Regulation of Sportives

AchillesLeftKnee

markhewitt1978 wrote:

AchillesLeftKnee wrote:

Correct assumption. The problem on Box Hill and certain parts of the surrounding area is that it's not a couple of events every year, it's events most Sundays from mid spring to the end of September, coupled with the Sunday morning West London (which is a short ride away) exodus plus those local riders who congregate in the area. Numbers reach herd-mentality critical mass on a very regular basis, and that's what's causing the problems.

Sounds like a good idea to close the road to through traffic on weekends to enable cyclists to use the road in safety.

So, just to be clear, you'd be perfectly happy to have the road outside your house closed (and, just to make it accurate, no access to other local parking, routes out, or public transport to compensate) one day a week for four months of the year?

markhewitt1978

AchillesLeftKnee wrote:

So, just to be clear, you'd be perfectly happy to have the road outside your house closed (and, just to make it accurate, no access to other local parking, routes out, or public transport to compensate) one day a week for four months of the year?

If you read what I said *through* traffic.

Brakeless

The main congestion on Box Hill is from the bottom to the cafe at the top. On this section there are a couple of houses at the bottom in the first couple of hundred metres. After the Cafe the road widens and most cyclists are going at 25mph + on the descent. The hold up for motorists from the cafe to the junction at Headley Common Road would amount to a couple of minutes at the most if motorists just sat behind the cyclist(s) that may be there.

The National Trust actually own the road and they do charge Sportives that use it so they are definately aware of all these events.

As for changing access to people homes, we're talking adding 5 minutes to journeys on a Sunday morning. There are towns across Europe (including Bristol recently) that have car free days for whole areas of towns! We're talking one road here.

navrig

AchillesLeftKnee wrote:

markhewitt1978 wrote:

AchillesLeftKnee wrote:

Correct assumption. The problem on Box Hill and certain parts of the surrounding area is that it's not a couple of events every year, it's events most Sundays from mid spring to the end of September, coupled with the Sunday morning West London (which is a short ride away) exodus plus those local riders who congregate in the area. Numbers reach herd-mentality critical mass on a very regular basis, and that's what's causing the problems.

Sounds like a good idea to close the road to through traffic on weekends to enable cyclists to use the road in safety.

So, just to be clear, you'd be perfectly happy to have the road outside your house closed (and, just to make it accurate, no access to other local parking, routes out, or public transport to compensate) one day a week for four months of the year?

I wouldn't rise to his posts. He is Trolling

pkripper

Slowbike wrote:

pkripper wrote:

djm501 wrote:

Sportives require you to obey the rules of the road and that should be adhered to

There's a requirement to, however, in my experience it's clearly not getting through. And if it takes regulation for that, then so be it.

As DJM501 asks - how is regulation going to make the rider obey the highway code?


Regulation will be all about form filling and payments - form filling for the health & safety "risks", checking other events in the same area and the payments will be to "administer" the forms. All it will do is add a cost to the organisers (then passed on to the riders/sponsors).

As I said above - I believe some events already do consult the local council & police force - it was mentioned in the UKCE New Forest event. The UKCE/Wiggle French sportives close roads in Dover to get riders from the carpark to the ferry port - you cannot do that without the agreement of the local authorities.

Well, in my mind there's a few ways that the regulation would help:
- the number of sportives in a particular area could / would be managed / reduced. This would reduce potential conflicts of both groups of riders and motorists and residents, and also ensure that the routes are planned accordingly / starting volumes managed. This would make best use of the available roadspace, and reduce the need for "Mr Amazing Lycra Hero" to feel that he is going 0.08kph faster than the other people therefore needs to overtake in a congested area etc.

- there could be the requirement to have marshalls that move throughout the course who are able to identify poor examples of riding and disqualify those people. It'll lead to "Mr Angry Lycra Hero", but those that ride to a decent standard won't have any problems.

