For the second time this year, a sportive in the New Forest has allegedly been targeted by saboteurs, with signs torn down and one road rendered impassable amid claims that a farmer deposited a layer of mud an inch and a half thick on it.
The latest event targeted, the Wiggle New Forest 100, took place on Saturday and Sunday. Organisers of the event, based in Brockenhurst, have raised concerns about rider safety after signs were removed.
Speaking to the Bournemouth Echo ahead of yesterday’s second day of the event, Martin Barden, director of the organisers UK Cycling Events, said: “We are making constant checks throughout the event
“There have been no injuries yet caused by the saboteurs but we have been keeping one step ahead of them.
“There was potential for serious injury to cyclists and that's why we are taking these precautions.
“It's important that it continues not just for the riders to enjoy their hobby but for them to enjoy the national park.
“The important thing to say is that the event has been extremely well received by the riders and it's been a fantastic boost to the local economy.”
The event had already attracted controversy locally due to the annual pony round-up, or ‘drift,’ when the animals are counted and checked over, cancelled due to safety fears as a result of the large numbers of cyclists attending the weekend’s events.
However, Wiggle New Forest 100 organisers UK Cycling Events said that while sufficient notice of the event had been given, the Verderers who organise the drift had rejected offers to alter it and instead decided to cancel the round-up of ponies.
In April this year, the New Forest Spring Sportive was disrupted by sabotage, with drawing pins spread on the road, more than 1,000 signs torn down, and some motorists driving slowly to impede cyclists’ progress.
Bodies such as the Commoners’ Defence Association, which acts on behalf of the owners of the New Forest’s ponies, and the New Forest Equestrian Association have criticised the growth of mass participation cycling events in the New Forest, claiming they place livestock and other road users at risk.
However, it is motor vehicles that pose the biggest risk to animals in the area. According to a detailed breakdown of figures on the Verderers’ website, there were 64 deaths of livestock and 14 serious injuries as a result of road traffic collisions within the New Forest in 2012.
Some 51 ponies were killed, along with seven cattle and six donkeys, most of the incidents taking place at night. The figures do not include deer, which are not within the Verderers’ jurisidction.
Private cars are responsible for the vast majority of death of or serious injury to livestock in the New Forest, according to the Verderers’ figures; the last recorded incident of a bicycle being involved in such a collision was in 1999.
Last month representatives of 19 organisations ranging from cycling groups to ones representing local residents met in a follow-up meeting to one arranged in July by the New Forest National Park Authority.
The latest meeting focused on potential changes to the Code of Conduct for cyclists in the New Forest, which will be discussed further at the next meeting, due to take place in December.
57 thoughts on “Saboteurs target New Forest sportive for second time this year”
The Wiggle event was on this
The Wiggle event was on this same weekend last year with no Drift clash, and the Verderers changed their date to this weekend for this year – a blatant attempt to make the event look bad!
65 animals dies in the Forest
65 animals dies in the Forest last year – all it by cars!
If a farmer has allowed mud
If a farmer has allowed mud to remain on a public highway that is a criminal offence.
Highways Act 1980 Section 137 “If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence”.
Highways Act 1980 Section 148 “If without lawful authority or excuse a person deposits anything whatsoever on a highway to the interruption of any user of the highway he is guilty of an offence”.
Highways Act 1980 Section 161 “If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, deposits anything whatsoever on a highway in consequence of which a user of the highway is injured or endangered, that person is guilty of an offence”.
one road rendered impassable
Farmers (and other vehicle operatives such as construction companies) are legally obliged to clear up after themselves and are potentially liable for a range of offences. While there is a range of powers available to the police and highways department the primary powers fall under the Highways Act 1980:
Section 148 of the Highways Act 1980 makes it an offence to deposit mud etc. on the highway that would interrupt other users of the highway.
Section 149 of the Highways Act 1980 gives the highways authority the power to clean the road and recover its expenses from the person causing the obstruction.
