# New Forest sportive backlash.



## inkd (17 Jul 2013)

Not sure if this has been posted up yet but here`s a link http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/dis...419.Horse_riders_demand_action_over_cyclists/ 
Comments?


----------



## Leodis (17 Jul 2013)

Them damn horses don't even pay road tax.


----------



## inkd (17 Jul 2013)

Dodge the steaming pile of horse s#1+ in the forest at times, not nice cleaning it off your ride.


----------



## sidevalve (17 Jul 2013)

Doesn't seem on the face of it all that terrible. A voluntary code of conduct and a limit on numbers for individual events.
Of course there will be the "Oh it's the rich picking on the poor cyclist" cries and "oh but we're cyclists we can't ever do any wrong" brigade but TBH unless cyclists do start regulating themselves then regulation WILL be enforced sooner or later. I have been abused on this forum for "giving the anti cycling brigade ammunition" well here is the result of not giving a little more thought to the effect on others . It would only take ONE accident one slow news day which would then be splattered all over the main news for some serious regulation to be brought in and amount of petitions or rides to parliament would change that.
I'll probably be abused for this post too, but the facts are clear, a reasonable compromise must be found now even if that means that, yes cyclists might have to give ground a little, before battle lines are drawn because this sort of thing will only get worse. People easily unite against a "common enemy" and we do NOT want to be the enemy pitted against horse riders, walkers and car drivers. We will lose.


----------



## VamP (17 Jul 2013)

sidevalve said:


> Doesn't seem on the face of it all that terrible. A voluntary code of conduct and a limit on numbers for individual events.
> Of course there will be the "Oh it's the rich picking on the poor cyclist" cries and "oh but we're cyclists we can't ever do any wrong" brigade but TBH unless cyclists do start regulating themselves then regulation WILL be enforced sooner or later. I have been abused on this forum for "giving the anti cycling brigade ammunition" well here is the result of not giving a little more thought to the effect on others . It would only take ONE accident one slow news day which would then be splattered all over the main news for some serious regulation to be brought in and amount of petitions or rides to parliament would change that.
> I'll probably be abused for this post too, but the facts are clear, a reasonable compromise must be found now even if that means that, yes cyclists might have to give ground a little, before battle lines are drawn because this sort of thing will only get worse. People easily unite against a "common enemy" and we do NOT want to be the enemy pitted against horse riders, walkers and car drivers. We will lose.


 
I agree with you. Sportives so easily turn into out of control free for all. There's nothing in that proposal that we should fear.


----------



## steve52 (17 Jul 2013)

500 cyclist and not one pile of manure to show for it lol.one horse and well...........


----------



## inkd (17 Jul 2013)

Excuse my ignorance but I thought sportives were non race events? Sorry I don't know anything about them.
But yes, the proposals are not too bad. Wouldn`t it be good if horse riders cleaned up their animals mess as dog owners have to?


----------



## smutchin (17 Jul 2013)

There is a strong anti-cyclist agenda in certain sections of the New Forest community and this is just the latest manifestation of it.

At face value, what they're saying seems reasonable, but they're vastly overstating the cyclist menace. The Daily Echo publishes stories like this regularly, usually with quotes from the Vederers or local politicians/busybodies, yet they never seem to provide any evidence to support their claim that cyclists are actually a problem.



sidevalve said:


> the facts are clear...


 
You want to talk about facts? Here are some facts:

In 2009, 159 New Forest ponies were "involved in accidents" with motorists, of which 65 were killed outright or had to be put down. None were killed or injured by cyclists.
http://www.newforestnpa.gov.uk/info/20094/commoning/40/animal_accidents


----------



## smutchin (17 Jul 2013)

inkd said:


> Excuse my ignorance but I thought sportives were non race events?


 
Yes, there are already strict regulations about racing on public roads. I am in favour of sportive organisers being held to account where their events are becoming too much like races but this story doesn't provide any substance to its claims.


----------



## smutchin (17 Jul 2013)

User13710 said:


> it says in the article that a NF pony bolted and knocked a cyclist unconscious.


 
It says the pony was spooked by "tourists", not by the cyclist, who seems to have been the unfortunate victim in this instance.

Where are the calls to regulate the number and behaviour of "tourists" in the New Forest?


----------



## DiddlyDodds (17 Jul 2013)

inkd said:


> Excuse my ignorance but I thought sportives were non race events? Sorry I don't know anything about them.
> But yes, the proposals are not too bad. Wouldn`t it be good if horse riders cleaned up their animals mess as dog owners have to?


 
Quite a lot have timing chips and you can look on the web site after the events for times.
No matter what the event there are always those that have to be first , must win ,,,,,,


----------



## Dave Davenport (17 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> There is a strong anti-cyclist agenda in certain sections of the New Forest community and this is just the latest manifestation of it.
> 
> At face value, what they're saying seems reasonable, but they're vastly overstating the cyclist menace. The Daily Echo publishes stories like this regularly, usually with quotes from the Vederers or local politicians/busybodies, yet they never seem to provide any evidence to support their claim that cyclists are actually a problem.
> 
> ...


