Club Membership Discussion

[Roland]

In an attempt to not derail the gear order process, I'd like to move the discussion about club membership into its own thread.

When the club was formed last fall, I was under the impression that the rides were to remain inclusive. Anybody was welcome to join the rides, club membership was optional.

Judging from the comments in the gear order thread, it seems that this is no longer the general consensus. I also think there are two issues that are being merged into one. CyclingBC insurance and Club Membership.

I think most people have CyclingBC insurance, either through Tripleshot or another club. I think insurance should be strongly recommended.

As for club membership, I think we should clarify our position.

1. After how many rides should a new rider become a club member?
2. Can a rider be a member of Tripleshot and another club? (This is currently not recognized by Cycling BC)
3. If not, are riders belonging to OBB, IRC, Schawlbe, etc welcome on our rides?
4. What does the $20 club membership go towards? Is it prorated? What does the sponsorship money go towards?
5. How much should non-club members pay for gear? Does this apply to family of club members?
6. Does it make sense to use club dues to buy coffee? Some members rarely come to coffee. Wouldn't it be better to run a separate pot based on attendance?

As for the current clothing order, I'm charging everybody the same price. For future orders, we should come to a decision as a club. Perhaps we have some thing to vote on at the AGM.

[barton bourassa]

We need to keep it open and inclusive. However, insurance should be strongly encouraged.

[AlW]

Further to 1) above.....

There are a few clubs that require some form of insurance to join club rides. I remember going to the Saturday Oak Bay ride last March and Scotty telling people to sign up if they weren't already a member and didn't have cycling bc insurance. Sidney Velos have a similar requirement.

So, to the lawyerly types out there, what would be the impact on the club (and members) if an uninsured rider crashes during a group ride, then proceeds to sue anyone (or anything) that can be sued?

[JohnT]

I haven't given Peter my membership forms - negligence on my behalf, not a form of protest. In fact, six months ago I did give him the dues, but I don't expect that payment to be remembered, let alone honoured after such a delay. I do have a UIC license but can't remember if that provides any insurance on group rides.

With those confessions out of the way, I would like to remark that I think that we should encourage anyone to ride with us, encourage anyone who rides regularly to become a member (if more than three people can identify you by name, you're a regular rider), and offer the kit to everyone at the same price.

JT

[Lister Farrar]

Further to 1) above.....

There are a few clubs that require some form of insurance to join club rides. I remember going to the Saturday Oak Bay ride last March and Scotty telling people to sign up if they weren't already a member and didn't have cycling bc insurance. Sidney Velos have a similar requirement.

So, to the lawyerly types out there, what would be the impact on the club (and members) if an uninsured rider crashes during a group ride, then proceeds to sue anyone (or anything) that can be sued?

Defintely not a lawyerly type here, but this insurance thing often seems fuzzy. My understanding is that members have liability insurance (for when you do something wrong, like run into a pedestrian on the road, and are found liable) if they join. I'm not aware that non-members riding with us somehow voids our liability insurance. They just don't get covered if they get sued. If it weren't so, I'm sure Pete would have noticed this as he is a lawyerly type, and doubt he would expose himself (keep reading ) to liability because of non-members. Am I right Pete? I think it's different for races because the insurer wants some sense all participants have joined and understand the risks, and are part of the 'family' (vs vindictive strangers). But that argument might apply for club rides too. Correction welcome.

[Jeff George]

Who has paid or not paid dues which may or may not be required aside, here's a thought about prices for kits:

Yes, everyone who rides with us regularly (or family members, etc) should pay the same price. What I think some of us had an issue with in the past was people who we have never heard of (or seen on a ride) enjoying the benefits of our club's discount on gear.

Remember during a previous order when Pete was having to chase down people he didn't know for money before he finalized the club's order? That seems wrong. As I recall, the thinking that came out of that was that, if random people who have no connection to the club want to buy gear, then we should make it available, but at a premium.

[dreeves]

I concur with Jorge's comments above. There was a time when a significant number of people rode with us once, if at all and then all of a sudden they were reaping the benefits of a well-priced kit. John's comment above in which he says if more than 3 people in the group know your name you are a regular rider, is a good indicator.

We all live busy lives and no one want to spend time finding people that we barely know. Out of respect for the process of collecting funds for kits, Roland needs to make a deadline for orders, keep to it, and then let the tears run freely from those who missed the boat-order, so to speak.

dylan

[Lister Farrar]

Why not just have a membership requirement for the gear, (unless it turns out there is a liability reason)?

The gear is cool, would be an incentive to join, and formally counting folks does give the club some cred and clout.

We can make the requirement to join fairly easy, such as the family membership being the same or only a little more than a single membership. Or we can add a number of rides requirement to keep out riff raff like Brian Berry.

