Etape Caledonia sabotaged
Comments
-
Well, thanks for confirming that hatred of the English by some in Scotland (especially of 'white settlers') is not a figment of my imagination. But then again I knew that already because I lived up there on and off for over 2 years between 95 and 97, when Scottish Nationalism was at it's height. There is plenty of other information on this topic if you bother to look. For example:Dr U Idh wrote:Thing is aurelio hatred of the English isn't confined to Scotland. What's it like not to be welcome anywhere?
http://books.google.com/books?id=MvVC74VZsNkC&dq
To be fair I would be ready to accept that things might have settled down of late. I also lived in Wales for a few years and found the Welsh to be great, but once again when I went back when the whole devolution thing was big news, I found a very perceptible increase in hostility. Again, feel this has probably settled down again.
My reason for posting that article is that those who try to resort to claiming that anyone who says anything remotely unfavourable about Scotland is showing 'Anti-Scots prejudice' should consider the wider picture first. People living in glass houses not throwing stones and all that!
As to the English 'as a nation'. Well personally I can't stand them either, which is why I no longer live there!0 -
I've read a few of the comments here and elsewhere. The sound of moral outrage is deafening. I was at the race. I punctured early and swore my head off as I picked out three tacks from my rear tyre, remounted, then picked out two from the front and swore a lot more. All tubes used up. At the enforced stop there was a good spirit with much speculation re the culprits. At the end the sun came out and we were all smiles - but I will not be riding the event next year until the local council engages with the disgruntled community to prevent this happening again. I have seen a lot of posts from locals supporting the ride and all the benefits it brings, but a quick google search shows that the event has been mired in local controversy and is not universally welcomed by all. The local authority seem to have railroaded the locals into having the event without much in the way of consultation. And I am amazed the authorities have done exactly the same again; offering entries to next years event already. Quite clearly the sabotage was indefensible - but why not try and reach a compromise with this disaffected minority? Some locals were annoyed that they could not attend church - I imagine if you are very religious this must be an important part of your life. Equally, some other traders were worried about losing business as they were located on parts of the route that the riders simply swept by. It is aslo interesting to learn that the organisers are London based and that the locals have to pay for the pleasure of staging the event. Add all this up and try not to automatically assume that everyone would appreciate 3,500 lycra clad cyclists descending on your town then I can see why some would be upset. I'd still happily throttle the idiot that ruined my ride, but equally I think the authorities need to reach a compromise for next year. And if the local community don't suport the ride, then look elsewhere where everyone actively wants the business. I hope they sort if out for next year as the ride really was awesome. All the calls for people to be tried for attemtped murder etc make us look daft - no one died, or as far as I am aware, was even injured, due to the tacks: they could have been, but they weren't - like the press fury at the last OMM event where thousands were lost in th mountains and facing catastrophe, but no one died. Just my thoughts.0
-
aurelio wrote:'Stop trying to send the Sassenachs homewards'
Author accuses some Scots of racism in their attitude towards English 'settlers'
The Scotsman 21/10/97
HATRED of English settlers north of the Border represents the first tentative steps towards an outbreak of ethnic violence, according to a Scottish historian.
Aurelio, there's been twelve years of "history" since the article was written. So presumably there's plenty of evidence of the resulting, predicted ethnic violence....................
I lived in Scotland for (first) 20 years, Wales for 5 and England for 20. I have encountered no prejudice in any country other than the usual sprinkling of outspoken/unpleasant individuals.Where the neon madmen climb0 -
A 62 year old local man has been arrested - due in court Wednesday.0
-
CrankyTurner - I think you have to accept the fact that you can't please everyone. Regardless of how much communication, consultation and negotiation takes place, someone will always be unhappy. This stuff about not getting to church? The organisers laid on a minibus, police escort, tea and biscuits for the Fortingall parishioners. The minister at Weem decided to just change the time of the service. Yes - there's some local jealousy at play. Aberfeldy had always had a bit of a thing about Pitlochry getting all the benefits - hence the "Festival of Cycling" events on the Saturday this year.0
-
Sjaak wrote:caw35slr wrote:That's an interesting point. I think I saw you before the hill - I called out "Pompino" to a bloke riding one with Moustache bars.
No matter how much impressed you are by another bloke's moustache, you really want to be careful shouting out 'pompino' - at least in Italy that is.....
Oi! I wasn't offering! LOL0 -
Lucky you! Seriously though, there are plenty of prejudiced people anywhere you care to look, all that really makes them different from each other is who their culturally-created target is.pedylan wrote:Aurelio, there's been twelve years of "history" since the article was written... I lived in Scotland for (first) 20 years, Wales for 5 and England for 20. I have encountered no prejudice in any country other than the usual sprinkling of outspoken/unpleasant individuals.
