Onerous ride leading listing requirements: how to overcome?

[mjr]

The organisation of a cycling festival is asking for the following (amongst other things) before listing some group rides which are going to happen anyway:

· "a cycle leader" (as you may recall, our rides are more critical-mass-style turning up at an agreed point and riding in a normal manner along a consensual route to another agreed point and back, not led like schoolchildren) and "Event Team";

· a register to be taken at the start of the ride and headcounts occasionally thereafter;

· rider medical details to be collected at the start of the ride;

· a qualified first aider on every ride or it's cancelled;

· all bikes to be checked mechanically by "instructors" before the start;

· all riders' cycling ability checked before the start;

· helmets for all riders. Riders with incorrectly-fitted helmets to be allowed to continue with a warning. Riders without helmets not allowed;

· route to have been ridden and assessed a week before the ride to "ensure it is interesting/appealing" and "ensure the route is free of any obstructions or other hazards/problems";

· hi-viz jackets, food, sunscreen, spare inner tubes and tools to be provided to all riders as needed;

· generally "managing the group" and "meeting the required standards of customer care";

· fill out a 9-page risk assessment for each ride and carry incident report forms (which I have not yet been sent).

In general, it looks like a list more intended for a commercial event company putting on a cycle event with paid staff at some velopark, rather than a group social ride on public roads.

Has anyone faced this sort of list before? How did you overcome it? Or did you walk away?

I'm trying the tactics of arguing that the medical/bikes/skills checks are variously inappropriate or futile because we do not have the power to stop anyone riding along public highways with us (or even without us if we were to attempt to cancel the ride due to lack of first-aider); and that because it's on public highways, the highway authority is responsible for keeping the route free of obstructions and hazards, not group volunteers.

If you want, I'll let you know how badly this year's attempt fails Unsurprisingly, I think the only cycle rides in their festival in past years have been the organisation's own, which seems a crying shame when there are so many groups scheduling rides around here.

 

[Heltor Chasca]

Wow

 

[G3CWI]

Cycling is hugely dangerous (apparently). That's the message that is being sent.

 

[Shadow121]

A lot of that may have to do with insurance, and the demands put on the
organizers by the insurance companies.
Maybe just organize a new event that everyone signs a disclaimer
section on the registration form for peace of mind.
If the Insurance companies get to dictate to their hearts content
no one will be free to cycle without having a solicitor to ensure they
understand what they are signing up to, and just as importantly not.

 

[Bianchi boy]

Just ignore them, and ride the route anyway........Where is it Zimbabwe

 

[mjr]

Maybe just organize a new event that everyone signs a disclaimer
section on the registration form for peace of mind.

Oh I forgot to mention: I've told them they can put whatever disclaimers they want on our listings (which they could anyway, of course).

If the Insurance companies get to dictate to their hearts content
no one will be free to cycle without having a solicitor to ensure they
understand what they are signing up to, and just as importantly not.

I think most of our veterans likely already have insurance, but even organiser insurance that I consider quite pernickity has nothing like this list of requirements

Ultimately, I have serious doubts about their list. Their requirement for registers and occasional headcounts is clearly inferior to the "Tail End Charlie" method of making sure you don't abandon people in the back of beyond, and things like handling people's medical info and supplying food are full of hazards that cycling groups don't usually have to bother with. A cynicalmore experienced friend has suggested that this festival is a way for walking groups to get hold of a cycling grant while only putting on one or two rides themselves (there are dozens of walks) and, if challenged, they can say local cycling groups weren't interested.

 

[mjr]

Just ignore them, and ride the route anyway........Where is it Zimbabwe

Oh we'll ride anyway, but it would be nice to have the rides listed in the festival's advertising, rather than people seeing a "cycling" festival, checking the listings and thinking there are no rides happening around here.

