I do not wish to deflate enthusiasm for the small claims system. However, I chatted this through with my brother (an Edinburgh lawyer). Apparently, the cost to make the claim will be about £35. He was also not certain whether the secondary costs (entry fee, accommodation) would be reasonable. I may still make a claim, as I think it is the principle rather than the actual financial benefit to me (actually my wife, as I did not ride). I will probably take a punt for a night's accommodation, entry fee and the inner tubes and see what happens. Of course, I will have to wait until someone has been successfully prosecuted and found guilty.
Etape Caledonia Sabotaged
- Thread starter Isla Valassi
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
gadgetmind
New Member
Well, I'm feeling mightily chilled after the weekend. Some good riding in great weather with some very pleasant company. I did 100 miles total, though honesty forces me to admit that I didn't actually do a "century". A few miles on Saturday doing some shopping and then 96.5 miles on Sunday, but not too shoddy given that I was on my Brompton.
Anyway, I feel that the issues surrounding the Perthshire ride have probably been aired enough. There are clearly some *very* deeply held views on this matter and this is making it difficult to have an open discussion regards closed roads (!) without risking aggitiating someone, which has certainly never been my intention.
Ian
Anyway, I feel that the issues surrounding the Perthshire ride have probably been aired enough. There are clearly some *very* deeply held views on this matter and this is making it difficult to have an open discussion regards closed roads (!) without risking aggitiating someone, which has certainly never been my intention.
Ian
gadgetminded
the very deeply held views on display are from ACRE. These views relate to the needs of the (very)few outweighing the needs of the (very) many
the only deeply held views to be aired on this forum are that the needs of the many should normally outweigh the needs of the few
this is the fundamental issue and one which most societies tend to balance in the favour of the latter.....
We are all inconvenienced to some degree everyday so that others can go about their business. Its called living in a free society...
ACRE has produced no overriding reason as to why this basic principle should be overturned...can you?
the very deeply held views on display are from ACRE. These views relate to the needs of the (very)few outweighing the needs of the (very) many
the only deeply held views to be aired on this forum are that the needs of the many should normally outweigh the needs of the few
this is the fundamental issue and one which most societies tend to balance in the favour of the latter.....
We are all inconvenienced to some degree everyday so that others can go about their business. Its called living in a free society...
ACRE has produced no overriding reason as to why this basic principle should be overturned...can you?
gadgetmind
New Member
gillan said:
There certainly seems to be a strength of feeling there (people get very defensive of their communities, as you might expect) but they do seem to have been prepared to engage in dialog. But the dialog never seemed to happen.
That's not how properly held planning consultations tend to work. Yes, you invite input from all parties, but you also weight this input based on how far away someone is from the area. So, if you complain about a planning application by your next door neighbour. it will be taken seriously. Object to a conservatory on a house 100 miles away, and it won't have the same affect.
Importantly, these issues are never judged purely on weight of numbers. And it's also worth noting that the outcome isn't usually a black and white thing. These issues don't have to be one side against another: they don't have to be played as a zero sum game. Everyone can benefit if a sensible compromise can be reached, and this means everyone has to be prepared to be flexible and to "give a little".
What I have personally found disturbing during this discussion is the view that the Perthshire cycling event can't be changed without being scrapped entirely.
BTW, the Great Yokshire Bike Ride is on in a couple of weeks and this weekend I was chatting to some people taking part. They reckon the numbers will be closer to 2000 this year, it's all on open roads, and this works very well as the event is carefully planned and organised.
What was also interesting was that everyone I spoke to was cycling to the starting point and then coming back by bus/cycle. This is nice to see as cycling events that actually encourage people to make long trips by car to/from the start have always caused me to raise a questioning eyebrow. I guess this is mostly a matter of setting the size of the event such that most people taking part can come from the local catchement area.
Ian
ferret fur
Well-Known Member
- Location
- Roseburn
But gadgetmind, the event organisers 'have given a little' .. moving start times upping the average speed, changing the date, putting on the Abefeldy cycling festival so they don't miss out on the trade. The reason why some people are getting worked up is that they keep pointing out flaws in your argument which you completely avoid responding to.
