- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
New Forest rider and pony (CC licensed by iNew Forest:Flickr)Cycling organisations oppose "discriminatory and disproportionate" New Forest events rules
An attempt to impose a cap on the number of riders that can take part in sportives in the New Forest looks set to fail as cycling groups and the largest event organiser in the forest have refused to sign up.
The limit of 1000 riders is part of a proposed cycling events charter, which will be discussed at a meeting of the New Forest National Park Authority (NFNPA) on Thursday.
A letter to the authority from local representatives of British Cycling, CTC and Sustrans calls two aspects of the charter "discriminatory and disproportionate": the cap, and the requirement for riders to wear numbers front and rear.
A small but very vocal number of New Forest locals has campaigned against sportives being held in the forest. Their demands have included a cap on rider numbers as low as 500, and identifying numbers on riders.
Incorporating those demands into the events charters makes it "both discriminatory and disproportionate" the cycling organisations say.
They write:
Advisory limits are not recommend by the NFNPA for the number of participants or vehicles attending non-cycling commercial events that also lead to local traffic congestion, such as the New Forest Show or events at the Beaulieu Motor Museum.
Nor have limits been recommended in other areas where local issues have arisen such as the number of dog walkers during the ground nesting bird season or the number of riders of shod horses; indeed the NFNPA has previously undertaken significant policy changes when challenged by the equestrian community.
They also point out "that the wearing of numbers in general, let alone front and rear, are not being advised by the NFNPA for any participants in any other recreational activity.
"It was clear from some attending the Cycle Liaison Group that the requirement for all riders to wear numbers front and rear was motivated by a desire to photograph and report riders during events.
"This form of vigilantism, only one step removed from the illegal removal of signs and the spreading of tacks on the road, can only lead to confrontation and danger to participants."
They add that the numbering requirement is "disproportionate in that the advice on numbering is more onerous that that required by the law on motorcyclists and disproportionate given the low frequency of the primary event involved."
CTC head office opposes the cap. A spokesman for the cycling charity told road.cc: "The current cap as suggested by the New Forest Charter is purely an arbitrary figure that has no basis in real evidence beyond the anecdotal. What we would like to see is each event judged on a case by case basis, with the number of riders agreed with a Safety Advisory Group beforehand.”
At Thursday's meeting the NFNPA will discuss a report on the charter by Nigel Matthews, head of recreation management and learning for the park.
In the report, Mathews points out that only one organisation, UK Cycling Events, has run events involving more than the proposed 1000-rider limit.
The report says:
The company that has organised the largest and most prominent cycle events in the New Forest is UK Cycling Events, often sponsored by Wiggle, run by Martin Barden.
In recent years, theirs are the only cycle sportive events that have exceeded 1,000 riders (on about five days/year).
Martin has fully engaged with the Liaison Group and made a number of changes to his events as requested, but he does not support the cap or the need for rear identification numbers.
The Cycling Liaison Group was created in March 2013 to establish a code of conduct for cycling in the park and a new charter for cycle event organisers. It initially included representatives of 31 groups and organisations, though the New Forest Dog Owners Group and the New Park event venue subsequently dropped out.
Of the remaining 29 groups and organisations, only ten represent cyclists or cycling event organisers.
In the report to the authority, Matthews writes:
Two national cycle organisations are represented on the Liaison Group: British Cycling (BC) and the Cyclist’s Touring Club (CTC). They support most of the Charter, especially the role of the Safety Advisory Group. However, they have consistently argued against the cap and blanket statement about rider identification.
They might have supported road- and event-specific limitations provided these were specified by the SAG (e.g. no more than x riders/minute on roads a, b and c), and if such limits were based on recorded incidences of serious impacts.
The New Forest National Park Authority will only suport the charter if it contains a cap.
The report says: "In June 2014 Members resolved that they would only support the Charter if it includes a cap of 1,000 cyclists and requires that riders wear rear numbers."
However, that's not the unanimous point of view of the authority. Totton councillor David Harrison, who sits on the authority's board, told the Southern Daily Echo's Chris Yandell: “It would have been so much better if the charter had concentrated on things that are necessary and achievable but stubbornness has meant that we’re likely to publish a charter that the cyclists won’t sign up to.”
But his fellow NPA member Maureen Holding said: “I’m not anti-cycling but I am against flooding the Forest and thus spoiling the quiet enjoyment that’s there for everyone.
“I’ve always said the cycling charter needs more teeth – it hasn’t got the bite that it needs.”
John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.
He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.
Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.
John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.
He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.
Latest Comments
- Andrewbanshee 9 min 20 sec ago
Tbh I ride cautiously at night when in dimly lit areas. I do have very bright front and rear lights too. It is true that many people seem oblivious...
- chrisonabike 38 min 24 sec ago
Don't mention them!!
- Rendel Harris 51 min 3 sec ago
Absolutely, so many of them quite clearly have chosen the job because they get to wear a uniform and a stab vest and carry a walkie-talkie so they...
