Velo South closed roads sportive - good idea?!?

[pwa]

Watching BBC footage of the event, presumably at an early start, spectators were there in their ones and twos, so for most folk not involved with the event it was not important.

The finishes usually have more spectators, so I don't think it's safe to conclude much from few getting up early on a Sunday to go to the start. Unlike pro races, sportive starts tend to be repetitve and not very interesting... even if you're cheering friends off as I sometimes do, it's rather a test of patience and I think you'd go crackers hearing the 20th start wave briefing, so few watch the whole start.

I don't understand why anyone would watch a sportive at all unless they had family involved. Or a marathon for that matter. Okay, if there is charity fund raising involved there is something to applaud, but not if all it is is people doing their own chosen physical challenge. That, surely, is not very interesting for folk on a Sunday when they could be doing something themselves. I never expect spectators to take any interest in my cycling or any of my other outdoor activities.

[mjr]

Are we supposed to have no events that inconvenience people then ? about those that live around a football ground and esp those grounds that have moved into people's area ?

for the vast majority of people the roads will be open after midday

The London Marathon takes place in central London, which has a highly efficient transport system that doesn't involve cars, so people can still get around easily whilst the marathon is on. I'll wager that rural Sussex has no alternative transport system and relies mostly on cars to get people around.

A football match may slow down your journey, but won't stop it altogether.

A closed road cycle event may slow down your journey, but won't stop it altogether. This one by up to 9.5 hours once a year. A football crowd entering or exiting an old-fashioned football ground location in among residential streets can slow nearby roads by about 30 minutes but 60 times a year or so (20 league home games plus various cups and major club friendlies, each entering once and exiting once). Which is more disruptive? I'd rather move my car or be "trapped" once a year than 60 times.

[mjr]

I don't understand why anyone would watch a sportive at all unless they had family involved. Or a marathon for that matter. Okay, if there is charity fund raising involved there is something to applaud, but not if all it is is people doing their own chosen physical challenge. That, surely, is not very interesting for folk on a Sunday when they could be doing something themselves. I never expect spectators to take any interest in my cycling or any of my other outdoor activities.

There's almost always charity fundraising involved, plus the better ones have some interesting costumes too, like the gorilla at Ride London last year, although the closed road sportives seem to be wrongheadedly stamping out the fascinating contraptions you see on fancy dress rides. There's also good finish villages and spectator events on the better events: last week's finish village had cafe, bike shops (with test rides available), beer tastings and other stuff I forget; I think Wimbledon and Dorking have well-enjoyed spectator festivals on the Ride London route. It can be good for places on the route if embraced.

[ianrobo]

remeber that the Velothon as a pro race attached and as we rode in there were plenty of people around the finish.

The thing was the people on the side, chairs out, pubs open, people walking around ..... people cheering from bridges over the dual carriageways, standing but the crash barriers etc ....

I loved it !

[Bez]

Which is more disruptive? I'd rather move my car or be "trapped" once a year than 60 times.

I suspect the vast majority of people would take the alternative view, not least because if you live near a football stadium (for instance) you're accustomed to the delays it causes. Closing 100 miles of rural roads for the majority of the day in an area which hasn't seen this sort of closure before is a shock to the system.

As far as I can see (and I may be missing something here) this hasn't evolved from an established event in the area, gradually reaching the scale where road closures are worthwhile; it's a company deciding to drop 15,000 people in for a totally new event for which they've annexed the roads, and requiring everyone in the area to just suck it up. It's quite an arrogant business model, to say the least.

[mjr]

Which is more disruptive? I'd rather move my car or be "trapped" once a year than 60 times.

I suspect the vast majority of people would take the alternative view, not least because if you live near a football stadium (for instance) you're accustomed to the delays it causes. Closing 100 miles of rural roads for the majority of the day in an area which hasn't seen this sort of closure before is a shock to the system.

So it's OK for many townies to have their roads effectively blocked without due process by a football stadium's 40,000 people many times a year, but villagers having the roads closed by formal application once a year isn't? Sounds like double standards, doesn't it?

