A reason to prefer CTC over BC

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

A reason to prefer CTC over BC

Postby TonyR » 23 Jan 2015, 7:00pm

BC support New Forest nimby moves to have cycling events controlled and capped by law.

"We’re asking the government to take action to ensure that all formal cycling events on the public highway are better co-ordinated and regulated through an agreed process. Unlike road races, sportives sit outside of any formal regulation process and given the high volume of events and participants it is a serious cause for concern."


I wonder who they were thinking might do the formal regulation?
http://road.cc/content/news/141046-new- ... ing-agrees

Valbrona
Posts: 2394
Joined: 7 Feb 2011, 4:49pm

Re: A reason to prefer CTC over BC

Postby Valbrona » 23 Jan 2015, 9:06pm

I think the police/ACPO should be leading on this matter. But I know the police to be not a very enlightened lot.
I should coco.

sore thumb
Posts: 223
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 10:27am

Re: A reason to prefer CTC over BC

Postby sore thumb » 23 Jan 2015, 9:09pm

TonyR wrote:BC support New Forest nimby moves to have cycling events controlled and capped by law.

"We’re asking the government to take action to ensure that all formal cycling events on the public highway are better co-ordinated and regulated through an agreed process. Unlike road races, sportives sit outside of any formal regulation process and given the high volume of events and participants it is a serious cause for concern."


I wonder who they were thinking might do the formal regulation?
http://road.cc/content/news/141046-new- ... ing-agrees


disgusting behaviour by british cycling. They should have nothing to do with these people. If we allow this to happen in the New Forest then this anti cycling could spread elsewhere.

I wonder why British Cycling is doing this? Mmmmmmmmmm,

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: A reason to prefer CTC over BC

Postby TonyR » 23 Jan 2015, 9:30pm

sore thumb wrote:If we allow this to happen in the New Forest then this anti cycling could spread elsewhere.


As I read it BC are calling for legislation not just for the New Forest but for the whole country.

drossall
Posts: 5098
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: A reason to prefer CTC over BC

Postby drossall » 23 Jan 2015, 10:15pm

Could threaten Audax?

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: A reason to prefer CTC over BC

Postby TonyR » 23 Jan 2015, 11:03pm

drossall wrote:Could threaten Audax?


As I read it BC want by law to regulate every on-road event. So yes, Audax too. All to be run presumably under BC's mandatory helmet rule.

Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: A reason to prefer CTC over BC

Postby Tonyf33 » 24 Jan 2015, 8:02am

I'm thinking of cycling at some sportives this year, not entering just riding the same routes, given I won't be wearing a helmet it'll be interesting to see if I get any reaction. BC are a bunch of idiots, no doubt there's some shenanigans going on behind the scenes we'll not get to know about but their involvement is not wanted and they are spoiling the whole cycling scene for everyone especially with their forcing of helmets at any event under their umbrella..

In terms of how sportives are run aren't they already a part of normal road law anyway? Certainly ensuring entrants are sticking to the law & riding safely (e.g. NOT racing) should be one of the organisers priorities.

pete75
Posts: 13643
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: A reason to prefer CTC over BC

Postby pete75 » 24 Jan 2015, 8:21am

Tonyf33 wrote:I'm thinking of cycling at some sportives this year, not entering just riding the same routes, given I won't be wearing a helmet it'll be interesting to see if I get any reaction. BC are a bunch of idiots, no doubt there's some shenanigans going on behind the scenes we'll not get to know about but their involvement is not wanted and they are spoiling the whole cycling scene for everyone especially with their forcing of helmets at any event under their umbrella..

In terms of how sportives are run aren't they already a part of normal road law anyway? Certainly ensuring entrants are sticking to the law & riding safely (e.g. NOT racing) should be one of the organisers priorities.


I've ridden sportives without a helmet. The organisers cannot prevent you from riding without a helmet on open public roads, try though they may.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17971
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: A reason to prefer CTC over BC

Postby [XAP]Bob » 24 Jan 2015, 10:32am

Maybe wear number 1001?
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: A reason to prefer CTC over BC

Postby Tonyf33 » 24 Jan 2015, 2:07pm

[XAP]Bob wrote:Maybe wear number 1001?

lol 8) :lol:

andy65
Posts: 43
Joined: 25 Oct 2014, 8:37am
Contact:

Re: A reason to prefer CTC over BC

Postby andy65 » 24 Jan 2015, 2:34pm

Perhaps BC are right and the legal situation does need to be cleared up. There was the recent story where a call from someone pretending to be a policeman caused a cycle treasure hunt to be cancelled. If there wasn't a level of uncertainty, then I am sure that the organiser wouldn't have been so easily conned into cancelling the event.

I don't know what the situation is like in the New Forest, so I have no idea to what extent the residents are being intolerant or they are indeed being swamped with organised events, but one thing is sure we need to be good neighbours if we expect others to accept cycling. Perhaps Sensible regulation that controls the impact on residents and other road users is way to do this. This of course can work to our advantage by establishing the right to hold such events.

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15173
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: A reason to prefer CTC over BC

Postby Si » 24 Jan 2015, 2:40pm

I'll be happy for them to limit my cycling event on the public road when they are happy for me to limit the school run, rush hour commute, etc etc. All of these cars have a much greater impact on the residents of any area than cyclists do.

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: A reason to prefer CTC over BC

Postby TonyR » 24 Jan 2015, 4:26pm

andy65 wrote:I don't know what the situation is like in the New Forest, so I have no idea to what extent the residents are being intolerant or they are indeed being swamped with organised events, but one thing is sure we need to be good neighbours if we expect others to accept cycling. Perhaps Sensible regulation that controls the impact on residents and other road users is way to do this.


Have you ever tried to go through Lyndhurst in the summer? And its certainly not cyclists that are clogging up the town and the roads into it for miles around.

This of course can work to our advantage by establishing the right to hold such events.


We already have that right. The New Forest is a particular point because some of the residents have not got used to the fact that they no longer live in an exclusive ancient Royal Forest but a National Park paid for by our taxes and there for the public enjoyment.

Psamathe
Posts: 11951
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: A reason to prefer CTC over BC

Postby Psamathe » 24 Jan 2015, 4:55pm

I don't think the issue is about a cap on the numbers (as British Cycling are also anti a cap on numbers).

I think it is more about a voluntary code vs legislation. It is difficult to form reliable opinions without having been in the various meetings, etc. but I suspect that UK Cycling Events (organiser of large events in the area) declaring they "will not comply" with the voluntary code is forcing the legislative route. It would have been far better for that organiser to react more along the lines of "much of the new code forms the basis to allow events to run whilst safeguarding local ... However further discussion of certain aspects will be necessary, for example regarding entry numbers".

And that the report is from a pro cycling source will probably mean that UK Cycling Events' response is either accurate or slanted in favour of cycling.

(ps. Can somebody explain why it is such a terrible thing that competitors should wear numbers ? - because that seems another aspect UK Cycling Events is refusing to accept).

Ian

Mike Sales
Posts: 5362
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: A reason to prefer CTC over BC

Postby Mike Sales » 24 Jan 2015, 5:52pm

Psamathe wrote:(ps. Can somebody explain why it is such a terrible thing that competitors should wear numbers ? -


I am not a number, I am a free man


Number 6.