Saboteurs condemned for spreading nails on road during Wiggle cycling event’

Tensions: Top level talks are to be held to build bridges between cyclists and those living in the New Forest

Tensions: Top level talks are to be held to build bridges between cyclists and those living in the New Forest

First published in News
Last updated
by

ATTEMPTS to sabotage a successful mass cycling event in the New Forest have been labelled “absolutely reprehensible”.

The 2014 Wiggle New Forest event over the weekend saw 2,000 cyclists take to the roads for the popular sportive.

But, despite being hailed a success by organisers and the majority of cyclists taking part, it was marred after 20 cyclists got punctures when tacks were laid in Braggers Lane in Bransgore on Saturday.

New Forest East MP Julian Lewis has called the act “absolutely reprehensible”. He said top level talks were going on with government ministers and national park chiefs to resolve tensions between residents and cyclists.

Dr Lewis said: “It does not help anyone when people, however frustrated they feel, do something that could lead to a nasty accident or at the very least a nasty confrontation.

“I'm hoping that the cause of the provocation will sooner rather than later be sorted out but taking the law into one's own hands is not the way forward.

“Doing something illegal and dangerous is never the right thing to do.”

Martin Barden, director of UK Cycling Events who organised Wiggle, criticised the dangerous act of vandalism.

He said: “There were a handful of locals who tried to disrupt the event, and marshals had to clear that up.

“We are surprised and saddened to see it happen again after last year.

“But it had no affect on the event or the enjoyment of the riders taking part.”

Last year the event saw more than 1,000 signs vandalised, drawing pins scattered on the road and motorists driving slowly to form a rolling roadblock.

Cyclists returning to Matchams after Sunday’s ride reported no problems on the route, despite many witnessing the trouble last year.

Tim Cook, 46, said: “This year there were a lot more marshals around. It was a completely clear ride and I didn’t see any problems.

Dave Bishop, 42 from Barton-on-Sea said: “It was a great fairly flat fast course.

“It was well-signposted and well organised. I think they do a really good job.”

Keith Watson, 48, added: “Last year I ended up going the wrong way because signs had been changed.

“We also saw people throwing tacks out and there was a group of lads in a Landrover being idiots.

“However, this year was great.

Mr Watson added: “There was nothing that I saw which was untoward.”

Comments (59)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:17am Mon 14 Apr 14

Peggy Babcock says...

Whichever individuals did this, I suggest they take a good look at themselves in the mirror and ask themselves 'what sort of person I'.

What goes around, comes around and I for one will not be sad if anything nasty hits them in life in the future.
Whichever individuals did this, I suggest they take a good look at themselves in the mirror and ask themselves 'what sort of person I'. What goes around, comes around and I for one will not be sad if anything nasty hits them in life in the future. Peggy Babcock
  • Score: 23

6:47am Mon 14 Apr 14

jobsworthwatch says...

Do the French scatter tacks on the road during the Tour de France?
Do the French scatter tacks on the road during the Tour de France? jobsworthwatch
  • Score: 25

7:39am Mon 14 Apr 14

Lord Spring says...

It was that poster who was off the ironmongers .
It was that poster who was off the ironmongers . Lord Spring
  • Score: 5

8:16am Mon 14 Apr 14

ProudVegan says...

I have a question if someone can help me out- I have in and off read about this cycling event, what exactly is the controversy of it?
I have a question if someone can help me out- I have in and off read about this cycling event, what exactly is the controversy of it? ProudVegan
  • Score: 8

8:16am Mon 14 Apr 14

ProudVegan says...

I have a question if someone can help me out- I have in and off read about this cycling event, what exactly is the controversy of it?
I have a question if someone can help me out- I have in and off read about this cycling event, what exactly is the controversy of it? ProudVegan
  • Score: 0

8:23am Mon 14 Apr 14

Theo63 says...

I am very pro these events. I would like to think that those responsible for the tacks are hooligans out to cause trouble whatever the occasion and not the "respectable" New Forest locals.

I just cannot understand the mentality of people that carry out these actions.
I am very pro these events. I would like to think that those responsible for the tacks are hooligans out to cause trouble whatever the occasion and not the "respectable" New Forest locals. I just cannot understand the mentality of people that carry out these actions. Theo63
  • Score: 28

9:05am Mon 14 Apr 14

rayc says...

ProudVegan wrote:
I have a question if someone can help me out- I have in and off read about this cycling event, what exactly is the controversy of it?
It's a British thing.
[quote][p][bold]ProudVegan[/bold] wrote: I have a question if someone can help me out- I have in and off read about this cycling event, what exactly is the controversy of it?[/p][/quote]It's a British thing. rayc
  • Score: 8

9:12am Mon 14 Apr 14

4stands says...

Thicko's, that all they are
Thicko's, that all they are 4stands
  • Score: 8

9:22am Mon 14 Apr 14

bsjc1234 says...

Very 'tack'-less - Think I nailed that terrible joke :-)
Very 'tack'-less - Think I nailed that terrible joke :-) bsjc1234
  • Score: 13

9:23am Mon 14 Apr 14

Bournemouth87 says...

However frustrating this event may be for the locals. What a ridiculous and dangerous thing to do. I hope they are caught and get punished.
However frustrating this event may be for the locals. What a ridiculous and dangerous thing to do. I hope they are caught and get punished. Bournemouth87
  • Score: 23

9:23am Mon 14 Apr 14

Franks Tank says...

HANG YOUR HEADS IN SHAME.

It's time the "good" residents of the New Forest stand up and out these ugly, ugly people.

You are being tarred with the same brush.
HANG YOUR HEADS IN SHAME. It's time the "good" residents of the New Forest stand up and out these ugly, ugly people. You are being tarred with the same brush. Franks Tank
  • Score: 24

9:24am Mon 14 Apr 14

BarrHumbug says...