- more regulation means more expense = higher entry fees = either reduced participation or a change of demographic. The latter I'm not in favour of, but riding a bike is free at any time. And a basic stopwatch is a few quid - do you really need a sportive to ride somewhere if the roads aren't closed?

- Key areas could / would be closed with sufficient notification. Sportives could be required to clear an area by a certain time, which means that residents / locals don't feel trapped etc.


There's any number of ways that this sort of thing could play out, but I don't think the current way is a model for the future. The key thing that I would be interested in are that any regulation (if any), or more likely guidance, is done in conjunction with both local cycling groups / clubs, residents and businesses, as well as those organising. The local point is the key - recognise the effects on various parties in various areas and manage accordingly.

Ultimately, cycling on the roads is free. It's cheap to time yourself over a route on any given day, and we, as cyclists also need to be cogniscent of the impact what we term as our sport has on other members of society, as do they with their actions.

markhewitt1978

Navrig wrote:

I wouldn't rise to his posts. He is Trolling

Who's trolling?

slowbike

Brakeless wrote:

The National Trust actually own the road and they do charge Sportives that use it so they are definitely aware of all these events.

Well - those that choose to disclose their plans to the NT ...

slowbike

pkripper wrote:

Well, in my mind there's a few ways that the regulation would help:
<snip>
- there could be the requirement to have marshalls that move throughout the course who are able to identify poor examples of riding and disqualify those people. It'll lead to "Mr Angry Lycra Hero", but those that ride to a decent standard won't have any problems.

I rode the New Forest Spring Sportive this year - we were told that anyone breaking the rules would be disqualified from this and future UKCE events - fair enough you think - but one of the rules was (apparently) riding two abreast ... we are content with abiding by the highway code and the laws of the land - but this one rather defeats one of my objects - that of socialising during the ride. Of course, there are appropriate and inappropriate times to ride two abreast and I don't have an issue with that. I can even understand why UKCE would stipulate it as a rule - but it makes you question why on earth you're riding to start with.

Next we'll have fixed paced group ride where you must all ride single file behind a pace motorbike at precisely 15.6mph. Anyone dropping more than 2' from the wheel in front will be disqualified and instructed to leave the group.

I know a lot of ppl don't like sportives, but a lot do ... sportive organisers need to get their houses in order to head off the inevitable regulation ...

Revdarny

Brakeless wrote:

The National Trust actually own the road and they do charge Sportives that use it so they are definitely aware of all these events.

I'm not sure this is the case, The National Trust own the land but not the road, it's not a private road. The idea of charging for events on the zig zag road has been on the cards for a while. The problem is that Surrey County Council are responsible for the road. If the road was a private road it would be easier to restrict access for cyclists.

I think it's a good idea that sportives are regulated if only to avoid several event clashing,

markhewitt1978

Revdarny wrote:

I think it's a good idea that sportives are regulated if only to avoid several event clashing,

Regulation would be the death of sportives as we know them and push costs through the roof.

Wunnunda

Trying to 'licence' events will almost certainly 'cull' many, and in any case there are far to many semi-formal club rides that get involved in the mix and they are too unstructured to regulate. But I don't think it's unreasonable to ask charities and the bigger sportive organisers to create some form of coordinating process to reduce overlaps (temporal and geographical).

Brakeless

So what are these 'licences' or 'regulations' actually going to include ?

pkripper

Brakeless wrote:

So what are these 'licences' or 'regulations' actually going to include ?

why don't you come up with some suggestions?

jibberjim

Revdarny wrote:

Brakeless wrote:

The National Trust actually own the road and they do charge Sportives that use it so they are definitely aware of all these events.

I'm not sure this is the case, The National Trust own the land but not the road, it's not a private road. The idea of charging for events on the zig zag road has been on the cards for a while. The problem is that Surrey County Council are responsible for the road. If the road was a private road it would be easier to restrict access for cyclists.