- brooksby 52 min 26 sec ago
So the footpath has always been there too? Doesn't Cllr Lake think its a problem that motorists are apparently pulling out of the garage forecourt...
- Muddy Ford 56 min 17 sec ago
Would the cutting down of the hedge then enable another access road to the new estate, so do it under the guise of 'active travel'? I agree with...
- David9694 1 hour 20 min ago
Bus hits house as snow causes travel disruption and shuts schools across Yorkshire...
- Carmic0 3 hours 12 min ago
Nice to see the Passoni with external cabling.
- mark1a 7 hours 53 min ago
Yes, I agree, and thanks for replying, what I was trying to say (badly) was that Look wasn't really a bike company back then. ...
- George Hill 11 hours 57 min ago
Foxcote Hill in Ilmington - it's steep, it's not too long, and once you get to the top you can see the for miles across the Cotswolds....
- stonojnr 12 hours 4 min ago
well at least they didnt go for British Racing Green as well ,as then theyd have two trademark licensing cases up against them....
Add new comment
42 comments
I just googled Maureen Holding. She has a truly remarkable resemblance to Brian Badonde.
Why are British Cycling leaving it to CTC and Sustrans to raise the issue over the New Forest Cycling Charter. This affects Sportives, it could have wider implications in other National Parks and could be the thin end of the wedge for time trials in the New Forest. The NF NPA meeting this morning voted to implement the charter. BC need to speak out. Why are they so timid?
I ride around the NF a lot. It's not the ponies I worry about, it's the London jet set and their X7's, Range Rovers and other 'prestige' lumps of metal and plastic that concern me. In my expeience as a road rider, they regularly ignore the speed limit, overtake close to the rider and tailgate. Finally, it's they who complain most about the sportives as has been witnessed by a Green activist colleague of mine who has been attending these meetings. They are a self-centred, spoilt and elitist minority who think the NF is their private, weekend playground.
In the same way newly tweed clad worthies can be a bit scary, so too can hundreds of people wandering around in figure hugging day glow stretch clothing, constantly hydrating and admiring each others equipment.
This is a proposed voluntary code of conduct drawn up by a committee seeking "safe and responsible cycling and respect for local people"
Having approached at speed, and done a little skid to show respect, cyclists should spring out of the saddle and hug locals tightly, kissing them on both cheeks to allay irrational fears. This will be most effective if first you release your footwear from your pedals.
Spent 2 weeks in the NF last August, rode most days and experienced no problems, and to avoid traffic I did go early and late - start at 8 am or 6 pm. Never ridden a Sportive there as its a bit far away but I find all this attempt to cap people's enjoyment of something healthy and 'green' incomprehensible. It would surely be a serious and dangerous precedent if a rule is implemented against one specific type of highway user, and I agree it should be fought all the way. I am also a driver, and I know there are certain types of road on which only certain users are permitted, they're called motorways...oh hang on, they are all rammed full of cars and lorries and vans and coaches holding each other up, without any cyclists in sight....
Oh dear, not this again. Cycling in the New Forest is ok, but for me there are too many cars there at weekends. Think cars have numbers front and back. Might report a few of them and see where that gets me.
Maybe they will put a cap on the number of cars?
Actually, when I was driving there last year a couple of ponies had the audacity to block the road for ten minutes and cause a mild traffic jam. Maybe we should campaign for numbers on the front and back of ponies and limit their numbers too?
Yawn.
just remember that excessive numbers of cars are allowed to block roads on a daily basis, but a large number of bikes COULD be a criminal offence.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2013/mar/18/police-acti...
And if there was a puncture... and it takes a few to help of course... what happens if a car gets a puncture? Obstruction? And in any case, obstructing the flow of traffic is perfectly ok, well, it is round these parts when ever I've reported anything.
This could run and run, every weekend.....
It's a shame, as the New Forest is a nice place to ride. It can be a pain when the big sportives are in town though- the Sunday TT for a local stage race crossed the Wiggle sportive for a couple of years before the race weekend was changed (it had been running far longer than the sportive!) and you would sometimes have 4 riders abreast on a narrow road and have to shout at people to get out of the way and would be very difficult for other traffic on the narrow stretches.
If someone were to, for example, ask a group of friends on Twitter (other social networks are available and may end up being used by others to further publicise the intention) if they fancied a ride one weekend, then I don't believe that there would be much that anyone could do to stop anyone else from joining them. Unless any one person is defined as obstructing the flow of traffic then I don't think anyone would be breaking the law. If such a thing were to happen on a few weekends when there weren't any sportives planned then the NIMBYs wouldn't know who to complain about.
Just thinking aloud obviously, but it could happen!!!!
Was engaging in some new forest npa debate earlier. Check this out, particularly who are responsible for 75% of transgressions in the area.
https://twitter.com/dodgyd/status/557586561995657216
How about cyclists wear yellow stars on their clothing all the time?
and ride in ghettos like Box hill, or Cyclopark, or Hog Hill. I can see where this is going.