It is all a bit childish but I do find it quite funny to think there are a gang of nimby hells angel grannies going around with handbags full of tacks :D
It is all a bit childish but I do find it quite funny to think there are a gang of nimby hells angel grannies going around with handbags full of tacks :D BarrHumbug
  • Score: 21

9:35am Mon 14 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

Sorry if I'm repeating myself, but have a fair trial, then hang 'em.
Sorry if I'm repeating myself, but have a fair trial, then hang 'em. breamoreboy
  • Score: 3

9:40am Mon 14 Apr 14

Bonkeydollocks says...

Think cyclists generally raise blood pressure on the narrow roads in the New Forest as there is an increasing tendency to not pull over and ride in a single file to make it easier to overtake.

No idea why more and more cyclists do this, it actually increases the chance of an accident. Idiots
Think cyclists generally raise blood pressure on the narrow roads in the New Forest as there is an increasing tendency to not pull over and ride in a single file to make it easier to overtake. No idea why more and more cyclists do this, it actually increases the chance of an accident. Idiots Bonkeydollocks
  • Score: -12

9:54am Mon 14 Apr 14

Franks Tank says...

Bonkeydollocks wrote:
Think cyclists generally raise blood pressure on the narrow roads in the New Forest as there is an increasing tendency to not pull over and ride in a single file to make it easier to overtake.

No idea why more and more cyclists do this, it actually increases the chance of an accident. Idiots
On the contrary, it leaves the motorist in no doubt that they "might just be able to squeeze past".
It is actually much safer (and recommended by government bodies and cycling organisations) to "take the lane".
Furthermore, by not riding in the gutter a cyclist then has somewhere to go should a motorist insist in forcing their way past.
[quote][p][bold]Bonkeydollocks[/bold] wrote: Think cyclists generally raise blood pressure on the narrow roads in the New Forest as there is an increasing tendency to not pull over and ride in a single file to make it easier to overtake. No idea why more and more cyclists do this, it actually increases the chance of an accident. Idiots[/p][/quote]On the contrary, it leaves the motorist in no doubt that they "might just be able to squeeze past". It is actually much safer (and recommended by government bodies and cycling organisations) to "take the lane". Furthermore, by not riding in the gutter a cyclist then has somewhere to go should a motorist insist in forcing their way past. Franks Tank
  • Score: 32

9:57am Mon 14 Apr 14

ProudVegan says...

So is it basically a "not in my back garden" kinda thing from the residents point of view?
So is it basically a "not in my back garden" kinda thing from the residents point of view? ProudVegan
  • Score: 22

10:00am Mon 14 Apr 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

Never been a great fan of cyclists in the New Forest having had to maneuver a Mercedes Sprinter around them whilst doing deliveries but this was an organised event and anyone stupid enough to deliberately cause criminal damage should seriously have the book thrown at them. People should use their mobile phones to video these idiots and then hand the evidence to the police, so they can prosecute them.
Never been a great fan of cyclists in the New Forest having had to maneuver a Mercedes Sprinter around them whilst doing deliveries but this was an organised event and anyone stupid enough to deliberately cause criminal damage should seriously have the book thrown at them. People should use their mobile phones to video these idiots and then hand the evidence to the police, so they can prosecute them. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 27

10:10am Mon 14 Apr 14

smhinto says...

A very DEFLATING feeling I would have thought.
A very DEFLATING feeling I would have thought. smhinto
  • Score: 0

10:17am Mon 14 Apr 14

JackJohnson says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
Never been a great fan of cyclists in the New Forest having had to maneuver a Mercedes Sprinter around them whilst doing deliveries but this was an organised event and anyone stupid enough to deliberately cause criminal damage should seriously have the book thrown at them. People should use their mobile phones to video these idiots and then hand the evidence to the police, so they can prosecute them.
The whole event should be videoed from start to finish, then anybody who has caused trouble (pro- or anti-event) stands a decent chance of being identified and banned from future events, or prosecuted if they comitted prosecutable offences.
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: Never been a great fan of cyclists in the New Forest having had to maneuver a Mercedes Sprinter around them whilst doing deliveries but this was an organised event and anyone stupid enough to deliberately cause criminal damage should seriously have the book thrown at them. People should use their mobile phones to video these idiots and then hand the evidence to the police, so they can prosecute them.[/p][/quote]The whole event should be videoed from start to finish, then anybody who has caused trouble (pro- or anti-event) stands a decent chance of being identified and banned from future events, or prosecuted if they comitted prosecutable offences. JackJohnson
  • Score: 2

10:24am Mon 14 Apr 14

Sir Beachy Head says...

I wonder if the New Forest residents have finished evolving into full human beings or if they are still doing so and will qualify in about 2 million years time.
I wonder if the New Forest residents have finished evolving into full human beings or if they are still doing so and will qualify in about 2 million years time. Sir Beachy Head
  • Score: 8

10:27am Mon 14 Apr 14

Scarecrow52 says...

Franks Tank wrote:
Bonkeydollocks wrote:
Think cyclists generally raise blood pressure on the narrow roads in the New Forest as there is an increasing tendency to not pull over and ride in a single file to make it easier to overtake.

No idea why more and more cyclists do this, it actually increases the chance of an accident. Idiots
On the contrary, it leaves the motorist in no doubt that they "might just be able to squeeze past".
It is actually much safer (and recommended by government bodies and cycling organisations) to "take the lane".
Furthermore, by not riding in the gutter a cyclist then has somewhere to go should a motorist insist in forcing their way past.
So what you are doing by 'taking the lane' is actually braking the Highway Code, which clearly states that you should allow all traffic to pass you on your right. Further, what's the point of councils then spending tens of thousands of pounds on cycle lanes if cyclists do not use them.
Sorry to say but it is this very attitude that causes the problems that we have seen during these events.
Rule 66: never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bonkeydollocks[/bold] wrote: Think cyclists generally raise blood pressure on the narrow roads in the New Forest as there is an increasing tendency to not pull over and ride in a single file to make it easier to overtake. No idea why more and more cyclists do this, it actually increases the chance of an accident. Idiots[/p][/quote]On the contrary, it leaves the motorist in no doubt that they "might just be able to squeeze past". It is actually much safer (and recommended by government bodies and cycling organisations) to "take the lane". Furthermore, by not riding in the gutter a cyclist then has somewhere to go should a motorist insist in forcing their way past.[/p][/quote]So what you are doing by 'taking the lane' is actually braking the Highway Code, which clearly states that you should allow all traffic to pass you on your right. Further, what's the point of councils then spending tens of thousands of pounds on cycle lanes if cyclists do not use them. Sorry to say but it is this very attitude that causes the problems that we have seen during these events. Rule 66: never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends Scarecrow52
  • Score: 12

10:29am Mon 14 Apr 14

BarrHumbug says...