Section 161 Highways Act 1980 “If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, deposits anything whatsoever on a highway in consequence of which a user of the highway is injured or endangered, that person is guilty of an offence”. Contravention of sections 148 and 162 can lead to a Level 3 fine of £1000 in the magistrate’s court. Furthermore if mud on the road leads to personal injury, damage to property, or any loss or inconvenience then the person responsible may be liable for damages. A conviction in the criminal court may be relied on in a claim for damages.
http://www.wrighthassall.co.uk/articles/2012/12/18/whos-liable-mud-road/
It’s not just this event that
It’s not just this event that has been targeted.
I’m a local and often find myself joined by others participating in new forest sportives whilst out on training rides (the more the merrier as far as i’m concerned!).
Anyway during such a training ride my tyre popped instantly due to a tact, at the side of the road whilst changing my innertube a rather fat old gentlemen in a beaten up car pulled up and expressed his delight that ‘it was working’……. Interestingly he looks like the guy of the nfcda website….. Karma will ultimately balance this out i’m sure.
BUT
It’s a real pity local idiots decide to target such great events that actually help local businesses and community.
Anyway they are smart enough to leave all of their contact details, so if anyone has any complaints or opinions I would contact 02380 892283.
Thanks
Also apart from the club
Also apart from the club secretary:
Here are some local numbers to call – these are ‘Agisters’ (part of the verdurers. Their responsibilities include ensuring farmers do not spread muck all over the road and leave it their to purposely disrupt other forest users.
Mr. Jonathan Gerrelli
Head Agister 01590 682835 07836 602163
I’d love to hear if a farmer
I’d love to hear if a farmer has ever been proecurted for muddy roads, or indeed if anyone has ever seen anyone cleaning up after tractors. It seems to be one of these laws that exists but is “idle”…
Oi! Commoners…it’s a
Oi! Commoners…it’s a National Park! that means it is for all of us!!!
With my naive hat on, I can’t
With my naive hat on, I can’t see a logical reason why the drift was cancelled if UK Sporting Events offered to change the date of the sportive.
Oh wait, yes I can, it’s because they wanted the headline after cancelling it instead.
This was my first ever
This was my first ever cycling event (let alone sportive) and Wiggle put on a cracking event. I did the full Epic 102miles and the new forest is amazing.
I’m a mountain biker, so have spent a lot of time in various forests around the UK and the New Forest was stunning beyond all of them and the roaming wildlife was great to be around (apart from the bulls running down the road).
I admit, at points, the cyclists took over the road and can see why they would have to close down parts of the working forest, but for 2 weekend a year to act as a massive promotional piece for the area doesn’t seem like a bad trade off. I definitely will be visiting the area again and spending my money there.
Matt
(@noblematt)
noblematt wrote:to act as a
That’s the last thing the locals want, believe me.
Our club rides take us out to the New Forest most weekends and despite our best efforts we have hassle from locals pretty much every time. To them it’s their forest and they don’t want anyone else to use it.
The only people that are welcoming to cyclists are café owners, who would struggle to stay in business through the off season without the regular trade cyclists bring.
Interestingly we didn’t see any of the reported problems this weekend on our ride, other than a few signs on the floor but that looked more like it was due to the local wildlife (cattle/ponies, not people!) walking into them.
What a wonderful way of
What a wonderful way of demonstrating. not only dangerous but also puts everyone using the road at risk.
Where were the police in all
Where were the police in all this? On their arses at the cafe having cake and coffee instead of in the saddle and patrolling the course!
Sabotage is an illegal form
Sabotage is an illegal form of protest, which should be dealt with accordingly by the police
However, it clearly demonstrates strong feeling from locals – as with events in Surrey, it’s quite possible there has been little consultation with those ultimately affected, beyond getting the requisite permissions.
It does sound as though there were too many participants on this occasion
There is more work to be done, by both event organisers and local authorities, to avoid disruption and ill feeling from locals.
The more this happens, the more likely a backlash against cycling, which is bad for all of us.
Yes, there will always be unreasonable people, but to simply brand them all as NIMBY’s is to stifle debate and store up problems for all of us by fostering ill feeling between different road user groups.
I grew up on a farm although
I grew up on a farm although I am no longer a farmer, but I love my bikes (bicycles and motorbikes), its OK giving farmers a bashing here guys but lets get some reality on it.
