BCA pros and cons

[mikem]

The insurance is national, isn't it? Or do you mean something else?

Competitive pricing is good, but insurance is absolutely not required to go caving (in some areas at least; I don't speak for areas I'm not familiar with). For example in the Dales we are now encouraged to assume we have a right to access caves on "access land".

I'm not sure what you mean by "wouldn't it be better if regional councils spent the money" - I think that's what I was acknowledging in my post, and I can't see another mention of it.

In what sense regulated? Several people on here are adamant that the BCA is a national body, and specifically not a regulatory body. What is there to regulate?

National in this case would mean splitting into England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Insurance is required for white scar in dales and DYO in south Wales to name just two...

3rd para is a rhetorical restating of your question, followed by his response

BCA regulates commercial caving

 

[marsrat]

"The Public Liability Scheme is fully administered by BCA and is integral to BCA Membership for individuals. The fundamental purpose of the policy is to indemnify landowners over whose land cavers need permission to pass in order to visit certain sites around the UK, but it also provides for liability insurance for BCA members"

Because of past incidents at cheddar south side climbers are required to have BMC or equivalent insurance, and staff do check membership cards.

The insurance document says otherwise (from my understanding) - in that it indemnifies the caver not the landowner. I'm likely wrong, would love perspective from those who originally formulated the agreement

 

[mikem]

The quote is direct from BCA insurance page, the document presumably just covers benefits to the membership.

For comparison BCA is just £20, BMC is now £35 and what was BCU £30 (plus they both have about 10 times the number of members)

 

[marsrat]

The quote is direct from BCA insurance page, the document presumably just covers benefits to the membership.

For comparison BCA is just £20, BMC is now £35 and what was BCU £30 (plus they both have about 10 times the number of members)

The quote BCA provides is irrelevant if the policy document (on which the insurance is stipulated and is what is used in court) does not provide said quote. Again, I could be wrong.

My primary fear is that if we base all our landowner interactions on the requirement of having insurance - when the insurance providers inevitably start asking for more than £50 per individual - we're beholden to an external organisation.

 

[andrewmcleod]

Just a little snippet below (the rest is similar in wording) - though I could be wrong as I don't specialise in law. The policy insures each member of the BCA as an active caver, not the landowner, against court action?

The public liability element protects the landowner against you being poor, basically. The landowner can be confident that, should you cause them damage or liability while caving on their land, they can sue you and the insurance will pay up what you owe. Without insurance, a landowner might fail to recover damages against you because you do not have the money to pay.

There is a separate part to the insurance (it has several elements) which I think covers any agreed body that provides access to cavers on their land; that part protects landowners from liability from any cavers accessing the land whether they are BCA members are not subject to certain conditions (I think they either have to be a BCA, or with a BCA member, or have at least 2 years cave/mine exploration experience or something like that).

The insurance also protects club officials and members from liability (an insurance which it would be potentially inadvisable to run a club without) and insurance protecting people teaching caving non-commercially e.g. if you teach people SRT badly, they hurt themselves and sue you - you were covered to teach SRT even though you have no qualifications or recorded experience.

It's a pretty damn good deal.

It's good enough that almost no caving clubs in the country choose not to be part of the BCA, even though this naturally leads to a significant imposition on their members i.e. that they have to be BCA members. It would be a brave set of club officials who set up a club running any sort of 'club' activity (e.g. training) completely uninsured.

 

[marsrat]

It protects the landowner against you being poor, basically. The landowner can be confident that, should you cause them damage or liability while caving on their land, they can sue you and the insurance will pay up what you owe. Without insurance, a landowner might fail to recover damages against you because you do not have the money to pay.

Appreciate the response, it has clarified the nuances of the policy

 

[wellyjen]

I tend towards the "I'm not sure we need the BCA" side of the discussion at the moment. I particularly resent having to pay into the insurance scheme in order to be a member of a club. I do recognise and appreciate the large amount of money that is collected (?) and distributed by the BCA.

One of the things that the insurance covers is liability insurance for clubs. For a non-incorporated club, which a majority are, being sued could mean financial ruin for officers and members. Say, on a club trip, some one gets a life changing injury, needing round the clock care and the club is sued for negligence. That £10M liability limit in the BCA policy is what is recommended these days to cover this sort of claim. Even if it won, there are still legal bills.
The Derbyshire Caving Association at one time organised insurance as well as the BCA. Costs were similar and our club used it in preference for many years. It is usually cheaper for a national organisation to do this, than regional, or club level. The amount of work that's required to set up doesn't scale linearly with numbers of people/clubs covered and the actuaries have more data to work with, which makes them happier. For actuary values of happy anyway! It saves a whole heap of work by individuals, clubs and regional bodies. If you can work out a way of getting similar cover cheaper, they'd be pleased to hear it.