The cyclists should get their own back by going back at night and digging big muddy puddles to stop the NIMBY's from driving their X5's and Cayenne's
The cyclists should get their own back by going back at night and digging big muddy puddles to stop the NIMBY's from driving their X5's and Cayenne's BarrHumbug
  • Score: 17

10:43am Mon 14 Apr 14

steve518 says...

It was actually a all organised event, with clear instructions given that anyone riding more than two abreast or seen leaving litter would be banned from this and all future events. I took part in the event and I did not witness any one riding more than two abreast and I saw no litter being dropped.
It was actually a all organised event, with clear instructions given that anyone riding more than two abreast or seen leaving litter would be banned from this and all future events. I took part in the event and I did not witness any one riding more than two abreast and I saw no litter being dropped. steve518
  • Score: 13

10:49am Mon 14 Apr 14

colindock says...

I like a bike ride - but with 2000 others ? cant think of anything worse. Anyway, why do the organisers find it necessary to route all these cyclists through the centre of already busy villages ? It is asking for trouble !!
I like a bike ride - but with 2000 others ? cant think of anything worse. Anyway, why do the organisers find it necessary to route all these cyclists through the centre of already busy villages ? It is asking for trouble !! colindock
  • Score: 6

10:50am Mon 14 Apr 14

PUZZLED ONE says...

The 2014 Wiggle New Forest event over the weekend saw 2,000 cyclists take to the roads for the popular sportive.

I see that the Echo journalists have coined a new noun, a 'sportive', what ever that is.
Did they perhaps mean a 'sportive event' but couldn't think of the second word?
The 2014 Wiggle New Forest event over the weekend saw 2,000 cyclists take to the roads for the popular sportive. I see that the Echo journalists have coined a new noun, a 'sportive', what ever that is. Did they perhaps mean a 'sportive event' but couldn't think of the second word? PUZZLED ONE
  • Score: -11

10:53am Mon 14 Apr 14

colindock says...

BarrHumbug wrote:
The cyclists should get their own back by going back at night and digging big muddy puddles to stop the NIMBY's from driving their X5's and Cayenne's
We already have big muddy holes in most of our roads at the moment !
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: The cyclists should get their own back by going back at night and digging big muddy puddles to stop the NIMBY's from driving their X5's and Cayenne's[/p][/quote]We already have big muddy holes in most of our roads at the moment ! colindock
  • Score: 3

11:17am Mon 14 Apr 14

Bonkeydollocks says...

steve518 wrote:
It was actually a all organised event, with clear instructions given that anyone riding more than two abreast or seen leaving litter would be banned from this and all future events. I took part in the event and I did not witness any one riding more than two abreast and I saw no litter being dropped.
If they followed the same rules on keeping to the left and in single fine they might be better accepted on the other 364 days of the year.

So why did they even need to ride two abreast in this event? So incredibly selfish to do that - and they wonder why there is an anti-cyclist feeling around the narrow lanes of the New Forest!
[quote][p][bold]steve518[/bold] wrote: It was actually a all organised event, with clear instructions given that anyone riding more than two abreast or seen leaving litter would be banned from this and all future events. I took part in the event and I did not witness any one riding more than two abreast and I saw no litter being dropped.[/p][/quote]If they followed the same rules on keeping to the left and in single fine they might be better accepted on the other 364 days of the year. So why did they even need to ride two abreast in this event? So incredibly selfish to do that - and they wonder why there is an anti-cyclist feeling around the narrow lanes of the New Forest! Bonkeydollocks
  • Score: -4

11:23am Mon 14 Apr 14

Franks Tank says...

Scarecrow52 wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
Bonkeydollocks wrote:
Think cyclists generally raise blood pressure on the narrow roads in the New Forest as there is an increasing tendency to not pull over and ride in a single file to make it easier to overtake.

No idea why more and more cyclists do this, it actually increases the chance of an accident. Idiots
On the contrary, it leaves the motorist in no doubt that they "might just be able to squeeze past".
It is actually much safer (and recommended by government bodies and cycling organisations) to "take the lane".
Furthermore, by not riding in the gutter a cyclist then has somewhere to go should a motorist insist in forcing their way past.
So what you are doing by 'taking the lane' is actually braking the Highway Code, which clearly states that you should allow all traffic to pass you on your right. Further, what's the point of councils then spending tens of thousands of pounds on cycle lanes if cyclists do not use them.
Sorry to say but it is this very attitude that causes the problems that we have seen during these events.
Rule 66: never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends
Ok, if we are down to quoting the Highway Code may I draw your attention to Rule 163:- "Give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car". (sic)

So, this means if a motorist can't get past safely leaving a considerable gap then they should wait until they can.
[quote][p][bold]Scarecrow52[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bonkeydollocks[/bold] wrote: Think cyclists generally raise blood pressure on the narrow roads in the New Forest as there is an increasing tendency to not pull over and ride in a single file to make it easier to overtake. No idea why more and more cyclists do this, it actually increases the chance of an accident. Idiots[/p][/quote]On the contrary, it leaves the motorist in no doubt that they "might just be able to squeeze past". It is actually much safer (and recommended by government bodies and cycling organisations) to "take the lane". Furthermore, by not riding in the gutter a cyclist then has somewhere to go should a motorist insist in forcing their way past.[/p][/quote]So what you are doing by 'taking the lane' is actually braking the Highway Code, which clearly states that you should allow all traffic to pass you on your right. Further, what's the point of councils then spending tens of thousands of pounds on cycle lanes if cyclists do not use them. Sorry to say but it is this very attitude that causes the problems that we have seen during these events. Rule 66: never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends[/p][/quote]Ok, if we are down to quoting the Highway Code may I draw your attention to Rule 163:- "Give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car". (sic) So, this means if a motorist can't get past safely leaving a considerable gap then they should wait until they can. Franks Tank
  • Score: 20

11:29am Mon 14 Apr 14

Arthur Maureen says...

