Sportive regulation on its way

markhewitt1978

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/arti ... ion-39341/

js14

If it is done properly and in a constructive manner, I don't have a problem with local authorities having powers to regulate large scale sporting events on public roads. By constructive, I mean checking the organisers are competent and have enough public liability insurance, ensuring that proper safety measures are taken, making sure adequate marshalling will be available and avoiding several events taking place in the same area on the same day. A trickier question is how much control you give the authority over the route. If they can simply veto any route with no attempt to find a compromise which can satisfy everyone, then I can see problems ahead.

DeVlaeminck

I can't see any good in it. We can sort the wheat from the chaff ourselves. I'd rather there was no police, local authority, ambulance services etc input at all.

47p2

Perfect excuse to hike the prices up even further

DaveMoss

I know of lots of potentially good cycle routes, probably good sportive routes, that are spoiled by having to use sections where there are just two many cars. I find these cars and lorries a major inconvenience, I demand that the government bring in laws to regulate the use of motor vehicles in the countryside, especially on days when I ride my bike.

markhewitt1978

My main concern is that local authorities will just view this as yet another revenue raising opportunity and charge a small fortune just for doing nothing more than stamping a form. Thus increasing costs for everyone.

diy

I really cannot see how regulation can be appropriately drafted. At what point is an organised club run an event? How do you determine who is in or not in the event? Who do you prosecute for failure to register - the attendee or the organiser? How do you stop people just turning up and joining in.

The issue which seems to annoy locals is the impact of the closed road events (which is pretty bad with roads closed 6AM to 6PM) and the discourteous behavior of people riding in large groups, sporting matching team underpants. There is also a misconception that people go there to practice, whereas the vast majority of people I see riding the surrey hills are pretty local.

Currently its illegal to hold a cycle race or time trial on the road which is not registered. But that legislation was pre strava and internet, so very hard to translate in to current activities. I would argue, that anyone stravering a segment or entering a sportive with a view to beat a set time is already committing an offence, which is near impossible to police.

markhewitt1978

diy wrote:

I really cannot see how regulation can be appropriately drafted. At what point is an organised club run an event?

I would imagine the main factor is if you have to pay to enter the event.

NeXXus

markhewitt1978 wrote:

diy wrote:

I really cannot see how regulation can be appropriately drafted. At what point is an organised club run an event?

I would imagine the main factor is if you have to pay to enter the event.

But can also turn up and ride without paying which comes right back to diy's post

thefog

Club run isn't an event though that attracts 500-2000 cyclists, that leave one venue, congregate at a number of other venues along the route [in tents or village halls] and then meet again at the initial venue. All paying [usually], all being fed and watered, all signing a declaration or similar to protect the "event organisers" interests.

As for regulation - we live in an age of health and safety and persons seeking to make a claim for the slightest incident. There are a number of arrangements associated with sportives that bring about potential for claims by various parties. I suspect the [any?] regulation will seek to ensure that event organisers introduce mitigating measures and protect themselves and other bodies [such as reliance on local councils and emergency services].

British Cycling already publish a guidance document [which is not right in some respects] that outlines the processes sportive organisers should follow - most sportive organisers don't follow this at all.

thefog

markhewitt1978 wrote:

My main concern is that local authorities will just view this as yet another revenue raising opportunity and charge a small fortune just for doing nothing more than stamping a form. Thus increasing costs for everyone.

Have you any evidence to show that local authorities do this? My experience is that they now assist event organisers through safety advisory groups.

To play devils advocate, if the Sportive is making money out of an event for using public roads, why shouldn't the authorities also receive fees to cover their services? An example was recently used for the Evans Nottingham cancellation - not sure it was quite a clear case but the suggestion seemed to be that Notts Ambulance Service had concerns. It does prompt the debate about all sportives needing to provide their own medical teams such as St Johns Ambulance.

DeVlaeminck

We already pay for ambulance services through taxation. I doesn't seem like a very efficient use of resources if every organised activity is going to have to provide medical cover. My local park has loads of football matches on this morning, the council make money from renting out the pitches, referees are paid, a snack van is taking money for drinks, are they going to be asked to have an ambulance on standby in case a footballer breaks his leg?

thefog

Local sporting activities are part of normal weekends that the blue/ green light services contend with as part of their normal duties. Similarly, individuals or small groups going cycling (healthy lifestyles) would also be covered by those services. They are regular activities part of normal social life.

Sportives, whilst now accepted ARE events organised on a commercial basis, much like a ticketed sporting event which are generally required to provide medical cover, risk assessments and public liability insurance.

The Great North run or the runforall 10k events bring in their own medical cover that can deal with minor incidents, until ambulances etc can attend, so I see no reason why sportive organisers don't either.