As far as I can see (and I may be missing something here) this hasn't evolved from an established event in the area, gradually reaching the scale where road closures are worthwhile; it's a company deciding to drop 15,000 people in for a totally new event for which they've annexed the roads, and requiring everyone in the area to just suck it up. It's quite an arrogant business model, to say the least.

That would be arrogant but I don't think this company has annexed the roads. Rather, they've applied to local government for the closure and been granted it. If that closure has been mishandled, surely that's the fault of the voters for electing a local government that hasn't protected their interests by insisting on sufficient or suitably-placed marshalled crossings.

As for it starting large: would it really be any more likely to be welcomed if it had evolved from a smaller event? I'm sure I remember other cycling events being effectively shut down by crippling red tape and refusals/failures to close roads once they reached sufficient size and tried to step up.

[thirdcrank]

Taking a sort of constitutional / legal approach to this, I'd be prepared to assume that what's happening is "perfectly" legal. Looking at it from some distance, that does seem to include eg saying that this won't be organised under BCF rules and, therefore, it's not subject to the regulations covering cycle racing on highways.

There's sometimes a tad less acceptance of the legal approach when road closures - whether planned or for emergencies - inconvenience cyclists.

Cui bono? I've looked at the Seb Coe (Chairman) website and it's written in a language I don't really understand. It does look as though somebody has found a way of tapping into sport to turn a tidy sum.

[Bez]

So it's OK for many townies to have their roads effectively blocked without due process by a football stadium's 40,000 people many times a year, but villagers having the roads closed by formal application once a year isn't? Sounds like double standards, doesn't it?

No, I'm not saying either of those is or isn't OK. I don't think I have a massive opinion on that, personally, and I think to a large extent it's comparing apples with oranges.

What I said was that I suspect most people wouldn't take the same view as you.

That would be arrogant but I don't think this company has annexed the roads. Rather, they've applied to local government for the closure and been granted it. If that closure has been mishandled, surely that's the fault of the voters for electing a local government that hasn't protected their interests by insisting on sufficient or suitably-placed marshalled crossings.

OK, my language was a little barbed, of course. I think your blame is seriously misplaced: as a voter in a local election can you honestly say you can predict how your councillors will react to a (rare) request of this nature? That's a very odd view of democracy. If you want to blame the councillors for ploughing ahead without adequate consultation or without demanding enough from the organisers, I think that's fair enough: if this is a mess then both the organisers and the council have to share the responsibility. But to blame the residents for this makes about as much sense as residents blaming any old sod on a bike for it.

As for it starting large: would it really be any more likely to be welcomed if it had evolved from a smaller event?

There are plenty of sportives, time trials and locally-organised charity rides that happen in the area, and although I'm sure there are plenty of individuals who just loathe any inconvenience and/or anyone on a bicycle, all these events seem to go off without any kerfuffle. The sportives (several of which also run to 100 miles) don't close off the roads, and the charity rides are geared towards non-enthusiasts, which makes them much more of an accessible community event with plenty of children and non-enthusiasts taking part. So it's certainly fair to say that smaller events with open roads are more likely to be welcomed. It's hard to say how close to 15,000 participants and a fully closed route they'd be able to grow before significant objections were raised, but just how important is it to have 15,000 people doing the same thing at the same time to the exclusion of others?

This should also reinforce my thoughts around your "frequent minor inconvenience versus annual massive inconvenience" question: the area already tolerates the former.

[slowster]

As far as I can see (and I may be missing something here) this hasn't evolved from an established event in the area, gradually reaching the scale where road closures are worthwhile; it's a company deciding to drop 15,000 people in for a totally new event for which they've annexed the roads, and requiring everyone in the area to just suck it up. It's quite an arrogant business model, to say the least.

That would be arrogant but I don't think this company has annexed the roads. Rather, they've applied to local government for the closure and been granted it. If that closure has been mishandled, surely that's the fault of the voters for electing a local government that hasn't protected their interests by insisting on sufficient or suitably-placed marshalled crossings.