Peggy Babcock wrote:
Whichever individuals did this, I suggest they take a good look at themselves in the mirror and ask themselves 'what sort of person I'.

What goes around, comes around and I for one will not be sad if anything nasty hits them in life in the future.
Does anyone know where Suzygirl was during the weekend...
[quote][p][bold]Peggy Babcock[/bold] wrote: Whichever individuals did this, I suggest they take a good look at themselves in the mirror and ask themselves 'what sort of person I'. What goes around, comes around and I for one will not be sad if anything nasty hits them in life in the future.[/p][/quote]Does anyone know where Suzygirl was during the weekend... Arthur Maureen
  • Score: 10

11:39am Mon 14 Apr 14

apm1954 says...

inbreds
inbreds apm1954
  • Score: 4

12:41pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Hessenford says...

Franks Tank wrote:
Scarecrow52 wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
Bonkeydollocks wrote:
Think cyclists generally raise blood pressure on the narrow roads in the New Forest as there is an increasing tendency to not pull over and ride in a single file to make it easier to overtake.

No idea why more and more cyclists do this, it actually increases the chance of an accident. Idiots
On the contrary, it leaves the motorist in no doubt that they "might just be able to squeeze past".
It is actually much safer (and recommended by government bodies and cycling organisations) to "take the lane".
Furthermore, by not riding in the gutter a cyclist then has somewhere to go should a motorist insist in forcing their way past.
So what you are doing by 'taking the lane' is actually braking the Highway Code, which clearly states that you should allow all traffic to pass you on your right. Further, what's the point of councils then spending tens of thousands of pounds on cycle lanes if cyclists do not use them.
Sorry to say but it is this very attitude that causes the problems that we have seen during these events.
Rule 66: never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends
Ok, if we are down to quoting the Highway Code may I draw your attention to Rule 163:- "Give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car". (sic)

So, this means if a motorist can't get past safely leaving a considerable gap then they should wait until they can.
Works on paper but not in reality.
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scarecrow52[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bonkeydollocks[/bold] wrote: Think cyclists generally raise blood pressure on the narrow roads in the New Forest as there is an increasing tendency to not pull over and ride in a single file to make it easier to overtake. No idea why more and more cyclists do this, it actually increases the chance of an accident. Idiots[/p][/quote]On the contrary, it leaves the motorist in no doubt that they "might just be able to squeeze past". It is actually much safer (and recommended by government bodies and cycling organisations) to "take the lane". Furthermore, by not riding in the gutter a cyclist then has somewhere to go should a motorist insist in forcing their way past.[/p][/quote]So what you are doing by 'taking the lane' is actually braking the Highway Code, which clearly states that you should allow all traffic to pass you on your right. Further, what's the point of councils then spending tens of thousands of pounds on cycle lanes if cyclists do not use them. Sorry to say but it is this very attitude that causes the problems that we have seen during these events. Rule 66: never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends[/p][/quote]Ok, if we are down to quoting the Highway Code may I draw your attention to Rule 163:- "Give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car". (sic) So, this means if a motorist can't get past safely leaving a considerable gap then they should wait until they can.[/p][/quote]Works on paper but not in reality. Hessenford
  • Score: -1

1:01pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Bonkeydollocks says...

apm1954 wrote:
inbreds
Am assuming you mean the cyclists?
[quote][p][bold]apm1954[/bold] wrote: inbreds[/p][/quote]Am assuming you mean the cyclists? Bonkeydollocks
  • Score: -6

1:18pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Ayles 10 says...

steve518 wrote:
It was actually a all organised event, with clear instructions given that anyone riding more than two abreast or seen leaving litter would be banned from this and all future events. I took part in the event and I did not witness any one riding more than two abreast and I saw no litter being dropped.
I drove from Avon to Christchurch & back, around an 8 mile round trip. I didn't see any littering, but did however have to navigate past one lot of three abreast riders followed by a four abreast group. Also, I didn't see a single rider signal when making a left turn onto the Avon Causeway. Its this sort of thing that makes the event a nuisance to locals trying to get about.
[quote][p][bold]steve518[/bold] wrote: It was actually a all organised event, with clear instructions given that anyone riding more than two abreast or seen leaving litter would be banned from this and all future events. I took part in the event and I did not witness any one riding more than two abreast and I saw no litter being dropped.[/p][/quote]I drove from Avon to Christchurch & back, around an 8 mile round trip. I didn't see any littering, but did however have to navigate past one lot of three abreast riders followed by a four abreast group. Also, I didn't see a single rider signal when making a left turn onto the Avon Causeway. Its this sort of thing that makes the event a nuisance to locals trying to get about. Ayles 10
  • Score: 7

1:37pm Mon 14 Apr 14

no_driver_trolls_please says...

colindock wrote:
I like a bike ride - but with 2000 others ? cant think of anything worse. Anyway, why do the organisers find it necessary to route all these cyclists through the centre of already busy villages ? It is asking for trouble !!
It wasn't 2000 at once. I didn't take part in the event but I went out on my bike to the New Forest as every weekend and the biggest group of cyclists I found was about 20 going up Burley Road.
[quote][p][bold]colindock[/bold] wrote: I like a bike ride - but with 2000 others ? cant think of anything worse. Anyway, why do the organisers find it necessary to route all these cyclists through the centre of already busy villages ? It is asking for trouble !![/p][/quote]It wasn't 2000 at once. I didn't take part in the event but I went out on my bike to the New Forest as every weekend and the biggest group of cyclists I found was about 20 going up Burley Road. no_driver_trolls_please
  • Score: 8

1:40pm Mon 14 Apr 14

no_driver_trolls_please says...