 

[fossyant]

Thats crazy. They should just use the BC guidance

 

[Slick]

Seems prohibitive, to say the least.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

The route check in advance is reasonable. It's something we do organising calendar audaxes. Hazards such as very pot holed roads or barriers are either noted in route sheet or the route changed. If there's a road closure going on, or a road is busier than you thought, recently spray with gravel, at the time you plan to ride it; it can avoid embarrassment

The risk assessment is essentially what if this happens, and what's the mitigating measure. It certainly doesn't have to be pages and pages. Just things that aren't improbable. So for instance an earthquake risk assessment isn't necessary in this country.

Will you allow minors, if so, how are they being safeguarded? Parent / guardian must be present etc.

Lot of the other stuff is w*nk

Personally it looks like most of it is there to create barriers at what is meant to be a cycling festival.

Let's say you have 30 riders, how are you going to assess their cycling ability, under what criteria on which roads? It could take 15 mins per rider to check helmet, riding ability, bike. So 450 minutes later you can get going...

I'd walk away from that. Lots of unofficial group rides take place at festivals anyway.

 

[tom73]

By the time you've done that lot be no time left for the ride maybe that's the plan. Just who comes up with the rubbish ?

The need for medical information alone has a few issues
How do they expect medical information to be held in a secure and confidential way which meets even basic data requirements when out on a ride?
Also who's going to have access to it before and when out on the ride?
How's the data going to be handled after the ride?
I take if if they have had the time to come up with this list they've had the time to train and appoint a data controller to deal with the data they went to make? Not to mention the bolted down secure and lockable storage for the data.

Just all meet up and on set's off everyone follow's can't stop people just riding along who happen all to be going the same way.

 

[Racing roadkill]

The organisation of a cycling festival is asking for the following (amongst other things) before listing some group rides which are going to happen anyway:

· "a cycle leader" (as you may recall, our rides are more critical-mass-style turning up at an agreed point and riding in a normal manner along a consensual route to another agreed point and back, not led like schoolchildren) and "Event Team";

· a register to be taken at the start of the ride and headcounts occasionally thereafter;

· rider medical details to be collected at the start of the ride;

· a qualified first aider on every ride or it's cancelled;

· all bikes to be checked mechanically by "instructors" before the start;

· all riders' cycling ability checked before the start;

· helmets for all riders. Riders with incorrectly-fitted helmets to be allowed to continue with a warning. Riders without helmets not allowed;

· route to have been ridden and assessed a week before the ride to "ensure it is interesting/appealing" and "ensure the route is free of any obstructions or other hazards/problems";

· hi-viz jackets, food, sunscreen, spare inner tubes and tools to be provided to all riders as needed;

· generally "managing the group" and "meeting the required standards of customer care";

· fill out a 9-page risk assessment for each ride and carry incident report forms (which I have not yet been sent).

In general, it looks like a list more intended for a commercial event company putting on a cycle event with paid staff at some velopark, rather than a group social ride on public roads.

Has anyone faced this sort of list before? How did you overcome it? Or did you walk away?

I'm trying the tactics of arguing that the medical/bikes/skills checks are variously inappropriate or futile because we do not have the power to stop anyone riding along public highways with us (or even without us if we were to attempt to cancel the ride due to lack of first-aider); and that because it's on public highways, the highway authority is responsible for keeping the route free of obstructions and hazards, not group volunteers.

If you want, I'll let you know how badly this year's attempt fails Unsurprisingly, I think the only cycle rides in their festival in past years have been the organisation's own, which seems a crying shame when there are so many groups scheduling rides around here.

A lot of that is ‘core H&S / insurance base covering’ some of those things are not actually legal to ask ( medical questions for example ). Issuing sun cream is absolutely not allowed (you’re not permitted to administer lotions, potions, creams, or pills). Mechanical checks ( M checks ) are par for the course. All our ride leaders have to have EFAW first aid certification, or they can’t function as full ride leaders, but can assist. Pre riding routes is advised, but not mandatory. Any ‘skills assessment’ is done ‘on the hoof’ and advice offered as appropriate, not mandated before the ride. Helmets are only mandatory for ride leaders with us, there’s no mandatory lid rule for participants, or ‘warnings’ issued for not doing so. There are too many of these types of ‘organised rides’ put on by people / groups without a mandate, or official training. British Cycling and / or Cycling UK, are really the only people who’s rides people should be bothering with.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

For a laugh you could ask him how he is securely managing the personal details of participants of his festival. Specifically what measures he is taking to meet GDPR? How is he securely managing confidential medical data and destroying it after the rides.

