A reason to prefer CTC over BC

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 18072
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: A reason to prefer CTC over BC

Postby [XAP]Bob » 24 Jan 2015, 7:03pm

Who's competing? Audaxes are explicitly not competition, I thought Sportives were similarly not competition against other people, just yourself.
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.

BigFoz
Posts: 491
Joined: 2 Jun 2011, 12:33pm

Re: A reason to prefer CTC over BC

Postby BigFoz » 27 Jan 2015, 1:58pm

My parents live nearby, I took my bike down 2 years ago to do some riding while down there. Never took it off the back of the van, roads were clogged with 4x4s and eejits even in late Feb.

My dream is for a weekend where a limited entry sportive encounters 25,000 independent cyclists who just happened to decide to ride there on the same day. Nothing the nimbys can do about it and makes a mockery of the limit.

That being said, I think there are too many events in what is a very unwelcoming space, both in terms of road conditions and attitudes. Let them quietly choke on car fumes and go bust without the footfall (pedal fall?).

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

Re: A reason to prefer CTC over BC

Postby andy65 » 31 Jan 2015, 6:56am

TonyR wrote:
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.


As I said I don't know what it's like in the New Forest, I haven't been there for many years. I do know that are are at least some people there who are very antagonistic, like there are around box hill. We don't help this by exerting our rights without taking into account other people's feelings. Maybe we will not change the minds of those that are leading this campaign, but we can stop people joining them.

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

Re: A reason to prefer CTC over BC

Postby TonyR » 31 Jan 2015, 9:46pm

andy65 wrote:As I said I don't know what it's like in the New Forest, I haven't been there for many years. I do know that are are at least some people there who are very antagonistic, like there are around box hill. We don't help this by exerting our rights without taking into account other people's feelings. Maybe we will not change the minds of those that are leading this campaign, but we can stop people joining them.


Should the views of a few NIMBYs who would rather it was their own private park hold sway over the 92% of people in a recent survey by the New Forest National Park for whom cycling was their favourite activity in the New Forest?
http://www.newforestnpa.gov.uk/polls/2/ ... ional_park

martinn
Posts: 386
Joined: 1 Dec 2012, 8:20pm

Re: A reason to prefer CTC over BC

Postby martinn » 2 Feb 2015, 8:54am

Hi All, hopefully not taking this thread totally off target!

I was looking at rides to go on round where I live so came across the "Great Western Ride"

Below is a quote for the website, implying that BC is the goverening body for cycling, andI thought they were just for racing cycling.

The event is registered with British Cycling, cycling's governing body, and is being run in accordance with its technical regulations, and all signed-in riders benefit on the day from automatic third-party event insurance (provided by British Cycling) as part of their entry fee.


Usual insistance on wearing a helmet. But in combination with the above quote, as this ride is aimed at novices, family and more experienced riders, would imply that wearing a Helmet is a Mandatory piece of equipment. Or am I barking up the wrong tree? Should the CTC step in and ask the website to change what they have put about BC being the Govererning body of cycling, to racing cycling? If they dont, will those who go on this ride simply think that BC is the only Cycling body?

Martin

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 16729
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: A reason to prefer CTC over BC

Postby mjr » 2 Feb 2015, 9:53am

martinn wrote:Usual insistance on wearing a helmet. But in combination with the above quote, as this ride is aimed at novices, family and more experienced riders, would imply that wearing a Helmet is a Mandatory piece of equipment. Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

No, you're correct. BC insists on helmets for all rides under its sportive guidelines. It doesn't insist on helmets for its own SkyRide events, but other organisers are not allowed to use the SkyRide policies as far as I know.

I'm currently in email discussion with a BC manager because BC forces all non-BC events into their sportive guidelines which leads to the absurd situation of disabled riders needing special permission and probably doctor's certificates before they can participate in some charity fun rides for disability charities. In short, BC has no category for other organisations to put on fun rides ;-)
Should the CTC step in and ask the website to change what they have put about BC being the Govererning body of cycling, to racing cycling? If they dont, will those who go on this ride simply think that BC is the only Cycling body?

CTC should, but have you?

I had a bit of a struggle a while ago to get the BBC to recognise that BC isn't the only valid governing body of cycling, with them eventually accepting it but with all sorts of extra disclaimers that they don't require for BC club rides or local council rides.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

Vinko
Posts: 180
Joined: 27 Feb 2014, 7:11pm

Re: A reason to prefer CTC over BC

Postby Vinko » 2 Feb 2015, 11:04am

Si wrote: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.



:D

User avatar
RickH
Posts: 5324
Joined: 5 Mar 2012, 6:39pm
Location: Horwich, Lancs.

Re: A reason to prefer CTC over BC

Postby RickH » 2 Feb 2015, 3:45pm

There seems to have been a proliferation of events, of one sort or another in recent years, not just in the New Forest. That seems to be born out by Sport England's recently published Active People survey which is being reported as showing an extra 100,000 people cycling regularly compared to October 2012 (sorry I don't have a link as I'm working off a slow mobile connection at the moment).