Ayles 10 wrote:
steve518 wrote:
It was actually a all organised event, with clear instructions given that anyone riding more than two abreast or seen leaving litter would be banned from this and all future events. I took part in the event and I did not witness any one riding more than two abreast and I saw no litter being dropped.
I drove from Avon to Christchurch & back, around an 8 mile round trip. I didn't see any littering, but did however have to navigate past one lot of three abreast riders followed by a four abreast group. Also, I didn't see a single rider signal when making a left turn onto the Avon Causeway. Its this sort of thing that makes the event a nuisance to locals trying to get about.
Do you get annoyed every time a driver doesn't signal when turning? oh dear... you should stay at home and never go out then.
[quote][p][bold]Ayles 10[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]steve518[/bold] wrote: It was actually a all organised event, with clear instructions given that anyone riding more than two abreast or seen leaving litter would be banned from this and all future events. I took part in the event and I did not witness any one riding more than two abreast and I saw no litter being dropped.[/p][/quote]I drove from Avon to Christchurch & back, around an 8 mile round trip. I didn't see any littering, but did however have to navigate past one lot of three abreast riders followed by a four abreast group. Also, I didn't see a single rider signal when making a left turn onto the Avon Causeway. Its this sort of thing that makes the event a nuisance to locals trying to get about.[/p][/quote]Do you get annoyed every time a driver doesn't signal when turning? oh dear... you should stay at home and never go out then. no_driver_trolls_please
  • Score: 12

1:45pm Mon 14 Apr 14

no_driver_trolls_please says...

Scarecrow52 wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
Bonkeydollocks wrote:
Think cyclists generally raise blood pressure on the narrow roads in the New Forest as there is an increasing tendency to not pull over and ride in a single file to make it easier to overtake.

No idea why more and more cyclists do this, it actually increases the chance of an accident. Idiots
On the contrary, it leaves the motorist in no doubt that they "might just be able to squeeze past".
It is actually much safer (and recommended by government bodies and cycling organisations) to "take the lane".
Furthermore, by not riding in the gutter a cyclist then has somewhere to go should a motorist insist in forcing their way past.
So what you are doing by 'taking the lane' is actually braking the Highway Code, which clearly states that you should allow all traffic to pass you on your right. Further, what's the point of councils then spending tens of thousands of pounds on cycle lanes if cyclists do not use them.
Sorry to say but it is this very attitude that causes the problems that we have seen during these events.
Rule 66: never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends
You should probably try to use cycle lanes and then you would have a better understanding... whoever designs them has never seen a bycicle... and if they are usable... oh hang on, there's a car parked!

It sounds like you didn't even bothered to go to the New Forest the weekend and see if the cyclists were riding abreast or "taking the lane" anyway so who cares what you think.
[quote][p][bold]Scarecrow52[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bonkeydollocks[/bold] wrote: Think cyclists generally raise blood pressure on the narrow roads in the New Forest as there is an increasing tendency to not pull over and ride in a single file to make it easier to overtake. No idea why more and more cyclists do this, it actually increases the chance of an accident. Idiots[/p][/quote]On the contrary, it leaves the motorist in no doubt that they "might just be able to squeeze past". It is actually much safer (and recommended by government bodies and cycling organisations) to "take the lane". Furthermore, by not riding in the gutter a cyclist then has somewhere to go should a motorist insist in forcing their way past.[/p][/quote]So what you are doing by 'taking the lane' is actually braking the Highway Code, which clearly states that you should allow all traffic to pass you on your right. Further, what's the point of councils then spending tens of thousands of pounds on cycle lanes if cyclists do not use them. Sorry to say but it is this very attitude that causes the problems that we have seen during these events. Rule 66: never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends[/p][/quote]You should probably try to use cycle lanes and then you would have a better understanding... whoever designs them has never seen a bycicle... and if they are usable... oh hang on, there's a car parked! It sounds like you didn't even bothered to go to the New Forest the weekend and see if the cyclists were riding abreast or "taking the lane" anyway so who cares what you think. no_driver_trolls_please
  • Score: 12

2:03pm Mon 14 Apr 14

NeilAJ says...

PUZZLED ONE wrote:
The 2014 Wiggle New Forest event over the weekend saw 2,000 cyclists take to the roads for the popular sportive.

I see that the Echo journalists have coined a new noun, a 'sportive', what ever that is.
Did they perhaps mean a 'sportive event' but couldn't think of the second word?
As with a lot of cycling vocabulary, it's a word borrowed from the French language. Sportive is correct.
[quote][p][bold]PUZZLED ONE[/bold] wrote: The 2014 Wiggle New Forest event over the weekend saw 2,000 cyclists take to the roads for the popular sportive. I see that the Echo journalists have coined a new noun, a 'sportive', what ever that is. Did they perhaps mean a 'sportive event' but couldn't think of the second word?[/p][/quote]As with a lot of cycling vocabulary, it's a word borrowed from the French language. Sportive is correct. NeilAJ
  • Score: 11

2:14pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Paul Weaver says...

PUZZLED ONE wrote:
The 2014 Wiggle New Forest event over the weekend saw 2,000 cyclists take to the roads for the popular sportive.

I see that the Echo journalists have coined a new noun, a 'sportive', what ever that is.
Did they perhaps mean a 'sportive event' but couldn't think of the second word?
I quote from Jennifer Trotman at http://www.cyclospor
t.org/08-May-2012/ho
w-to/general/what-is
-a-sportive.html

"What is a sportive?

This isn't the first time I've tried to explain what a sportive is, and I don't suppose it'll be the last!