 
Agree; I ride in the forest a lot and whilst you get a lot of animals on the roads the number of horse riders actually on them is quite low, after all there are miles of tracks, heath and trails which must be much nicer (most of which you're not allowed to cycle). It's only for a few odd days a year too, as a cyclist I don't have any problem with avoiding the area when the pony round up is on or there's a running race, but a large proportion of the locals seem to think it's their private estate and not a National Park.


----------



## inkd (17 Jul 2013)

> a large proportion of the locals seem to think it's their private estate and not a National Park.


Have only lived down here for 7.5yrs but yes, I couldn`t agree more, I was called a "gridder" by one of my work colleagues just cause I live outside of the cattle grids!
The "Grockles" as known in these parts (tourists) are a pain this time of year but they bring much needed business to the local communities.


----------



## smutchin (17 Jul 2013)

User13710 said:


> I'm not sure where I said that cyclists were the only group using the forest that are a problem.


 
I didn't say you did.

However, you did partially quote a line from a newspaper story in a way that could easily be construed as implying it was the cyclist's fault. I think it's important to clarify these things.



> All the different users of the area should be capable of treating each other with respect, and this voluntary code sounds like a good move to me.


 
Can I take it that you would therefore support a voluntary code of conduct for tourists in the New Forest as well?


----------



## smutchin (17 Jul 2013)

User13710 said:


> Fault has nothing to do with what I said.


 
Sorry, I'm probably not making myself clear - I know what I'm saying isn't directly related to the point you were making but I picked up on your post because you [partially] quoted that line from the paper about the pony being spooked and injuring a cyclist. I'm not having a go at you, I just wanted to clarify the point that the cyclist wasn't at fault in that incident.


----------



## jdtate101 (17 Jul 2013)

Thank god I live in an area of the country where the nimbyism isn't quite so well bred. Seems these people want to exclude all others from the NF that A) Don't ride a horse or B) Drive a stupid huge 4x4.
Ignore them and ride the roads that we all pay for, they can stick their views where the sun doesn't shine. I'll agree to limits on cyclists events when they Ban cars from the NF completely. I doubt they'd agree with that .


----------



## inkd (17 Jul 2013)

@User13710 Gridiron? sounds more my cup of tea. is this a yearly thing/ is it still going? sounds a more leisurely social for me


----------



## smutchin (17 Jul 2013)

User13710 said:


> I think we are agreeing.



Actually, thinking about it, no, we're not. Again, not having a go at you - I think your comments are perfectly reasonable, and I'm making a general point rather than aiming this at you specifically - but I think the code of conduct proposal is ludicrous. The suggestion of a code of conduct for tourists was meant to highlight how ludicrous it is. It's one of those things that sounds quite reasonable at first glance but doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. Yeah, sure, I'll sign some worthless bit of paper but will that really stop me being an inconsiderate cyclist if I'm so inclined?

What's really needed is for existing legislation to be better enforced - with respect to *everyone* using the New Forest, but most importantly with respect to motorists, because the FACTS show that they are by far the biggest menace in the New Forest.


----------



## smutchin (17 Jul 2013)

Glad we cleared that up.


----------



## Dave Davenport (17 Jul 2013)

inkd said:


> @User13710 Gridiron? sounds more my cup of tea. is this a yearly thing/ is it still going? sounds a more leisurely social for me


 
The gridiron is still run every year, it's a randonnee style thing.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Jul 2013)

I'd like to see a code of conduct for all drivers in the New Forest.

Actually, we could extend it to all road users, and make it a code of conduct for the highways, a Highway Code if you like... Duh!

I am pretty much openly anti-sportive these days as I encounter far too many nobbers, with zero road/cyclecraft, taking part in them when I'm out cycling, and they all chuffin' drive to and from the start/finish which often also creates motor traffic problems in the locality. Give me an audax or a club run or a ride with my mates any day.

But here's the thing, imagine you're out for a ride on your bike, or a walk with your friends, locally, and you encounter a large group of drivers, driving sports cars, with numbers, and timing chips, roaring around not-racing on the open roads you were using ... and you discover this is a commercially run event, unregulated, organised over the same roads several weekends a year ... there would be uproar locally.

we need to see ourselves en masse as others do.
we need to see sportives as others do too.


----------



## theclaud (17 Jul 2013)

User13710 said:


> I award myself to myself


If I now ignore this and award you a TMN, do you get a TMN squared?


----------



## Siegfried (17 Jul 2013)

> But here's the thing, imagine you're out for a ride on your bike, or a walk with your friends, locally, and you encounter a large group of drivers, driving sports cars, with numbers, and timing chips, roaring around not-racing on the open roads you were using ... and you discover this is a commercially run event, unregulated, organised over the same roads several weekends a year ... there would be uproar locally


 
That's exactly what is often encountered in the dales; classic car rallies, owner's club gatherings, not to mention convoys of off roaders heading for a green lane somewhere or large group motorcycle rides. Lots of people all going out together at the same time to travel the same road as a group is not limited to cyclists.
.