Implementing a rule for a number of rides or number of people that know your name before ordering is no easier than a membership requirement. For eg, when Alec was switching jobs and not riding with us, I dare say fewer than 3 people knew his name, but I think we would want him to be able to buy the gear. And unless we end up needing membership for insurance, if you don't want gear, no need to join if you don't want to. I think it boils down to whether we want any restrictions on gear on not, and if we do, I think it should be an obvious one, like joining, not a secret-handshake or give-Pete-a-leadout sorta thing.

And people join multiple clubs all the time. It's just the license that indicates only one club. Cycling BC is not really a major factor in this; licensed races are a minor part of our activities.

Then we don't have to sweat the different prices. And we probably won't have to hunt down strangers if they've paid their club fees. At least we'll know who they are! We can even have a check box on the m'ship form "argyle mole".

[Alec]

People should know me now - I'm the guy who rides for about 40 minutes and then goes home.

Does that count for a clothing discount???


alec

[Rolf]

Roland's question 1:

It's no surprise the issue of membership arises in the context of ordering gear. With our "distinctive" visual identity, I think the perception of belonging is closely tied to the Easter Egg outfit. Personally, I only felt like I was one of the gang when I wriggled into Allan's surplus baby blues; slipping a filled-out form and $20 to Peter felt more like paying taxes or some such other psychologically unimportant event.

I can't see how anyone would benefit from closing the door even slightly on new riders, or even trying to impose controls on joining (things like: ride quotas to be met, coffee to be bought etc.). Everyone has a different mental path to commitment and joining a group. For some it might be 3 rides, for others it might take a month (I think I paid up after 5 rides.) Fettering that process and imposing our own perception of what constitutes demonstrated commitment may interfere with a new rider's own internal journey to commitment.

I guess the best way to approach the question of membership is to identify what the club's goals are in the process. If we want the induction process to encourage riders to commit and show up regularly (because many of the beneifts we each derive from the mornings rely on a good showing), then we should give a lot of deference to the diversity of riders' paths to commitment. If the priority is to raise funds from membership dues, then the membership police should make sure nobody sitting around the coffee table for at least the second time hasn't paid up -- but that would be kinda lame. However, if the goal is to have everyone riding with us having signed the waiver on the membership form ("I know this is kinda dangerous and I won't sue the club or other members if I get hurt"), then that might be a better reason to get on people's cases to join sooner than later.

For reasons set out below, it may or may not make much difference if someone is a member from an insurance perspective.

Questions 2 & 3:

I don't know why CyclingBC would only allow you to join one club. What about folks who want to join both mountain and road cycling clubs? Seems stupid. If the insurance situation is as I guess below, then other clubs' riders joining us shouldn't make a material difference.

Question 4:

I, too, would like to know what my $20 goes towards. Sponsorship money? How much is there? Can we use it for beer and nachos some mornings?

Question 5:

Buying kit is to me the best way to commit to coming out in the mornings. I don't think we should restrict non-members from buying the stuff, unless we want to get their waiver signed and buying gear is a convenient way to get it done.

Question 6:

Dues for coffee seems questionable given the range of coffee consumption among us. It's hard enough on Wednesdays when there are enough non Tripleshotters around to make the decision to go in and pay a tough one.

Insurance stuff:

On the insurance issue, I'll make a few observations as a lay person. I'm not relying on my legal training and experience in making the following comments. As a public litigator, I have no professional insurance for losses arising from your reliance on my negligent pro bono advice. Therefore: PLEASE DO NO RELY ON THE FOLLOWING AS LEGAL ADVICE. Please defer to the opinions subsequently and inevitably expressed by the Lawlesses or other heretofore unannounced lawyers in our midst.

CyclingBC only posts a general summary of their policy on their website:

http://www.cyclingbc.net/files/CCA%20In ... m%2009.pdf

This document is not the actual policy, but it covers the basics.

The CyclingBC insurance only appears to insure us when we're participating in a Training Program, Tour or Competition or traveling to or from one of these activities. These capitalized terms are defined in the policy. Our usual morning rides could only possibly be included as a Training Program. A Training Program is defined as: "...a specific program developed in consultation with and under the direct supervision of proper authority of the sport governing body of which the insured person is a member."

Unless Lister or Peter or some other coach-like individual in our club qualifies as a "proper authority of CyclingBC", I don't think the $30 premium we pay CyclingBC offers us any real protection against lawsuits brought by other riders (whether members or not) arising from accidents on our morning rides. The insurance appears more aimed at races.