Let's start with a phrase you'll become very familiar with if you get into riding sportives. "It's not a race". You'll probably hear this said during the riders' briefing at the start, followed by a smattering of derisive laughter because, as with any sporting event, some people always treat them as a race and everyone knows that.

On a more serious note though, they're not races, because using the word "race" for cycling on the road triggers all sorts of legal, health and safety, and insurance issues, which would involve getting the police and local authorities involved and making organising such events prohibitively difficult. If you're interested in racing on your bike, then sportives are not for you.

Now that we've established that a sportive is not a race, what is it? Well I tend to explain them to the un-initiated as long distance cycling events. Sportives are to cyclists what marathons are for runners - long distance challenges. Most people who run marathons are not racing, they're just trying to complete the distance.

Maybe, one step up from that, they're trying to beat last year's time, or their personal best for the distance, but it's still not a race. A sportive is just like a marathon then, except we're on two wheels not two legs!

So a sportive is a non-competitive long distance cycling event. "
[quote][p][bold]PUZZLED ONE[/bold] wrote: The 2014 Wiggle New Forest event over the weekend saw 2,000 cyclists take to the roads for the popular sportive. I see that the Echo journalists have coined a new noun, a 'sportive', what ever that is. Did they perhaps mean a 'sportive event' but couldn't think of the second word?[/p][/quote]I quote from Jennifer Trotman at http://www.cyclospor t.org/08-May-2012/ho w-to/general/what-is -a-sportive.html "What is a sportive? This isn't the first time I've tried to explain what a sportive is, and I don't suppose it'll be the last! Let's start with a phrase you'll become very familiar with if you get into riding sportives. "It's not a race". You'll probably hear this said during the riders' briefing at the start, followed by a smattering of derisive laughter because, as with any sporting event, some people always treat them as a race and everyone knows that. On a more serious note though, they're not races, because using the word "race" for cycling on the road triggers all sorts of legal, health and safety, and insurance issues, which would involve getting the police and local authorities involved and making organising such events prohibitively difficult. If you're interested in racing on your bike, then sportives are not for you. Now that we've established that a sportive is not a race, what is it? Well I tend to explain them to the un-initiated as long distance cycling events. Sportives are to cyclists what marathons are for runners - long distance challenges. Most people who run marathons are not racing, they're just trying to complete the distance. Maybe, one step up from that, they're trying to beat last year's time, or their personal best for the distance, but it's still not a race. A sportive is just like a marathon then, except we're on two wheels not two legs! So a sportive is a non-competitive long distance cycling event. " Paul Weaver
  • Score: 13

2:17pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Dorset Mitch says...

no_driver_trolls_ple
ase
wrote:
Scarecrow52 wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
Bonkeydollocks wrote:
Think cyclists generally raise blood pressure on the narrow roads in the New Forest as there is an increasing tendency to not pull over and ride in a single file to make it easier to overtake.

No idea why more and more cyclists do this, it actually increases the chance of an accident. Idiots
On the contrary, it leaves the motorist in no doubt that they "might just be able to squeeze past".
It is actually much safer (and recommended by government bodies and cycling organisations) to "take the lane".
Furthermore, by not riding in the gutter a cyclist then has somewhere to go should a motorist insist in forcing their way past.
So what you are doing by 'taking the lane' is actually braking the Highway Code, which clearly states that you should allow all traffic to pass you on your right. Further, what's the point of councils then spending tens of thousands of pounds on cycle lanes if cyclists do not use them.
Sorry to say but it is this very attitude that causes the problems that we have seen during these events.
Rule 66: never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends
You should probably try to use cycle lanes and then you would have a better understanding... whoever designs them has never seen a bycicle... and if they are usable... oh hang on, there's a car parked!

It sounds like you didn't even bothered to go to the New Forest the weekend and see if the cyclists were riding abreast or "taking the lane" anyway so who cares what you think.
Cycling two abreast to sport cars squeezing through is fine, as already posted the extract from the Highway Code regarding spacing for overtaking. If you came across a tractor you wouldn't squeeze through would you!!

You live on or travel through a tourist attraction, get used to people wanting to spend time there!!!
[quote][p][bold]no_driver_trolls_ple ase[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scarecrow52[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bonkeydollocks[/bold] wrote: Think cyclists generally raise blood pressure on the narrow roads in the New Forest as there is an increasing tendency to not pull over and ride in a single file to make it easier to overtake. No idea why more and more cyclists do this, it actually increases the chance of an accident. Idiots[/p][/quote]On the contrary, it leaves the motorist in no doubt that they "might just be able to squeeze past". It is actually much safer (and recommended by government bodies and cycling organisations) to "take the lane". Furthermore, by not riding in the gutter a cyclist then has somewhere to go should a motorist insist in forcing their way past.[/p][/quote]So what you are doing by 'taking the lane' is actually braking the Highway Code, which clearly states that you should allow all traffic to pass you on your right. Further, what's the point of councils then spending tens of thousands of pounds on cycle lanes if cyclists do not use them. Sorry to say but it is this very attitude that causes the problems that we have seen during these events. Rule 66: never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends[/p][/quote]You should probably try to use cycle lanes and then you would have a better understanding... whoever designs them has never seen a bycicle... and if they are usable... oh hang on, there's a car parked! It sounds like you didn't even bothered to go to the New Forest the weekend and see if the cyclists were riding abreast or "taking the lane" anyway so who cares what you think.[/p][/quote]Cycling two abreast to sport cars squeezing through is fine, as already posted the extract from the Highway Code regarding spacing for overtaking. If you came across a tractor you wouldn't squeeze through would you!! You live on or travel through a tourist attraction, get used to people wanting to spend time there!!! Dorset Mitch
  • Score: 6

2:37pm Mon 14 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

apm1954 wrote:
inbreds
Assuming that you mean the people in the New Forest who are doing the complaining, how many of them were born and bred there and how many have moved in from elsewhere?
[quote][p][bold]apm1954[/bold] wrote: inbreds[/p][/quote]Assuming that you mean the people in the New Forest who are doing the complaining, how many of them were born and bred there and how many have moved in from elsewhere? breamoreboy
  • Score: 8

3:09pm Mon 14 Apr 14

suzigirl says...

