New Forest sportive backlash.

[smutchin]

It is time for the cycling community to face up to the fact that sportives ARE races on open roads, and as such illegal, and that dressing them up as not-races is doing more harm to our cause than good.

I am entirely in favour of enforcing the existing regulations. Either remove the racing element or force participants to be properly licensed.

The fact that they aren't enforced just goes to show what a nonsense the code of conduct idea is. Get people to sign a worthless bit of paper? Yeah, sure, that'll make a difference.

Maybe enforce the speed limits for motor vehicles in the New Forest while we're at it.

 

[DRHysted]

BC will do nothing. They derive a lot of income from the insurance cover. iirc not all sportives are 'governed' by BC anyway. (Happy to be corrected)
The police will do nothing, other than regard you as a swivel-eyed loon, as a result of your complaining, ime/imo, citing other policing priorities.
The police may do something if enough of the members of right local community groups complain because those chosen few folk set the local policing priorities!

Wrong the Police do do something.

They support the flaming things.

They were stood in the rain where the protesters were in April. On the sportives I have been on there is sooooooo many reminders that it is not a race, it is always mentioned in the breifings. In fact the last one I went on this month we were informed that we were going on an adventure.

 

[smutchin]

It is time for the cycling community to face up to the fact that sportives ARE races on open roads, and as such illegal, and that dressing them up as not-races is doing more harm to our cause than good.

I'm still yet to see any evidence that, technically illegal or otherwise, they actually cause any genuine problems for New Forest residents. The problems with sportives largely exist in the tiny minds of a few anti-cyling prejudiced nimbys.

Unlike the idiots who throw tacks in the road, who cause a genuine danger to the participants.

 

[VamP]

I believe you entirely but I'm not clicking on your link because it's of no interest to me personally. Like I said, you should report it to the authorities. There's no mileage in moaning about it on a forum.

As I'm sure you know, there are very good pre-existing legal reasons why sportives shouldn't publish times. It's a problem of enforcement, not of inadequate regulation per se.

It's of no interest to me personally either and I wasn't moaning.

You seem determined to object to the proposed code of conduct, while I think it's reasonable. I think I've exhausted my interest in the subject now.

 

[Peter Armstrong]

Is it ignorant for me to say that if a horse is spooked by cycists then they shouldnt be on the road?
Its like me saying we need to limit the amount of cars on the road because cars spook me, i mite jump off my bike and run around kicking shoot.

 

[smutchin]

You seem determined to object to the proposed code of conduct, while I think it's reasonable.

It's superficially reasonable but actually bullshit. That's all.

 

[VamP]

It's superficially reasonable but actually bulls***. That's all.

1. limit of 500
2. way of identifying nobbers in the ''race''
3. making the organizers announce the fact a sportive is taking place

these seem eminently reasonable and enforceable to me.

I forget what the other points were.

Is it ignorant for me to say that if a horse is spooked by cycists then they shouldnt be on the road?
Its like me saying we need to limit the amount of cars on the road because cars spook me, i mite jump off my bike and run around kicking s***.

Yes that is ignorant.

 

[Peter Armstrong]

1. limit of 500
2. way of identifying nobbers in the ''race''
3. making the organizers announce the fact a sportive is taking place

these seem eminently reasonable and enforceable to me.

I forget what the other points were.



Yes that is ignorant.

Yeah, I can get like that..........

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I'm still yet to see any evidence that, technically illegal or otherwise, they actually cause any genuine problems for New Forest residents. The problems with sportives largely exist in the tiny minds of a few anti-cyling prejudiced nimbys.

Unlike the idiots who throw tacks in the road, who cause a genuine danger to the participants.

Tack throwers are idiots. But then so are undertaking, five abreast riding, litter dropping, faux-racers.

I can't speak of the New Forest, my forays there these days are infrequent and usually fat tyred. So let me speak from direct experience... Sportives cause genuine problems for Surrey Hills residents and visitors. They cause genuine problems for residents and visitors of the South Downs National Park. They, or rather the behaviour of a significant number of the competitors, cause genuine problems for other cyclists using the roads at the same time as them.

I may be a tiny minded anti-cycling nimby, possible but unlikely given I do 300 - 400km a week on a bike at this time of year. It may also be the case that many cyclists are so enamoured of the sportive scene they refuse, all the while they wear their rose coloured lenses in their Oakleys, to accept the reality that their enjoyment impacts negatively on others.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

It's an argument that gets used a lot, in all sorts of arenas: 'It won't work so let's not try it.' How about, it can't do any harm to try it then.

Isn't this just the members of special-interest groups being protective? Smutchin really likes his sportives and doesn't want them to be regulated even by good manners; drHysted likes cyclists, dislikes people who drive horses and hold the traffic up; Peter Armstrong dislikes anything unpredictable using the road that might involve other road users having to be a bit careful (better fence in all the NF ponies then); some New Forest residents appear to dislike tourists, cyclists, cars, just about everything really - and each group wants extra rules to support their interest and suppress the others. How depressing.

The malaise UK society finds itself in, in so many areas, summed up very well I'd say.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

1. limit of 500
2. way of identifying nobbers in the ''race''
3. making the organizers announce the fact a sportive is taking place

these seem eminently reasonable and enforceable to me.

2 is impractical and unimplementable in a manner that keeps the organisers profit margins intact imo.

 

[smutchin]

1. limit of 500
2. way of identifying nobbers in the ''race''
3. making the organizers announce the fact a sportive is taking place

these seem eminently reasonable and enforceable to me.

Numbers: If the police deemed the event too large to be safe, they wouldn't allow it to go ahead.
Nobbers: Cars have a means of identification and yet car-based nobbers regularly get away with all kinds of anti-social behaviour.
Publicity: I'm amazed that events manage to attract thousands upon thousands of entrants when nobody knows they're taking place.

I forget what the other points were.

The main one is the non-publication of times, which is covered by existing regulations. The fact that existing regulations are not enforced is my principal objection - adding a further layer of regulation would be a waste of time.

 

[VamP]

2 is impractical and unimplementable in a manner that keeps the organisers profit margins intact imo.

Wiggle sportive I drove past recently had huge numbers on rider's back.

 

[Peter Armstrong]

The people who are racing against the clock I would guess that they are timing themselves anyway, either stopwatch, gps, strava etc so I don’t think the removing the publication of times would make any difference.

 

[VamP]

Numbers: If the police deemed the event too large to be safe, they wouldn't allow it to go ahead.
Nobbers: Cars have a means of identification and yet car-based nobbers regularly get away with all kinds of anti-social behaviour.
Publicity: I'm amazed that events manage to attract thousands upon thousands of entrants when nobody knows they're taking place.



The main one is the non-publication of times, which is covered by existing regulations. The fact that existing regulations are not enforced is my principal objection - adding a further layer of regulation would be a waste of time.

It's somewhat comical that although it's extremely unlikely either of us will ever ride a New Forest sportive, we have got ourselves into this discussion.

Numbers: do the police routinely get involved in approving sportives? I don't know, and am happy to be told.
Nobbers: Yet every once in a while drivers do get caught. Number plates help.
Publicity: I guess the point is targeting.

I still don't see how signing up to these easy points should be a problem for a responsible organiser. And if it buys them goodwill from the horse-riding community, who are or should be, our natural ally...