When was the road turned over to the council (it used to be private from the gate just after the carpark at the end of the first zig) ? Both the Halfords filming and various days before the Olympics it was closed without road closure procedures being followed (although that could've just been done without reference to the rules...)

Brakeless

pkripper wrote:

Brakeless wrote:

So what are these 'licences' or 'regulations' actually going to include ?

why don't you come up with some suggestions?

Because I don't think any are needed. There's far more important issues to worry about than a few locals getting upset with cyclists. I'm interested to know what the cyclists on here that have an issue with other cyclists think should actually be done about this really serious issue. Just because a few locals have moaned and an MP/Counciior or whatever has decided he can get a bit of press coverage off the back of it doesn't turn it into an issue of any real importance.

verylonglegs

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Navrig wrote:

I wouldn't rise to his posts. He is Trolling

Who's trolling?

It's because you sound the same as the selfish motorists, you just happen to ride a bike.

markhewitt1978

verylonglegs wrote:

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Navrig wrote:

I wouldn't rise to his posts. He is Trolling

Who's trolling?

It's because you sound the same as the selfish motorists, you just happen to ride a bike.

Not at all. I'm merely suggesting that excess cars are a problem all over the country. A few excess bikes in one location is nothing to worry about.

I take exception to being labelled a troll just because I don't want to see restrictions placed on cyclists.

verylonglegs

markhewitt1978 wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Navrig wrote:

I wouldn't rise to his posts. He is Trolling

Who's trolling?

It's because you sound the same as the selfish motorists, you just happen to ride a bike.

Not at all. I'm merely suggesting that excess cars are a problem all over the country. A few excess bikes in one location is nothing to worry about.

I take exception to being labelled a troll just because I don't want to see restrictions placed on cyclists.

Well your reasoning doesn't stand up at all, it's not the local residents fault there are busy roads elsewhere in the country so telling them to just suck it up is nonsense, it really has no logic to it, and it's certainly not an attitude I'd want to be associated with as a cyclist.

roger_merriman

jibberjim wrote:

Revdarny wrote:

Brakeless wrote:

The National Trust actually own the road and they do charge Sportives that use it so they are definitely aware of all these events.

I'm not sure this is the case, The National Trust own the land but not the road, it's not a private road. The idea of charging for events on the zig zag road has been on the cards for a while. The problem is that Surrey County Council are responsible for the road. If the road was a private road it would be easier to restrict access for cyclists.

When was the road turned over to the council (it used to be private from the gate just after the carpark at the end of the first zig) ? Both the Halfords filming and various days before the Olympics it was closed without road closure procedures being followed (although that could've just been done without reference to the rules...)

Google street view car stopped at each gates as well, to the best of my knowledge it's still a private road. I have a feeling there is a old sign at the upper gate, or at least used to be one.

markhewitt1978

Ah right. So anyone who disagees with your opinion is a troll?
And deserves to have a silly animated gif posted?

TKF

markhewitt1978 wrote:

There are thousands of miles of road in the UK which are 'too busy' for cycling because of too many motor vehicles.

These roads are 'too busy' for motor vehicles due to too many cyclists.

Tough.

People aren't driving for fun. They are trying to get somewhere. A sportive is a voluntary leisure activity.

Your attitude is why so many motorists hate cyclists.

We're all sharing the same roads. Let's try not to be dicks about it.

Brakeless

TKF wrote:

markhewitt1978 wrote:

There are thousands of miles of road in the UK which are 'too busy' for cycling because of too many motor vehicles.

These roads are 'too busy' for motor vehicles due to too many cyclists.

Tough.

TKF wrote:

People aren't driving for fun. They are trying to get somewhere. A sportive is a voluntary leisure activity.

Most car journeys on a sunday morning are hardly going to be essential

TKF wrote:

Your attitude is why so many motorists hate cyclistsl

Most drivers that dislike cyclists do so through no fault of the cyclists. It's mainly down to some sense of superiority and a false sense o road ownership

TKF wrote:

We're all sharing the same roads. Let's try not to be dicks about it.