Farmers work in muddy fields, whilst I am sure every farmer in the world would like to grow crops in clean tarmac the technology doesn’t allow this as yet, so yes they do have to drive big tractors in and out of muddy fields, and just like when you walk your dog in muddy fields crap leaves the fields with them and this finds its way onto the roads.
It is not deliberate (assuming this farmer didn’t do it deliberately by the way), but a farmer will travel in and out of entrances to fields dozens of times a day, its just not realistic to clean the road every time they leave a field.
I do know of farmers who have been warned when the build up of mud was excessive and dangerous, what should happen in this case is warning triangles are placed around the mud, but I don’t know of one who was prosecuted as the police understand that farmers work in mud !
I have it on good authority
I have it on good authority that the “mud on the road” due to the amount of muck was not simply as a result of a farmer in an agricultural vehicle going about their normal work, but a deliberate dumping of what must have been a large trailer load.
The sections of the highway act quoted above are intended to get farmers to keep the roads in good condition after going about their normal roles.
“but for 2 weekend a year ” the problem is it’s not just 2 weekends a year these days. Most weekends during the normal cycling season in the forest it seems there is an event going on, and unfortunately like most aspects of life there are a few people that don’t want to obey the rules and think they’re on a closed road race. I’ve ridden it and seen it happen and when you combine that with some very intolerant yocals (and I mean yocals) it leads to problems.
Some of the yocals don’t seem to appreciate that the roads are public highways and not part of the private kingdom they that think they have either paid or inherited the right to live within.
maybe the farmer needs to be
maybe the farmer needs to be reminded who it is who pays his CAP subsidy.
mrmo wrote:maybe the farmer
Maybe you need to be reminded who grows the food that you eat
mikeprytherch wrote:mrmo
So i am paying twice, all the more reason for farmers to remember who the customer is!
Well aware that many farmers forget that they don’t own the world, that they are expected to abide by the same laws as the rest of us. Re blocked public rights of way, including but not limited to failure to reinstate after plowing, barbed wire on styles, etc, the moving of livestock during the lock downs, such as foot and mouth. Threating behaviour with dogs, guns etc etc etc. Then we move on to shoots held near public rights of way…. “pest” control… and yes i have seen plenty of such activity over the years.
We caught horseriders pulling
We caught horseriders pulling down signs on the Devon Dirt this year. When questioned they said ” we don’t don’t think you should be riding on “our” bridleways!
At Haytor we started using flour markings as they take down the signs and riders then get lost – crazy!
Signs were also removed and some turned around on the Dartmoor Classic within 15 minutes of putting them out.
I suspect that many New
I suspect that many New Forest residents resent any group descending on “their” forest. After all, they’ve paid handsomely for their relative peace and quiet, and they don’t want a load of “oiks” invading their privacy. And those bankers certainly don’t want their trophy wives ogling a bunch of fit cyclists at close quarters, do they?
But, from a serious perspective, here are three things that event organisers could do to at least minimise confrontation.
Firstly, replace signs with proper marshalling. Signs just put peoples’ backs up and, as we know, they’re often removed. Better for the residents, better for the riders and better for the environment.
Secondly, you just know that handing out gels and other wrapped products, when it’s clear that a fair number of those wrappers will end up on the road, will be an issue for local residents long after the riders have gone home. Organisers should minimise the problem by offering alternative bonk rations.
Thirdly, organisers shouldn’t absolve themselves of blame for any anti-social rider behavour, by just stating, “remember, this is not a race”. Let’s face it, for many riders, this is as close as they’ll ever get to actually racing for real, and that does mean that normal sensibilities tend go out of the window at times. But if organisers were a little more imaginative, perhaps with results based on a cumulative series of sensibly created Strava segments along the route (if you can afford to ride sportives then you can probably afford a “garmin”), then you can dramatically reduce potential conflict with residents and other road users at critical points along a route, because riders will not be “racing” at those critical points. At a stroke, using this concept, you could make a sportive much safer, more socially acceptable, more enjoyable for the riders (especially at feed stations) potentially far more exciting for those who want to “race”, and would help neutralise the efforts any hard core saboteurs (which must be a good thing).
