Forum menu
"One of the main points of the objections to the charter are that the cyclists are being asked to show numbers front and rear. If you ride a motorbike on the road you only need one plate."
You are not comparing like with like, these events are not really people "just using the public road" are they.
You can't use the public highway for competition purposes with a motor vehicle. If a motor club wanted to use the public highway purely to link the areas of private land where the competitive element of a motorcycle trial took place the riders would be restricted to 180 in total, would not travel in bunches and be subject to all sorts of rules and regulations such that it takes the best part of a year to sort it all out with the various bodies and individuals. Even if there was only a handful of participants. And the bikes struggle to top 50 mph so speed ain't the problem.
The proposed rules could be a lot worse. Personally I think that the organiser of any event of any sort anywhere, cycling or otherwise, that concentrates anything like a thousand participants on to roads like those in the Forest is guilty of selfishness in the extreme.
That was just my understanding locally (my parents live just inside the forest), and anyway i'm not sure how much the verderers/council actually represent everyone in the forest - they're currently comletely shafting my parents' village over non-glacial internet
Sportives aren't a competition.
So, to express our opposition in a way that could hit home we could book every B&b and hotel room for a certain week, then cancel when it gets near with the excuse that cycling is not welcome in the Forest so we have decided not to come. Might lose a deposit (or not)
Cyclists are beyond reproach didnt you know that?....cyclists never do anything wrong, back to cycling school for you mattig so you can be indoctrinated with a prevailing attitude of self righteousness and you too can start wearing a helmet cam on your commute to work, shout 'ooiieee!' at road users that dare to come within 6ft of you and post the footage on your very own Youtube channel for fellow cyclists to work themselves into a lather over.
1/10.
Try not to be so obvious.
Ninfan - re numbers in an event, PDNPA has a cap on events. The 500 rider BHF fundraiser has been cancelled due to this and the action of DCC flattening routed used in the event. So not just NFNPA. Sadly most are made up of people with vested interest and often they are sufficiently well connected to have real influence.
"Sportives aren't a competition."
The general impression given in coverage of these is that a lot of the participants don't share that ethos. But your point only enhances the one I made.
Next time wiggle put on an event why don't we all rent a horse for the day. I sure 3000 horses will cause no inconvenience whatsoever.
This isn't what's happened. Cyclists, as a class, haven't been singled out. Mass participation events with more than 1,000 riders have been singled out.
But they conveniently ignore the large volume of cars of people traveling to events in the NF rather than vehicles traveling as part of an event. Basically the only group who fit their description ARE cyclists.
1st ever comment, despite being a long time readerI think part of the fuss over cycling is over Wiggle initially refusing to reorganise an event they'd put on the same day as the pony drift last september - the drift involves all of the ponies being rounded up, and so having a bike event on the same day would be a bit inconvenient
As manton69 says, that's not the story at all.
Wiggle publicised their event dates over a year in advance and then, at the last possible minute, the NF started making a big noise about pony drifts and how they had to be moved and wasn't it all terribly inconvenient.
Coupled with an ally in the local newspaper, the story was spun to read that the bloody cyclists were getting in the way of local traditions again which is why your parents probably had the newpaper's angle on it.
I know Martin (the head guy at UK Cycling Events) quite well, ridden with him a few times and he's one of the most patient and cooperative people you'll ever meet but at every stage there were obstacles deliberately being put in their way. That's why they eventually moved the event HQ out of the forest; locals campaigning about the number of people using it (which strangely is less than half the number of people who use it during various other festivals and events which apparently don't cause any inconvenience...)
Yesterday's vote further proves that cyclists are being singled out:
http://road.cc/content/news/140934-new-forest-passes-events-charter-despite-cycling-group-opposition
Cycling groups tried to get an amendment passed so that the district council Safety Advisory Group was involved in safety decisions for each and every cycling event in the forest. Sounds very reasonable, yet this was voted down despite the charter supposedly being about safety. It shows that this was an unsubstantiated excuse to impose rules on cyclists to serve their own agenda.
Sadly their agenda is for legislation change. They have made it clear that if cycling groups do not sign up to the charter, then they will pursue the MP to get legislation changed so local authorities control cycling events. By making unreasonable demands in the charter, they are now closer to their ultimate goal. It really does stink.