----------



## DRHysted (18 Jul 2013)

The good news is that they do not have the backing of the NPA, or my local councillor (it took a while to sway him).
The item where the horse was spooked was because some non-locals were trying to get a nice pony to eat and apple (they are wild animals and should not be feed), the horse didn't want it so the little girl throw the apple at the pony!!! This happened at the re-run of the Spring Sportive.
Most sportives go off without any one knowing about them (pretty much like the audaxs), but we have a select couple of groups here who feel the need to restrict others use.
What is not mentioned is the problems caused when they do the pony and trap days, if you come across this on the forest you might as well turn around or sit with your engine off because you won't get through for at least half an hour (one year I witnessed them delaying an ambulance).
I am New Forest born and breed, I've lived, walked (with dogs), cycled and driven the New Forest for as long as I can remember. To date I have not heard of a single horse being hurt by a cyclist, but last year 65 were killed by vehicles. Regarding this code, they can shove it when the sun doesn't shine, and all the time that the NPA and local Councils are not listening to the propaganda in the media, we are safe.


----------



## smutchin (18 Jul 2013)

DiddlyDodds said:


> Quite a lot have timing chips and you can look on the web site after the events for times.



It's in the regulations for sportives* that times should not be published. If you know of any that flout this rule, report them to the police and British Cycling. They're probably breaking the terms of their insurance.

*Yes, sportives are regulated, despite what some would have you believe.


----------



## VamP (18 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> It's in the regulations for sportives* that times should not be published. If you know of any that flout this rule, report them to the police and British Cycling. They're probably breaking the terms of their insurance.
> 
> *Yes, sportives are regulated, despite what some would have you believe.


 
Here's one.

I am yet to see a sportive that doesn't publish the times. It's the main reason most do sportives. I hate the bloody things.


----------



## Pale Rider (18 Jul 2013)

I've had cause to check the times on two sportives, both were published, although one was listed only in alphabetical order of rider.

The other had the fastest first.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> It's in the regulations for sportives* that times should not be published. If you know of any that flout this rule, report them to the police and British Cycling. They're probably breaking the terms of their insurance.
> 
> *Yes, sportives are regulated, despite what some would have you believe.


BC will do nothing. They derive a lot of income from the insurance cover. iirc not all sportives are 'governed' by BC anyway. (Happy to be corrected)
The police will do nothing, other than regard you as a swivel-eyed loon, as a result of your complaining, ime/imo, citing other policing priorities.
The police may do something if enough of the members of right local community groups complain because those chosen few folk set the local policing priorities!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jul 2013)

VamP said:


> Here's one.
> 
> I am yet to see a sportive that doesn't publish the times. It's the main reason most do sportives. I hate the bloody things.


It is time for the cycling community to face up to the fact that sportives ARE races on open roads, and as such illegal, and that dressing them up as not-races is doing more harm to our cause than good.


----------



## smutchin (18 Jul 2013)

VamP said:


> Here's one.
> 
> I am yet to see a sportive that doesn't publish the times. It's the main reason most do sportives. I hate the bloody things.


 
I believe you entirely but I'm not clicking on your link because it's of no interest to me personally. Like I said, you should report it to the authorities. There's no mileage in moaning about it on a forum.

As I'm sure you know, there are very good pre-existing legal reasons why sportives shouldn't publish times. It's a problem of enforcement, not of inadequate regulation per se.


----------



## smutchin (18 Jul 2013)

GregCollins said:


> It is time for the cycling community to face up to the fact that sportives ARE races on open roads, and as such illegal, and that dressing them up as not-races is doing more harm to our cause than good.


 
I am entirely in favour of enforcing the existing regulations. Either remove the racing element or force participants to be properly licensed.

The fact that they aren't enforced just goes to show what a nonsense the code of conduct idea is. Get people to sign a worthless bit of paper? Yeah, sure, that'll make a difference.

Maybe enforce the speed limits for motor vehicles in the New Forest while we're at it.


----------



## DRHysted (18 Jul 2013)

GregCollins said:


> BC will do nothing. They derive a lot of income from the insurance cover. iirc not all sportives are 'governed' by BC anyway. (Happy to be corrected)
> The police will do nothing, other than regard you as a swivel-eyed loon, as a result of your complaining, ime/imo, citing other policing priorities.
> The police may do something if enough of the members of right local community groups complain because those chosen few folk set the local policing priorities!


 

Wrong the Police do do something.

They support the flaming things.

They were stood in the rain where the protesters were in April. On the sportives I have been on there is sooooooo many reminders that it is not a race, it is always mentioned in the breifings. In fact the last one I went on this month we were informed that we were going on an adventure.


----------



## smutchin (18 Jul 2013)

GregCollins said:


> It is time for the cycling community to face up to the fact that sportives ARE races on open roads, and as such illegal, and that dressing them up as not-races is doing more harm to our cause than good.


 
I'm still yet to see any evidence that, technically illegal or otherwise, they actually cause any genuine problems for New Forest residents. The problems with sportives largely exist in the tiny minds of a few anti-cyling prejudiced nimbys.

Unlike the idiots who throw tacks in the road, who cause a genuine danger to the participants.


