As far as I can tell, the comments about AUK insurance on page 4 were fundamental...
Page 2 in my copy but I'm confused as to what the real problem is as the article seems to contradict itself. "Almost all the incidents are on BP events and the majority relate to temporary members" is followed by "some members assume that the .... insurance cover will pay out .... whatever the circumstances " and "some members .... feel they need to make a claim however spurious the circumstances".
So, what's the real problem, members or temporary members?
Is this article in a members newsletter intended to alert the members to a problem caused by temporary members or to encourage members to change their ways?
I think the intention was the former "
...alert the members to a problem caused by temporary members "
(The section you quote was just badly worded, probably due to a very worried author.)
Anyway, there seems to be an obvious solution which wasn't mentioned:
A SEPARATE insurance scheme for non-members. Or did I miss that ... ?
Or perhaps a compulsory excess for non-members?
Maybe the one positive action we can take away is to endeavour to ... errr... "guide" our new non-member friends on future rides, so that the number of these incidents is reduced.
(Or just tell these trouble-makers to sod off - couldn't we just turn away anyone that looks a bit quick or doesn't have a route-sheet holder? Perhaps membership should require 2 nominations by SR-holders? )