Arthur Maureen wrote:
Peggy Babcock wrote: Whichever individuals did this, I suggest they take a good look at themselves in the mirror and ask themselves 'what sort of person I'. What goes around, comes around and I for one will not be sad if anything nasty hits them in life in the future.
Does anyone know where Suzygirl was during the weekend...
That was a bit tackless of you Arthur but hey that is you all over.........
[quote][p][bold]Arthur Maureen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Peggy Babcock[/bold] wrote: Whichever individuals did this, I suggest they take a good look at themselves in the mirror and ask themselves 'what sort of person I'. What goes around, comes around and I for one will not be sad if anything nasty hits them in life in the future.[/p][/quote]Does anyone know where Suzygirl was during the weekend...[/p][/quote]That was a bit tackless of you Arthur but hey that is you all over......... suzigirl
  • Score: -7

4:01pm Mon 14 Apr 14

suzigirl says...

Paul Weaver wrote:
PUZZLED ONE wrote: The 2014 Wiggle New Forest event over the weekend saw 2,000 cyclists take to the roads for the popular sportive. I see that the Echo journalists have coined a new noun, a 'sportive', what ever that is. Did they perhaps mean a 'sportive event' but couldn't think of the second word?
I quote from Jennifer Trotman at http://www.cyclospor t.org/08-May-2012/ho w-to/general/what-is -a-sportive.html "What is a sportive? This isn't the first time I've tried to explain what a sportive is, and I don't suppose it'll be the last! Let's start with a phrase you'll become very familiar with if you get into riding sportives. "It's not a race". You'll probably hear this said during the riders' briefing at the start, followed by a smattering of derisive laughter because, as with any sporting event, some people always treat them as a race and everyone knows that. On a more serious note though, they're not races, because using the word "race" for cycling on the road triggers all sorts of legal, health and safety, and insurance issues, which would involve getting the police and local authorities involved and making organising such events prohibitively difficult. If you're interested in racing on your bike, then sportives are not for you. Now that we've established that a sportive is not a race, what is it? Well I tend to explain them to the un-initiated as long distance cycling events. Sportives are to cyclists what marathons are for runners - long distance challenges. Most people who run marathons are not racing, they're just trying to complete the distance. Maybe, one step up from that, they're trying to beat last year's time, or their personal best for the distance, but it's still not a race. A sportive is just like a marathon then, except we're on two wheels not two legs! So a sportive is a non-competitive long distance cycling event. "
I went on a "sportive" on a motorbike at the weekend.... does that count?
[quote][p][bold]Paul Weaver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PUZZLED ONE[/bold] wrote: The 2014 Wiggle New Forest event over the weekend saw 2,000 cyclists take to the roads for the popular sportive. I see that the Echo journalists have coined a new noun, a 'sportive', what ever that is. Did they perhaps mean a 'sportive event' but couldn't think of the second word?[/p][/quote]I quote from Jennifer Trotman at http://www.cyclospor t.org/08-May-2012/ho w-to/general/what-is -a-sportive.html "What is a sportive? This isn't the first time I've tried to explain what a sportive is, and I don't suppose it'll be the last! Let's start with a phrase you'll become very familiar with if you get into riding sportives. "It's not a race". You'll probably hear this said during the riders' briefing at the start, followed by a smattering of derisive laughter because, as with any sporting event, some people always treat them as a race and everyone knows that. On a more serious note though, they're not races, because using the word "race" for cycling on the road triggers all sorts of legal, health and safety, and insurance issues, which would involve getting the police and local authorities involved and making organising such events prohibitively difficult. If you're interested in racing on your bike, then sportives are not for you. Now that we've established that a sportive is not a race, what is it? Well I tend to explain them to the un-initiated as long distance cycling events. Sportives are to cyclists what marathons are for runners - long distance challenges. Most people who run marathons are not racing, they're just trying to complete the distance. Maybe, one step up from that, they're trying to beat last year's time, or their personal best for the distance, but it's still not a race. A sportive is just like a marathon then, except we're on two wheels not two legs! So a sportive is a non-competitive long distance cycling event. "[/p][/quote]I went on a "sportive" on a motorbike at the weekend.... does that count? suzigirl
  • Score: -10

4:22pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Northstand_dan says...

jobsworthwatch wrote:
Do the French scatter tacks on the road during the Tour de France?
There have been years where basque separatist groups did this on a couple of stages and it did happen on some others

Unfortunately there are d1ckh3ads around the world.
[quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote: Do the French scatter tacks on the road during the Tour de France?[/p][/quote]There have been years where basque separatist groups did this on a couple of stages and it did happen on some others Unfortunately there are d1ckh3ads around the world. Northstand_dan
  • Score: 5

4:33pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Molecatcher says...

I had the misfortune to travel through the forest at the weekend... No choice. That's just how it was. I would have rather not, but there we are. I must say, some of the cyclists I saw were not obeying the "rules" of this so called 'sportive' and were riding several abreast on very narrow stretches of road. Naughty, naughty. They were even doing it right in front of the so-called Marshalls, who were clearly not interested. What I don't understand is why anyone would want to pay money to cycle on public roads that you can cycle on for free... If you feel that you have to do it as a group, phone up a couple of your cycling buddies and away you go. What is there to organise? Why shell out your hard earned to "Wiggle"? They're presumably making a good profit out of it. Money for old rope is what that is. It would have been a different matter had the roads been closed off in sections to allow cyclists only for while so that the majority could get through. Or even the whole route if other traffic was diverted.

In these days of GPS and technology surely, all you have to do if you want to go on a long distance bicycle ride is quite literally get on your bike and pedal it. No imagination, some people. Oh well, I suppose it's morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep their money.