Here you go (dreadful local paper loves this stuff unfortunately):
remember when some rail company banned bikes on trains, so a large number of people turned up with non-banned objects larger than bikes....illogical regs deserve petulant responses.
I've got a mate with a Sherman Tank. Which can be driven on a moped licence.
I'll see if he's up for a trip to the new forest...
DrP
To be fair that newspaper report makes more of the sensible comments made by David Harrison than the swivel eyed loons demanding "Safety in Our Forest" - as if cyclists want anything else!
ok then, instead of the wiggle sportive on bikes how about if everyone hires a minibus for the day and drives the course in that?
or milk floats?
utter toss**** from another outdated set of nimby cronies.
TBH, we could just organise several hundred group rides on the same day. Sort of like when Mark Thomas organised all those people to register separate protests at the same day and the same place. Just a terrible coincidence we're all there on the same day.
How about restricting the number of cars entering the forest to 1000 per day.
Wouldn't that restrict the number of cyclists driving into/to the Forest to then get their bike out of their car?.......
not as the wiggle event starts well outside the NF NP
It's got to be a prime place to hold a Critical Mass ride!
Seen this blog on it:
http://cyclingfront.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/nfnpa-is-actually-war-that-they-want.html
I've said it before and I'll say it again: nothing could induce me to go anywhere near the New Forest with my holiday money now, whether I was taking my bike or not. There are plenty of other places in the UK that don't appear to be run by complete arseholes, so I'll visit those places instead.
A mass trespass/ ride to reinforce the strength of feeling felt by cyclists gets my vote.
i live less than 10 miles away and would rather go elsewhere. Avoid spending any more time in the NF than i have too, i don't feel encouraged to go there, i don't feel welcome when i am there and when i have gone there the options are disappointing.
Have a good friend with personal experience of Nimbyism and if they hadn't of had their young daughter in the trailer that Nimby would've been inspecting the 'not a cycle path' that they were on.
Last night night I had a usual night ride in the forest, it was cold and muddy!
Speaking to the landlord at the mid ride stop about this, he was concerned all this negative publicity could effect his business.
Please dont blame those who run businesses in the forest, they need every tourist pound they can get!
Those involved in this charter are the people who 'run' the forest - the verderers etc. Their business is making millions from animals.
And, just as a side note, I'm told that of all the animals killed on the roads in 2013, 92% were killed by drivers living inside the nation park boundary....
And, just as a side note, I'm told that of all the animals killed on the roads in 2013, 92% were killed by drivers living inside the nation park boundary....
that's it!
legislate that all drivers in the NFNP must fit a large mattress to the front of their vehicle and only drive with a person waving a red flag in front of said vehicle at less than 5mph!
😉
That blog is great - well worth a read if you're interested in the issue
Do you know what, I've never been minded to join the wiggle sportive in the area, as I ride those roads all the time. But, I might this time round as a sign of support and be part of the 'resistance'
I think if local business want cyclist's tourism ££'s then they should have a badge in the window saying something along the lines of 'cyclists welcome here'
If I see that badge I'll use that pub / café over one that doesn't.
The more 'welcome' badges we see the more chance the locals that are sensible may get heard
i have just spoken to the New Forest National Park Authority about what numbers we need to come riding (group of 10 of us) - the operator was very confused - eventually got put through to a nice bloke to explained it is only for large cycle events - I then explained with this sentiment I would have to look elsewhere to take people.
Number is 01590 646600 if anyone wants to spend 5 mins getting the message to them
Really guys, a 1000 person limit is not an issue. It is the cyclists who are making a mountain out of a molehill.
I think what people are pissed of with is not the limit but the way it has been only applied to cyclists and not the car drivers who make more of the mess of the forest. (eg the 100,000+ (this was in 2011) who attend the new forest show)Really guys, a 1000 person limit is not an issue. It is the cyclists who are making a mountain out of a molehill.
It is the cyclists who are making a mountain out of a molehill.
This comment could not be more literally arse-about-face if you tried.
chakaping - Member"It is the cyclists who are making a mountain out of a molehill."
This comment could not be more literally arse-about-face if you tried.