DeVlaeminck

Because sportives cover large areas with often relatively few participants, certainly compared to popular running events, so the cost of providing effective ambulance cover would be prohibitive.

Riding a sportive is as much a normal sporting activity as playing a football match. As far as local running events goes, I used to be on a running club committee and I know emergency services demands have killed many events - you may think their demands are reasonable but let's be clear about the consequences.

diy

Always the risk of unintended consequences, where the events effectively go underground and are arranged through social media. There have also been a few events where deposits have been taken, but the organiser cancels it when he fails to raise the required entrants fees to make it commercially viable (from his point of view). Usually they create a specific legal entity for the event and wind the lot up together, so you don't even get your money back as the company folds.

If regulation raises the bar for those arranging events then maybe thats a good thing. The problem will be for the small clubs who do open events for charity or even a small margin. I've been on a few and they are a lot of fun with the added advantage of a bit of support if needed. I went on one recently and the starts were staggered intervals a few mins apart. Seemed very smart. It would be good if there is a distinction between commercially run events and not for profit events.

markhewitt1978

TheFog wrote:

Have you any evidence to show that local authorities do this? My experience is that they now assist event organisers through safety advisory groups.

I was talking about the potential for that to happen should regulation be brought in. It would have to be thought about carefully so as to not reduce it to a 'fee for ticking a box'.

Stedman

As an observation this discussion from my experience the likely process for establishing the necessary legislation to regulate sportives is likely to politically be a lengthy one and would normally require a Statutory Instrument and an Enabling Act for this to occur. Because of their complexity, specialist ones like this are usually prepared in the middle of a Parliamentary life and Ministers are averse to spending time on these if there is an alternative opportunity of self-regulation. The current Cabinet Office also has its own Red Tape Challenge so unless sportives become a major problem rather than a nuisance, than it is unlikely that we shall see any specific sportive legislation introduced.

Having identified this, if the cycle racing on highways regulations 1960 are re-visited, then I am sure that big sportives on open roads are likely to be included.

diy

If you look at the consultation letter they clearly have their eye on for profit sportives.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultat ... tions-1960

However, I'd argue that any organised ride measuring and publishing rider data by position, is a cycle race as already covered by sec 31 of the Road traffic act. Its just nobody has bothered to bring a prosecution to test the definition of a cycle race.

I personally reckon strava-ing a segment is also one and the same and that both the segment creator and those who upload their data are also a potential target under sec 31. But any prosecution would be fraught with challenges.

slowbike

This morning BBC South were promoting Inside Out which was a focus on the "Cycle Races" taking place in the New Forest ... of course, they mean sportives ... but hey, don't let that spoil the misconception ...

The TV schedules don't match the promotion though so not sure what will be broadcast.

diy

Its interesting since the wiggle ones all have published rider times. I personally don't think a change in law is needed for any event with published times and gold, silver, bronze times.

markhewitt1978

Slowbike wrote:

This morning BBC South were promoting Inside Out which was a focus on the "Cycle Races" taking place in the New Forest ... of course, they mean sportives ... but hey, don't let that spoil the misconception ...

The TV schedules don't match the promotion though so not sure what will be broadcast.

It's important that sort of thing is challenged; you mention a cycle race to someone they're thinking closed roads, the Tour de France peloton coming through.

markhewitt1978

diy wrote:

Its interesting since the wiggle ones all have published rider times. I personally don't think a change in law is needed for any event with published times and gold, silver, bronze times.

Personally I agree with that, fair enough publish the times but grading according to gold, silver, bronze etc puts a focus on completing the course quickly, with the potential consequences therein.

slowbike

markhewitt1978 wrote:

diy wrote:

Its interesting since the wiggle ones all have published rider times. I personally don't think a change in law is needed for any event with published times and gold, silver, bronze times.

Personally I agree with that, fair enough publish the times but grading according to gold, silver, bronze etc puts a focus on completing the course quickly, with the potential consequences therein.

You don't need to publish Gold, Silver, Bronze times to focus the mind on completing the course quickly.

The gold time is usually well within grasp of an average to quick rider - and if most are like me, you set your own time goal.

Having a time goal doesn't make you an antisocial cyclist or a law breaking one ...

diy

Noting that none of this has been tested in law.

If someone is publishing your stats in a "results" table, then IMO even if they say "this is not a race", they are still promoting a "cycle race". The difficulty is proving an individual took part in the race knowing it was a race. But as with other aspects of the Road Traffic Act, there is no requirement to prove intent/guilty mind (mens rea). Simply it was a race and you took part in the race.

