- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
New Forest rider and pony (CC licensed by iNew Forest:Flickr)New Forest passes events charter despite cycling group opposition
The board of the New Forest National Park Authority today voted to approve the New Forest Cycling Events Charter drawn up by its Cycling Liaison Group, despite the opposition of cycling event organisers and groups to two major aspects of the charter.
The sticking point in what was intended to be a set of guidelines that organisers would voluntarily follow, was the requirement that cycling events in the forest should be limited to 1000 riders and that riders should wear identifying numbers front and back.
A letter from local representatives of CTC, Sustrans and British Cycling described that provision as “discriminatory and disproportionate”, while UK Cycling Events, the only body that has run events in the forest with more than 1,000 riders, opposed the limit.
Martin Barden who runs UK Cycling Events told road.cc that his company would not be following the recommendation for a 1,000 rider limit. Instead, he said, UK Cycling Events would continue to work with the district council's Safety Advisory Group to safely run its events.
According to an attendee of the meeting, who spoke to road.cc on condition of anonimity, it was characterised by a "complete lack of considered discussion by members".
Our source said the meeting voted to amend the (already-approved) minutes of its June 2014 meeting to resolve that:
1) The NPA will only support the draft Charter if it is amended to include cap of 1000 cyclists and to require that rides wear rear numbers and
2) If the Charter is not adhered to … the NPA will look to persuade the Government to change legislation so that local authorities will have control over the events.
An amendment was tabled proposing that the Safety Advisory Group should determine any limit on an event on a case by case basis.
Totton councillor David Harrison spoke in support of that and other amendments proposed by cycling organisations, but only he and two others — John Pemberton and Marian Spain, both Secretary of State appointees to the NFNPA — supported the amendment, with 17 against.
Despite rejecting an amendment that would put the Safety Advisory Group at the centre of regulating sportives in the New Forest, NFNPA members claimed that safety was paramount in their minds.
As Forest Cyclist pointed out in his open letter yesterday, "the NFNPA has produced absolutely no tangible independent evidence as to why the cap is needed" and Freedom of Information requests have failed to turn up evidence of incidents connected to cycle sportives in the New Forest.
Following the NFNPA's decision to approve the charter, CTC Campaigns Coordinator Sam Jones said: “The cap in cycling numbers, which the Park Authority mandated to be included in the Charter, was loosely justified on safety grounds.
"It is therefore mystifying and incredibly frustrating that our amendment which placed the Safety Advisory Group at the very heart of decision making for each and every cycle event was rejected.
"Instead, an arbitrary and discriminatory cap with no foundation in evidence will be implemented."
While the charter is currently voluntary, and the NFNPA has no statutory authority of any kind to enforce it, its members are determined the rider limit should be imposed.
The Bournemouth Echo reports that during the meeting, NPA member Maureen Holding, said: “If this doesn't work we should call in the MP and pursue rules and regulations that are enforceable.
“We want safety in our forest and we want everyone to be able to enjoy the area, not just cyclists.”
Our source at the meeting reports that Ms Holding said she believed a limit of 500 would be more appropriate, perhaps indicating that the 1,000-rider limit is just the thin end of the wedge — once in place the NFNPA can easily vote to reduce it.
David Harrison accused the authority of “victimising” cyclists, according to the Echo.
He said: “We are making a serious misjudgement by digging in our heels and preventing us having a charter that cyclists will sign up to.”
Cllr Harrison later told road.cc that the NFNPA's attitude to cycling was "baffling".
He added: "All I can offer is that some influential people have been lobbied by a very small minority of people who have ever experienced any problem with large scale cycling events.
"The internal politics of the New Forest is often hard to work out. It's very Conservative and strongly resistant to change of any kind."
We understand that Nigel Matthews, head of recreation management and learning for the park, said the Safety Advisory Group would "find it difficult to ignore" the charter given that it is supported by public bodies.
That will put the Safety Advisory Group in the interesting position of having to justify moving from approving events with over 2,000 riders as recently as last October to only approving events with less than half that number.
CTC's Sam Jones added: “This seems like a total rejection of cycle groups’ willingness to engage and work with the NFNPA and those who in live in the New Forest towards an amicable solution, and CTC will now consider what steps we can take next.”
John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.
He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.
Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.
John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.
He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.
Latest Comments
- mdavidford 24 min 45 sec ago
Anyone ever seen them in the same place at the same time?
- bikeman01 40 min 4 sec ago
Dont know why you didnt just send in a muted video if it was only your language that was incriminating. Did the or anyone else even hear you...
- Boopop 43 min 23 sec ago
Bravo! I'd love to know what modifications were made to it. I would hope going up huge hills means he had lower gear than standard.
- mdavidford 51 min 24 sec ago
We might equally pertinently ask: does this stuff come with less rubbish/trash/litter/landfill/etc. than an equivalent product that comes in...
- brooksby 1 hour 5 min ago
I think that they are 'access' or 'deliveries only'. Seems weird that these people appear to think that cyclists are a death-causing menace...
- Paul J 1 hour 28 min ago
Where do you get those numbers? I have their Power Shield Pro and Power Shield RPM pages open here now and I read this, C&Ping from the pages...
- Beatnik69 2 hours 15 min ago
I have a funny feeling that Translink don't allow bikes on trains before 9am, which is ridiculous. They ned to bring back the guard van that used...
- Daveyraveygravey 2 hours 24 min ago
+1 for my Proviz jacket. It's a proper one although I think I got it half price for £50....
- eburtthebike 2 hours 48 min ago
Much better than what I was trying to concoct.
- chrisonabike 3 hours 5 min ago
Was it you that stole my bike?...
Add new comment
54 comments
How about all wearing no.1, as clearly all the voters in favour of the 1000 limit are only looking out for no.1?