----------



## VamP (18 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> I believe you entirely but I'm not clicking on your link because it's of no interest to me personally. Like I said, you should report it to the authorities. There's no mileage in moaning about it on a forum.
> 
> As I'm sure you know, there are very good pre-existing legal reasons why sportives shouldn't publish times. It's a problem of enforcement, not of inadequate regulation per se.


 
It's of no interest to me personally either and I wasn't moaning.

You seem determined to object to the proposed code of conduct, while I think it's reasonable. I think I've exhausted my interest in the subject now.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (18 Jul 2013)

Is it ignorant for me to say that if a horse is spooked by cycists then they shouldnt be on the road?
Its like me saying we need to limit the amount of cars on the road because cars spook me, i mite jump off my bike and run around kicking shoot.


----------



## smutchin (18 Jul 2013)

VamP said:


> You seem determined to object to the proposed code of conduct, while I think it's reasonable.


 
It's superficially reasonable but actually bullshit. That's all.


----------



## VamP (18 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> It's superficially reasonable but actually bulls***. That's all.


 
1. limit of 500
2. way of identifying nobbers in the ''race''
3. making the organizers announce the fact a sportive is taking place

these seem eminently reasonable and enforceable to me.

I forget what the other points were.



Peter Armstrong said:


> Is it ignorant for me to say that if a horse is spooked by cycists then they shouldnt be on the road?
> Its like me saying we need to limit the amount of cars on the road because cars spook me, i mite jump off my bike and run around kicking s***.


 
Yes that is ignorant.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (18 Jul 2013)

VamP said:


> 1. limit of 500
> 2. way of identifying nobbers in the ''race''
> 3. making the organizers announce the fact a sportive is taking place
> 
> ...


 
Yeah, I can get like that..........


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> I'm still yet to see any evidence that, technically illegal or otherwise, they actually cause any genuine problems for New Forest residents. The problems with sportives largely exist in the tiny minds of a few anti-cyling prejudiced nimbys.
> 
> Unlike the idiots who throw tacks in the road, who cause a genuine danger to the participants.


Tack throwers are idiots. But then so are undertaking, five abreast riding, litter dropping, faux-racers.

I can't speak of the New Forest, my forays there these days are infrequent and usually fat tyred. So let me speak from direct experience... Sportives cause genuine problems for Surrey Hills residents and visitors. They cause genuine problems for residents and visitors of the South Downs National Park. They, or rather the behaviour of a significant number of the competitors, cause genuine problems for other cyclists using the roads at the same time as them.

I may be a tiny minded anti-cycling nimby, possible but unlikely given I do 300 - 400km a week on a bike at this time of year. It may also be the case that many cyclists are so enamoured of the sportive scene they refuse, all the while they wear their rose coloured lenses in their Oakleys, to accept the reality that their enjoyment impacts negatively on others.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jul 2013)

User13710 said:


> It's an argument that gets used a lot, in all sorts of arenas: 'It won't work so let's not try it.' How about, it can't do any harm to try it then.
> 
> Isn't this just the members of special-interest groups being protective? Smutchin really likes his sportives and doesn't want them to be regulated even by good manners; drHysted likes cyclists, dislikes people who drive horses and hold the traffic up; Peter Armstrong dislikes anything unpredictable using the road that might involve other road users having to be a bit careful (better fence in all the NF ponies then); some New Forest residents appear to dislike tourists, cyclists, cars, just about everything really - and *each group wants extra rules to support their interest and suppress the others*. How depressing.


The malaise UK society finds itself in, in so many areas, summed up very well I'd say.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jul 2013)

VamP said:


> 1. limit of 500
> 2. way of identifying nobbers in the ''race''
> 3. making the organizers announce the fact a sportive is taking place
> 
> these seem eminently reasonable and enforceable to me.


2 is impractical and unimplementable in a manner that keeps the organisers profit margins intact imo.


----------



## smutchin (18 Jul 2013)

VamP said:


> 1. limit of 500
> 2. way of identifying nobbers in the ''race''
> 3. making the organizers announce the fact a sportive is taking place
> 
> these seem eminently reasonable and enforceable to me.


 
Numbers: If the police deemed the event too large to be safe, they wouldn't allow it to go ahead.
Nobbers: Cars have a means of identification and yet car-based nobbers regularly get away with all kinds of anti-social behaviour.
Publicity: I'm amazed that events manage to attract thousands upon thousands of entrants when nobody knows they're taking place.



> I forget what the other points were.


 
The main one is the non-publication of times, which is covered by existing regulations. The fact that existing regulations are not enforced is my principal objection - adding a further layer of regulation would be a waste of time.


----------



## VamP (18 Jul 2013)

GregCollins said:


> 2 is impractical and unimplementable in a manner that keeps the organisers profit margins intact imo.


 
Wiggle sportive I drove past recently had huge numbers on rider's back.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (18 Jul 2013)

The people who are racing against the clock I would guess that they are timing themselves anyway, either stopwatch, gps, strava etc so I don’t think the removing the publication of times would make any difference.