As for it starting large: would it really be any more likely to be welcomed if it had evolved from a smaller event? I'm sure I remember other cycling events being effectively shut down by crippling red tape and refusals/failures to close roads once they reached sufficient size and tried to step up.

I suspect that the transition from an open roads event to a closed one is a very difficult one to make in the more populated areas of the UK. Open roads events, including commercial sportives as well as not for profit events organised by clubs, will typically have limits on the numbers of participants, for reasons including limiting disruption to locals and other road users. Stepping up to a closed roads event probably requires that the character and nature of the event and its organisation drastically changes. The extra complexities, work and specialist knowledge/skills/experience probably mean it has to be on a professional/commercial basis. The need to justify the road closures and to fund the organising probably means that there has to be a huge jump in the numbers of participants, rather than a gradual year on year increase. Those 'barriers to entry' have resulted in a gap in the market (i.e. for closed roads events) which CSM has identified that it can fill and exploit/profit from. The London Marathon did not gradually build up to road closures: it started in a 'big bang' with 6,000+ runners. However, it also started from the very beginning as a registered charity, and has always been very much an inclusive event, e.g. introducing the wheelchair marathon race two years after the first event.

It's interesting to compare Velo South with the Isle of Wight Randonnee on open roads, which is free to enter, has 3,000 participants (enabled by multiple start point options and no set start time), and is much more inclusive (targeted at any and all cyclists, whatever bike they ride, and with a shorter route for the less fit and family groups).

The Isle of Wight also has a week long cycle festival which comprises lots of different events, including a 100 mile sportive. Many of the events are free, and even those that have an entry fee for adults are free for children/youths (the sportive charges a reduced fee of £5 for under 16s).

CSM are little more than carpetbaggers. They do not appear to be doing anything for the sport, for disadvantaged groups, or for the people of West Sussex. Their business model seems to depend upon being able to identify an area where they can get permission to run a large event which closes 100 miles of roads, and then to market that event to the more affluent cyclists who can afford the relatively high costs. Having staged an event, they disappear and leave everyone local riding a bike to deal with the ill will towards cyclists that the event has generated.

[Philip Whiteman]

I can only speak from experience in terms of CSM's previous event, Velo Birmingham. At this point I would like to stress that I am not opposed to the principle of closed road cycling events but CSM's approach was not acceptable. Here is a run-down on Velo Birmingham:

Relationships with Communities

- They initially sent a mailshot to residents that read like an ultimatum and the backlash was predictable. It included text telling vulnerable people to 'make their own arrangements' for receipt of health and social care services. Any persons found to have parked their vehicle on the highway would have it removed (this is understandable but the language was undiplomatic).

- CSM failed to respond to questions posed to them by residents on matters of access. This included questions from NHS workers on access and from other essential workers attempting to reach their place of employment.

- CSM did not consult any of the parishes, though I note they have not repeated that mistake with Velo South.

- Many of the roads were inexplicably closed hours in advance of actual cyclists arriving, leaving communities feeling annoyed.

- Marshals had insufficient knowledge of the locality to advice local residents on how to by-pass the closed roads.

- CSM failed to consult the local authorities or blue light services before announcing the exact route and closure times. To say that councillors and officers of the respective highways authorities were furious would be an understatement and there soon followed a considerable amount of pleading by CSM in following months. Herefordshire pulling out completely. I note that Velo South have consulted with West Sussex County Council as the highways authority and have sent out consultation leaflets to the parish councils.

Changes to routes

- Initially entrants were offered a stunning route that attracted a great deal of interest. Following public backlash and objections from local authorities and other interested parties, they were offered a less than imaginative route which was considerably different to the advertised version.

Selling short

- The event had 15,000 entrants and 11,000 starters, yet catering at the feed stops only provided for half the number of riders, leaving many feeling short-changed.

- Supposedly closed roads were reopened in advance of the slowest cyclists returning back into central Birmingham leaving riders have negotiate busy main routes.