I wonder if people would act all outraged if I said that there was a high level of anti-Asian and eastern-European prejudice in England, with people trying to argue that any 'unpleasant' incidents could be put down to nothing more than 'outspoken/unpleasant individuals'? In my book being prejudiced and being an 'outspoken/unpleasant individual' are rarely mutually exclusive!
Anyhow, back on topic, I wouldn't be surprised if this act of sabotage was the net result of self-interested nimbyism on the part of both 'locals' and 'white settlers' acting parallel with a number of prejudices, both against cyclists, 'outsiders' in general, people from the next village and perhaps even... 'The English'. 0 -
CrankyTurner - your thoughts on compromise etc. are only invalid in one thing: as the popular cliche goes, the vast majority of local people are entirely in favour of the event.
Think about it - a well organised campaign by an experienced and committed nuisance maker, who manages to get lots of media attention (last year anyway, there wasn't nearly as much this year - until they started to use desperate tacktics) only manages to get 450 signatures: that's a very small proportion of locals.
Moreover, it's not true that there was no consultation, it's just that when people are consulted and their opinion is not the one that carries the day, then they always feel like they've not been.
The actual, as opposed to perceived, downside to the locals, is tiny - if anything, this has to be the message: after all the Schiehallion Schienanigans the time must be ripe for a hearts and minds campaign. For example - if anyone can actually demonstrate a real financial loss, as opposed to the quite creative ones some have claimed, why not compensate them? PKC (the local council) & the Scottish tourist board could help people market themselves, and those people who can show genuine inconvenience could get help (bet the old dears would love a lift to church on a marshal's bike). You're certainly right that engaging with the community and trying to overcome opposition by negotiation and give and take is better than militancy, a lesson that the ACREists could maybe think about a bit.0 -
bompington wrote:CrankyTurner - your thoughts on compromise etc. are only invalid in one thing: as the popular cliche goes, the vast majority of local people are entirely in favour of the event.
Think about it - a well organised campaign by an experienced and committed nuisance maker, who manages to get lots of media attention (last year anyway, there wasn't nearly as much this year - until they started to use desperate tacktics) only manages to get 450 signatures: that's a very small proportion of locals.
Moreover, it's not true that there was no consultation, it's just that when people are consulted and their opinion is not the one that carries the day, then they always feel like they've not been.
The actual, as opposed to perceived, downside to the locals, is tiny - if anything, this has to be the message: after all the Schiehallion Schienanigans the time must be ripe for a hearts and minds campaign. For example - if anyone can actually demonstrate a real financial loss, as opposed to the quite creative ones some have claimed, why not compensate them? PKC (the local council) & the Scottish tourist board could help people market themselves, and those people who can show genuine inconvenience could get help (bet the old dears would love a lift to church on a marshal's bike). You're certainly right that engaging with the community and trying to overcome opposition by negotiation and give and take is better than militancy, a lesson that the ACREists could maybe think about a bit.
The last couple of posts on this page are not only rather insightful but also quite cheery. I wasn't even there but I am over my anger too now and will not stop visiting P&K. Although I will take some extra tubes next week
And in September the Bealach Mor, now that's a welcome party by the locals. They have to bear and grin when the Bealach pass is closed for a couple of hours, isolating the whole of the peninsular! 0 -
aurelio wrote:
Lucky you! Seriously though, there are plenty of prejudiced people anywhere you care to look, all that really makes them different from each other is who their culturally-created target is. (And there are plenty of illustrations of such 'outspoken/unpleasant individuals' who happen to be Scottish targeting English incomers - or 'white settlers' as another poster from north of the border called them).pedylan wrote:Aurelio, there's been twelve years of "history" since the article was written... I lived in Scotland for (first) 20 years, Wales for 5 and England for 20. I have encountered no prejudice in any country other than the usual sprinkling of outspoken/unpleasant individuals.
I wonder if people would act all outraged if I said that there was a high level of anti-Asian and eastern-European prejudice in England, with people trying to argue that any 'unpleasant' incidents could be put down to nothing more than 'outspoken/unpleasant individuals'? In my book being prejudiced and being an 'outspoken/unpleasant individual' are rarely mutually exclusive!
Anyhow, back on topic, I wouldn't be surprised if this act of sabotage was the net result of self-interested nimbyism on the part of both 'locals' and 'white settlers' acting parallel with a number of prejudices, both against cyclists, 'outsiders' in general, people from the next village and perhaps even... 'The English'.
