Etape Caledonia Sabotaged

[dodgy]

No, but the organisers do. And some people here quote attendance numbers like it's a game of top trumps.

The point is, and I'm pretty sure this must have sunk it with you by now, is that the reason the numbers are high is because the Etape Caledonia offers something that no other sportive can - closed roads. That is why the numbers are high!

And thousands of people take part in open road cycling events and find them a great experience.

Ian

I know this, but many more choose to ride the Etape Caledonia because...... Oh I give up.

 

[mcd]

But maybe, given the strong feelings (sometimes powerfully worded and sometimes downright unpleasantly worded) there are a fair few people around who dare not express their views?

If they dare not express their views, how do you know there are a "fair few"?

I don't think I've got much to add to what has already been said (sometimes repeatedly so) on this thread, but here are my thoughts on specific points raised:

1) The large number of substantially similar events that run around the country on open roads very strongly suggest that closed roads are not an absolute requirement.

Depends on how much you generalise - on the grand scheme of things I would regard the larger events listed on another post as similar, but not substantially so. But only having taken part in the Etape Caledonia I can not make any more detailed comparison - I'll leave that to others that have taken part in more events.

2) There is widespread local opposition both for a large number of practical reasons and because of the lack of meaningful dialogue on the road closure issue.

I understand that the opposition is a "vocal minority" rather than "widespread". In a democratic society these are two very different things.

3) The local people have suggested other forms the event could take without significantly affecting the charitable or enjoyment aspects but these were rejected. I understand that this event is run by a commercial organisation and that any excess money (entry fees minus running costs) are not donated to charity.

Have the 'local people' organised such an event? If they have attempted to, but have had their attempts rejected, I'd be interested to know on what grounds (eg safety or lack of support). The fact that the entry fee has gone up implies that there is no 'excess money'.

Personally, I'd have a list like -
1) Do no harm. Enrich the local environment, financially and socially.

Not aware of any real harm having been caused by people taking part - though if they have, I assume this will have been reported to the police and appropriate action taken. The larger the event, the greater the financial enrichment. Not sure what you have in mind regarding "social enrichment".

2) Raise money for charity, which includes donating excess entry fee money to charity.

Again, the larger the event, the more money gets raised for charity.

3) Be as inclusive as possible regards the age, ethnicity, gender, financial status, fitness and ability level of those taking part.

Not aware of any restrictions imposed by the organisers - except possibly for financial status (the cost of attending the event will exclude those who can not afford it) and ability level (as has been mentioned already, changes made to the event to reduce its impact have included increasing the minimum speed and abandoning a shorter route - both make the event less attractive to less fit cyclists)

4) Minimise the carbon footprint. Draw entrants as much as possible from local communities, arrange transport to increase the "catchment" area, arrange over-night camping for those cycling to the event.

This somewhat conflicts with 1) financial enrichment - local people spending money local does not bring new money into the area, and 3) being as inclusive as possible. Arranging overnight camping would be something that would add to the event. It would be interesting to see how many people would take this up.

5) Listen to feedback, accept criticism, be prepared to make changes, and avoid polarising opinion.

I think the organisers agree with you on this one as changes have been made which restrict the event. As for avoiding polarising opinion - you're not having much success with that on this thread.

 

[gillan]

Well, I think we've gone over them in quite a bit of detail already, but I'm happy to recap the major ones.

1) The large number of substantially similar events that run around the country on open roads very strongly suggest that closed roads are not an absolute requirement.
2) There is widespread local opposition both for a large number of practical reasons and because of the lack of meaningful dialogue on the road closure issue.
3) The local people have suggested other forms the event could take without significantly affecting the charitable or enjoyment aspects but these were rejected. I understand that this event is run by a commercial organisation and that any excess money (entry fees minus running costs) are not donated to charity.

Ian

yup...

so not much then and nothing so substantive that would outweigh an approximate £1m injection into the locoal economy?

