

mjr wrote:And googling ATE reveals that it is the past simple of eat,

How childish, no wonder you struggle to understand basic things, they have a context, in this case anyone with a bit of sense would google ATE insurance, which is in the post.

Anyone with a bit of sense uses a different search engine than Google these days, but they also don't just post jargon.

And a comparison without context is just as useless, if you don't know what's included it's no comparison at all.

The context is membership rates, which you seem to be having some problem with, trying to turn it into another insurance discussion.

On which:

PH wrote:the one difference I spotted was that CTC insurance covers some sporting events and the LCC version excludes all.

So you didn't spot that LCC is (like Clarion is and I think CTC was) £5m Third Party cover, while CUK is now £10m (and BC £15m). There's probably other differences in the insurances too. Anyone who cares about something complicated like insurance probably should make their own comparison, whereas we can more easily summarise membership rates.

mjr wrote:The context is membership rates, which you seem to be having some problem with, trying to turn it into another insurance discussion.

The context is given by the OP

I researched all competitor organisations and discovered those which competed directly with one another in the provision of services and insurance for cyclists

Some interesting feedback on my original post with some new insight to consider.

COMPENSATION - a consistent argument in favour of the CUK offer is suggested to be the insurance package and namely that if you choose to use the CUK lawyers Slater Gorden you will keep 100% of any compensation.

This is clearly an important feature to consider.

However, it should be understood that it is not mandatory to use the insurers panel solicitor. People do not have to use the solicitor their insurer appoints. While these firms will usually charge the insurer a lower fee for their services, they might not be the best option for the individual.

So if an individual chooses to join another cycling group or to buy insurance separately in the event of an accident they are free to shop around for the best legal deal - if they can find one.

PH wrote:

mjr wrote:The context is membership rates, which you seem to be having some problem with, trying to turn it into another insurance discussion.

The context is given by the OP

I researched all competitor organisations and discovered those which competed directly with one another in the provision of services and insurance for cyclists

I agree with mjr - My original research was focused on identifying organisations which offered competing packages of services and insurance and did not focus on insurance per se. I was looking at organisations which provided a support package for cyclists that included all things among which are - organised cycle rides, discounts, the ability to meet, ride, and socialise with like-minded people, and insurance. Each of these will have different importance to different people but to single out insurance as being the primary feature of the organisation and the key product/service purchased by the membership fee was not my intention. If I had wanted to focus only on this feature I would have included a list of insurance brokers.

RayP wrote:I agree with mjr - My original research was focused on identifying organisations which offered competing packages of services and insurance and did not focus on insurance per se. I was looking at organisations which provided a support package for cyclists that included all things among which are - organised cycle rides, discounts, the ability to meet, ride, and socialise with like-minded people, and insurance.

You're entitled to compare whatever you want, but if some of the compared organisations offer something that is likely to be of more value to potential members than some of the other services, I believe that ought to be highlighted. Even more so when the difference isn't immediately obvious.
As already said the legal services from Cycling UK and British Cycling, could easily save any cyclist who has a Personal Injury Claim more than their lifetimes membership. Other organisations may not include that, I don't know, that's why I asked the question.

PH wrote:[
As already said the legal services from Cycling UK and British Cycling, could easily save any cyclist who has a Personal Injury Claim more than their lifetimes membership. Other organisations may not include that, I don't know, that's why I asked the question.

You say the legal services from CUK I know nothing of BC. I thought they just pointed you to Slater & Gordon on a no win no fee basis, probably getting a hidden cut, so now I’m confused again. Does CUK have legal services?

PH wrote:

RayP wrote:I agree with mjr - My original research was focused on identifying organisations which offered competing packages of services and insurance and did not focus on insurance per se. I was looking at organisations which provided a support package for cyclists that included all things among which are - organised cycle rides, discounts, the ability to meet, ride, and socialise with like-minded people, and insurance.

You're entitled to compare whatever you want, but if some of the compared organisations offer something that is likely to be of more value to potential members than some of the other services, I believe that ought to be highlighted. Even more so when the difference isn't immediately obvious.
As already said the legal services from Cycling UK and British Cycling, could easily save any cyclist who has a Personal Injury Claim more than their lifetimes membership. Other organisations may not include that, I don't know, that's why I asked the question.

I have taken an objective approach when looking at competing organisations and have considered the complete package of services the organisations offer - including insurance. My approach has been informed by market/competitor analysis techniques which aim to exclude subjectivity. Looking at CUK membership benefits (in addition its organised rides, the ability to meet others and insurance) there is a package of benefits totaling more than 20. This is the total service offering which is bought with the membership fee.

Claiming that insurance is the most important and key feature of this package of benefits for prospective members seems to me to be a subjective claim. Insurance may be an important persuader to join an organisation for some people. But not for all.
Furthermore placing insurance as the main reason for prospective members (and presumably members) choosing to join an organisation suggests that the key purpose of that organisation is to deliver an insurance product. This is clearly not the declared purpose of any of the organisations I listed or examined in my analysis.

So when reviewing the players in the market we need to look at the complete package of services and how well they deliver on each and at what cost in membership. Do this objectively and some marked differences between the various organisations can be identified. It is these differences which help identify the strengths and weakness of the various organisation. Looking only at a single feature and comparing organisations on that basis does not provide a complete picture of the organisation.

What if one has several insurances, cuk, bc and household insurance say
If one has an incident, which of the several insurers has the doubtful honour of paying?

RayP wrote:Claiming that insurance is the most important

All that analysis and you seem incapable of understanding the simple points being made:
1) I certainly have not at any point in this thread or elsewhere made any indication that I consider insurance the most important anything.
2) The legal services agreement which means you keep all of a compensation settlement rather than pay up to 25% success fee isn't a part of the insurance package. I don't consider that to be the most important feature either, but neither do I consider it so unimportant that I'd leave it out of a comparison.

I entirely agree that a comparison needs to look at all the benefits and costs, you seem determined not to do so. You may call that objective, I don't.

Paulatic wrote:

PH wrote:[
As already said the legal services from Cycling UK and British Cycling, could easily save any cyclist who has a Personal Injury Claim more than their lifetimes membership. Other organisations may not include that, I don't know, that's why I asked the question.

You say the legal services from CUK I know nothing of BC. I thought they just pointed you to Slater & Gordon on a no win no fee basis, probably getting a hidden cut, so now I’m confused again. Does CUK have legal services?

The answer is here, as posted on the previous page.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/incidentline
You are entirely right that all the work is carried out by Slater & Gordon, but the terms it's done under are not the same as an individual will get when compared to a CUK member.