I don't see the need to publish timed results for sportives. But where they do - IMO its pretty clearly a race no matter what its called or the disclaimer used.

With someone strava-ing I'd say even threads posting a segment with stated times and a league table are probably unauthorised TTs. There are a few issues proving someone took part, the intention of uploading your data and matching segments vs. blogging or posting about your performance.

Threads like :
viewtopic.php?f=40007&t=12907533

are probably unauthorised TTs.

thefog

markhewitt1978 wrote:

TheFog wrote:

Have you any evidence to show that local authorities do this? My experience is that they now assist event organisers through safety advisory groups.

I was talking about the potential for that to happen should regulation be brought in. It would have to be thought about carefully so as to not reduce it to a 'fee for ticking a box'.

Many authorities already assess applications for events and "tick a box" whilst levying no fee. Good opportunities for organisers and authorities to work together - organiser benefits from authorities advice and issues such as co-ordination - authority benefits with tourism etc.

Philip Whiteman

Stedman wrote:

As an observation this discussion from my experience the likely process for establishing the necessary legislation to regulate sportives is likely to politically be a lengthy one and would normally require a Statutory Instrument and an Enabling Act for this to occur. Because of their complexity, specialist ones like this are usually prepared in the middle of a Parliamentary life and Ministers are averse to spending time on these if there is an alternative opportunity of self-regulation. The current Cabinet Office also has its own Red Tape Challenge so unless sportives become a major problem rather than a nuisance, than it is unlikely that we shall see any specific sportive legislation introduced.

Having identified this, if the cycle racing on highways regulations 1960 are re-visited, then I am sure that big sportives on open roads are likely to be included.

This is spot on observation in terms of regulating cycling activities.

It is interesting to note that the New Forest National Park Authority have been wrestling with this issue following the recent contestation between verderers and UK Cycling Events over the Wiggle sportive. A report was produced for members of the Authority outlining available regulatory options:

http://www.newforestnpa.gov.uk/meetings ... _authority

markhewitt1978

I think National Parks are somewhat of a special case, because they exist to be enjoyed by all and to an extent be 'unspoiled'. So any event or activity which is considered to be in excess, such as too many sportives, deserves to be looked at if it's spoiling the tranquillity of the area. (I don't believe this is the case but as I'm not local I cannot say)

diy

From the link above I think this..

"3.4 Sportives, like those organised by UK Cycling Events are not considered by the Police to be races or time trials and therefore need no permissions."

..is an unqualified opinion.

I think a sportive posting rider times by position is probably a race within the current definition. It may well be that they didn't look in to it in enough detail with an appropriately qualified person.

its all about the questions you ask.

When is a cycling event a race? would be the key question.

slowbike

diy wrote:

I think a sportive posting rider times by position is probably a race within the current definition. It may well be that they didn't look in to it in enough detail with an appropriately qualified person.

UKCE don't post times by position - they post them in alphabetical order by rider last name. They use a format that makes it harder (but not impossible if you try for 5 minutes) to get it into a time ordered list.
eg - I can say that my wife and I were in the top 100 "fastest" riders in our last sportive - out of ~300 total.

diy wrote:

When is a cycling event a race? would be the key question.

It is a good question ...

What makes a race a race ...
Prizes?
Podium presentations?
Points awarded for a series of races?
A quick google defines race as:

a competition between runners, horses, vehicles, etc. to see which is the fastest in covering a set course.

Does that make a sportive a race?

diy

Its defined here:
http://lvrc.org/documents/road_traffic_act_1960.pdf

It would appear to be a race where the results of the entrants are published according to their start and finish time, elapsed time etc for a set course or the distance covered over a fixed time. The key element is the publishing of results and the ability to rank according to results.

There does not need to be any points or prizes. It is simply acknowledged to be a race where the objective is time, distance etc and that entrants are ranked accordingly.

Personally I reckon they could easily bring a prosecution for an unauthorised race in a case where entrants data was published.

Stedman

diy wrote:

Its defined here:
http://lvrc.org/documents/road_traffic_act_1960.pdf

It would appear to be a race where the results of the entrants are published according to their start and finish time, elapsed time etc for a set course or the distance covered over a fixed time. The key element is the publishing of results and the ability to rank according to results.

There does not need to be any points or prizes. It is simply acknowledged to be a race where the objective is time, distance etc and that entrants are ranked accordingly.

Personally I reckon they could easily bring a prosecution for an unauthorised race in a case where entrants data was published.

In the eyes of the public because we have numbers and timing chips on our bikes it must be a race. How results are published to define whether it is a race or not outside the letter of the law to them is irreverent.

If these events were simply not numbered, then it would possibly be seen as another day with a lot of cyclist out rather than yet another big cycling event taking place!