1)the events you list are not substantially similar, they have far fewer competitors. they will also bring problems of their own for locals i.e. cyclists and delays for drivers for a far longer period. The caledonia event, whilst stopping access for a short period returns the roaqds to normal far quicker

2) how widespread is the local oppostion? By definition it can't be that widespread as the vast majority affected benefit the most i.e. the more populated area near Pitlochry. Still any figures you have to support "widespread" would be appreciated

3) the locals are not event organisers. Some of them are even business people who seek to turn a profit. Perhaps we shouldn't ask too many questions about how ethically they operate and where they source their products from? Should they be forced to stop stocking Coke say because some guy who lives in Fearnan doesn't like Coke's approach to employment practices on the Indian sub-continent?

 

[Alves]

Ian, your persistence against every reasonable argument is remarkable and reminds me of the ACRE group's intransigence against overwhelming odds and superior arguments.
You don't live there, you have never ridden the event and I suspect never will.
I know the area well, I was born and brought up there and have ridden all 3 events, I have a stake in the event, a totally biased one but at least one that's based on some knowledge and experience.
Where are you coming from and what is your ulterior motive?
Being a devil's advocate is all very well but you're not doing it in a way that's credible.

 

[asterix]

Ian,.. ..Where are you coming from and what is your ulterior motive?
Being a devil's advocate is all very well but you're not doing it in a way that's credible.

That's what I wanted to know umpteen pages ago! It strikes me as odd if not obsessive.

 

[just jim]

Maybe he'll get back to us at some point....

 

[HLaB]

They just don't get it, the council sum it up well at the end.

Aside from the fact that this aspect attracts people from all over the world to Perthshire, conducting this size of cycling event on open roads would be extremely dangerous on the roads in question.

 

[Waspie]

“The closed roads on this route stop all traffic, resident and tourist, for several hours without any alternative routes over the bulk of the course.”

Several hours!!!!! Each year!!!!??

 

[ferret fur]

I note that the spokesman has remained anonymous

 

[gadgetmind]

you have never ridden the event and I suspect never will.

Probably not. There's plenty of cycling I can do much closer to home. I did my first century last weekend.

Where are you coming from and what is your ulterior motive?

I don't have any motive other than what I've tried to convey in this thread. Whether the event goes ahead in its current form, gets modified to avoid alienating the local community, or gets cancelled altogether, makes close to zero direct difference to me.

But I am keen on the promotion cycling both as a form of transport and as a form of exercise that's open to everyone. I also work hard to try and break down the "us and them" mentality that some non-cyclists have to those who cycle (and I'm afraid to say, vice versa).

For the most part, organised cycling events further these goals (or are at least neutral) but this one seems to have failed rather spectacularly on all counts. And the indications are that everyone's positions are becoming even more entrenched and I really don't get the feeling that there's much chance of common ground being found.

Anyway, probably time to move on and concentrate on the positive rather than dwelling on unfortunate situations such as this.

Ian

 

[adscrim]

Anyway, probably time to move on and concentrate on the positive rather than dwelling on unfortunate fabrications such as this.

Ian

 

[yello]

I really don't get the feeling that there's much chance of common ground being found.

 

[HJ]

Well it was announced today that the organisers are beefing up security for next year's event to prevent any repeat of this year's sabotage.

 

[JWallace]

Cycling `Nutters` sign up for the 2010 event

Well it was announced today that the organisers are beefing up security for next year's event to prevent any repeat of this year's sabotage.

Also a few of cyclings `nutters` have signed up for the 2010 drawn by the challange of conflict,they use their fists first and questions later,they like trouble,the bike comes second to them,more soon............

JW

 

[Theseus]

Also a few of cyclings `nutters` have signed up for the 2010 drawn by the challange of conflict,they use their fists first and questions later,they like trouble,the bike comes second to them,more soon............

... and your basis for this assertion is?