Love the idea of going for a nice casual ride in the forest. My mum lives there and pootles round on an electric bike (don't judge! She's got health problems!). Nice and slow, of course, and two abreast so we can chat. And as a native of the forest, surely no one could protest?!?
Call me an old fuddy dudy rules geek, but how can a public body vote to amend its previously agreed minutes?
Also, a National Park Authority, as a public body, still has to demonstrate that its decisions pass the Wednesbury test of reasonableness. The absence of any evidence of either harm or risk would make this, it seems to me, a very risky decision.
I've now read the report to the NFNPA, which appears to have been written by a National Park official with all the legal skills of a slow worm. It's clear that the charter is voluntary, and utterly unenforceable, and that the SAG could find any decision to hinder events very easily challenged.
Here's just one example of the utter stupidity of the bimbling fool who wrote the report. Apparently, the idea about having rear numbers is so that problem riders can be reported by the pathetic, shallow anti-cycling residents of the New Forest, who would then expect event organizers to report those complained about to the police, even making use of their data from timing chips if possible. Have these idiots never heard of the Data Protection Act? If I give Wiggle my details so I can enter their event, they can't share that data with anyone else without my consent, except in the circumstances covered by a RIPA request or similar. Do the wizened ancients of the New Forest really expect the police to send a RIPA request to a third party because someone startled their favourite pony?
Wednesbury unreasonableness is actually pretty difficult to demonstrate. Probably a non-starter.
What date works best, not a bank hols weekend, but maybe something mid May for 20k cyclists to take to the new forest with number 1001 on their front and back...
Be interested to see/hear how they are going to enforce this one especially if the event starts outside the national park and sticks to the public highway.
Feel genuinely sorry for anyone who has this as their local stomping ground and any small businesses in the area that rely on income from tourists.
They can't in any way enforce it, inside, outside, doesn't matter. They're a little yapping dog. I think the only response that British Cycling and the CTC should send is one that says "bite me".
If it wasnt so far from here I'd be down there in a flash for a huge group ride. In fact when ever there was an event I'd make a point of riding the area. bunch of twunts
Aren't these the people that killed their Road Safety mascot?
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/11649003.Young_donkey_used_in_New_...
Maybe an informal 'dun run' type event where nobody follows rules except those set out in the Highway Code.
Or just avoid the place. Loads of areas welcome the trade and even more have no real tourism... 'Quarries and hills' an East Midlands mass bike ride anyone?
Maybe an informal 'dun run' type event where nobody follows rules except those set out in the Highway Code.
Or just avoid the place. Loads of areas welcome the trade and even more have no real tourism... 'Quarries and hills' an East Midlands mass bike ride anyone?
I've said it before, but if I am rider number 1001, how exactly do the NFNPA intend to stop me riding a bike on a public highway in a National Park?
And if you happen to be wearing number 1001, but got there before riders 1-1000 inclusive, who is the rule-breaker?
and what is to stop two organisers organising two rides on the same route at the same time? What if someone drops out? does that mean someone can start late?
The NFNPA should be taken to court for abuse of position, they are clearly not fit to hold public office, they can offer no reasoned explanation of their actions, they are not addressing the other LARGER events that occur in the new forest that cause greater disruption.
1) Could all riders wear the same number? 'I'm Spartacus' style!
2) Whilst maybe your version is still accurate, I think the intention is that 'Conservative' should have been 'conservative' in the fourth para from the end?
3) Don't the Nimby's win either way? If cycling events don't conform it will now be claimed that we are ignoring established safety guidelines....
4) Where do I sign to create some pressure on National government to review the actions, and governance, of its appointees in this matter?
5) Are there similar restrictions in place for any equestrian events - or don't they exist?
re 1) everyone to dress as a Ninja and scare the s**t out of the locals would be better. "So sir/madam can you describe the perpetrator for me" ... "Well they all looked the same officer"
re 2) Conservative is about right even if he meant conservative.
re 3) Yep and that's what they want to give the local idiots an excuse to cause trouble.
re 4) no where. That's the problem with the NFNPA they don't seem to be responsible to anyone who gives a s**t
re 5) sorry just had to pick myself off the floor after falling off laughing after reading your comment about the equestrian events - I want to live in Belgium spiritual home of the cyclist and they eat horse.
Hardly any need to dress up:
"Well officer, they were wearing black shorts, a sort of red and white top, wearing a helmet and riding a bicycle."
"Good madam, that narrows it down to around 600 suspects..."
Class!
How about a campaign to have the New Forest stripped of its National Park status on the grounds that it has failed to honour the terms and obligations in its founding charter?
That's exactly what some members of the NFNPA would want as they didn't want the NF to be a NP in the first place, and this includes the Chairman.
What we'd really want is more powers in NPs associated with planning, building, maintenance, and land use, now more restrictions on how the land holding NFNPA members can use "their" land would really get up their noses.
It just sounds like their being vindictive now. I live just the other side of Southampton and since this issue started I've gone out of my way not go to the NF, and I have no intention of spending any more money there. I hope the place gets turning into a 20 lane highway, it seams to be the most important thing to the "locals"
Why not get in first under existing legislation and get the cycling bodies to charge the New Forest Authority with discrimination against cyclists and/or inciting hatred?
Not childish - but a very british way to protest bad regulation and corrupt governing.
Just make sure you all ware a number (front and back) to push the point home
Anyone else up for a critical mass ride in the New Forest
A huge own goal for a National Park. Can we now have limits on cars entering the Lake District, Peaks and Yorkshire Dales? The risks to pedestrians on these narrow roads, many without pavements, are significant so perhaps the safety grounds need looking at? Now a childish thought would be for us to enjoy a large, 10,000 rider informal pedal in every month?!
Pages