So. No evidence then.................. Where the neon madmen climb0 -
The A827 could possibly run with only half the road closed, it is wide enough. I doubt it would make any difference to the protesters. Having any road closed apparently closes down highland perthshire for weeks on end.
For example: Norman Beedie referred to above. One of the other websites posted his postcode. If it is correct, his student could have parked his car about a km away form Beedie's house and walked in. maybe 10-15 minutres walk. Not possible apparently. Obviously too much trouble.
It is pointless posting rational solutions & compromises, because these people are just not interested.0 -
ellieb wrote:For example: Norman Beedie referred to above. One of the other websites posted his postcode. If it is correct, his student could have parked his car about a km away form Beedie's house and walked in. maybe 10-15 minutres walk. Not possible apparently. Obviously too much trouble.
People like this become blind to any solution through their hatred and anger. You're also right about it being pointless coming up with solutions for them; they will not listen as they're deaf to reason too. So altogether rather surprising he's a musician and runs a singing 'business'.0 -
Perhaps they're not the only ones guilty of blindness
Perhaps if they are deaf to the reasons that are put forward perhaps its because they see no merit in them. It seems to me that anyone that argues that they can't see reason assumes they must be right - how's that any different from their thinking?
If we are going to be complain about people campaigning aginst things they don't agree with then I think we may pull the shutters up now because I have never seen a bigger bunch of whines and moans as I have in the cycling lobby where nothing ever seems to please them and I include myself amongst that too.0 -
I think some people need to remember xenophobic idiots exist everywhere (the Daily Mail isn't just bought in Perthshire )
It's sad that not everyone has great experiences when they go on trips but sadly it can happen. I wouldn't pidgeonhole a whole nation though as a result (e.g. When I visited paris I encountered several rude people but I'd still go back in a second...not everyone is an arsehole ) Formally known as Coatbridgeguy0 -
Well perhaps its just called the application of logic. If there is said to be a problem and there is no evidence of the problem actually existing, or reasonable solutions are put forward which are ignored: Then I think we can safely say that these individuals are blind to reason.
The issue isn't about people camaigning against the Etape Caledonia, its about the dangerous criminal damage which was done as a result of that campaign. Particularly when the bulk of the campaigners, whose actions set the tone for the sabotage to take place are not amenable to either common sense or compromise.0 -
doyler78 wrote:Perhaps they're not the only ones guilty of blindness <snap> If we are going to be complain about people campaigning aginst things they don't agree with then I think we may pull the shutters up now because I have never seen a bigger bunch of whines and moans as I have in the cycling lobby where nothing ever seems to please them and I include myself amongst that too.
Yes, there are bitter cyclists spoiling it for others too, and I wish not to reason with them: I have often been accused of being on the happy pills. I certainly do not claim blindness-to-reason is restricted to ACREists (thanks Bompington for that one!). I can only hope that all I am guilty of is a bit of cynicism and/or sarcasm now and then. I rest my case.
Edit: grammar etc0 -
MegaCycle wrote:I don't know that the Scots can be all that opposed to cyclists. All along the route we were cheered by local people outside their houses or along the side of the road. Given that the weather wasn't exactly great in the early part of the day, they had clearly made the effort to get out of bed and support us.
I felt very welcome, I must say. It was great!
I agree with Megacycle... A great day out, marred by one idiot, cheered on by the vast majority and great to cycle with freedom on the other side of the white line for a change.0 -
ellieb wrote:Well perhaps its just called the application of logic. If there is said to be a problem and there is no evidence of the problem actually existing, or reasonable solutions are put forward which are ignored: Then I think we can safely say that these individuals are blind to reason.
The issue isn't about people camaigning against the Etape Caledonia, its about the dangerous criminal damage which was done as a result of that campaign. Particularly when the bulk of the campaigners, whose actions set the tone for the sabotage to take place are not amenable to either common sense or compromise.
So no roads were closed and no people were prevented from driving down that road during the course of that event. That is a clearly ridiculous statement to make however if you say there is no evidence of a problem existing then you are saying just that.
Solutions which may seem sensible and reasonable to you do not have to been seen as either sensible or reasonable to someone else. So what actual compromise was shown in how this event was run that was so meaningful that it deserves to have you believe that they should have been open to it? So far as I can see the advertising for how this event was marketed was exactly the same as it was last year which doesn't suggest any particular desire to really try to seek any accommodation either.