 

[Ian Ball]

It always quite hard to put into a list the benefits of the BCA, but it should be easy.

 

[marsrat]

It always quite hard to put into a list the benefits of the BCA.

I'm not against the BCA, I'm against forcing people to be apart of the BCA (and to pay for a particular service they don't want) to do caving - this just creates an over centralisation and creates a power dynamic (which is why this conversation even spawned). I'm also against making insurance the status quo for negotiations with landowners - this will backfire when a claim inevitably occurs and we find ourselves at a loss.

 

[MarkS]

I'm not against the BCA, I'm against forcing people to be apart of the BCA (and pay for a particular service they don't want) to do caving - this just creates an over centralisation and creates a power dynamic (which is why this conversation even spawned). I'm also against making insurance the status quo for negotiations with landowners - this will backfire when a claim inevitably occurs and we find ourselves at a loss.

See my earlier post - you can go caving without being a BCA member. It is up to individuals whether they join a club for which it is a requirement.

 

[hannahb]

National in this case would mean splitting into England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Insurance is required for white scar in dales and DYO in south Wales to name just two...

3rd para is a rhetorical restating of your question, followed by his response

BCA regulates commercial caving

Please would you let people write their own replies?

 

[mikem]

You don't need to be insured (but could become expensive in an unlikely event), your club needs to be insured and they do that through BCA - it could be included in their cost, but then you'd pay multiple times if in more than one club (a surprising number of people are)

 

[hannahb]

See my earlier post - you can go caving without being a BCA member. It is up to individuals whether they join a club for which it is a requirement.

This feels like oversimplification to me. Why shouldn't people be able to be in a club without paying for insurance they don't want?

 

[marsrat]

See my earlier post - you can go caving without being a BCA member. It is up to individuals whether they join a club for which it is a requirement.

In order to go caving, especially in the region which interests me, I require keys to gates. Said gates are managed by a club, and in order to be a member of the club I have to be a member of the BCA (and the BCA stipulate the rates). I just wanted a key, not the whole bureaucratic mess which is not even linked to the activities of the BCA. I don't want insurance, if somebody else wants to - then very well. Access is a nuanced subject, which is purely managed by the locals on the ground - insurance may or may not be a factor in the access rules.

To state, I like the BCA; and I will always be a member - but I feel like over time I'm being beholden to something more of a regulatory body than a national body for cavers (and by cavers). Forcing insurance as a status quo will be the end of us when a claim happens and everybody is paying stupid amounts of money to even continue respecting the access rules.

 

[mikem]

To have easy access to the keys you need to be in a club. It's usually possible, but less convenient, to borrow most of them without being a member...

I caved for 15 years before joining a club, because I wanted to do some of the other caves (that are locally, not nationally, controlled).

 

[mikem]

It says at the start: "Be warned: this FAQ has 92 entries. To save you some time I have read it all, and statistically the answer to your question is probably “No.”. You’re welcome." 70 & 71 are about landowner indemnity:

https://british-caving.org.uk/our-work/insurance/insurance-faqs/

Before the BCA was the NCA:

British Cave Research Association

We are a charity that promotes the study of caves. We issue research grants; organise meetings; manage a library; and operate the British Cave Science Centre and its climate-monitoring projects.

bcra.org.uk

& before that BCRA / BSA:

Cave Silver

[Cave Science Info Series #2]

bcra.org.uk

 

[ChrisB]

BMC is now £35 and what was BCU £30

Actually BMC is £43.90 and PaddleUK is £47, for the level of membership that compares with BCA.

 

[mikem]

Their basic memberships don't really compare with:

Non-Caving £6.00
Full-Time Student £8.00
Under 18 (on 1st Jan) Free

 

[hannahb]

Perhaps it would be helpful if some BCA volunteers (by which I mean people who do BCA work) could write down exactly what the BCA does?

 

[mikem]

They already have:

About BCA

The British Caving Association is the national body for underground exploration in Great Britain. We represent individuals and groups with a genuine interest in caves, karst and associated phenomena…

british-caving.org.uk

https://british-caving.org.uk/our-work/

As nearlywhite already suggested, you'd have to trawl through minutes to see exactly what.