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."
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."
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,
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.
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.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