You can ask him for a copy of his risk assessment of his rides last year so you can see what's expected.

You could ask him which European standard his provided hiviz met last year. You could then question him when his risk assessment has no valid reason for helmets or hiviz.

You could ask if walkers are assessed on their walking ability on uneven terrain and do they need to wear hiviz and helmets?

 

[Racing roadkill]

For a laugh you could ask him how he is securely managing the personal details of participants of his festival. Specifically what measures he is taking to meet GDPR? How is he securely managing confidential medical data and destroying it after the rides.

You can ask him for a copy of his risk assessment of his rides last year so you can see what's expected.

You could ask him which European standard his provided hiviz met last year. You could then question him when his risk assessment has no valid reason for helmets or hiviz.

You could ask if walkers are assessed on their walking ability on uneven terrain and do they need to wear hiviz and helmets?

As far as GDPR goes, any print outs of riders details must be destroyed, post ride, that’s the law, ignore it, and there’s a massive merde storm coming.

 

[mjr]

The route check in advance is reasonable. It's something we do organising calendar audaxes. Hazards such as very pot holed roads or barriers are either noted in route sheet or the route changed. If there's a road closure going on, or a road is busier than you thought, at the time you plan to ride it; it can avoid embarrassment

An audax seems a very different thing, with riders alone completing a prescribed course of checkpoints within time limits. I think it might be reasonable to expect an organiser to have ridden it beforehand because (at least when I've done them) they don't ride them on the day, but the Audax UK Organiser's Handbook section on risk assessment doesn't actually say the organiser has to do that, though - riding in advance seems to be listed as an optional way for organisers and helpers to get credit for riding the event despite being busy on the day. Maybe the AUK risk assessment form says they have to ride it - I've not seen that form.

(By the way, I hope any defective roads found are reported to highway authorities too.)

Expecting the navigator to have ridden the route the week before and then do the same ride on the day would almost certainly mean most rides wouldn't happen - volunteers rarely have that sort of time and the ones who do probably don't want to ride the same route on successive weeks, especially not longer riders... but then if people turned up at that point at that time and rode to the same point anyway, who could stop them? It's public roads.

It would also remove the ability of the riders to pick a route or navigator on the day, too... and then I fear you really would be moving from a simple scheduled meeting point into some sort of led event with much heavier organisational requirements.

Road closures can be checked for in advance (and usually are) or dealt with when they're found - and who cares about embarrassment? No guide I've followed has shied away from a U-turn and detour if needed.

The risk assessment is essentially what if this happens, and what's the mitigating measure. It certainly doesn't have to be pages and pages. Just things that aren't improbable.

Here's the headings from the nine pages: health conditions, faulty bikes, ill-fitting or faulty helmets, ill-fitting clothing, poor surface conditions, falls from bicycles, collisions between riders, collision with vehicles, off-road tracks, shared use paths, pedestrians, disabled users, children, dogs, riders become separated, weather, exposure, exhaustion, dehydration, public disorder/aggression, need for toilet facilities, other hazards.

Which would you reject as improbable?

I'm trying to reject several as already risk-assessed by the highway authority as part of its legal duty, (similar to how audaxes are not required to risk-assess cafes used as controls), and others as beyond our control.

Will you allow minors, if so, how are they being safeguarded? Parent / guardian must be present etc.

Our group has adopted a child safety policy which is basically no unaccompanied minors, never take sole responsibility for a child and only take on practical caring responsibilities in an emergency - but we ride on public roads so in practice we can't stop kids riding along with us, can we? Have you ever told teenagers to go home and them actually do it?