Sportives can be great for cycling, but we should be looking more closely at ways to reduce the potential for conflict with other road users, which ultimately affects likelyhood of sportives becoming more strictly regulated, something which, I’m sure, none of us wants to see happen.
Neil753 wrote:from a serious
some useful points there, neil. it’s worth noting that in the grand scheme of things, uk cycling events’ sportives are nearer the top of the league table than the bottom in terms of organisation and community interaction. there’s literally nothing you can do for some people though: they simply don’t want these events to happen.
personally i don’t think it’ll be long before sportives will need to be licensed. i can’t really see why they’re not already, especially when we’re talking about numbers like you find in the bigger events, and comparing to other things that do require one. i’d like to see a proper framework for this, like we currently have for road racing. it might even be the same framework, modified to accommodate both.
having to apply for a licence – and managing to get one – would thin out the number of events quite a bit, i’d imagine. Especially where there are currently a lot. On the other hand you’d be running a legally licensed event, applied for and rubber stamped through the official channels, and the naysayers would just have to suck it up. and you’d have a lot more recourse to pressure the authorities to take action against people trying to disrupt your legally licensed event.
there’s dangers in this kind of approach, the most obvious one being that whatever licensing body is responsible – and we’re likely talking county councils – simply refuses to give any out. that being the case it’d be sensible to have some kind of level or quota below which you can’t refuse an event that meets the criteria, or something.
dunno, just thinking out loud really. but things will need to change soon, i think.
I can see these events being
I can see these events being licensed but if they’re bought under the same restrictions as road racing then it’ll kill sportives – why, because of the regulation road races are mainly restricted to localised loops that are covered many times. Sportives take riders over meandering routes which explore different aspects of the country providing a more enjoyable experience for the majority of riders.
Sportive’s provide interest as well as a challenge, local UK road races provide a sporting challenge but are damn boring if you’re the rider dropped off the back and just doing loops until the finish line.
usedtobefaster wrote:I can
i wasn’t suggesting that they’re both restricted to the same sorts of courses. the requirements are different. just that possibly the process for licensing mostly exists already
I really don’t get the
I really don’t get the attraction of a sportive. Paying to ride on otherwise free roads, with hundreds of cyclists you’ll never know, and guaranteeing to cause mass inconvenience to those who the route takes you past (it does, just grow up and face it). When did planning a long ride with your mates fall out of favour? I just don’t get it.
Low Speed Wobble wrote:I
Because for some reason people want certificates and photos of them with a number on their bike.
That said, you could say the same about the Great North Run etc. People like being part of something. I don’t ride sportives myself but won’t knock those who do.
I’m not sure what the rules
I’m not sure what the rules are for Sportives. I have organised one (proper) Time Trial and I know that for that I had to:
* Put in a police permission form
* Perform a risk assessment
* Put out signs and marshalls as specified by the CTT document
* Make riders aware of rules and report any infractions
It seems that with a Sportive you can do as you please. I have heard of “proper” events (road races) being cancelled by police because a sportive (which the police can’t cancel) is going through. Madness.
It’s great that there are so many people out there enjoying road cycling but organisers have to let them know that tossing gel wrappers, riding 5 abreast up hills, scaring other vulnerable road users (leisure cyclists, horse riders) is not on.
It would be helpful too if the police let others know that threatening cyclists or sabotaging events is not on either.
There seems to be quite a lot
There seems to be quite a lot of opinion about whether Sportif style, large participation cycling events are a nuisance or dangerous.
I have yet to see any evidence that they endanger wildlife, livestock, other road users, or cause a significant nuisance to local people.
What is happening here is a very small, but well organised group of New Forest residents have run a very effective anti-cycling campaign.
So effective that even on this cycling forum cyclists are having a bash at Sportif events and calling for ‘regulation’.
Can we have some facts please.
On the New Forest National
On the New Forest National Park Website there is some guidance to cycling event organisers and riders. All very good common sense advice.
It would be interesting to know if the Sportif organisers followed this advice in respect to the Wiggle ride.
http://www.newforestnpa.gov.uk/info/20045/things_to_do/36/cycling/7
I was on the Sunday ride.