It isn't that the event will have to be scrapped entirely, but that it wouldn't be the same event. ie a high speed mass participation sportive. The Great Yorkshire Bike Ride is nothing to do with a sportive. It is similar to the London Brighton or the Pedal For Scotland events. It doesn't feature large groups of riders who are pushing for a best time. It is like saying why does the London Marathon have to have closed roads? I have been a sponsored walk and they didn't need to close the roads.
It isn't that the event will have to be scrapped entirely, but that it wouldn't be the same event. ie a high speed mass participation sportive. The Great Yorkshire Bike Ride is nothing to do with a sportive. It is similar to the London Brighton or the Pedal For Scotland events. It doesn't feature large groups of riders who are pushing for a best time. It is like saying why does the London Marathon have to have closed roads? I have been a sponsored walk and they didn't need to close the roads.
gadgetmind
New Member
That's all quite encouraging. Hopefully, the discussions over the next year will make further progress. But the organisers announcment straight after this year's event read a wee bit like, "We're doing it again next year and we'll be closing the roads again", though I might have read it wrong.
Some messages are quite long so there are times were I haven't commented on them point by point. Sorry if I missed something relevant.
ferret fur said:
I'm not sure you're right, but even if you are, does that actually matter? I raised the question some time ago regards whether the goals for the event had been agreed before the format was set in stone but I didn't see a response. As long as everyone has a good time, as long as plenty of money is raised for charity, then haven't the major goals been met?
As for "high speed" and "mass participation", these aspects can certainly be retained. Dunno about "sportive" - how do you define that?
If you say so, but it is mass participation, people can ride quickly if that's what they want, and it raises lots of money for charity.
BTW, I did find a pretty big list of "sportives" here -
http://www.cyclosport.org/events2009.aspx
If I have time this weekend, I'll check a few and see if they close any roads for them, but I doubt it.
Ian
gadgetmind
New Member
dodgy said:
They claimed it was, "Britain's first closed road cycle race for the ordinary cylist", but the nature of "firsts" is both that people use creative language to be first at something and also that there can be others afterwards. So, best to check.
I don't know how far people travel to the many other sportives that take place in Britain. Some a fair distance, I'd guess. (And I'm pretty conflicted on how I feel about that.)
Ian
"That's not how properly held planning consultations tend to work. Yes, you invite input from all parties, but you also weight this input based on how far away someone is from the area. So, if you complain about a planning application by your next door neighbour. it will be taken seriously. Object to a conservatory on a house 100 miles away, and it won't have the same affect.
Importantly, these issues are never judged purely on weight of numbers. And it's also worth noting that the outcome isn't usually a black and white thing. These issues don't have to be one side against another: they don't have to be played as a zero sum game. Everyone can benefit if a sensible compromise can be reached, and this means everyone has to be prepared to be flexible and to "give a little".
What I have personally found disturbing during this discussion is the view that the Perthshire cycling event can't be changed without being scrapped entirely."
Gadget
you've maybe not done too much planning work..
next door neighbours who complain about planning applications are usually given less weight
...well they would complain woudn't they. It even has its own acronym you should be more than familiar with..I am only being slightly facetious
objections to things be they planning applications or otherwise should be based on the facts. The facts are that a few perople can't drive their cars for a few hours on a sunday morning once a year and....eh....that's it. Blancing this inconvenience is that B+Bs across the area are full and that probably about 5000 people descend on the area and need fed and watered. This gain to the many (competitiors and local businesses) outweights that basic costs. ?lets also not forget the longer term economic benefits as competiotos return to the area for a holiday short break at other times of the year
with regards to compromise you can garantee that the organiers didn't want to force people to rgister on the saturday. The council would have made this a condition in order to maximise bed nights. Since its inception the route was altered (it did originally go via Kenmore), the start times are earlier to avoid further inconvenience and the speed have been increased.
so, other than reading about all the other events which seem to be sucessfully run with closed roads...
what are the substantive reasons as to why the event cannot be run in its current form? Even some bullet points would do???
anything?
Importantly, these issues are never judged purely on weight of numbers. And it's also worth noting that the outcome isn't usually a black and white thing. These issues don't have to be one side against another: they don't have to be played as a zero sum game. Everyone can benefit if a sensible compromise can be reached, and this means everyone has to be prepared to be flexible and to "give a little".
What I have personally found disturbing during this discussion is the view that the Perthshire cycling event can't be changed without being scrapped entirely."
