Quite. And to put it another way, we let children ride bikes and we don’t let them drive cars. Precisely because we don’t hold them to the same level of responsibility: a bicycle simply does not demand the responsibility that a motor vehicle does.

Remember though, there is still responsibility. If a child crashes his bike into a car (or person) the child (or parent depending on age) is still responsible. If the parent for example was wilfully negligent, pushing child on a bike with no brakes down a hill packed with other kids, then they may be considered responsible. Its the same in this race situation, as an organiser are you wilfully putting riders and public in situations where someone could be hurt because you have encouraged riders to ride in a reckless manner. An arbitrary time limit isnt going to work to stop tiredness for an unsupported ride like it does the RAAM where support cars and motorhomes can take the rider somewhere safe.

The real question is do we think the organisers of these races are encouraging riders to be unsafe?

molgrips – Member
Is there a difference between endurance racers pushing their bodies too hard and crashing, or downhillers pushing themselves too hard and crashing?

Taped off and on a closed course, totally different.

The real question is do we think the organisers are responsible for encouraging riders to be unsafe?

Agreed.

Its the same in this race situation, as an organiser are you wilfully putting riders and public in situations where someone could be hurt because you have encouraged riders to ride in a reckless manner.

I would argue that for the sort of event we’re talking about, everyone signing up knows what they’re letting themselves in for. And I don’t think you can really compare it to parental responsibility for a minor.

I would argue that for the sort of event we’re talking about, everyone signing up knows what they’re letting themselves in for.

That argument falls over quite quickly as the competitive desire rises, though. It’s not a perfect analogy by any means, but for the essence of this principle you only have to look at Formula 1 in the 50s-70s to see people accepting an outrageously high chance of death in order to win races.

I learned about the consequences of sleep deprivation the hard way.

Quite a few years back I was on my motorbike following my wife who was driving a car with our kids inside. It was on a long haul out bush in Oz, and we were both tired. There was no external warning, she simply fell asleep.

She cartwheeled our car. The catalogue of major injuries was extensive. The car was written off and we didn’t care about that.

What we learned from that was the first moment you feel sleepy then you should stop right away. You may not get another warning – my wife had been intending to pull over at the next town only 5 miles further on.

Sleep deprivation during endurance events has always been a problem.

Back in the glory days (1900s-1920s) of 6 day track races it became a major concern. All the arguments for and against have been done before.

The odds are the experienced riders in the IPWR are well able to judge their fatigue levels, but maybe the bottom end of the field isn’t.

However I reckon any organiser who does not insert a clause requiring a minimum amount of rest each day is laying themselves wide open when something goes wrong, as it inevitably will.

the glory days (1900s-1920s) of 6 day track races

Doping.

That argument falls over quite quickly as the competitive desire rises, though. It’s not a perfect analogy by any means, but for the essence of this principle you only have to look at Formula 1 in the 50s-70s to see people accepting an outrageously high chance of death in order to win races.
[/quote]Or, indeed, the use of dangerously high levels of PEDs in cycling and other sports.

I’ve done a few multi-day events in extreme conditions but fortunately never got to the point where extreme fatigue was a factor when there was a nice shelter and fire close-by. Whilst individuals might be prepared to make the ‘ultimate’ sacrifice and waiver their liabilities, it won’t be looked at in the eyes of lawyers and any third parties that inadvertently get involved. It’s foolhardy to believe that such events are going to get endorsed on public roads – by all means ride across a desert or wilderness, but where there’s a risk to innocent bystanders or it creates friction with others has to be questioned.

Long Audax events have regular controls, sometimes with camp beds, so there are usually plenty of opportunities to rest safely. People do fall asleep, but it’s more likely to be with your face in a bowl of pasta in a church hall.

Competitive ultra events always become a test of “how long can I stay awake” to some extent, so there will be risk as people push their boundaries. I don’t think it’s just a road risk; there’s plenty of opportunity for disaster in riding off road if your performance is impaired by sleep deprivation.

However, I agree that the absolute risk is very small and self regulating. The nature of these events means they will always be a minority interest and very few people will ever be competing in this situation.

Long Audax events have regular controls, sometimes with camp beds, so there are usually plenty of opportunities to rest safely. People do fall asleep, but it’s more likely to be with your face in a bowl of pasta in a church hall.

They also have minimum time limits, so there is encouragement to stop on the longer rides. But how useful this is to the slower riders is questionable, so you are back to relying on the riders to not push themselves and be unsafe.

Its a difficult balance but i think in the majority it still is in the riders hands, with a requirement on the organiser to not promote unsafe behaviour by setting unrealistic limits.

However, I agree that the absolute risk is very small and self regulating. The nature of these events means they will always be a minority interest and very few people will ever be competing in this situation.