It is their stated view that no sportive in this country needs to be run on closed roads and given that there are no other such events it is hardly surprising that they don't see any reason when anyone comes to them arguing that closed roads are essential.
I'm not here to plead their case. I find their language and dogma quite off putting however I too find the vitriol on here and the complete dismissing of any of their concerns by the large majority as equally distasteful and dogmatic and that is simply my point.
The campaign didn't cause the damage. Somebody who may or may not have been linked to the campaign did the damage. Campaigns don't cause criminal damage - people do. That's like saying that anyone on a campaign march at the G20 summit was guilty of public disorder simply because someone took the rhetoric too far. I'm sure that there are those who supported the campaign that will have been disgusted by the actions of this/these person(s) as well as those no doubt that cheered however you get those elements in any campaign but you can't blame the fact that the campaign exists for that.0 -
doyler78 wrote:It is their stated view that no sportive in this country needs to be run on closed roads and given that there are no other such events it is hardly surprising that they don't see any reason when anyone comes to them arguing that closed roads are essential.
Races with over 3,500 riders are actually few and far between in the UK. ACRE mentions the FWC ride, held on open roads, which is actually over 120miles of difficult 'terrain' with 'just' 1,000 riders. If there's reason to believe that it is safer [for riders as well as locals] to do so on a closed road than so be it. Here's where the democratic balance of the 'yeh' and 'neh's comes in and along that process some people are going to get terribly disappointed. How they are going to deal with this is a different matter. [edit: I respect their opinion, but] I can only suggest they move on.0 -
I would argue that those running the 'anti' campaign cannot be excused of all responsibility so readily as they did much to justify, validate and perhaps even motivate the actions of the perpetrator/s.doyler78 wrote:The campaign didn't cause the damage. Somebody who may or may not have been linked to the campaign did the damage. Campaigns don't cause criminal damage - people do.
Their 'condemnation' of the attack has also been very mealy-mouthed, to say the least.0 -
Well it's true a campaign cannot cause damage because it is not a corporeal identity capable of interacting with the world in a physical sense :roll:
However, in terms of the existence of the campaign providing an emotional & intellectual justification for the sabotage: Yes I do think the campaign mounted by ACRE is responsible.
As to whether the roads should be closed. Some parts of the route are basically wide enough for one motor vehicle going in one direction: Would you fancy meeting 3500 cyclists coming the other way coming the other way? If not, then I suggest as an ACRE campaigner your opposition to closed roads is a little illogical.0 -
ellieb wrote:Well it's true a campaign cannot cause damage because it is not a corporeal identity capable of interacting with the world in a physical sense :roll:
To add to this [i think] so often a protest campaign struggles to get a valid point across to a wider audience due to incompetent PR, advertising or spokespeople. In ACRE's case there are a few academics who do not seem to have any problem putting their and ACRE's opinions across in words. However, their real concerns and material are rather very thin and it badly shows ... edit: that's why I suspect their true agenda is an altogether different one than their opposition against an annual three (3) hour road closure. edit2: and yes, there is also an element (if not a whiff) of incitement (see ACRE's 2008 statement to disrupt the Etape at CommentOnline).0 -
Dr U Idh wrote:CrankyTurner - I think you have to accept the fact that you can't please everyone. Regardless of how much communication, consultation and negotiation takes place, someone will always be unhappy. This stuff about not getting to church? The organisers laid on a minibus, police escort, tea and biscuits for the Fortingall parishioners. The minister at Weem decided to just change the time of the service. Yes - there's some local jealousy at play. Aberfeldy had always had a bit of a thing about Pitlochry getting all the benefits - hence the "Festival of Cycling" events on the Saturday this year.
Thankyou Cranky Turner for highlighting this. I suspect that those who are complaining rarely darken the door of the Church themselves.
Incidently, although the Etape would be too much for me, I did manage Pedal for Scotland last year. Granted, a far more laid back affair (with lots of children), but the local Church at the second feed stop ran what appeared to be a highly successful tea tent selling baking etc on the Sunday morning and they doubtless made a small fortune.0 -
I would be interested to see some figures for the amount of money spent in the area by tourists in pre etape days in May compared to what is spent now
I live in Perth and May isn't exactly tourist season in this part of the world so I find it difficult to believe that businesses on the route are losing money when the roads are closed for a couple of hours especially at that time of the morning0 -
An independent report (discounted by ACRE, of course, because they didn't ask enough objectors) reckoned £420k of extra revenue attributable to the 2008 event - plus of course many people will think "cor, s'nice 'ere" and come back. Also Macmillan Cancer Research gets c£500k out of it too,0
-
Sjaak wrote:doyler78 wrote:It is their stated view that no sportive in this country needs to be run on closed roads and given that there are no other such events it is hardly surprising that they don't see any reason when anyone comes to them arguing that closed roads are essential.