----------



## VamP (18 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> Numbers: If the police deemed the event too large to be safe, they wouldn't allow it to go ahead.
> Nobbers: Cars have a means of identification and yet car-based nobbers regularly get away with all kinds of anti-social behaviour.
> Publicity: I'm amazed that events manage to attract thousands upon thousands of entrants when nobody knows they're taking place.
> 
> ...


 
It's somewhat comical that although it's extremely unlikely either of us will ever ride a New Forest sportive, we have got ourselves into this discussion.

Numbers: do the police routinely get involved in approving sportives? I don't know, and am happy to be told.
Nobbers: Yet every once in a while drivers do get caught. Number plates help.
Publicity: I guess the point is targeting.

I still don't see how signing up to these easy points should be a problem for a responsible organiser. And if it buys them goodwill from the horse-riding community, who are or should be, our natural ally...


----------



## VamP (18 Jul 2013)

Peter Armstrong said:


> The people who are racing against the clock I would guess that they are timing themselves anyway, either stopwatch, gps, strava etc so I don’t think the removing the publication of times would make any difference.


 
It's comparing yourself to EVERYBODY else's times that provides the 'racing' element.


----------



## smutchin (18 Jul 2013)

VamP said:


> Numbers: do the police routinely get involved in approving sportives? I don't know, and am happy to be told.


 
I don't think these events can go ahead without police approval. I am happy to be corrected on that if I'm wrong.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (18 Jul 2013)

VamP said:


> It's comparing yourself to EVERYBODY else's times that provides the 'racing' element.


 
Fair point, but personally that wouldnt change how fast i rode, I would only know who I was racing against once I got home and they posted the results.


----------



## smutchin (18 Jul 2013)

User13710 said:


> Smutchin really likes his sportives and doesn't want them to be regulated even by good manners


 
No, I hate sportives. I agree that they are pretend races. I'd much rather do a nice audax or a real race. But I don't know how often I have to say this before anyone will take any notice...

THEY ARE ALREADY REGULATED.

The problem is one of enforcement. The code of conduct idea is pissing in the wind.

And I still haven't seen any actual evidence that sportives really are such a nuisance as claimed.


----------



## VamP (18 Jul 2013)

Peter Armstrong said:


> Fair point, but personally that wouldnt change how fast i rode, I would only know who I was racing against once I got home and they posted the results.


 
Not sure how it would affect you, but in the two sportives I have had the misfortune to get embroiled in, there was a significant percentage of testosterone fuelled nobbers, who were convinced they were one step away from the Tour. It wasn't pretty.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (18 Jul 2013)

End of the day you can try and take the race out of the ride but your can’t take the race out of the rider.



 I will race to the shop, on my way to work, on any segments I pass and any charity ride, sportives, a bus, another commuter, a granny, cat ,dog, anything. There are dicks like me everywhere, and there not much you can do about it, Muah ha ha ha!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jul 2013)

VamP said:


> Wiggle sportive I drove past recently had huge numbers on rider's back.


Indeed. And you were in a position to see the numbers as you drove past. How many marshals with how many clipboards, and cameras since the marshal's word would be disputed by the nobber and his/her mates, would it take to cover the entire route? And once nobber has been outed what happens? Banned from future events? Given a tap on the shoulder and red carded during the event, "Chuff off it's a public road and I'll ride where and how I like!" Have his/her not-racing license revoked?


----------



## smutchin (18 Jul 2013)

VamP said:


> Not sure how it would affect you, but in the two sportives I have had the misfortune to get embroiled in, there was a significant percentage of testosterone fuelled nobbers, who were convinced they were one step away from the Tour. It wasn't pretty.


 
Much like the testosterone-fuelled nobbers in cars I encounter on the roads every farking day of my life who think they're in the Paris-Dakar rally when they're actually driving down a country lane in Kent.

The main difference being that they're in charge of a tonne of lethal motorised weapon.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jul 2013)

Peter Armstrong said:


> End of the day you can try and take the race out of the ride but your can’t take the race out of the rider.
> 
> 
> 
> I will race to the shop, on my way to work, on any segments I pass and any charity ride, sportives, a bus, another commuter, a granny, cat ,dog, anything. There are dicks like me everywhere, and there not much you can do about it, Muah ha ha ha!


But there is. We can kick your arse.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (18 Jul 2013)

GregCollins said:


> But there is. We can kick your arse.


 
Yes, there is that, but im well hard so there, plus ill tel my mum.


----------



## VamP (18 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> Much like the testosterone-fuelled nobbers in cars I encounter on the roads every f***ing day of my life who think they're in the Paris-Dakar rally when they're actually driving down a country lane in Kent.
> 
> The main difference being that they're in charge of a tonne of lethal motorised weapon.


 
Probably the same guys.


----------



## smutchin (18 Jul 2013)

VamP said:


> Probably the same guys.


 
Very likely.


----------



## Rob3rt (18 Jul 2013)

The best way to avoid the anguish that sportives cause is to stay well clear of them! A sportive to me, is essentially a traffic jam.


----------



## VamP (18 Jul 2013)

GregCollins said:


> Indeed. And you were in a position to see the numbers as you drove past. How many marshals with how many clipboards, and cameras since the marshal's word would be disputed by the nobber and his/her mates, would it take to cover the entire route? And once nobber has been outed what happens? Banned from future events? Given a tap on the shoulder and red carded during the event, "Chuff off it's a public road and I'll ride where and how I like!" Have his/her not-racing license revoked?