If it hasn't been addressed, we should probably take steps to try to get our rides to fit the definition of a Training Program. This could be as simple as sending maps and schedules of our rides to CyclingBC staffer Steve Lund (Regional Coach - Vancouver Island) or Kevin MacCuish (Director of Technical Programs) and getting an e-mail back saying: "Sounds like fun - keep it up." Any evidence of "supervision" is helpful to fight back in the event the insurer denies coverage because our rides are not considered a Training Program under the policy. Lister, Peter: I'm guessing you're hooked up with some of these folks?

Of interest, the policy contains a "Non Members Exclusion Endorsement" which reads as follows:

It is understood and agreed that such insurance afforded by this policy shall not apply to any liability either real or alleged by any participant who is a non member except when an activity with non members participating has been reported on the approved commercial application and a premium is charged.

This exclusion does not apply to non members participating in club rides as approved by and reported to the Provincial Governing Body. Applicable to one day tryouts only.

So we'd want to put a line in our e-mail to CyclingBC to the effect of: "We regularly have new riders try out our rides and we'd like them to be covered by our Training Program policy for their first days with us. Please tell us this is okay."

Conclusion blending liability stuff and the membership discussion:

As far as protecting us from lawsuits, the waiver on our membership form strikes me as a much more important tool than the CyclingBC insurance. Or at least it seems more reliable, given the questions concerning the adequacy of our insurance coverage. To this end, we probably want to make getting gear contingent on membership, which in turn requires signing the waiver.

Also: given there are some qualified and properly insured lawyers among us (who have nothing better to do than attend trials in Nanaimo instead of being responsible and wasting half their day posting to the 3shot forum), we should get a proper pro bono opinion on our insurance situation with a full review of the actual policy and not just some half-assed summary posted on CyclingBC's website. Did I mention that none of my blathering is legal advice?

I'd feel a lot better riding my guts out at an angle swooping around Hollywood Crescent if I knew that I was insured against disaster befalling me or my fellow riders.

Okay, sorry for the book -- back to the day job...

p.s. Who's Alec?

[Lister Farrar]

Thanks a million for that Rolf.

One other thought re phantom 'members'. At the time we were doing the first orders, we were scrambling a bit to hit the minimums (especially with two designs), so people may actually have been doing us a favour by joining the order.

Alec is the guy who went to europe and lost 20 lbs eating cheese and drinking wine. Are you crushed and humilated yet? But they were titanium stomach staples.

[Alec]

I guess I will pay full price for the next round of jerseys/shorts. I was the guy who flatted in front of about 10 or 11 of you today - yet only 1 rider - Brian S (thanks Brian - must have been the private school education/manners) stopped and offered help. I ended up limping home on a flat after a poor quality second tube leak and having been the target of an EMI's patient ire whilst changing my tire.

I will go back to being a phantom member.

Alec

[dreeves]

Rolf, I envy your time. Thanks for the deep thoughts. Everyone's a winner baby.

D.

[Lister Farrar]

I guess I will pay full price for the next round of jerseys/shorts. I was the guy who flatted in front of about 10 or 11 of you today - yet only 1 rider - Brian S (thanks Brian - must have been the private school education/manners) stopped and offered help. I ended up limping home on a flat after a poor quality second tube leak and having been the target of an EMI's patient ire whilst changing my tire.

I will go back to being a phantom member.

Alec

This shouldn't happen Alec. I've posted a seperate thread to remind folks to alert the group. I was at the front att the start and had no idea you had flatted.

[Josh.E]

Where did you flat Alec? I don't think most of the group had any idea there was a mechanical, I know I didn't.
We do normally stop for flats.

[Alec]

I flatted 20 meters from the my old office - it was a loud one -you all may have thought I farted - there were only 3 people ahead of me and I pulled into the traffic triangle where the eagle is and started to change the tire . Most everyone in the A group went by - then the B's, then the crazy fellow who I thought was going to knife me.

I thought "what a bunch of bastards" - then the homeless guy and I went for a coffee (after I took his machete away) and a smoke and a change of clothes. We have started our own team/club called Derelicte Cycling which also includes recumbents and Safeway shopping carts. Clothing orders are non discriminatory - its whatever you find.

I was just glad that it wasn't Lisa or Kim or David Hill left there by themselves in the dark, though Lisa could probably exercise the attacker to death on a spin bike.

Anyways, I digress.... I will ride in the opposite direction and yell at you when I go by


Alec(Im the Peter Lawless of Derelicte Cycling)

ps: Dr Chris F - you need to take better care of your patients!! (this guy was scary)

[bill]

Well it looks like I have opened a can of worms or what ever slimy creepy slithering thing you want to imagine.

To put an end to all this back and forth may I suggest we put all these opinions to our trusted executive team and have them come up with a policy about gear order, what dollars are raised should be put towards. What ever decision is made does not mean that non-members can't ride with us. WE ENCOURAGE IT!

[Lister Farrar]

Hey, Bill, where have you and Sarah been? Are you up for Finlayson arm road Sunday?