I was on the Sunday ride. Great day out, very pleasant locals and the drivers were very patient too! I thought Wiggle also did a great job of running the event and marshalling the route at key junctions/feed stations.
My only negative point was the numbers. I thought it was heavily over subscribed. I’ve done a few sportives and barring the Etape du Tour the ‘groups’ tend to trickle out after the first 10 miles or so, at some you wouldn’t realise you were on a sportive until you got to a feed station or the finish! Yesterday there seemed to be a constant stream of riders for the whole route. At hills this quite easily bunches to 4-5 riders wide. On some of the narrow roads this could get very frustrating for road users.
One thought I had was they could try one of the big sportives on a weekday….I wonder how many complaints from locals you would get then, mind you I wonder how many people would turn up!
Mass participation events
Mass participation events like this will always create problems with locals. Seems a pity that a couple of thousand cyclist seem to cause so much intense interest. If couple thousand poluting cars drive through the new forest nobody even bats an eyelid. Smacks of Hypocracy especially the farmer who in his/her tractor driving slowly made it dangerous for all public users to use that road.
However whilst I am a cyclist I do not think these events should be quite so big, after all they are here to make the likes of Wiggle a lot of money!
Its certainly a thorny issue,
Its certainly a thorny issue, especially in places like the new forest. makes me weep to think of all this aggro and then think of events like L’Eroica, and L’Ardechoise, and Vätternrundan, where our continental colleagues are content to shut down the equivalent of an entire county so everyone can have a nice time on their bikes…
I know the Scottish legal
I know the Scottish legal setup is a bit different, and our Local Authourity may be pushing things a bit, but they require sportives (and other public events on the roads) to get a parades permit. A route map, risk assessment and marshalling/signing plan gets sent round the police, roads and other council departments. Road works (council, utility or private) require permits too, so the benefit is that as well as control over different sporting events clashing, there are controls over road works affecting your event too.
You can’t please all of the
You can’t please all of the people all of the time.
Just a thought: could cases
Just a thought: could cases of cyclists riding ‘irresponsibly’ be reduced if sportives stopped providing timing?
That really takes away any last notion of it being a race, as against the current nudge-nudge-wink-wink practice of ‘requesting’ riders to be responsible, and not treat it like a race.
middlering wrote:Just a
I reckon that horse has bolted. Take away “official” timing and people will simply turn to Strava for it.
I’ve ridden charity events
I’ve ridden charity events since before they were called sportives and organisers have always been clear that littering, road hogging and public urination are not on. However, some drivers get upset if people ride two abreast, which is legal, and attemptto deter overtaking on blind bends and brows. Then I read in local rags that people were riding five abreast, which won’t even fit on a lot ofthe country lanes used! Its just impotent drivers exaggerating lawful behavior to make their complaints seem reasonable, in most cases.
Sportives are actually better than charity ridesof old because they’re less like racing. With rides where not every rider is timed, you’re in the first bunch (and the local press photo) or you’re nowhere, with the entirely predictable dangerous riding that results.
a.jumper wrote:I’ve ridden
I’m not so sure, of the two sportives I’ve been on the ‘group’ mentality seems to be to treat the roads as if they are closed which is understandable as when do we as cyclists ever get the chance to ride with a great number of others.
Riding two abreast is always
Riding two abreast is always going to wind up a motorist, whilst its safer for a rider the impatient drivers who do not understand the reason will get aggresive. Better to carry on single line and move to the inner middle section of the lane to ‘block/restrict’ their passage until its safe to pull in closer and wave them by. Eye and awareness contact ALWAYS helps.
Guyz2010 wrote:Riding two
One of the key reasons to ride two abreast (apart from to ‘block/restrict’ in the same way as taking the lane does) is that overtaking a group of cyclists in two files is a lot quicker than one long single file. This means that the car spends less time on the other side of the road and the car is next to the group for less time too. The extra distance the car needs to go over on the other side of the road is minimal compared to halving the distance between the first and last riders.
Educating drivers of this though is the key, they simply don’t understand so do get aggressive as you say, but I think the answer should surely lie in spreading the message rather than riding single file.
sim1515 wrote:Guyz2010
+1 to this. This is what BC cycle leaders are taught and I tend to agree with the logic.
