- 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)New Forest passes events charter despite cycling group opposition
The board of the New Forest National Park Authority today voted to approve the New Forest Cycling Events Charter drawn up by its Cycling Liaison Group, despite the opposition of cycling event organisers and groups to two major aspects of the charter.
The sticking point in what was intended to be a set of guidelines that organisers would voluntarily follow, was the requirement that cycling events in the forest should be limited to 1000 riders and that riders should wear identifying numbers front and back.
A letter from local representatives of CTC, Sustrans and British Cycling described that provision as “discriminatory and disproportionate”, while UK Cycling Events, the only body that has run events in the forest with more than 1,000 riders, opposed the limit.
Martin Barden who runs UK Cycling Events told road.cc that his company would not be following the recommendation for a 1,000 rider limit. Instead, he said, UK Cycling Events would continue to work with the district council's Safety Advisory Group to safely run its events.
According to an attendee of the meeting, who spoke to road.cc on condition of anonimity, it was characterised by a "complete lack of considered discussion by members".
Our source said the meeting voted to amend the (already-approved) minutes of its June 2014 meeting to resolve that:
1) The NPA will only support the draft Charter if it is amended to include cap of 1000 cyclists and to require that rides wear rear numbers and
2) If the Charter is not adhered to … the NPA will look to persuade the Government to change legislation so that local authorities will have control over the events.
An amendment was tabled proposing that the Safety Advisory Group should determine any limit on an event on a case by case basis.
Totton councillor David Harrison spoke in support of that and other amendments proposed by cycling organisations, but only he and two others — John Pemberton and Marian Spain, both Secretary of State appointees to the NFNPA — supported the amendment, with 17 against.
Despite rejecting an amendment that would put the Safety Advisory Group at the centre of regulating sportives in the New Forest, NFNPA members claimed that safety was paramount in their minds.
As Forest Cyclist pointed out in his open letter yesterday, "the NFNPA has produced absolutely no tangible independent evidence as to why the cap is needed" and Freedom of Information requests have failed to turn up evidence of incidents connected to cycle sportives in the New Forest.
Following the NFNPA's decision to approve the charter, CTC Campaigns Coordinator Sam Jones said: “The cap in cycling numbers, which the Park Authority mandated to be included in the Charter, was loosely justified on safety grounds.
"It is therefore mystifying and incredibly frustrating that our amendment which placed the Safety Advisory Group at the very heart of decision making for each and every cycle event was rejected.
"Instead, an arbitrary and discriminatory cap with no foundation in evidence will be implemented."
While the charter is currently voluntary, and the NFNPA has no statutory authority of any kind to enforce it, its members are determined the rider limit should be imposed.
The Bournemouth Echo reports that during the meeting, NPA member Maureen Holding, said: “If this doesn't work we should call in the MP and pursue rules and regulations that are enforceable.
“We want safety in our forest and we want everyone to be able to enjoy the area, not just cyclists.”
Our source at the meeting reports that Ms Holding said she believed a limit of 500 would be more appropriate, perhaps indicating that the 1,000-rider limit is just the thin end of the wedge — once in place the NFNPA can easily vote to reduce it.
David Harrison accused the authority of “victimising” cyclists, according to the Echo.
He said: “We are making a serious misjudgement by digging in our heels and preventing us having a charter that cyclists will sign up to.”
Cllr Harrison later told road.cc that the NFNPA's attitude to cycling was "baffling".
He added: "All I can offer is that some influential people have been lobbied by a very small minority of people who have ever experienced any problem with large scale cycling events.
"The internal politics of the New Forest is often hard to work out. It's very Conservative and strongly resistant to change of any kind."
We understand that Nigel Matthews, head of recreation management and learning for the park, said the Safety Advisory Group would "find it difficult to ignore" the charter given that it is supported by public bodies.
That will put the Safety Advisory Group in the interesting position of having to justify moving from approving events with over 2,000 riders as recently as last October to only approving events with less than half that number.
