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.”




-1024x680.jpg)


















54 thoughts on “New Forest passes events charter despite cycling group opposition”
A huge own goal for a
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?!
Anyone else up for a critical
Anyone else up for a critical mass ride in the New Forest :))
Quote:Now a childish thought
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
Why not get in first under
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?
It just sounds like their
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”
How about a campaign to have
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?
levermonkey wrote:How about a
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.
1) Could all riders wear the
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?
Glen C wrote:1) Could all
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.
usedtobefaster wrote:[re 1)
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…”
Glen C wrote:1) Could all
Class!
I’ve said it before, but if I
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?
Grubbythumb wrote:I’ve said
And if you happen to be wearing number 1001, but got there before riders 1-1000 inclusive, who is the rule-breaker?
Man of Lard wrote:Grubbythumb
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.
Maybe an informal ‘dun run’
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’
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?
Aren’t these the people that
Aren’t these the people that killed their Road Safety mascot?
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/11649003.Young_donkey_used_in_New_Forest_road_safety_campaign_is_killed_after_being_hit_by_car/?ref=rss
If it wasnt so far from here
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
Be interested to see/hear how
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.
badback wrote:Be interested
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”.
What date works best, not a
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…
Call me an old fuddy dudy
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?
exilegareth wrote:
Also, a
Wednesbury unreasonableness is actually pretty difficult to demonstrate. Probably a non-starter.
How about all wearing no.1,
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?!?
1) Descend in vast
1) Descend in vast numbers,
2) Have different numbers front and back, even if not entered.
3) Ride two abreast, slowly.
4) Bring a picnic so as not to spend money on local businesses
5) Ensure you don’t book local accommodation (Southampton isn’t far away)
6) Report ALL instances of aggression or dangerous driving ti the police and lay charges
That’s a good start. 😉
goggy wrote:1) Descend in
One of the many, many ridiculous things about this whole debacle is that a lot of the local business owners are not anti cycling at all. They get that it can boost their business. A lot of the local hotels and B&Bs are happy to store bikes and I’ve found taxi firms that don’t mind carrying your bike. So they are also being unfairly impacted by moves by the NFNPA to reduce cycling tourism. Yet more evidence that their approach here is absolutely sod all to do with the greater good but the actions of a small band of incredibly selfish individuals. Maybe if they got on a bike for a bit and got some exercise they’d get a bit of an endorphin rush and stop being so bloody mean about this.
These people don’t seem to
These people don’t seem to get out much as their website states ”the New Forest is unique in that it is a working forest with forestry, farming and equestrian activity on its narrow roads as well as free-roaming animals” as that pretty much describes most of the UK’s national parks, at least the ones I am familiar with, and a lot of the countryside in between.
Do the New Forest National Park Authority realise what an ignorant, parochial, self absorbed and self serving bunch they appear to be to the world outside their little south coast bubble?
Quote:think you will find 667
Surly 668 would be the neighbour of the beast?
Must be Mad wrote:Quote:think
What’s the postcode of the beast?
S4 7AN ?
S4 7AN ?
exilegareth wrote:S4 7AN
Osgathorpe Crescent, Sheffield, S4 7AN
Best stay away then.
exilegareth wrote:S4 7AN ?
I
I think you’ll find he lives in multiple addresses, SO41, SO42, SO43 and BH25 😉
Will they similarly limit the
Will they similarly limit the number of attendees at the New Forest Show?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Forest_Show
Like I have said before,
Like I have said before, we’re dealing with a small minority of conceited, elitist killjoys who see the NF as their private playground where they transport themselves and their cronies from exclusive restaurants and pheasant shoots to weekend estates in 2 tons of expensive metal and plastic. Local working class folk, the ponies and cyclists are seen as pests and hence should be put down, run over, attacked, abused and prevented from entering. I was born and raised on a council estate in Southampton and I can tell you from personal experience and from the experience of many friends that this has always been a class war between us ‘the townies’ and them.
Congratulations to NFNPA, I
Congratulations to NFNPA, I no longer wish to visit the New Forest in any capacity.
Everyone should wear number
Everyone should wear number 1,001
Screw the NF.
Come cycling
Screw the NF. :O
Come cycling in Dorset instead – we’ve got loads of fantastic cycling routes, superb scenery, no horses running out from the side of the road (seriously who is going to come off worse between a 100kg cyclist vs a 350kg pony!).