- Late entrants found the International Convention Centre, the HQ for the event, closed and locked when they returned, with medals left in a box outside of the front door.

- Many people had paid additional fees for car parking yet some found a car park locked and barred shut when they had returned. Velo Birmingham were unable to assist and the police were called to resolve the situation.

- The event was promoted to cyclists and residents as a charitable event when it clearly was not.

Addendum

CSM are planning on another Velo Birmingham scheduled for 12th May but using a completely new urban route including Castle Vale, Bedworth, Coventry, Solihull, Northfield and back into Birmingham.

[TrevA]

So it's OK for many townies to have their roads effectively blocked without due process by a football stadium's 40,000 people many times a year, but villagers having the roads closed by formal application once a year isn't? Sounds like double standards, doesn't it?

Have you ever been to a football match, or driven/ridden past one?

The crowd trickle into the ground over the course of an hour or more. There's a rush to get out at the end of the match, but they are all gone in 10 minutes. The traffic is busier than normal for a further 15 mins, but it's hardly lock down. No worse than traffic at rush hour in my experience, and I'm a regular at the City Ground (average crowd 25,000) for my sins.

I also pass the City Ground on my commute. Traffic is worse at 8.30am on a weekday, than it is at 4.50pm on a match day Saturday.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I can only speak from experience in terms of CSM's previous event, Velo Birmingham. At this point I would like to stress that I am not opposed to the principle of closed road cycling events but CSM's approach was not acceptable. Here is a run-down on Velo Birmingham:

I’m sure they aren’t overly concerned about what is a minority opinion.

Relationships with Communities

- They initially sent a mailshot to residents that read like an ultimatum and the backlash was predictable. It included text telling vulnerable people to 'make their own arrangements' for receipt of health and social care services. Any persons found to have parked their vehicle on the highway would have it removed (this is understandable but the language was undiplomatic).

“Read like an ultimatum”? A tad dramatic there.

- CSM failed to respond to questions posed to them by residents on matters of access. This included questions from NHS workers on access and from other essential workers attempting to reach their place of employment.

They responded individually, to those who needed a response, on a case by case basis.

- CSM did not consult any of the parishes, though I note they have not repeated that mistake with Velo South.

That was an oversight, they have sorted it this time.

- Many of the roads were inexplicably closed hours in advance of actual cyclists arriving, leaving communities feeling annoyed.

No one knew exactly what the pace of the riders would be, so they played it safe.

- Marshals had insufficient knowledge of the locality to advice local residents on how to by-pass the closed roads.

What did they expect, all the ( volunteer ) marshals to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the whole area?

- CSM failed to consult the local authorities or blue light services before announcing the exact route and closure times. To say that councillors and officers of the respective highways authorities were furious would be an understatement and there soon followed a considerable amount of pleading by CSM in following months. Herefordshire pulling out completely. I note that Velo South have consulted with West Sussex County Council as the highways authority and have sent out consultation leaflets to the parish councils.

They learned, and improved the process.

Changes to routes

- Initially entrants were offered a stunning route that attracted a great deal of interest. Following public backlash and objections from local authorities and other interested parties, they were offered a less than imaginative route which was considerably different to the advertised version.

It was adjusted a bit, but it was hardly “uninspiring”

Selling short

- The event had 15,000 entrants and 11,000 starters, yet catering at the feed stops only provided for half the number of riders, leaving many feeling short-changed.

They couldn’t control people filling their pockets, rather than only taking what they needed / a fair amount.

If you put enough effort in to reach the feeding points in a reasonable time, there wasn’t an issue, if you dawdled/ walked up any of the climbs, you ran the risk of not getting to the feed points in time. This was supposed to be a ‘Sportive’ not a slow paced social ride with their mates, after all.

- Supposedly closed roads were reopened in advance of the slowest cyclists returning back into central Birmingham leaving riders have negotiate busy main routes.

The organisers couldn’t hold the closures past the agreed latest time, if the riders didn’t get back to Brum by then, they really were going unreasonably slow.

