New Forest MPs call for legal regulation of sportives — and British Cycling agrees

Must be Mad wrote:

I do think that Sportives should be better coordinated - it seems as though there is a sportive going up box hill every other weekend, and that is frankly too much.

So - who to regulate? Surly a pro-bike organization such as BC are going to be better than the New Forest lot?

Why should it be a cycling organisation though? If a local motorbike club holds an event, which co-incidentally has overlapped quite frequently with HONC, what is achieved by a cycling only organisation being in control?

Isn't this where SAGs and the like come in???? Get the interested parties in a room and talk?

Must be Mad wrote:

I do think that Sportives should be better coordinated - it seems as though there is a sportive going up box hill every other weekend, and that is frankly too much.

So - who to regulate? Surly a pro-bike organization such as BC are going to be better than the New Forest lot?

There's cyclists going up box hill every day of the week - not to mention motorists. What's 'too much' ?

The M25 is frequently at a standstill at peak commute time. Is that 'too much' or something else ?

Must be Mad wrote:

I do think that Sportives should be better coordinated - it seems as though there is a sportive going up box hill every other weekend, and that is frankly too much.

So - who to regulate? Surly a pro-bike organization such as BC are going to be better than the New Forest lot?

Sympathy with you guys in The South, although I can't help thinking that there are probably less popular and easily accesible sportives that are keeping their heads down in The South whilst those over-hyping New Forest argument generate negative publicity for all sportives.

Try this - not that many entrants and very few cars:

http://www.handsonevents.co.uk/?page_id=343

or practically anywhere else that isn't the New Forest...

jacknorell wrote:

Stinks. I'm cancelling my membership, there are alternatives for getting the commuting insurance and legal assistance covered.

Indeed. I've got the cheapest BC membership simply for buying advance tickets for events, but haven't even done that this year.
Despite grumbles about the CTC and their charity-chasing fiasco, I guess they'll be keeping my membership money..

arrieredupeleton wrote:

As a parent with a young family, we like to holiday in the UK and ideally somewhere with good riding close by. However, I can't see myself spending any time in the Nimby, I mean New Forest.

I suppose I don't blame the NFNPA for representing residents to a certain degree but the MP's are by and large, jumping on this as a hobby horse for political gain. I suppose they have to been seen to be doing something. It's not like they have major employment or crime problems down there.

Trouble is, NFNPA doesn't really represent "residents". It is heavily in thrall to the Verderers. This group is elected after a fashion - their electorate comprises New Forest "Commoners" who have registered to vote, but the number of those is less than 1,000. If you live in a bungalow in Lyndhurst or Brockenhurst you are almost certainly not a commoner, so you don't get a vote.

NFNPA claims significant opposition to large cycle events in the Forest, but there is no admissible evidence for this claim - their own officers conducted a proper opinion survey, with multiple points of delivery (drop in centres, online, the New Forest Show) in which only a small single figure percentage of respondents even mentioned the size of events being an issue for them. All they actually have to go on is the ear-poundings they get from lippy nimbies across the bar at their local golf club or the Conservative Association. they almost certainly hear nothing whatever from anyone who isn't a member of the Tory Party, or who doesn't play golf, or who doesn't graze a few ponies on the Forest (and those last should know that their animals are only at risk from speeding cars - there is not one recorded instance of a pony or donkey being killed by a bicycle).

Truth is that the New Forest is run like the feudal fiefdom that it always has been since the day in the 11th century when William Rufus established it as his personal hunting ground.

Where is Walter Tirel when you need him?

crazy-legs wrote:

Problem with the New Forest stuff is that you've got a vaguely elected group of NIMBYs setting their own very dangerous agenda. Far better for an overall body to be pushing for a form of nationwide legislation than various "biased parties" making their own local rules.

I don't think BC would ever call for things like numbers front & rear, caps on rider numbers etc. but there does need to be something to aid calendar coordination so that you don't end up with situations of Sportives and/or road races attempting to use the same bit of road on the same day or over-using one area and pissing off the locals.

At the moment, I could go out and put on a Sportive and not tell anyone - Police, Highways, BC... None of them need to know and that is surely wrong? You get 3 people doing that on the same weekend with no control or "looking at the bigger picture" and it's a recipe for disaster (and that leads to NIMBYs bashing cycling). If there's a clear procedure for events to go through, people can't really complain. Well, they can but it won't go any further, it'll simply be a case of "they obeyed the law, now shut up".

James, do you still work for British Cycling ?

mrmo wrote:

yes it makes sense to co-ordinate events, but is this simply a land grab by British Cycling? Are we going to end up with groups wearing black jerseys and using codes to identify where they are riding?

As an aside how healthy is road racing in the UK, I seem to recall a number of events have been abandoned/blocked/etc because of and by police in recent years.

Take the NFNPA, the verderers and the local constabulary, how independent of each other are they.....

This isn't just sportives, what about Audax? Are BC trying to land grab that as well.

And what about the real problem on the roads? cars? Where are the calls to regulate car rallies, shows, events etc? What about the load Glastonbury places on local roads? How about Sunday drivers in Richmond Park? What about the Motorcyclists on the Horseshoe at the Ponderosa?

If you look at one group in isolation what do you actually achieve?

Yep I agree. British Cycling are in overreach here and I am BC member. Yes I definitely agree that sportives should be coordinated and that there should be some guidelines agreed about the routes, the numbers, the frequency etc. But this should be voluntary and the sort of thing that amounts to just good sense, courtesy and manners.

BC needs to be very careful that they're not backing a bill that someone then adds an amendement to that suts down some of their activities. It's easily done and this bill could well become a Trojan Horse bill for lots of anti-cycling (or more particularly anti freedom to cycle on the roads by right )legislation.

mrmo wrote:

yes it makes sense to co-ordinate events, but is this simply a land grab by British Cycling?
(snip)
As an aside how healthy is road racing in the UK, I seem to recall a number of events have been abandoned/blocked/etc because of and by police in recent years.

I suspect the latter may be part of the reason for the former..

mrmo wrote:

This isn't just sportives, what about Audax? Are BC trying to land grab that as well.

Nah, that's 'cos some Audaxers ride recumbents
On a more serious note - that's probably one reason not to have BC, as they stand, have anything to do with events outside racing. RideLondon (not sure that it was originally planned for, or followed badgering by various people) are trialling 'bents this year after trialling tandems last year.

Velothon Wales - a UCI sanctioned event IIRC - allow tandems, but don't allow recumbents. (Just checked, seems Velothon Berlin has the same head-up-it's-arse regulation *rollseyes*)

And a Desperate Dan chin.