Realisticaly its actually very difficult to overtake a large group of cyclists safely on a single carridgeway road whatever positioning they use so impatient drivers are always going to get funny about group rides.
Quote:Just a thought: could
I can understand why Sportives provided timing originally, in the days before GPS and widespread use of bike computers. Now I think it’s pointless, especially when it stops as you enter a feed station! You want to know the time, use a Garmin!
I can’t understand the mentality behind it – why would you travel all the way to a Sportive (by definition probably riding somewhere you’ve not ridden before) and attempt to blat round it as fast as possible without even looking at the scenery? Last Sportive I did (ages ago), I stopped at a cafe in one of the little villages. 🙂
My concern with licensing
My concern with licensing events is how it might effect small local charity rides, audaxes and sportives. Many cycling clubs and organisations like CTC/Audax-UK hold annual challenges where perhaps a couple of hundred people turn up and pay £7.50 on the day. They’re issued with a map and directions and left to get on with it. ‘Feed stations’ are en-route cafés, and your timing chip is your watch! These grass-roots, low-key events have minimal impact and probably contribute more directly to the local economy. It would be a terrible shame to see these go if the cost of licensing, health risk assessments and insurance forced them to stop. In my mind, these events properly embrace the historic spirit of organised cycling events in the UK – far more than the commercialised Wiggle-type affairs.
dafyddp wrote:My concern with
yup, that’s a fair concern. i’d think it would be pretty easy to make a distinction based on field size, need for signage, etc.
Dave Atkinson wrote:dafyddp
That would be good and by allowing smaller events to go ahead with fewer costs, it would probably ensure a place for them alongside the new-style big sportives. A lot of charity rides seem to have become sportives in all but name and that’s not always an improvement.
I did the Sportive on Sunday.
I did the Sportive on Sunday. I didn’t see any issues or come across any angry locals.
What I did see was some participants acting as if it was a race, jumping red lights and generally being obnoxious. It was a minority but they were the highly visible ones.
I think the organisers need to act on their threat and remove these people from the Sportive. It would be easy to do – just stand by traffic lights.
Cantona07 wrote:I did the
that has happened on the dragon ride in years past. i’m not sure if they do it every year.
Maybe this event could evolve
Maybe this event could evolve in response to these acts of attemped sabatage. Instead of putting up route markers that are likely to be moved/removed maps or directions could be given to participants. Having to find your own way would make things interesting and provide a chalenge other than simply riding as fast as possible. Without route markers it would also be difficult for the route to be comprimised with mud, tacks or go-slow tatics as it would not be clear to non-participants what the route is.
An unmarked course would also allow riders to choose alternative route options to avoid any problems on-route, whatever the cause.
Matt eaton wrote:Maybe this
This already takes place, it’s called Audax – the entry fees are typically about 10% of a sportive. No official timing results either 🙂
Agree with the need for
Agree with the need for regulation, limiting field sizes and organisers carrying out the threat of removing those riders who break the highway code- it would show to locals and motorists that we aren’t simply a group of arrogant road users who ride dangerously (I know we generally aren’t, but that’s not the point), and would largely remove their objections.
Leaving the situation unchecked as it is, simply poses a danger to health and safety as well contributing to bad blood between road user groups.
Personally I enjoy entering sportives – I usually either attempt to set a good time or simply to finish the course if it’s particularly tough. And I do this WITHOUT breaking the highway code. It’s a personal challenge, it’s motivating and I find it an easy way to take me out on routes I had not thought of riding before, and I always like the camaraderie of riding with others.
I also enjoy group and solo rides I’ve arranged myself.
Would be a real shame if these were stopped due to public protest about bad organisation and behaviour.
Am I missing something here?
Am I missing something here? I thought the whole point of a sportive was that you followed a set route, had a feed station or three and without racing get a time to compare with your mates.
Removing signage would possibly increase costs as far more maps would be needed. Alternative routes kind of defeat the objective of a set route. No support? So what’s the point of paying if you are going to make up your own route, use local facilities and not get any support? Might as well grab a OS map/GPS/Garmin and ride as fast you can, any time you want.