- Late entrants found the International Convention Centre, the HQ for the event, closed and locked when they returned, with medals left in a box outside of the front door.

How late was this? I didn’t hear of any issues personally, but if that was the case, I imagine the organisers assumed the riders had abandoned.

- Many people had paid additional fees for car parking yet some found a car park locked and barred shut when they had returned. Velo Birmingham were unable to assist and the police were called to resolve the situation.

That’s not on at all.

- The event was promoted to cyclists and residents as a charitable event when it clearly was not.

No they didn’t.

Addendum

CSM are planning on another Velo Birmingham scheduled for 12th May but using a completely new urban route including Castle Vale, Bedworth, Coventry, Solihull, Northfield and back into Birmingham.

If it’s as good as the first one, I look forward to it.

[mjr]

Have you ever been to a football match, or driven/ridden past one?

Yes, thank you, both, many times.

The crowd trickle into the ground over the course of an hour or more. There's a rush to get out at the end of the match, but they are all gone in 10 minutes.

That's not been my experience.

I'm a regular at the City Ground (average crowd 25,000) for my sins.

Ah! If I remember rightly, the City Ground is some way back from a major road and has access to an underpass of Trent Bridge and whatever the major road the other side is, allowing some of the people to walk out (as they often do early ) quickly and without blocking traffic.

[Si]

So it's OK for many townies to have their roads effectively blocked without due process by a football stadium's 40,000 people many times a year, but villagers having the roads closed by formal application once a year isn't? Sounds like double standards, doesn't it?

Have you ever been to a football match, or driven/ridden past one?

The crowd trickle into the ground over the course of an hour or more. There's a rush to get out at the end of the match, but they are all gone in 10 minutes. The traffic is busier than normal for a further 15 mins, but it's hardly lock down. No worse than traffic at rush hour in my experience, and I'm a regular at the City Ground (average crowd 25,000) for my sins.

I also pass the City Ground on my commute. Traffic is worse at 8.30am on a weekday, than it is at 4.50pm on a match day Saturday.

i used to lose a day's worth of pay every time the villa played at home as my place of work didnt open due to traffic issues. I have to say that that was somewhat more inconvienient than having the road closed for one sunday in the year, nonetheless we just got on with it without acting as though it was the end of days. Not that im especially enraptured by sportives....and wouldnt enter one , and i am sympathetic to those few who are genuinely put out by the road closures, not to mention unimpressed by the lack of communication; equally though i am disheartened by the large number of green ink little englander proffessional complainers out there.

[ianrobo]

So it's OK for many townies to have their roads effectively blocked without due process by a football stadium's 40,000 people many times a year, but villagers having the roads closed by formal application once a year isn't? Sounds like double standards, doesn't it?

Have you ever been to a football match, or driven/ridden past one?

The crowd trickle into the ground over the course of an hour or more. There's a rush to get out at the end of the match, but they are all gone in 10 minutes. The traffic is busier than normal for a further 15 mins, but it's hardly lock down. No worse than traffic at rush hour in my experience, and I'm a regular at the City Ground (average crowd 25,000) for my sins.

I also pass the City Ground on my commute. Traffic is worse at 8.30am on a weekday, than it is at 4.50pm on a match day Saturday.

i used to lose a day's worth of pay every time the villa played at home as my place of work didnt open due to traffic issues. I have to say that that was somewhat more inconvienient than having the road closed for one sunday in the year, nonetheless we just got on with it without acting as though it was the end of days. Not that im especially enraptured by sportives....and wouldnt enter one , and i am sympathetic to those few who are genuinely put out by the road closures, not to mention unimpressed by the lack of communication; equally though i am disheartened by the large number of green ink little englander proffessional complainers out there.

I was going to mention Villa Simon, inner city ground and if at capacity (not often) massive shortage of parking and some people have been known to wait two hours before starting off, then add in pollution etc. OK many say people moved there knowing the club was there but a lot of clubs relocated.