 
I think the horse riders were asking for this because they felt that the riders would feel less 'irresponsible' if there was a readily available method of outing them. I am likewise sceptical this would work, but it would not be too onerous a thing for the organisers to do, and would actually possibly increase the feel good factor for the 'racers'.

For what it's worth, there's plenty of nobberish behaviour in road racing, where the numbers and racing licenses are a matter of course.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jul 2013)

VamP said:


> I think the horse riders were asking for this because they felt that the riders would feel less 'irresponsible' if there was a readily available method of outing them. I am likewise sceptical this would work, but it would not be too onerous a thing for the organisers to do, and would actually possibly increase the feel good factor for the 'racers'.
> 
> For what it's worth, there's* plenty of nobberish behaviour in road racing*, where the numbers and racing licenses are a matter of course.


It ain't changed much in 40 years then!


----------



## HLaB (18 Jul 2013)

> 1. limit of 500


I've done European Sportives with over 9000 entrants and I don't believe the locals had a problem; its more a question of cultures and nimby'ism; the Etape Caledonia sufferred from the same bad attitudes


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jul 2013)

August 4th, Prudential Ride London = 20,000 cyclists not-racing from London through Surrey countryside en route south "past Newlands Corner, Abinger Hammer and Holmbury St Mary before tackling the biggest ascent on the route at Leith Hill. After a short descent., it's onto the next challenge: world-famous zig zags of Box Hill."

So that's chaos on the roads around Dorking and through the Surrey Hills that day then.


----------



## Frood42 (18 Jul 2013)

GregCollins said:


> August 4th, Prudential Ride London = 20,000 cyclists not-racing from London through Surrey countryside en route south "past Newlands Corner, Abinger Hammer and Holmbury St Mary before tackling the biggest ascent on the route at Leith Hill. After a short descent., it's onto the next challenge: world-famous zig zags of Box Hill."
> 
> So that's chaos on the roads around Dorking and through the Surrey Hills that day then.


 

Organised, well behaved chaos, for one day in the year, just like plenty of other one off non-cycling events which can cause "traffic chaos".
As this is bound to be a large event with a large sponsor, I suspect it will be quite tightly controlled.

I shall only be going along for the free ride though, looking forward to using a small part of London's roads traffic free (rather than doing the usual dance with black taxis).


----------



## smutchin (18 Jul 2013)

GregCollins said:


> So that's chaos on the roads around Dorking and through the Surrey Hills that day then.


 
...though somewhat less unpleasant than the chaos caused on those same roads by cars every other day of the year.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jul 2013)

Frood42 said:


> Organised, well behaved chaos, for one day in the year, just like plenty of other one off non-cycling events which can cause "traffic chaos".
> As this is bound to be a large event with a large sponsor, I suspect it will be quite tightly controlled.
> 
> I shall only be going along for the free ride though, looking forward to using a small part of London's roads traffic free (rather than doing the usual dance with black taxis).


Hope it stays fine for you.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> ...though somewhat less unpleasant than the chaos caused on those same roads by cars every other day of the year.


Very little chaos around Dorking and vicinity when I visit it. Except when sportives are taking place.


----------



## DRHysted (18 Jul 2013)

I had the dubious pleasure of coming off my bike on the way to an event last year, so whilst waiting for my mother who happened to be using my car that day (hence why I rode) to come and collect me, I earwigged one of the UK Cycle Events organisors conversation. They have to get permission of local authorities (council, police, NFA,etc). This code of conduct is utter and complete rubbish, properly organised events allready jump through hoops. On the first run of the New Forest Spring Sportive, we had representative from the Police, Ambulance, New Forest Agistors. The highway agency had imposed a temporary speed limit reduction on a road from 60 to 40. Are people seriously thinking that if they are considered a problem then someone from one of these organisations wouldn't have stepped in and stopped it. Regarding times they are allowed to publish times but they must not be in ranking order because (as they continually point out) it is not a race (UK Cycle Events usually do them in alphbetical order).

To correct an asumption. I don't dislike slow horses (I do dislike them cantering past me when I have not had time to get my dogs under close control (please note I said close control, they are under control all the time, but when near livestock I like close control i.e. heel)). I was slimply trying to point out that they are allowed to cause problems, but all other road users are not, according to them.


----------



## smutchin (18 Jul 2013)

GregCollins said:


> Very little chaos around Dorking and vicinity when I visit it. Except when sportives are taking place.


 
I suppose it depends how you define chaos. If you call being held up by a few cyclists chaos then I say being stuck in normal everyday motor traffic can lay equal claim to the descriptor.


----------



## smutchin (18 Jul 2013)

Maybe motorists should sign a code of conduct before being allowed to drive in the New Forest...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-23363550


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> I suppose it depends how you define chaos. If you call being held up by a few cyclists chaos then I say being stuck in normal everyday motor traffic can lay equal claim to the descriptor.


