Fred Whitton

[mattheus]

... 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?
Cugel

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.

[Cyril Haearn]

I worked as a recruitment Chugger for more than a year, the agency got half of the first years membership fees, the charity got more in the second and later years
Chuggers have to live and eat like anyone else, besides we stayed in hotels and had to move on when an area had been exhausted
I sometimes think it was the worst AND the best job I ever had
We were fighting for a good cause (animals) but 'promotion' on the same lines could be done for cigarettes alcohol etc etc, 'road safety' even maybe

[alexnharvey]

I objected to the organisers announcing that the road was closed to other cyclists when it wasn't. I have some sympathy with them given the difficulties of unregistered riders following the same route on the same day. Obviously it's difficult to distinguish cyclists who unfortunately arrive to cycle a famous climb on that day unaware from those who are fully aware of the event.

If they had instead suggested limiting the numbers of cyclists either beginning or on the main climbs at any point, or sought to control or even prohibit contraflow bicycle traffic for a time in the interests of safety I thought that would've been quite reasonable.

[althebike]

There is also the point of spectators, friends and support who usually place themselves at the top of a hill .In no way are they taking unethical advantage of the event, just spectating or supporting a ride.

[mattheus]

There is also the point of spectators, friends and support who usually place themselves at the top of a hill .In no way are they taking unethical advantage of the event, just spectating or supporting a ride.

They could get the full "Alpe d'Huez" experience and camp-out the night before. win-win!

[roubaixtuesday]

There is also the point of spectators, friends and support who usually place themselves at the top of a hill .In no way are they taking unethical advantage of the event, just spectating or supporting a ride.

That would be fine at the top of perhaps Whinlatter where there is parking and a road that can take traffic.

But the Hardknott?? Even a dozen vehicles could cause carnage. The ban is probably the only safe and practical way to allow the event to take place at all.

[Vorpal]

I am willing to be corrected, but I don't think that there is any legal way to ban non-participants from cycling the route during an event. Motor vehicles can be banned using a temporary traffic regulation order. But I don't think that there is a way to ban one group of cyclists, yet allow another.

They can politely request non-participants to find another route. They cannot enforce it.

The police *might* be able to justify enforcing it on the basis of public safety, but I'm not sure that would hold up under legal scrutiny.

I'm not suggesting that people should ignore a request from a police officer.

[alexnharvey]

That would be fine at the top of perhaps Whinlatter where there is parking and a road that can take traffic.

But the Hardknott?? Even a dozen vehicles could cause carnage. The ban is probably the only safe and practical way to allow the event to take place at all.

What ban?

[roubaixtuesday]

That would be fine at the top of perhaps Whinlatter where there is parking and a road that can take traffic.

But the Hardknott?? Even a dozen vehicles could cause carnage. The ban is probably the only safe and practical way to allow the event to take place at all.

What ban?

The ban on vehicles and non-event cyclists over the hardknott.

[alexnharvey]

There was no such ban according to the details of the road closure notice which stated that a way will be maintained for pedestrians and cyclists at all times.

[100%JR]

There was no such ban according to the details of the road closure notice which stated that a way will be maintained for pedestrians and cyclists at all times.

There was if you read post #1 of this thread.
The organisers posted on Social Media that cyclists without an event number would not be allowed to ride Hard Knott pass.
The notification was posted the same day I posted post #1 ie Friday 10th May.

[PH]

There was no such ban according to the details of the road closure notice which stated that a way will be maintained for pedestrians and cyclists at all times.

There was if you read post #1 of this thread.
The organisers posted on Social Media that cyclists without an event number would not be allowed to ride Hard Knott pass.
The notification was posted the same day I posted post #1 ie Friday 10th May.

Here is the official road closure notice
https://www.halsteadgazette.co.uk/annou ... RDER_2018/

Whatever the organisers were saying, they didn't have the authority go do anything not covered by the notice. OTOH - where it says "a way will be maintained for pedestrians and cyclists at all times" doesn't necessarily mean open access, it just means what it says.

[althebike]

I did FW twice, with no talk of restrictions on the road. Both times there were cyclists waiting at the top of Hardnot to cheer on friends and clubmates. Some handed out fresh bottles or had munchies for the riders, I do not recall cars at the top creating carnage. Mind you I will never forget the smell of burning clutches.

[alexnharvey]

There was no such ban according to the details of the road closure notice which stated that a way will be maintained for pedestrians and cyclists at all times.

There was if you read post #1 of this thread.
The organisers posted on Social Media that cyclists without an event number would not be allowed to ride Hard Knott pass.
The notification was posted the same day I posted post #1 ie Friday 10th May.

I did read the first post, mine was the first response. I went to the facebook page and someone had very helpfully posted the actual text of the road closure notice. Have you read it?

By the way, did you hear the street you live on is closed to bicycle traffic tomorrow for 8 hours? I just saw it posted on Facebook.

[100%JR]

There was no such ban according to the details of the road closure notice which stated that a way will be maintained for pedestrians and cyclists at all times.

There was if you read post #1 of this thread.
The organisers posted on Social Media that cyclists without an event number would not be allowed to ride Hard Knott pass.
The notification was posted the same day I posted post #1 ie Friday 10th May.

I did read the first post, mine was the first response. I went to the facebook page and someone had very helpfully posted the actual text of the road closure notice. Have you read it?

By the way, did you hear the street you live on is closed to bicycle traffic tomorrow for 8 hours? I just saw it posted on Facebook.

yXLTbs.png

Do you mean this actual text on the official Saddleback Fred Whitton Challenge Facebook page?



Yes I read it and have just done so again
What part of that text confuses you?
I mean if you can't trust the official page linked from the official website then who can you trust
I supposed it could have been hacked but that message is still there today.