mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
OK. Where does it say anyone expects clubs "to take responsibility for ensuring they are adhered to" rather than making best efforts in good faith for following the guidelines? After all, it does say "Participants need to take personal responsibility" but only that clubs "must consider safety".From your own link go to this one: https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/zuvvi/media/The_Way_Forward_03-07-20.pdf - and see points 2.1 to 2.5, pages 10 and 11. As a committee we accept the requirements, understand them and could publish guidance but we do not feel able to take responsibility for ensuring they are adhered to.
Why turn them away? Split into a 3 and a 4, as suggested in point 1.2.6.We have faith in our membership to adhere to the guidelines but there are potential problems - for example one extra rider turns up making seven. Realistically is he going to be turned away? Of course not. If I was there and had undertaken to be on the ride and ensure guidelines were observed could I turn away a friend? Just how hard would that be?
We've discussed that in the past, so instead of repeating here and heading off-topic in a second way, I'll just link back to https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/question-for-clubs.234522/ and https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/non-members-continuing-to-ride-with-club.253079/post-5805148 about the insurance and enforcement, and suggest that membership admin seems like needless bureaucracy outside of racing, although it's what I'd expect from a funded arm of government like BC.The club is affiliated to BC and we gain many benefits from this without which we could not run the club, the two key ones being insurance and membership administration (a huge benefit).