Entering as a member, riding as a non member.

[aidan.f]

IIRC British Cycling specifically exclude Audax events from Their cover. also One BC member cannot claim against another. This had consequences for two of my clubmates involved in a bike on bike  accident. The auk insurance has a £500 excess.
Insurance ? What insurance!

[mattc]

I'm genuinely confused why organisers of events with large numbers of non-member entrants continue to run them under AUK auspices. Unless they particularly enjoy donating to the IT project black hole...

I would guess they just want the personal satisfaction of getting as many people as possible out enjoying the roads.

Mr grams, you do seem very easily confused.

[grams]

I would guess they just want the personal satisfaction of getting as many people as possible out enjoying the roads.

Yeah, but if they organised entry through another mechanism they could make the ride effectively £3 cheaper and get more riders out on the roads. Or have £3 more to spend on cake for riders. Or £3 more to spend on cake for themselves.

(I'm talking specifically about events where non-members greatly outnumber members)

[mattc]

A premium doesn't necessarily put a rider off doing s specific event, especially with friends and family, but in a world where riders quibble about VFM and the roads being free, 'the medium is the message'; 'You're not really part of this and not especially wanted, go away'. That's actually a fair approximation of the views of many senior AUKs if not official policy until recently. Sad but true...

I think your initial assertion is nonsense. The world is full of events* that have a discount for members. I don't recall anyone EVER suggesting they felt "unwelcome" at such things!

I can't comment on your larger AUK-politico discussion, but trying to bend the temp-member fee to support it seems pretty feeble. Sorry! x


*not just cycling either - take the blinkers off!

[Somnolent]

Just to be absolutely clear, the loss (to AUK) of the Great Escape and other rides from same stable was nothing to do with non-member surcharges. As explained in the thread referred to above,  the AUK validation team requested the organiser be de-listed, because of the huge amount of extra work resulting from dealing with someone with an apparent inability to follow clear written instructions. 

[Manotea]

A premium doesn't necessarily put a rider off doing s specific event, especially with friends and family, but in a world where riders quibble about VFM and the roads being free, 'the medium is the message'; 'You're not really part of this and not especially wanted, go away'. That's actually a fair approximation of the views of many senior AUKs if not official policy until recently. Sad but true...

I think your initial assertion is nonsense. The world is full of events* that have a discount for members. I don't recall anyone EVER suggesting they felt "unwelcome" at such things!

I can't comment on your larger AUK-politico discussion, but trying to bend the temp-member fee to support it seems pretty feeble. Sorry! x


*not just cycling either - take the blinkers off!

A discount for members... precisely, a very different message. Other comments stand.

You also have to consider these issues in the context of all AUK events... for example, there is little incentive for non-AUKs to do perms for example, and yet they could be a lead into wider participation. As is , the price has just gone up and they are even more expensive for nonAUKs.

I've just listed the London Orbital as a perm. The perm now costs non AUKs £7. It's hard to imagine many will enter at that price, they'll just ride the route and be lost to us. The temp membership fee is small-minded and a real marketing fail. IMO.

[Greenbank]

I would guess they just want the personal satisfaction of getting as many people as possible out enjoying the roads.

Yeah, but if they organised entry through another mechanism they could make the ride effectively £3 cheaper and get more riders out on the roads. Or have £3 more to spend on cake for riders. Or £3 more to spend on cake for themselves.

(I'm talking specifically about events where non-members greatly outnumber members)

You asked for a reason why Audax organisers might continue to run these kind of rides as an Audax and I gave you one answer.

Are you trying to tell me this is wrong somehow? I'm not sure what your point is. People run Audaxes because they want to run Audaxes.

Sure, one could take various Audaxes and run them under different regulations and get way more people riding them, but that's not what most Audax organisers are trying to do.

It's along running trope that you could take a mildly hilly 200, rename it the "Surrey Hills Mega Bastard Sportive 126", charge 10 times as much and throw a few gels/bananas/carb-drink at people at various points, a shitty goody bag at the end, and promise gold/silver/bronze time bragging rights. You might get loads of entrants, some even may come back to ride it again the next year. Woo, popularity.

[Aunt Maud]

All the temp fee does is reinforce to non-AUKs that they aren't AUKs and audax isn't really something they do.

Which is, of course, nonsense.

The ability to rock up in any country in the world and enter an audax, without having to join that particular club, makes randoneering something truly unique. Just because someone is not a member of AUK, doesn't mean they can't regard themselves as a randoneur.

Please take off your AUK centric blinkers.

What is this, brexit for bike riders ?

[Manotea]

All the temp fee does is reinforce to non-AUKs that they aren't AUKs and audax isn't really something they do.

Which is, of course, nonsense.
The ability to rock up in any country in the world and enter an audax, without having to join that particular club, makes randoneering something truly unique. Just because someone is not a member of AUK, doesn't mean they can't regard themselves as a randoneur.

Please take off your AUK centric blinkers.
What is this, brexit for bike riders ?

Apologies, I wasn't aware that other ACP affiliates applied a non-member levy. Perhaps you could give some examples.

[cygnet]

IIRC British Cycling specifically exclude Audax events from Their cover.

I can't see anywhere excluding audax

Race Gold, Race Silver and Ride members benefit from individual liability insurance cover for non-competitive, social, leisure, utility cycling and commuting and also whilst participating in timed events such as sportives.

I understand Auk insurance is a contingent cover, so they'll go after any other insurance cover first.

[Wycombewheeler]

IIRC British Cycling specifically exclude Audax events from Their cover. also One BC member cannot claim against another. This had consequences for two of my clubmates involved in a bike on bike  accident. The auk insurance has a £500 excess.
Insurance ? What insurance!

I see no such exclusion on their website, only for crashing with another member on a race sportives or timed event. Ad times ate not recorded on audax I wouldn't expect that to apply.

[mattc]

You missed out "Racing Bronze" and "Fan".

(It's years since I looked into these insurance minutae.)

[frankly frankie]

I understand Auk insurance is a contingent cover, so they'll go after any other insurance cover first.

The bottom line is that everyone who rides in an audax event, having properly entered first, is insured from the time they start riding to the time they finish or pack.  Regardless of member or not, or temp fee paid or not.  I suppose the only exception might be if it can be shown that the declaration "I have relevant insurance" on the entry form was made falsely.
(I do sometimes wonder about the DIY entry form that doesn't seem to include this declaration.  You do though have to log in as a member to access the form.)