Calling people dicks and trying to diminish thier posts by insulting them because you disagree with them doesn't make you right!

awavey

but I dont understand how the regulation of all sportives all over the country is in anyway a proportionate or reasonable response to solving the "problem" in this one part of Surrey, or even fixes the local residents issue there.

As even if all sportives were regulated and banned from ever using Box Hill again, you would still find every weekend in the summer,potentially at least several hundreds of cyclists using that route.

it just seems an over reaction when the solution is surely to encourage closer cooperation with the organisers of these events to try and plan their routes better, which ought to be in their interests anyway as there must be limited appeal running so many similar routes constantly throughout the summer

AchillesLeftKnee

TKF wrote:

We're all sharing the same roads. Let's try not to be dicks about it.

Spot on, but unfortunately a bit brutal for some.

Wunnunda

Box Hill is a rather special case, I think? Being such a local issue I think some form of local 'regulation' could be made to work for bigger rides. However it won't solve the problem of smaller, informal groups, familes or individuals just turning up because of the Olympic halo effect (which WILL die away, I suspect).

My more general point is that the impact of mass participation is affecting a much wider part of SE England than just one corner of Surrey. I'm worried because if The Authorities do start wading in (and I think that is unlkely TBH) the rules may be draconian. Much better for cycling to be seen to be proactive IMO.

Revdarny

roger merriman wrote:

jibberjim wrote:

Revdarny wrote:

Brakeless wrote:

The National Trust actually own the road and they do charge Sportives that use it so they are definitely aware of all these events.

I'm not sure this is the case, The National Trust own the land but not the road, it's not a private road. The idea of charging for events on the zig zag road has been on the cards for a while. The problem is that Surrey County Council are responsible for the road. If the road was a private road it would be easier to restrict access for cyclists.

When was the road turned over to the council (it used to be private from the gate just after the carpark at the end of the first zig) ? Both the Halfords filming and various days before the Olympics it was closed without road closure procedures being followed (although that could've just been done without reference to the rules...)

Google street view car stopped at each gates as well, to the best of my knowledge it's still a private road. I have a feeling there is a old sign at the upper gate, or at least used to be one.

I could be wrong on this one. Was having a chat about this last night. It seems Surrey County Council are responsible for the maintenance and traffic for that road but the road may be owned by the National Trust. But don't take that as gospel. Was trying to find some further info on it late last night but my bed was calling.

In the case of Boxhill, I think charging a fee or asking for a donation for an event to use the road could work (If it is a private road) as long as it's not an over the top price. If it is a private road they are entitled to close the road without notice.

The problem is it's not just cyclist, lots of people go there just because it's a nice area in the summer. It's always been a busy area but the recent influx of riders has just exacerbate things. Give it a year and things would probably of died down.

If you want to ride in that area there are better hills to climb. Ranmore which is just opposite on the other side of the A24 and Leith Hill, the second highest point in the south east.

drlodge

Revdarny wrote:

If you want to ride in that area there are better hills to climb. Ranmore which is just opposite on the other side of the A24 and Leith Hill, the second highest point in the south east.

I did both of these last Sunday after the Club ride (boy was it hot), Ranmore was particularly good due to there being an ice cream van parked in the car park just at the top of that looooong hill. Make mine a double I said!

Now if only there was a cafe at the top of Leith Hill (accessible to road cyclists)...

Revdarny

drlodge wrote:

I did both of these last Sunday after the Club ride (boy was it hot), Ranmore was particularly good due to there being an ice cream van parked in the car park just at the top of that looooong hill. Make mine a double I said!

Now if only there was a cafe at the top of Leith Hill (accessible to road cyclists)...

If you go over to Peaslake via Holmbury hill there's local shop that's good for tea/coffee and cake. It's in the centre of Peaslake. MTB and Roadies tent to descend on the place over the weekend, it's work a look.