We'll never agree but I better understand your pov as a result of the debate.

fwiw, which ain't much, I've never been 'stuck' on a bike around there (It's the next town to mine up the A24.) or anywhere else outside of major urban centres for that matter

My take; 20000 isn't a few cyclists, it's 20000 and the hold ups... significant road closures for the whole day... significant restrictions on the roads linking the closed roads... parking bans... et cetera. Now I HATE car-centric Britain as much as the nest person but as a way of winding-up a group of rich, powerful and influential car owners? Well, holding a closed roads sportive in the Surrey Hills is almost without equal. And when plod, whose policing priorities are set by the good burghers of Surrey (and Surrey County councillors, a number of whom live in that area) say "Enough is enough" it won't be the once a year Prudential London riders that get affected but, more likely, me, my friends and my club mates.


----------



## snailracer (19 Jul 2013)

GregCollins said:


> ...but as a way of *winding-up a group of rich, powerful and influential car owners*? Well, holding a closed roads sportive in the Surrey Hills is almost without equal. And when plod, whose policing priorities are set by the good burghers of Surrey (and Surrey County councillors, a number of whom live in that area) say "Enough is enough" it won't be the once a year Prudential London riders that get affected but, more likely, me, my friends and my club mates.


Well now you are just reaching.

For sure, many motorists get wound up by cyclists, but we know that more cyclists = safer cycling, mainly because motorists modify their behaviour. There is no reason to assume this doesn't apply to rich motorists.

The Surrey Hills/Weybridge/Hampton Court areas are jammed with MAMILs on expensive bikes on the weekends, amongst whom you'll find the "rich, powerful and influential" rather over-represented.

If "rich, powerful and influential" car owners really do think as you presume, then they deserve to be taken down a notch. These are public roads, they can build their own private roads if they want to reserve it for their exclusive use.


----------



## snailracer (19 Jul 2013)

GregCollins said:


> We'll never agree but I better understand your pov as a result of the debate.
> 
> fwiw, which ain't much, I've never been 'stuck' on a bike around there (It's the next town to mine up the A24.) or anywhere else outside of major urban centres for that matter
> 
> My take; *20000 isn't a few cyclists*....


For perspective, 30000 motor vehicles cross Walton bridge _every day_, which runs right next to the Prudential Ride London route.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Jul 2013)

snailracer said:


> *These are public roads*, they can build their own private roads if they want to reserve it for their exclusive use.


 
Not on 4th August they're not, they are reserved for the exclusive use of those taking part in the sportive.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Jul 2013)

snailracer said:


> For perspective, 30000 motor vehicles cross Walton bridge _every day_, which runs right next to the Prudential Ride London route.


Is Walton Bridge in the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty? No.

Next!


----------



## snailracer (19 Jul 2013)

GregCollins said:


> Not on 4th August they're not, they are reserved for the exclusive use of those taking part in the sportive.


It should be possible to run a sportive without closing roads, if only motorists could be relied upon not to drive dangerously around riders which, unfortunately, they can't.


----------



## snailracer (19 Jul 2013)

GregCollins said:


> Is Walton Bridge in the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty? No.
> 
> Next!


Are all the closed roads in areas of outstanding natural beauty?


----------



## smutchin (19 Jul 2013)

I remember the parlous state of the road surface up Box Hill until they resurfaced it last year. I don't think it was cyclists who caused that.

Interesting that it took a cycling event for them to do something about it though.


----------



## Frood42 (19 Jul 2013)

snailracer said:


> If "rich, powerful and influential" car owners really do think as you presume, then they deserve to be taken down a notch. These are public roads, they can build their own private roads if they want to reserve it for their exclusive use.


 
You are right, they are public roads, but there are those motorists who don't think like that, and it is those selfish people who think they "own" the roads because they are driving a car on the road, for which they pay their 'road tax', and because they 'pay' for the road no one else is allowed to use it which cause others so many problems.

There was an interesting debate on Radio 2 (Jeremy Vine I think) during the winter, where car drivers were complaining about pedestrains walking in the road. The pedestrians were doing so due to the pavements being so hazardous. I as a pedestrain, cyclist and driver have no issue with this, I would rather the person got home safely, and yet there were so many selfish people who couldn't give a flip about others safety and could only think of themselves...


----------



## swansonj (19 Jul 2013)

GregCollins said:


> My take; 20000 isn't a few cyclists, it's 20000 and the hold ups... significant road closures for the whole day... significant restrictions on the roads linking the closed roads... parking bans... et cetera. Now I HATE car-centric Britain as much as the nest person but as a way of winding-up a group of rich, powerful and influential car owners? Well, holding a closed roads sportive in the Surrey Hills is almost without equal. And when plod, whose policing priorities are set by the good burghers of Surrey (and Surrey County councillors, a number of whom live in that area) say "Enough is enough" it won't be the once a year Prudential London riders that get affected but, more likely, me, my friends and my club mates.