Races with over 3,500 riders are actually few and far between in the UK. ACRE mentions the FWC ride, held on open roads, which is actually over 120miles of difficult 'terrain' with 'just' 1,000 riders. If there's reason to believe that it is safer [for riders as well as locals] to do so on a closed road than so be it. Here's where the democratic balance of the 'yeh' and 'neh's comes in and along that process some people are going to get terribly disappointed. How they are going to deal with this is a different matter. [edit: I respect their opinion, but] I can only suggest they move on.
So 1000 riders isn't a significant number of riders? When do the numbers become critical then? I think in anybody's book 1,000 riders is a significant number or at least is in mine anyway.
I wouldn't start throwing the democracy card around too much. A civilised society realises that with democracy comes responsibility, responsibility to ensure that the opinions of the minority are still sufficiently listened to and acted upon where appropriate. As a cyclist you should be more acutely aware of this than many others. If we had democracy reign on the roads we probably would have already been banned from them
Just because your opinion doesn't command the acceptance of the majority doesn't mean you should move on. If you truly believe in it you must redouble your efforts to make sure that your reasons are understood. Take the 20mph speed limit debate. That debate hasn't been won yet. Does that mean CTC should curl up and go away?
Look I was just trying to say that I think us cyclists can be as intransigent as we accuse others off and just looking at this debate confirms it. It's my way or no way. Not so different from those you criticise really.0 -
It's already been said in this thread....the organisers have made several concessions in order to minimise disruption; earlier start, shorter road closures, provision of escorted minibus. So, not quite the same degree of intransigence.0
-
doyler78 wrote:[
Look I was just trying to say that I think us cyclists can be as intransigent as we accuse others off and just looking at this debate confirms it. It's my way or no way. Not so different from those you criticise really.
No. I think you need to be able to distinguish between right and wrong. ACRE & its supporters make a number of points about closed roads. Do you think it is safe for 3600 cyclists to go down a singletrack road with cars coming the other way. If you think it isn't, then either you have to cancel the event or close the road:There is no other option
The reason why these people are wrong is pretty simple.When attempts are made to mitigate the effects of the closed roads they ignore them. Thier own arguments feature hyperbole, exaggeration and misinformation. They ignore facts which are not to thier liking, they will not accept any degree of compromise.
I repeat: the roads are too narrow to accept that many cyclists if they are open to other traffic. If you think differently, show me.0 -
doyler78 wrote:So 1000 riders isn't a significant number of riders? When do the numbers become critical then? I think in anybody's book 1,000 riders is a significant number or at least is in mine anyway.
It's the difference between 43 riders per mile [EC] or 8 per mile [FWC], although of course the riders will not be evenly spread over the course, it will give you an idea about the numbers I'm talking about. Add to this the longer window for riders to start their FWC ride and it becomes clear how less dense 'the pack' really is. Whether these numbers are significant is not the point I was really trying to make though, I am merely illustrating the reasoning re. safety of 3500 riders racing, but feel free to pin the organisation down on a number they think is safe to ride on an open road.doyler78 wrote:I wouldn't start throwing the democracy card around too much. A civilised society realises that with democracy comes responsibility, responsibility to ensure that the opinions of the minority are still sufficiently listened to and acted upon where appropriate. As a cyclist you should be more acutely aware of this than many others. If we had democracy reign on the roads we probably would have already been banned from them <snap>
A little bit of perspective and reality, please: an annual 3hr road closure v. banning cyclist from roads for good? No, it's not the same I'm afraid.
Edit: and as already has been illustrated a few times in this thread, the organisation has listened to the opinions of the minority 'neh' sayers and has accommodated them to some extent. But not to the extent to race on open roads - possibly on safety grounds - and that makes the discussion full circle.0 -
Dr U Idh wrote:Never mind the punctures - I was disappointed at the number of PowerGel wrappers left strewn about the course - even before the climb. Given that I went off at 7:10, there couldn't have been that many in front of me. I shudder to think what the roads were like after everyone had passed.
mate of mine came off on the first steep descent on a [presumably] dropped, full gel sachet.
the number of wrappers didn't seem too bad albeit more than you would hope to see, although I was amazed by the number of water bottles - its not the TdF.
I think the complaints about the number of discarded tubes were valid, and I also heard reports of people answering the call of nature in peoples property which is disappointing and won't help0
