PH wrote:Cugel wrote:... it's survived many a long year without such a closure to non-event cyclists, previously. Isn't this someone just getting carried away with the "fierce marshal" thing?
It's grown in popularity over the years, from a couple of hundred to having to close entries at 2,500. I'm guessing that the maximum number was something that came from a risk assessment, or agreed with the insurers or some other authority. Whatever it was the didn't want to exceed it for profit or pleasure.
As to the necessity, why does it have to be essential, why not just desirable? Is it just that you consider those wanting it to be sheep? What's wrong with using a public space for the pleasure of thousands at the inconvenience of a few? But the original point from the organisers wasn't about inconveniencing anyone, it was an attempt to stop those who didn't have a place from acting as if they did.
Exactly. A perfectly reasonable attitude. Several posters have backed this up.
Meanwhile, why all this animosity to a charity rider? This is about an event for 5 specific charities:
https://www.fredwhittonchallenge.co.uk/ ... charities/
The biggest of the 5 - MacM - you informed us at length about your support to them. What about the other 4? They look much less top-heavy to me.
What do you have against them?
You see, there was no need to shoot down the cyclist in question. But you saw an opportunity for further Smart Ass-ery."our charitable contributions are better than yours." Well done.