Disappointing lack of response on safety from Audax organisers

[jefmcg]

If I received your email, I probably wouldn't reply either. I can't see any benefit arising from answering it and I can't imagine wanting to enter correspondence with a busy body who writes to tell me that a ride I have carefully curated (Audaxes are tested regularly) is dangerous.

What exactly did you say in the email? What answer would have satisfied you?

There is not much an organiser can do about riders going too fast for the conditions. It's a public road, so it's up to the riders to select a suitable speed. The organiser can add a safety note to the route sheet - and a lot of them do - but a lot of Audax riders are over 40, so need to stop and put on reading glasses to get the safety messages. Also too many warning messages are as bad as none at all.

TMN galore to previous posters.

 

[smutchin]

you can't expect a volunteer organiser to go over hundreds of km of road listing all the potential hazards and riders remembering them all.

Actually, that's exactly what organisers do, and what they are expected to do by AUK as part of the risk assessment when submitting a route.

how can they enforce that?

It's not their responsibility to do so, and comparing an audax to a road race is overlooking the very different nature of those events. (ETA: on rereading your post, I see you were comparing in order to highlight the differences rather than to suggest audaxes should operate the same as road races... sorry, must pay better attention.)

But if they're as icky as the OP suggests, "beware blind bends" at the appropriate point on the sheet doesn't seem unreasonable.

Indeed not. And in my experience, route sheets often contain such warnings - steep descents, cattle grids, loose surfaces etc.

 

[smutchin]

If I received your email, I probably wouldn't reply either. I can't see any benefit arising from answering it and I can't imagine wanting to enter correspondence with a busy body who writes to tell me that a ride I have carefully curated (Audaxes are tested regularly) is dangerous.

Back when I had a job that involved answering correspondence, I had a stock letter for those people you didn't want to engage with: "Dear [name], Thank you for your letter of [date]. Your comments have been passed on to the editor and will be given due consideration. Yours sincerely..."

"Passed on to the editor" meant filed for him to look at if he ever felt so inclined.

 

[mjr]

Back when I had a job that involved answering correspondence, I had a stock letter for those people you didn't want to engage with: "Dear [name], Thank you for your letter of [date]. Your comments have been passed on to the editor and will be given due consideration. Yours sincerely..."

I've such an acknowledgment email too... but sometimes emails get lost on the way to the recipient and unless you want to get in a neverending loop of chasing acknowledgements for acknowledgements, you'd never know.

 

[jefmcg]

Back when I had a job that involved answering correspondence

Yes, that is kind of my point. No one involved with audax is paid to answer correspondence. Also, apparently they get harangued by DNS entrants demanding their £6 back.

 

[Ian H]

Actually, that's exactly what organisers do, and what they are expected to do by AUK as part of the risk assessment when submitting a route.

Well, not quite. All I would expect is for an organiser to know roughly how suitable a road was, e.g. speed and density of traffic, and having a rideable surface.

Indeed not. And in my experience, route sheets often contain such warnings - steep descents, cattle grids, loose surfaces etc.

I keep warnings to general comments such as "some lanes may be steep or poorly surfaced". I would only comment specifically on a very peculiar hazard.

 

[smutchin]

Well, not quite. All I would expect is for an organiser to know roughly how suitable a road was, e.g. speed and density of traffic, and having a rideable surface.

I'd expect hazards to be few and far between on a well designed route, so "listing all the potential hazards" might not amount to more than one or two lines at most.

For example, I'm thinking of entering your Buzzard 600 next year. Knowing how experienced you are as both an organiser and rider, I imagine you're quite good at instinctively knowing which roads are best avoided, or which roads are preferable at certain times of day, so I wouldn't expect there to be an awful lot in the way of hazards on the route.

I would expect you (or an experienced, reliable helper) to have test-ridden all of the route ahead of the event (albeit not necessarily all at once).

I keep warnings to general comments such as "some lanes may be steep or poorly surfaced". I would only comment specifically on a very peculiar hazard.

Well, yes, you don't want warnings every other line. But things like fords, cattle grids and tram lines would always be worth highlighting IMO.

Poor road surfaces are unfortunately a given in most parts of the UK, so I'd only expect a warning if there was an especially bad section (I can think of a few examples).

To get back to the OP, I don't think I would expect a warning for that descent - that doesn't strike me as a noteworthy hazard, notwithstanding his experience.

 

[jefmcg]

To get back to the OP, I don't think I would expect a warning for that descent - that doesn't strike me as a noteworthy hazard, notwithstanding his experience.

Yes, there is a fundamental assumption that audaxers know enough not to speed down narrow blind turns. If they need to be told that, then they are not experienced enough to ride audaxes and no amount of safety warnings just before a ride will fix that.

 

[nickyboy]

To give a bit of context I ride almost exclusively in very hilly areas. I see hundreds and hundreds of cyclists descending at speed. I have never seen anyone descend as recklessly as I did that day. It was this which encouraged me to contact the organiser to let them know and suggest, if they had not done so already, to mention this descent as hazardous in future editions.

My intentions were to prevent an accident. Were it not for a couple of very cautious car drivers that day it could easily have happened. Participants may not be so fortunate in the future. Certainly not a "busy body" as has rather disappointingly been suggested

 

[Ian H]

For example, I'm thinking of entering your Buzzard 600 next year. Knowing how experienced you are as both an organiser and rider, I imagine you're quite good at instinctively knowing which roads are best avoided, or which roads are preferable at certain times of day, so I wouldn't expect there to be an awful lot in the way of hazards on the route.

Well, comments have ranged from 'my favourite' to 'do not ride this!'. But young Master Abraham thinks it's okay, which is good enough for me.

 

[smutchin]

My thinking is that it surely can't be any worse than the Brimstone...

 

[iandg]

I mentioned that the 'Golden Road' is a narrow single track road with passing places, blind bends and summits, gravel and poor surface in some places and cattle grids as a general comment for my 300km. I could never list every hazard on the whole route.

For the 100km I mentioned poor road surfaces on the single track Pentland Road (and sheep) and I did single out that there was a 'give way' immediately at the bottom of a 1 in 5 when descending from the Callanish Stones

 

[Ian H]

My thinking is that it surely can't be any worse than the Brimstone...

Not even in the same category – a completely different experience.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Nickboy

Which audax was it, and how do you know these riders were on it?

 

[nickyboy]

Nickboy

Which audax was it, and how do you know these riders were on it?

Wizard and Llamas Audax. It was easy to identify them; Strava has a "flyby" facility whereby you can see the rides of cyclists you have seen.