Plus we have loads of very nice coffee & cake shops, hotels, and bike shops etc for you to spend your money in. B-)
gforce wrote:Screw the NF.
+1
But there are rumors locally that the Dorset ACPO have come up with the idea to control which roads can be used for events and place a charge on those organiser with entry fees hire than a set threshold. Sounds like the NFNPA hatred and bigotry could be spreading.
Nimby’s of the new forest
Nimby’s of the new forest unite, an unfriendly place to cycle they need to realise they may be rich enough to live there but it’s free for all to enjoy. I foresee flash cycling events where cyclists arrive in mass on bank holidays etc carrying all they need so as not to support the local economy. It’s our right to ride and enjoy anytime we please and if I am prevented by restriction of numbers At any event I will ride the course totally unregulated with a large group of friends, 8}
Nimby’s of the new forest
Nimby’s of the new forest unite, an unfriendly place to cycle they need to realise they may be rich enough to live there but it’s free for all to enjoy. I foresee flash cycling events where cyclists arrive in mass on bank holidays etc carrying all they need so as not to support the local economy. It’s our right to ride and enjoy anytime we please and if I am prevented by restriction of numbers At any event I will ride the course totally unregulated with a large group of friends, 8}
I very much doubt they have
I very much doubt they have the teeth to bring in legislation without hard facts of rider safety being compromised. Better still to flock into the area, ride with care, video record incidents with cars and locals taking issue and report these. Groups like this will eventually become more irrational in their demands and will lose any respect which is already on a slippery slope.
I hope the government gives
I hope the government gives them short shrift if the attempt to change the law. the worry is that they get to the government at the point at which they are desperate for votes and it gets in the manifesto. When you add in the objections that have come from similar NIMBYs in Surrey etc….
Other than that the NFNPA appear to be painting themselves into a corner here, it this is really being driven by a minority then sooner or later the local businesses are going to have a bit of a backlash against them.
They need somebody telling them “calm down dear – its only a few bikes!”
Not much of a surprise coming
Not much of a surprise coming from the group that managed to lose £1.6m of funding to encourage cycling a few months ago.
I’ve never previously considered doing one of the big Wiggle sportives out there, but I’ll keep an eye out now…
My folks live on the south
My folks live on the south coast and I love riding in the New Forest, and it’s great for kids too. The NFNPA attitude stinks….especially when their chairman has this to say on the website (http://www.newforestnpa.gov.uk/info/20012/our_people/79/members/3):
“What’s your best childhood memory of the New Forest?
Summer days spent cycling with my brothers through the lanes in the north of the Forest.”
A bunch of NIMBYs with their
A bunch of NIMBYs with their own agenda. There was no way BC, CTC and Sustrans were going to influence the final decision. It had been made months ago…
At the risk of being seen as
At the risk of being seen as a troll, and being hunted down and covered in energy gels and left out for the badgers, I think the idea of a voluntary cap on sportive numbers anywhere has some mileage.
Sportives can’t just get bigger and bigger without the issue of disruption being addressed, and it would be best addressed by the organisers rather than risk legislation.
Anyway, as you were.
Quote:At the risk of being
But the key word there has to be voluntary.
At the risk of being seen as
At the risk of being seen as a cyclist, and being hunted down and covered in crude oil and pumped out into a fuel tank, I think the idea of a voluntary cap on motorists anywhere has some mileage.
Numbers of cars can’t just get bigger and bigger without the issue of disruption being addressed, and it would be best addressed by the drivers rather than risk legislation.
Anyway, as you were.
crikey wrote:At the risk of
you’re probably right. alternatively, the country/government/local councils/ other road users could just embrace us and let us have closed road events – never seems to be a problem abroad…
I’ve got an idea. How does
I’ve got an idea. How does one get elected to the NFNPA?
Change from within.
Looks like legislation is on
Looks like legislation is on the cards…
A voluntary restriction on sportive numbers all across the UK would have been a much better option all round, but looks like it’s a bit late for that.
crikey wrote:Looks like
All the sportive that events that I’ve ever attended have had a limited number of spaces (Wiggle, Evans etc.). I don’t know what their limit is, but I’ve seen them turning people away when they are full.
I’d love to live in a place
I’d love to live in a place where cycling was mainstream and normal, but this is the UK and cycling is just emerging from years of being a minority activity, so it might be a while.
There has to be a mass ride
There has to be a mass ride organised down there surely, I for one would definitely attend.