w00hoo_kent
One of the 64K
From either of us, yes. I'm sure it'll be ignored by all parties the next time I go in, the group rides are academic now anyway as they're new announcement for it also stipulates helmets are mandatory, I honestly can't remember if we were wearing them or not when we turned up but thanks to this place <points at Cycle Chat> I'm a bit more sensitive to that kind of decree now.An email the day after would have been the most effective response perhaps.
Are you hinting that there is a problem with the night rides?
No (I'm not actually sure if you are allowed to suggest that and get out without being tarred & feathered :-) ). The reason for my post was as I quoted initially the concept that a suggested ride was 'invalid'. In order to be invalid you need a set structure to test it against. As I can't see creating a set structure and then measuring suggested rides against it as being in keeping with the Fridays ideal I thought I'd throw in a suggestion to counter the idea of being able to state rides couldn't count.
If I think the rides might have a problem, then I guess I'm not sure they feel as inclusive as they want to feel. Kai and I have both told my wife we don't think that she is ready to try one based on our experiences. She needs more miles in her legs before she gives Southend a go basically. You've actually touched on the sense that the rides might not be as new to cycling friendly as they would like to be in the past in previous posts. This may of course be a self fulfilling prophecy, it's difficult to tell if someone is being seriously challenged by the ride if they are well looked after, it's possible that the sense that all the participants are of a minimum standard is an illusion but if it is it's a good one. I'm not seeing needing to get my wife cycling more before she gives a FNRttC a try as a problem with the rides, it's much more an issue of where she is with cycling at the moment.