To my mind there are several thing to consider.

Firstly, if we ignore pressure for regulation of some sort, are we likely to get it imposed on us?

If we think that is unlikely to be avoided, then would it be best to come up with a sensible event registration scheme? Ill thought out regulation imposed on racing almost has killed it off in the past on more than one occasion.

What would be sensible? Here are a couple of thoughts
  • Exclusion of compulsion for small events (say 50 or 100 maximum participants)?
  • Who would administer it & on what terms? For all of some people's dislike of BC, they probably have the infrastructure in place - registering of race events - that could be easily adapted (add a non-race category?). Insurance (& therefore the helmet issue even if BC's terms can't be modified) could be dealt with by having a requirement for a suitable policy (I've done things in the past where you could either pay a premium for a policy through the registering organisation or supply evidence of your own policy).

Rick.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 16729
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: A reason to prefer CTC over BC

Postby mjr » 2 Feb 2015, 9:35pm

RickH wrote:Firstly, if we ignore pressure for regulation of some sort, are we likely to get it imposed on us?

We really shouldn't be - the current government is meant to be cutting red tape, not imposing more of it!

I agree that equivalent insurance should suffice and it should be easy to argue against this as the same sort of bad deal as bundled sales... but CTC probably couldn't do that, because it sometimes requires riders to join before taking part in more than a few trial rides with a CTC-affiliated group. (It's not clear to me whether this only applies to some groups or if some groups are simply ignoring the CTC membership requirement.)
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

MikeF
Posts: 3992
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: A reason to prefer CTC over BC

Postby MikeF » 2 Feb 2015, 9:43pm

Surrey Transport Plan - Cycling Strategy 2014-2026

Objective 11: We will lobby central government to ensure that regulations governing events on the highway are fit for purpose

The current regulations governing cycling events on the highway do not cover events such as sportives that are not classified as races. The regulations date back to 1960 and we are concerned that they no longer reflect the situation, with a sharp increase in events that are not covered by the regulations. We are very concerned that, with no requirement for event organisers to notify the police or highways authority, there are risks to safety as well as potential inconvenience to local communities.
We will work with other local authorities who are experiencing similar challenges with high volumes of cycle events in their areas to make the case to central government for the urgent need to revisit the current regulations and extend these to include sportives.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 16729
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: A reason to prefer CTC over BC

Postby mjr » 2 Feb 2015, 10:31pm

MikeF wrote:Surrey Transport Plan - Cycling Strategy 2014-2026

Objective 11: We will lobby central government to ensure that regulations governing events on the highway are fit for purpose

The current regulations governing cycling events on the highway do not cover events such as sportives that are not classified as races. The regulations date back to 1960 and we are concerned that they no longer reflect the situation, with a sharp increase in events that are not covered by the regulations. We are very concerned that, with no requirement for event organisers to notify the police or highways authority, there are risks to safety as well as potential inconvenience to local communities.
We will work with other local authorities who are experiencing similar challenges with high volumes of cycle events in their areas to make the case to central government for the urgent need to revisit the current regulations and extend these to include sportives.

(emphasis mine) Do they offer any evidence for the incredible claims that there are more cycling events now than in 1960, or that there are risks to safety?

If the regulations are extended, then we must push for them to be limited to sportives and not to community rides or charity fun rides.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

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

Re: A reason to prefer CTC over BC

Postby TonyR » 2 Feb 2015, 10:39pm

mjr wrote:If the regulations are extended, then we must push for them to be limited to sportives and not to community rides or charity fun rides.


This is why we need the CTC. BC will support the moves, as it is doing in the New Forest, because it gives them more to regulate. AFAICS the CTC is the only national body that is likely to campaign for us to have the freedom to ride.

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15188
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: A reason to prefer CTC over BC

Postby Si » 3 Feb 2015, 8:36pm

with a sharp increase in events that are not covered by the regulations


Erm, I think that they might find that there is a very suitable set of regs that are widely publicised in the form of the Highway Code.

Flinders
Posts: 3022
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: A reason to prefer CTC over BC

Postby Flinders » 4 Feb 2015, 11:46pm

Si wrote:
with a sharp increase in events that are not covered by the regulations


Erm, I think that they might find that there is a very suitable set of regs that are widely publicised in the form of the Highway Code.


Well said.

I'm a afraid that a lot of 'bodies', including sporting ones, are far more concerned with building their own empires than anything else, especially when they have an overweening executive composed of professional execs and elite sportspeople who have no real interest in the plebs who participate in the sport itself at the grass roots (who are often paying their wages). The same goes for a lot of big national charities; they are staffed at the top by professional charity execs, often paid obscene sums form hard earned funds, who don't give a damn about the people the charity is supposed to care for.