g-boaf wrote:barefoot wrote:
[1]I'm not sure where we'd all stand if there was a serious accident that got as far as an insurance claim. Shhhhh.
That's the worry there. And who is running it? And what happens to them if someone who doesn't have a license is in a sprint for a points race and gets involved in a big crash and multiple riders go down.
Not a good situation.
True.
But it's a reasonably small community, everybody knows everybody, and I'd be surprised if any of the usual suspects at track days didn't have club membership and a license of some kind. Still... Ass - u - me.
I've done a minute or so of digging, and it seems like the insurance coverage (through AON) is a policy formed jointly for/by CA and MTBA. So I have exactly the same insurance through my MTBA license as what I would have if I added a CA license to the collection. And given that there is no formal timekeeping, scrutineering, recording of results... I'd put forward the argument, your honour, that what we're doing on the track is training. Personally, I'm training for MTB races.
MTBA website refers to a discounted "MTBA Value Add" membership of CA, but I can't find any mention of it on CA website. Might have been discontinued, or be there for the asking if you call. I should look into that. I assume it would just cover the administrative expense, given that MTBA members don't need to double up on the insurance and club membership portions. MTBA has a corresponding membership option (discounted for existing CA members), so it would make sense for it to be available both ways... although few people have accused CA of doing things that makes sense
Nonetheless, my point remains. There shouldn't need to be separate governing bodies for "cycling" and MTB. MTB is cycling, just as much as track and road are cycling. Incorporate MTBA as a sub-committee of CA. Get rid of the duplications. Let me buy one license.
Arguably, same goes for BMX, although that's not my scene so I know nothing about the role of BMXA.
tim