OK slightly controversial, but the relative high profile nature of these events/riders surely to some extent means they have some sort of responsibility to use the roads responsibly. If (and I stress if) Mike Hall’s death turns out to be fatigue related or Mark Beaumont has a ‘moment’ it will make headlines. In enforcing through public pressure drivers of motorised vehicles to do the right thing cyclists (for we are seen as one homogenous unit) need to be able to stand on the moral high ground. It’s a bit like red light jumpers – in the big scheme of things very few do it and they are putting no one but themselves in danger (and arguably avoiding it too, but that’s another debate) but to the great unwashed we all do this all the time and it undermines the case that we deserve respect. It’s illogical but still the case. ‘Fatigued cyclist racing on public road get run over due to lack of attention – driver suffers night terrors for years’ is a bad headline for cyclists globally despite the hundreds if not thousands of incidents in reverse.

And then your response would be “None of you had given this guy much attention until he died, he and many others have been doing this sort of thing with very few people noticing until now”.

to the great unwashed we all do this all the time and it undermines the case that we deserve respect

The solution to that is to reject the notion of collective responsibility when you encounter it, not reinforce it with the idea of striving for a moral high ground. I have challenged people who tried to generalise about the behaviour of “cyclists” and pointed out that what other individuals do had nothing to do with my behaviour and my right to safety. They backed down because they couldn’t defend their position.

I think it’s a very difficult subject if i would be surprised if Mike would of changed anything at all, at the moment it is all supposition and the facts should be established first.

I’ve done a few events where i’ve had a small glimpse into what it takes, and was pinpointing French Divide for this year and TCR for next, what has happened won’t put me off, but it really has made me think.

I did a few events over the last few year which meant that after 310 miles in 19 1/2 hours the finish was in centre of London, dealing with London traffic and the fact that you felt invisible after 20 hours in the saddle was tough and the senses are definitely blunted, but would i would not change the experience and the sense of achievement that accompanies it.

I broke my neck and dislocated knee playing high level rubgy, again i wouldn’t have changed it though, do we make rugby non- contact? You understood there is an inherent risk.

Whilst it is an absolute tragedy and i felt a real gut-punch when i heard of Mike Hall’s death, i have to ask would he of changed anything, I think he lived a life many of us can’t comprehend however hard we’ve tried to push ourselves, he did so to be the best of his ability and clearly enjoyed what he did and was duly highly respected because of this. The sense of community outpouring since only illustrates this. H

if I run over a cyclist because he has swerved in front of me through sleep deprivation then I carry that for the rest of my life.

To be fair, how many cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders etc do you overtake every time you drive your car?

You have no way of knowing what those people are doing, how long they’ve been riding, how tired/distracted/drug-addled/drunk they might be so you drive accordingly and accept that a cyclist may wobble (due to crosswind, avoiding potholes, tiredness), a pedestrian may step off a kerb while engrossed in their phone, a horse may rear up or spook etc.

and was pinpointing French Divide

There’s a French Divide?

Ooh! (la la)

They backed down because they couldn’t defend their position.

Wow, I’ve never ever had that response

As an example, a colleague (driving) was complaining to me
(specifically) about the behaviour of a cyclist they had seen that morning. I just looked blank and asked what it had to do with me. I also pointed out that I didn’t think they had any responsibility for the 5 people killed by motorists the day before. I think they were a bit surprised but they did back down. It’s made me think more about challenging this sort of thing when it comes up, because sometimes the people talking like this are not “bad” (for want of a better word). They just haven’t thought about what they are saying, and are just repeating an accepted prejudice

There’s a French Divide?

Ooh! (la la)

There’s a French and Italy Divide races now, So far UK entrants for French Divide are Jason Miles, Stu Rider and me, i have bitten off more than i can chew clearly!

There’s a French and Italy Divide races now, So far UK entrants for French Divide are Jason Miles, Stu Rider and me, i have bitten off more than i can chew clearly!

Richpips did it (or at least, a version of it) with his then 10-year old son, the infamous minipips.

http://minipips.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/
and the follow up report:
http://minipips.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/

There’s a French and Italy Divide races now, So far UK entrants for French Divide are Jason Miles, Stu Rider and me, i have bitten off more than i can chew clearly!

Theres a European divide now as well! I think there is a Dividesque route in most western European countries now.

http://edmbr.voidpointer.de/ride.html

No need to worry. The chances of a death or accident to an unrelated person are so small as to be worth taking. You cannot worry about everything or nothing happens. To say other wise is to stop everything and I see no one proposing that. Quality of life is worth the risk. I reckon the HONC this weekend will put more of the public at some kind of risk.

As to the competitors. Hard luck. You sign up and take your risks. If you don’t like that do something else. There is way too much of organisers having to cut back on a challenge in case its risky. You can always stop and go back or walk if you don’t like a risk. Despite what many of the nanny state will say we do not have a responsibility to look after everyone if they know what they are getting into. If I say that my event is going to cross a deep river and you may die then when you enter you take this risk. To suggest that I shouldn’t put competitors in that’s risk is purile at best.
Individual life isn’t everything you know. It is to the loved ones of those who have died, but to the rest of us and society its not.

Tragic as this death was, given the miles covered in these kind of events the number of such incidents is relatively small, thank goodness. Stepping back and seeing that bigger picture makes me think that a knee jerk change to rules may not be a good idea, especially as the facts aren’t known yet.

Bearing in mind the miles covered in the UK on audax events, these incidents are rare closer to home as well. AUK publishes annual incident records