They THINK the problem is bikes but the problem is cars.
Shame we can not organise something on the scale of Tour of Flanders. 16 thousand riders!
S'pose I'll have drive around the forest in my car then.
I think it's high time I got myself the loudest road legal car and went for a drive through the New Forest. With fuel so cheap, I might soon, er I mean enjoy the serenity quietly, all night long.
I think I'd prefer to ride in the New Forest as part of a small group, rather than a huge Sportive anyhow.
I would suggest to Mrs Holding that the only thing spoiling the "quiet enjoyment" of the New Forest for everyone are the cars and trucks.
Perhaps a limit on motor vehicular usage is more appropriate? It would certainly mitigate the almost permanent traffic jams at Lyndhurst and Beaulieu in the summer months...
i wonder why they are so angry? Oh no, i see looking at the comments, it is because there are loads of selfish, ignorant, aggressive, sanctimonius cyclists about. Obvious really.
The new forest population are worried that ultimately horses will be banned once the superiority of metal (and plastic) horses has been proved, they see sportives simply as demonstration rides. Once everybody is on metal horses the hay futures market is likely to fall through the floor. Its understandable really
having ridden in the Wiggle New Forest last year, and the intention to ride again this year, I find this amazing. 3k of riders, a boost to the local coffers, and even with the snack-bar at mid way most of us will find more food post ride, before going home. Wiggle shouldn't be having to pay more for this...
bloody Nimbys, staying in the Forest, throwing tacks on the road and whinging...
In the main the people complaining are not actually making a living in or around the forest and certainly not from snack bars. The main complainers are not even (in the main) people from the forest. I was born in the forest and my brother still lives there. I don't see or hear people I would call "locals" having or voicing a problem.
It really is the carpetbaggers mainly from London that have bought expensive weekend places in a national park and then want to treat it as a personal estate. For example my brother being asked not to do building work on his own house on a Saturday because people 400m away could hear the cement mixer when they were "down for weekend". They've also complained about the Scouts using the forest. You know kids running about, shouting, singing at night and having fun. That's who/what you are up against.
So come on down and spend your money the NIMBYs don't get that, or they wouldn't complain. The locals who've lived there all their lives completely understand that the forest is a tourist destination and they all know someone whose job or business depends on that trade. And don't listen so much to the squeaking wheels. It's lovely cycling in the forest, you are entitled to do it and if some rich git that doesn't even really live there doesn't like it then tough. They can F*** off back to London and try that for noisy and crowded.
Jesus wept. "this is my second home, and kids shouldn't be allowed to have a campfire and a sing-song in the forest" We really shouldn't be surprised if it's come to that.
With all this fuss I wouldn't mind going round with a few thousand mates and seeing what it's all about
I'll wear a number on my back if the NPA agree to the event being a race. Closed roads.
Otherwise, what happens when riders who haven't paid, join in just to follow the route? Are the nimby's going to blame the event organisers? One would presume so.
So, the front number is for the event photographer (leave it on if you like that stuff). The rear number is for nimby watchers. Take it off.
Agree with Kiwimike re "I'm not racist but...". Clowns.
Everyone here is using reason and common sense to argue against a committee of blinkered bigots who are only interested in maintaining the status quo, getting re-elected by the electorate they represent (parish councils etc) of which only a minority have complained about cyclists behaviour.
The democratic process locally at best is heavily swayed by those that have the resources to own property and land in the NF, and at worst is completely ignored. They simply ignore all the evidence and polls and petitions from those interested who don't reside in the the NF boundary.
The NFNPA and the Verders are committees that are not fit for purpose in 21st century Britain.
Sorry of this reply is less than serious, but...
Does the 'code' stipulate that the numbers have to be different?
It would be funny if 1000 riders turned up all waring the same number.
How about an upside-down 13, to signify how unlucky these NIMBYs were to try picking on cyclists?
Number 6 perhaps?
I can see the need for controlling to ensure there aren't clashes with other cycling or other events as too much of anything is not a good thing, but to limit to 500 is bonkers.
riders spread out over a staggered starting time is not a problem.
who's to say they -the local anti outsider mob - would not fake reports of riders if they had their numbers. stupid.
Perhaps Wiggle should donate some of its revenue to the charity 'ponies injured by cycles'...about £5 should cover it, and that was for when someone on a venge snuck up behind one without ringing his carbon bell.
I assume the NFPA will be campaigning for the restriction of car numbers.
After all, two issues, noise cars v bikes. even though most bikes will arrive by car and will place a load on certain roads by then getting out of the cars and onto bikes to enjoy the roads you increase the capacity, you reduce the noise etc.
And, how many people/horses/sheep/cows/etc have been seriously injured by cars and how many by bikes?
Which user group is causing the problems???
Pages