Gadget
you've maybe not done too much planning work..
next door neighbours who complain about planning applications are usually given less weight
...well they would complain woudn't they. It even has its own acronym you should be more than familiar with..I am only being slightly facetiousobjections to things be they planning applications or otherwise should be based on the facts. The facts are that a few perople can't drive their cars for a few hours on a sunday morning once a year and....eh....that's it. Blancing this inconvenience is that B+Bs across the area are full and that probably about 5000 people descend on the area and need fed and watered. This gain to the many (competitiors and local businesses) outweights that basic costs. ?lets also not forget the longer term economic benefits as competiotos return to the area for a holiday short break at other times of the year
with regards to compromise you can garantee that the organiers didn't want to force people to rgister on the saturday. The council would have made this a condition in order to maximise bed nights. Since its inception the route was altered (it did originally go via Kenmore), the start times are earlier to avoid further inconvenience and the speed have been increased.
so, other than reading about all the other events which seem to be sucessfully run with closed roads...
what are the substantive reasons as to why the event cannot be run in its current form? Even some bullet points would do???
anything?
No, I reckon he thinks that if he keeps talking at us will give in! Like the kid that keeps saying 'why?'
It's so odd isn't it? I mean, gadgetminded does not seem to want to accept that we can see the pov of those (few) people who did not want the road closures - we simply disagree with them and so with him. That's the end of it really. It's not an entrenched position as such, it's just a situation where we've weighed the arguments and taken a decision.
It's so odd isn't it? I mean, gadgetminded does not seem to want to accept that we can see the pov of those (few) people who did not want the road closures - we simply disagree with them and so with him. That's the end of it really. It's not an entrenched position as such, it's just a situation where we've weighed the arguments and taken a decision.
Gadgetmind
Here is a list of the Sportives that are in Scotland, with the maximum number of participants allowed:
Drumlanrig Tearfund Challenge - 300
Bealach Beag Challenge - 600
Burns Coastal Challenge Sportive - 200
Skye Mor and Beag - 600
Cairngorm 100/50 - 600
The Radar Ride - 350
Edinburgh Sportive - 300
The Ken Laidlaw Scottish Borders Sportif - 500
Bealach Mor Challenge - 600
Tour of Tweeddale Cyclosportive - 200
Ullapool Mor/Beag - 600
As you can see, the biggest Scottish sportives only allow 600 participants (the Etape Caledonia has circa 3500 participants). If you ran the Eatpe on open roads, then you would be restricted to about 500-600. The main attraction for the most popular sportives is the challenge element (and that is why people are prepared to travel large distances to take part). The Etape Caledonia route falls well short on the challenge front compared with other sportives such as the Bealach Beag, Fred Whitton Challenge, Etape du Dales, etc.
People will travel to take part in the Etape Caledonia because of the closed roads. Take that away, and all you will be left with is a much smaller event with mostly local people taking part. The local economy would get very little benefit from such an event.
Will
Here is a list of the Sportives that are in Scotland, with the maximum number of participants allowed:
Drumlanrig Tearfund Challenge - 300
Bealach Beag Challenge - 600
Burns Coastal Challenge Sportive - 200
Skye Mor and Beag - 600
Cairngorm 100/50 - 600
The Radar Ride - 350
Edinburgh Sportive - 300
The Ken Laidlaw Scottish Borders Sportif - 500
Bealach Mor Challenge - 600
Tour of Tweeddale Cyclosportive - 200
Ullapool Mor/Beag - 600
As you can see, the biggest Scottish sportives only allow 600 participants (the Etape Caledonia has circa 3500 participants). If you ran the Eatpe on open roads, then you would be restricted to about 500-600. The main attraction for the most popular sportives is the challenge element (and that is why people are prepared to travel large distances to take part). The Etape Caledonia route falls well short on the challenge front compared with other sportives such as the Bealach Beag, Fred Whitton Challenge, Etape du Dales, etc.
People will travel to take part in the Etape Caledonia because of the closed roads. Take that away, and all you will be left with is a much smaller event with mostly local people taking part. The local economy would get very little benefit from such an event.
Will
gadgetmind
New Member
dodgy said:
No, sorry, you're wrong there. I'm reading them all. I'm not agreeing with every part of every post, and in many of those cases I'm explaining why I disagree.
Ian
gadgetmind
New Member
gillan said:
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