I for one, use sportives to get into an area I didn’t know and don’t have to worry too much about navigating. Also being able to top up fluids/munchies allows me to go further than I would normally. Maybe I’ve been spoilt with Evans Kings of .. or the Rydale Rumble and recently a few European sportives. But after paying £15 for a paper map and a banana on the CTC Jimmy Saville Challenge, I felt also most cheated out of my money.
It seem to me that we are missing the point here. These people, like those in Surrey, don’t want to share their bit of the world with anyone else. If we cyclist leave the area alone, then more than likely other protest groups will jump on the band wagon and shut other events/areas down for mass participation.
Regardless of whether I like
Regardless of whether I like or dislike sportives or find the rationale for riding sportives questionable, I don’t see how a large group of cyclists can cause significantly more disruption than motor based traffic and transport. The idea that cyclists are racing at high speeds is laughable when the road is carrying vehicles that would be driven at much higher speeds and make a lot more noise than any cyclist could, however the highway code should be followed.
The fact that there are over a 1000 paying customers to ride a sportive suggests that there are enough people who wish to take the opportunity to ride around one of our national parks for a day as part of an organised event and enjoy the sights and the countryside, some may be pretending to race, others will enter with the spirit intended and be mindful that it’s not a race.
The only criticism I have of sportives is their use of timing chips to encourage speed, and sometimes rewards for finishing earlier, it’s perhaps that which would plant a seed in someones mind that makes them disregard give way and stop signs or pass horses without the required care and cautiousness.
Maybe bring in a no
Maybe bring in a no draughting rule like some triathlons? The biggest issue I spotted Sunday on my ride to work through the forest was the mass groups of people making it impossible for traffic to pass.
Yup, I did the sportive too
Yup, I did the sportive too (i was the fat bloke in the planet x top, riding a black ribble – diet started already!) and it was a good ride. Parking was good, good signage, pot holes clearly marked. Aside from the ride, the feed stations were good, far better than the dragon ride.
Not so good was the supply hot food vendors – one hog roast vendor !. As for the locals, most were good or indifferent. However we did get a follically endowed (nasally and cranially) irate 4×4 driver that was a tad impatient – at the start. Plus the odd yummy mummy/daddy cutting us up before stopping and turning left/right; Impatient petulence with an hurrumph. Most riders were considerate, hardly any litter.
The biggest problem is that most road signage is geared to cars. Where roads are narrow, signs indicating single file would be good. They do this in Spain. It would help, I think.
Regarding the roads, Wiggle do a good job of marking pot holes. Does anybody know if they take location data wih these. I think some councils may find that kind of survey information useful for repair planning.
http://www.fillthathole.org.u
http://www.fillthathole.org.uk/
The ConDems are working to
The ConDems are working to privatise the Forests to make every one of of them into a ‘Leisure centre’ full of ‘Holiday lets’ and’Activity centres’, destroying the ecology and any sort of culture of being a resource for everyone, irrespective of their investment account.
Yet it’s a CYCLING event that gets local hostility rather than something which will destroy the very nature of where they live?!
This is a very odd set of values for people who live in the New Forest. It’s not a value of all locals (The ‘Save Delamere Forest’ campaign is a stark contrast) but it’s certainly a sign of people who smell ‘A killing’ in the air.
Plainly most people who used to live in the New Forest (Of which I was one) have been replaced with affluent and aggressive 4×4 driving scum from London who regard the Forest, not so much as a treasured environment as their personal investment account.
This is borne out by the way in which they chop down the trees that surround the original houses to build massive McMansions which make the place look more like Kensington (With all the attendant hostile and ugly ‘Security’) than a Forest (Let’s remember, Kensington USED to be the countryside).
I suspect it’s not merely the car-hugging hatred of cyclists at work here but that it also includes some difference of how they see the future of National Parks – whether as facilities of private corporations or as a public park and environmental sanctuary.
Maybe it’s just me, but I
Maybe it’s just me, but I think the publicity that gets given to this kind of behaviour does more harm than good. In fact that’s the case about a lot of ‘newsworthy’ events; some illegal or underhand activity gets a bit of airing on the news then all of a sudden the same behaviour starts breaking out all over the place. The media really do have a lot to answer for in my opinion!