CTC's Sam Jones added: “This seems like a total rejection of cycle groups’ willingness to engage and work with the NFNPA and those who in live in the New Forest towards an amicable solution, and CTC will now consider what steps we can take next.”
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
- stonojnr 2 sec ago
And ended the race in the medical tent on oxygen and in an ice bath as he was suffering severe heat stroke....
- hawkinspeter 6 min 37 sec ago
That's completely unfair!...
- Sevenfold 22 min 25 sec ago
Me too though I was hoping they would be testing the pro frame rather than the base level version. Though it should give an indication what the...
- Rendel Harris 30 min 2 sec ago
Think you're correct on the Renault. I don't find it makes any difference to breathing, because if you look at the picture their upper arms are...
- pockstone 48 min 35 sec ago
When someone says "It's an accident waiting to happen" they often mean "I'm an accident waiting to happen".
- MattKelland 56 min 9 sec ago
GWR also allows you to make bike and seat reservations on its services yourself via your online account, regardless of where you got your ticket.
- OnYerBike 1 hour 6 min ago
Wax tends to last longer than wet lube between applications (although varies depending on brand of wax/lube). So, however frequently (or...
- Rendel Harris 2 hours 7 min ago
So, just as an example, what had five-month-old twins Naeim and Wissam Abu Anza, killed in an Israeli airstrike on a civilian house, done in their...
- Steve K 3 hours 2 min ago
On the subject of other vehicles blocking cycle lanes, there is a point on the Croydon Tram between Waddon and West Croydon where it is designed in...
- daccordimark 3 hours 15 min ago
I've had one of these since November and agree it's good value for money. For me, the ride is a bit harsh and I can't really detect any comfort...
Add new comment
54 comments
There has to be a mass ride organised down there surely, I for one would definitely attend.
I'd love to live in a place where cycling was mainstream and normal, but this is the UK and cycling is just emerging from years of being a minority activity, so it might be a while.
Looks like legislation is on the cards...
A voluntary restriction on sportive numbers all across the UK would have been a much better option all round, but looks like it's a bit late for that.
All the sportive that events that I've ever attended have had a limited number of spaces (Wiggle, Evans etc.). I don't know what their limit is, but I've seen them turning people away when they are full.
I've got an idea. How does one get elected to the NFNPA?
Change from within.
At the risk of being seen as a troll, and being hunted down and covered in energy gels and left out for the badgers, I think the idea of a voluntary cap on sportive numbers anywhere has some mileage.
Sportives can't just get bigger and bigger without the issue of disruption being addressed, and it would be best addressed by the organisers rather than risk legislation.
Anyway, as you were.
But the key word there has to be voluntary.
At the risk of being seen as a cyclist, and being hunted down and covered in crude oil and pumped out into a fuel tank, I think the idea of a voluntary cap on motorists anywhere has some mileage.
Numbers of cars can't just get bigger and bigger without the issue of disruption being addressed, and it would be best addressed by the drivers rather than risk legislation.
Anyway, as you were.
you're probably right. alternatively, the country/government/local councils/ other road users could just embrace us and let us have closed road events - never seems to be a problem abroad...
A bunch of NIMBYs with their own agenda. There was no way BC, CTC and Sustrans were going to influence the final decision. It had been made months ago...
My folks live on the south coast and I love riding in the New Forest, and it's great for kids too. The NFNPA attitude stinks....especially when their chairman has this to say on the website (http://www.newforestnpa.gov.uk/info/20012/our_people/79/members/3):
"What's your best childhood memory of the New Forest?
Summer days spent cycling with my brothers through the lanes in the north of the Forest."
Not much of a surprise coming from the group that managed to lose £1.6m of funding to encourage cycling a few months ago.
I've never previously considered doing one of the big Wiggle sportives out there, but I'll keep an eye out now...
I hope the government gives them short shrift if the attempt to change the law. the worry is that they get to the government at the point at which they are desperate for votes and it gets in the manifesto. When you add in the objections that have come from similar NIMBYs in Surrey etc....