Par for the course.
the issue is the discriminatory manner. 1000 cyclists cycling through the forest is dangerous/inconvenient, but 95000 visitors (lets be generous and say 3 per car average, evenly split over the 3 days) >1000 cars per day for 1 event is absolutely fine. Nothing about the past issues strikes you that the NF council are an itsy bitsy anti cycling?Really guys, a 1000 person limit is not an issue.
I think if local business want cyclist's tourism ££'s then they should have a badge in the window saying something along the lines of 'cyclists welcome here'
Or, you know, perhaps they could do something about the NFNPA to do more than pay lip service to the idea they disapprove of what's being done in their names (as the NFNPA represents residents and business owners).
Latest number board for the UKCE/wiggle sportive......
[url= https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7454/16188771447_e1278f493c_c.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7454/16188771447_e1278f493c_c.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
I bet that's going to get the net curtains twitching in Lyndhurst and rile a few people at the NFNPA. 😆
A few clarifications needed here. National parks have 2 statutory purposes 1. Conservation and 2. Promote recreation. If there's a conflict conservation takes precedence.
The venders think their horsey activity is what gives the New forest its unique character, so they feel justified in their stance as achieving conservation.
The Authority staff aren't to blame, they're lumbered with a bunch of Members who are famously small minded. Anyone ringing up and troubling the staff aren't achiving anything worthwhile, the Board won't care.
Please dont blame those who run businesses in the forest, they need every tourist pound they can get!
I' don't buy this at all, if the local businesses were that bothered they could oppose the nimbys and Nfpa but they don't so clearly they aren't !
the Board won't care.
That is part of the problem. They should care.
If they actually bothered to canvas the opinion of those who live and work in the forest and it was the unanimous feeling that limiting numbers was widely supported, then i'd be happy to accept their decision.But they have never done that.
Apparently there was a survey about how best to spend the cycling grant. But i dont know anyone who actually received it. I suspect it just went out to a "select" few.
The venders think their horsey activity is what gives the New forest its unique character, so they feel justified in their stance as achieving conservation.
As the owner and rider of a New Forest pony, there is a problem with this stance when it comes to the Wiggle sportive. Pony's live in and around the forest. The sportive take place on the roads and starts / finish (at the behest of the NFNPA) outside the National Park, so there is no conflict between conservation, as the Verderers are not charged with 'conserving' the tarmac on the roads, and recreation.
From what I can see this is just a campaign to get the sportives out of the New Forest, and if local businesses are concerned, then they need to start making a lot more noise about it, assuming of course that they can, without the nimby's turning on them.
I agree wholeheartedly with that, the problem is that there's a technical difficulty in that the sandford principle, as set out in the act, states that
[i]five of this Act and, if it appears that there is a conflict between those purposes, shall attach greater weight to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and [u]cultural heritage [/u]of the area comprised in the National Park.[/i]
And it's that catch all 'cultural heritage' that they claim to be protecting
Of course, there's not much 'cultural heritage' about the car parks that they resurfaced with cycling facility money, or with the pedal powered cinema and interactive Display tables they bought with it and never used either...
The New Forest NPA's own statement on their website shows the true motivation for this charter and the 1000 rider limit.
The important thing is that these measures should enable all road users to go about their business as usual even when an event is taking place.
i.e. The main perceived problem is for a few NIMBYs whom on a Sunday morning might be inconvenienced when driving their horse box to the local TESCO.
It has nothing to do with conservation, animal welfare, integrity of the national park, etc. As said previously it is a small number of locals just opposing cycling for no real reason.
No evidence or research has ever been presented to support their claims.
Also, whether it is for conservation reasons (which there really cannot be any) or for 'cultural heritage', then in order to impose rules/codes it seems necessary to provide evidence on how sportives exactly are impacting or 'comprimising' on these elements. It's this lack of evidence, and the clear prejudice against cyclists that is so frustrating. I'd happily change my behaviour if it was having a discernable negative impact.
Please note in relation to many posts above, the head of the NPA is also the chief verderer. So no conflict of interest then 🙄
Good open letter here about the meeting by the nice chap who organises the Gridiron in the NF:
http://cycle-newforest.co.uk/democracy-new-forest-style-cycle-events-organisers-charter/
Suspect it will just get ignored though