Olympic cyclists' letter to the PM

secretsam

Just seen that various medallists, plus Hoy, Boardman etc have written to the PM about instilling a real legacy of our success in cycling by investing in our appalling cycling infrastructure:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/01/team-gbs-cycling-heroes-call-for-legacy-of-everyday-cycling

Good to see, but will she take any notice?

N0bodyOfTheGoat

Will May react in a positive way? I would be amazed if she did.

But as part of a major re-think regarding the nation's health, it could be great. Get a lot more people confidently using bikes for trips less than five miles; people get healthier and put less strain on the NHS; roads get less congested for the businesses that really do require them; more eco-friendly for the the planet etc.

ugo.santalucia

Barking at the wrong tree... May is a monster... I bet she'd run cyclists over with a Jag if that was good for the GDP... :-)

sloppyschleckonds

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Barking at the wrong tree... May is a monster... I bet she'd run cyclists over with a Jag if that was good for the GDP... :-)

Loves the Alps, hates cyclists

tangled_metal

Health benefits can be had for less outlay by encouraging other activities. During Labour's heyday under Blair they gave a wedge of money to the Ramblers to promote walking for health. They squandered it but nobody pulled them to about it.

Cycling is up to you to do for yourself. The government, no matter what the colour of their politics, won't get involved. If any council wants to get involved with promoting and encouraging cycling through improved provision then that's their choice. They've just got to find their own budget for it.

awavey

SecretSam wrote:

Just seen that various medallists, plus Hoy, Boardman etc have written to the PM about instilling a real legacy of our success in cycling by investing in our appalling cycling infrastructure:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/01/team-gbs-cycling-heroes-call-for-legacy-of-everyday-cycling

Good to see, but will she take any notice?

are there votes in it ? then probably not but its worthwhile them saying it, as after all the government and politicians of all parties are often quick to try and bask in the reflected glory

but should we read anything into whose names arent on the list ? no Archibald,Burke,Clancy,Froome,Hindes, Skinner or Wiggo...

ugo.santalucia

The Gold came from the track, as track facilities go, Britain is second to none, with at least 3 world class indoor velodromes (London, Manchester, Glasgow) and more "first class ones" (Newport etc... ), on top of a large number of outdoor facilities.

If you take Italy, there is one first class indoor velodrome (Montichiari) and a few dated facilities, including the refurbished Vigorelli...

The connection between cycle lanes and golds on the track is less clear

jamesco

ugo.santalucia wrote:

The connection between cycle lanes and golds on the track is less clear

Yep, the connection is tenuous at best, but if the medal-winners have some influence and want to spend it on making the case for cycling infrastructure, then all power to them.

Boardman is particularly good at making his case for the benefits of cycle infrastructure. His arguments are entirely practical and would convince anyone who is interested in solving problems, even those who have no interest in getting on a bike themselves. We're lucky to have him as an advocate.

The Rookie

For a connection from cycle lanes to golds you just look at the pyramid, the more people cycling at the bottom (no-one ever starts on a track) the more people realise they enjoy it and are good, the more slowly move up the pyramid towards the pinnacle, be that road or track, the more intense the local competition the harder it pushes people to be the best they can be.

It's why the all-blacks are good at rugby, every kid in NZ wants to be an AB and it has little competition for talent in the country so they all play rugby.

jamesco

Nah, I'd disagree. I think that the reason for the UK doing well in track-cycling is that it has the wealth, funding, interest and infrastructure to succeed in what is an expensive, inaccessible and fairly strange competition.

It's not exclusive to track-cycling - I'd say the same thing about kayaking, sailing, rowing and horse-parking. These are events where talent+money talk a lot louder than talent alone.

There's a reason that football is far and away the most popular sport: it doesn't require much more than a ball. That's also the reason that the English do rather less well in football than in track-cycling

The Rookie

Sport England funds on results, track cycling has the money BECAUSE it was getting the results.

We're rubbish at football because of the way the sport is run in the UK, where buying in pre trained foreign players makes more business sense than trying to find and develop UK talent.

ugo.santalucia

The Rookie wrote:

Sport England funds on results, track cycling has the money BECAUSE it was getting the results.

We're rubbish at football because of the way the sport is run in the UK, where buying in pre trained foreign players makes more business sense than trying to find and develop UK talent.

If the base was a good argument, then Britain and Australia would be miles behind... it is really down to the track specific infrastructure, which is world class in Britain and less so anywhere else... funding bring a heap of coaches (the joke was that team GB has more coaches than Wallace Arnold).

Track cycling was initially funded as it could potentially bring a lot of gold, over other sports with fewer races and the competition was not outstanding... and of course there was the Boardman/Obree legacy

In Italy if you are promising on the track, you end up in a PRO team doing the domestique, because there is no money for the track... look at Ganna, he is awesome and you will probably never see him again on a track

The Rookie

Not disagreeing, but the point stands, the bigger you make the base of the pyramid, the more likely you are to get people who have the potential to actually try something so they find out.

kingstongraham

jamesco wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

The connection between cycle lanes and golds on the track is less clear

Yep, the connection is tenuous at best, but if the medal-winners have some influence and want to spend it on making the case for cycling infrastructure, then all power to them.

Boardman is particularly good at making his case for the benefits of cycle infrastructure. His arguments are entirely practical and would convince anyone who is interested in solving problems, even those who have no interest in getting on a bike themselves. We're lucky to have him as an advocate.

I don't think anyone is trying to make that connection. Like you say, it's just them using a position of prominence to try to improve the lot of cyclists generally.

ugo.santalucia

The Rookie wrote:

Not disagreeing, but the point stands, the bigger you make the base of the pyramid, the more likely you are to get people who have the potential to actually try something so they find out.

I don't believe in the pyramid... I don't believe Kenny or Hoy or Trott are the pinnacle of a pyramid of talent... I think they were picked as promising athletes out of a small pool and developed scientifically into formidable competitors... I think they are the result of an amazing programme, rather than genetically amazing individuals

The Rookie

All possibly true, but they have to have some latent potential, and the bigger you make the base of the pyramid the more likely you are to find those with the best potential, otherwise you are saying it's just luck as to who got chosen to be trained to be the best and any of us could have done it!

ugo.santalucia

The Rookie wrote:

All possibly true, but they have to have some latent potential, and the bigger you make the base of the pyramid the more likely you are to find those with the best potential, otherwise you are saying it's just luck as to who got chosen to be trained to be the best and any of us could have done it!

You need a base, not necessarily a large base... otherwise New Zealand wouldn't exist. What you need is people who can spot latent talent and know how to work with the existing pool. Someone like Laura Trott would have been discarded in a less knowledgeable environment... too small