Other than that the NFNPA appear to be painting themselves into a corner here, it this is really being driven by a minority then sooner or later the local businesses are going to have a bit of a backlash against them.
They need somebody telling them "calm down dear - its only a few bikes!"
I very much doubt they have the teeth to bring in legislation without hard facts of rider safety being compromised. Better still to flock into the area, ride with care, video record incidents with cars and locals taking issue and report these. Groups like this will eventually become more irrational in their demands and will lose any respect which is already on a slippery slope.
Nimby's of the new forest unite, an unfriendly place to cycle they need to realise they may be rich enough to live there but it's free for all to enjoy. I foresee flash cycling events where cyclists arrive in mass on bank holidays etc carrying all they need so as not to support the local economy. It's our right to ride and enjoy anytime we please and if I am prevented by restriction of numbers At any event I will ride the course totally unregulated with a large group of friends,
Nimby's of the new forest unite, an unfriendly place to cycle they need to realise they may be rich enough to live there but it's free for all to enjoy. I foresee flash cycling events where cyclists arrive in mass on bank holidays etc carrying all they need so as not to support the local economy. It's our right to ride and enjoy anytime we please and if I am prevented by restriction of numbers At any event I will ride the course totally unregulated with a large group of friends,
Screw the NF.
Come cycling in Dorset instead - we've got loads of fantastic cycling routes, superb scenery, no horses running out from the side of the road (seriously who is going to come off worse between a 100kg cyclist vs a 350kg pony!).
Plus we have loads of very nice coffee & cake shops, hotels, and bike shops etc for you to spend your money in.
+1
But there are rumors locally that the Dorset ACPO have come up with the idea to control which roads can be used for events and place a charge on those organiser with entry fees hire than a set threshold. Sounds like the NFNPA hatred and bigotry could be spreading.
Everyone should wear number 1,001
Congratulations to NFNPA, I no longer wish to visit the New Forest in any capacity.
Like I have said before, we're dealing with a small minority of conceited, elitist killjoys who see the NF as their private playground where they transport themselves and their cronies from exclusive restaurants and pheasant shoots to weekend estates in 2 tons of expensive metal and plastic. Local working class folk, the ponies and cyclists are seen as pests and hence should be put down, run over, attacked, abused and prevented from entering. I was born and raised on a council estate in Southampton and I can tell you from personal experience and from the experience of many friends that this has always been a class war between us 'the townies' and them.
Will they similarly limit the number of attendees at the New Forest Show?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Forest_Show
Surly 668 would be the neighbour of the beast?
What's the postcode of the beast?
S4 7AN ?
Osgathorpe Crescent, Sheffield, S4 7AN
Best stay away then.
I think you'll find he lives in multiple addresses, SO41, SO42, SO43 and BH25
These people don't seem to get out much as their website states ''the New Forest is unique in that it is a working forest with forestry, farming and equestrian activity on its narrow roads as well as free-roaming animals'' as that pretty much describes most of the UK's national parks, at least the ones I am familiar with, and a lot of the countryside in between.
Do the New Forest National Park Authority realise what an ignorant, parochial, self absorbed and self serving bunch they appear to be to the world outside their little south coast bubble?
1) Descend in vast numbers,
2) Have different numbers front and back, even if not entered.
3) Ride two abreast, slowly.
4) Bring a picnic so as not to spend money on local businesses
5) Ensure you don't book local accommodation (Southampton isn't far away)
6) Report ALL instances of aggression or dangerous driving ti the police and lay charges
That's a good start.
One of the many, many ridiculous things about this whole debacle is that a lot of the local business owners are not anti cycling at all. They get that it can boost their business. A lot of the local hotels and B&Bs are happy to store bikes and I've found taxi firms that don't mind carrying your bike. So they are also being unfairly impacted by moves by the NFNPA to reduce cycling tourism. Yet more evidence that their approach here is absolutely sod all to do with the greater good but the actions of a small band of incredibly selfish individuals. Maybe if they got on a bike for a bit and got some exercise they'd get a bit of an endorphin rush and stop being so bloody mean about this.
Pages