Greg

I actually agree with your basic principle. But I'm not sure the Prudential London is actually a good example. I live in a town on the route, and the sense I have at the moment is that the Olympics Hangover effect is outweighing the B*** Cyclists Closing Our Roads effect. Most of our town seemed dead chuffed to have the Olympic Road race come through, not because it was cycling, but because it was an Event, and I would guess that at the moment people are thinking "ooh good we get to have our Event all over again". Maybe the test will come in a few years time when people have completely forgotten why we have this event on these roads, and realise that for some unaccountable reason Wiggo and Cav, the only two cyclists they've heard of, don't seem to be taking part any more.


----------



## Frood42 (19 Jul 2013)

snailracer said:


> For perspective, 30000 motor vehicles cross Walton bridge _every day_, which runs right next to the Prudential Ride London route.


 
The problem is perception, people are used to 30000 motor vehicles, cars are a part of the culture much more than they really should be, they are not used to seeing thousands of cyclists, so such events stick in the mind.


----------



## HLaB (19 Jul 2013)

Frood42 said:


> Organised, well behaved chaos, for one day in the year, just like plenty of other one off non-cycling events which can cause "traffic chaos".
> As this is bound to be a large event with a large sponsor, I suspect it will be quite tightly controlled.
> 
> I shall only be going along for the free ride though, looking forward to using a small part of London's roads traffic free (rather than doing the usual dance with black taxis).


Indeed, How many folk do the London Marathon, the Great East Run, etc


----------



## Lanzecki (19 Jul 2013)

I haven't read the last two pages, but why is it always the NF? I've not been there in years, but from memory, it's massive. While the organisers should let people know, how far should they go in informing the non-cycling public?

There were over 10,000 cyclists on the ring of Kerry a few weeks ago on open roads (Often narrow with coaches and all sorts of traffic), not to mention some rolling road closures for hours on dangerous sections, and not a mention of any problems (that I could find).

While the NF seems to get it's fair share of organised rides, the Local's really seem annoyed at a legal past time that leave little mess.


----------



## DRHysted (19 Jul 2013)

GregCollins said:


> My take; 20000 isn't a few cyclists, it's 20000 and the hold ups... significant road closures for the whole day... significant restrictions on the roads linking the closed roads... parking bans... et cetera.


 

The Spring Sportive was 3000 riders over two days (yes those two days ended up being months apart due to weather). so thats 1500 per day if everyone turns up. They were released in groups of under twenty with three to five minute gaps in between. The delay to traffic was minimal, in fact there is more delay caused by cars every weekend going through Lyndhurst. The only time that there was a problem with congestion was Blissford hill, where they put on extra marshalls (I saw five there may have been more) who stopped the cyclists when there was a motorised vehicle needing to come through.
The only thing that will make the small (and it is small) groups that are making a fuss happy is if we were banned. Once this code of conduct is agreed it will be proven to not be enough, so more measures will need to be taken. It really is like door to door sales men (persons), you do not let them get a foot in the door.


----------



## PK99 (19 Jul 2013)

snailracer said:


> It should be possible to run a sportive without closing roads, if only motorists could be relied upon not to drive dangerously around riders which, unfortunately, they can't.



Eh? Almost all sportives are on open roads! Whenever I have ridden one, I have never had a problem with cars, but I have seen participants causing problems by riding too many abreast and crossing the centre line on corners.

A couple of weeks ago I rode up box hill and along to the t.junction. Sportive coming in the direction from headley, riders sweeping round the corner paying little heed to potential traffic coming from box hill. Took me several minutes to ride out of the junction toward Walton.


----------



## PK99 (19 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> I remember the parlous state of the road surface up Box Hill until they resurfaced it last year. I don't think it was cyclists who caused that.
> 
> Interesting that it took a cycling event for them to do something about it though.



Interestingly it was the advent of cars that led to roads being tarred in the first place. Before that, roads were simply compacted stone layers in a "macadam" structure. The vacuum below motor vehicles pulled up too much dust, to solve the problem tar was sprayed on top of the macadam surface and tarmacadam was born.


----------



## smutchin (19 Jul 2013)

PK99 said:


> Interestingly it was the advent of cars that led to roads being tarred in the first place.



That is not as uncontroversial a statement as you might imagine. It's certainly not the whole story.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Jul 2013)

swansonj said:


> Greg
> 
> I actually agree with your basic principle. But I'm not sure the Prudential London is actually a good example. I live in a town on the route, and the sense I have at the moment is that the Olympics Hangover effect is outweighing the B*** Cyclists Closing Our Roads effect. Most of our town seemed dead chuffed to have the Olympic Road race come through, not because it was cycling, but because it was an Event, and I would guess that at the moment people are thinking "ooh good we get to have our Event all over again". Maybe the test will come in a few years time when people have completely forgotten why we have this event on these roads, and realise that for some unaccountable reason Wiggo and Cav, the only two cyclists they've heard of, don't seem to be taking part any more.


At least one County Councillor, no doubt under pressure from disgruntled locals, and having already sussed the aforementioned, has already taken up arms "This is not the Olympics" stylee.


----------



## Leaway2 (19 Jul 2013)

Any group activity causes problems. I live close to Old Trafford, try going shopping round there on every other Saturday, and I believe there is a lesser team that plays on the other side of town on the other alternate weekend.
This event appears to be a small disruption to me.


----------