As far as I can see a 'cycling sportive' is just a gathering of vain Lycra-clad narcissists with an attitude problem. It doesn't do anything much to promote cycling, as far as I can see. No wonder some people are not keen.
I had the misfortune to travel through the forest at the weekend... No choice. That's just how it was. I would have rather not, but there we are. I must say, some of the cyclists I saw were not obeying the "rules" of this so called 'sportive' and were riding several abreast on very narrow stretches of road. Naughty, naughty. They were even doing it right in front of the so-called Marshalls, who were clearly not interested. What I don't understand is why anyone would want to pay money to cycle on public roads that you can cycle on for free... If you feel that you have to do it as a group, phone up a couple of your cycling buddies and away you go. What is there to organise? Why shell out your hard earned to "Wiggle"? They're presumably making a good profit out of it. Money for old rope is what that is. It would have been a different matter had the roads been closed off in sections to allow cyclists only for while so that the majority could get through. Or even the whole route if other traffic was diverted. In these days of GPS and technology surely, all you have to do if you want to go on a long distance bicycle ride is quite literally get on your bike and pedal it. No imagination, some people. Oh well, I suppose it's morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep their money. As far as I can see a 'cycling sportive' is just a gathering of vain Lycra-clad narcissists with an attitude problem. It doesn't do anything much to promote cycling, as far as I can see. No wonder some people are not keen. Molecatcher
  • Score: -9

5:11pm Mon 14 Apr 14

The-Bleeding-Obvious says...

Northstand_dan wrote:
jobsworthwatch wrote:
Do the French scatter tacks on the road during the Tour de France?
There have been years where basque separatist groups did this on a couple of stages and it did happen on some others

Unfortunately there are d1ckh3ads around the world.
Perhaps it's the 'New Forest Separatist' group that's responsible then?
[quote][p][bold]Northstand_dan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote: Do the French scatter tacks on the road during the Tour de France?[/p][/quote]There have been years where basque separatist groups did this on a couple of stages and it did happen on some others Unfortunately there are d1ckh3ads around the world.[/p][/quote]Perhaps it's the 'New Forest Separatist' group that's responsible then? The-Bleeding-Obvious
  • Score: 9

5:31pm Mon 14 Apr 14

JackJohnson says...

suzigirl wrote:
Paul Weaver wrote:
PUZZLED ONE wrote: The 2014 Wiggle New Forest event over the weekend saw 2,000 cyclists take to the roads for the popular sportive. I see that the Echo journalists have coined a new noun, a 'sportive', what ever that is. Did they perhaps mean a 'sportive event' but couldn't think of the second word?
I quote from Jennifer Trotman at http://www.cyclospor t.org/08-May-2012/ho w-to/general/what-is -a-sportive.html "What is a sportive? This isn't the first time I've tried to explain what a sportive is, and I don't suppose it'll be the last! Let's start with a phrase you'll become very familiar with if you get into riding sportives. "It's not a race". You'll probably hear this said during the riders' briefing at the start, followed by a smattering of derisive laughter because, as with any sporting event, some people always treat them as a race and everyone knows that. On a more serious note though, they're not races, because using the word "race" for cycling on the road triggers all sorts of legal, health and safety, and insurance issues, which would involve getting the police and local authorities involved and making organising such events prohibitively difficult. If you're interested in racing on your bike, then sportives are not for you. Now that we've established that a sportive is not a race, what is it? Well I tend to explain them to the un-initiated as long distance cycling events. Sportives are to cyclists what marathons are for runners - long distance challenges. Most people who run marathons are not racing, they're just trying to complete the distance. Maybe, one step up from that, they're trying to beat last year's time, or their personal best for the distance, but it's still not a race. A sportive is just like a marathon then, except we're on two wheels not two legs! So a sportive is a non-competitive long distance cycling event. "
I went on a "sportive" on a motorbike at the weekend.... does that count?
Nope. You weren't being a **** and getting into other road users' way.
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paul Weaver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PUZZLED ONE[/bold] wrote: The 2014 Wiggle New Forest event over the weekend saw 2,000 cyclists take to the roads for the popular sportive. I see that the Echo journalists have coined a new noun, a 'sportive', what ever that is. Did they perhaps mean a 'sportive event' but couldn't think of the second word?[/p][/quote]I quote from Jennifer Trotman at http://www.cyclospor t.org/08-May-2012/ho w-to/general/what-is -a-sportive.html "What is a sportive? This isn't the first time I've tried to explain what a sportive is, and I don't suppose it'll be the last! Let's start with a phrase you'll become very familiar with if you get into riding sportives. "It's not a race". You'll probably hear this said during the riders' briefing at the start, followed by a smattering of derisive laughter because, as with any sporting event, some people always treat them as a race and everyone knows that. On a more serious note though, they're not races, because using the word "race" for cycling on the road triggers all sorts of legal, health and safety, and insurance issues, which would involve getting the police and local authorities involved and making organising such events prohibitively difficult. If you're interested in racing on your bike, then sportives are not for you. Now that we've established that a sportive is not a race, what is it? Well I tend to explain them to the un-initiated as long distance cycling events. Sportives are to cyclists what marathons are for runners - long distance challenges. Most people who run marathons are not racing, they're just trying to complete the distance. Maybe, one step up from that, they're trying to beat last year's time, or their personal best for the distance, but it's still not a race. A sportive is just like a marathon then, except we're on two wheels not two legs! So a sportive is a non-competitive long distance cycling event. "[/p][/quote]I went on a "sportive" on a motorbike at the weekend.... does that count?[/p][/quote]Nope. You weren't being a **** and getting into other road users' way. JackJohnson
  • Score: -10

6:14pm Mon 14 Apr 14

SeafaringMan says...

Theo63 wrote:
I am very pro these events. I would like to think that those responsible for the tacks are hooligans out to cause trouble whatever the occasion and not the "respectable" New Forest locals.

I just cannot understand the mentality of people that carry out these actions.
They are obviously the same people who asked residents to report 'anti-social behaviour' by cyclists!
[quote][p][bold]Theo63[/bold] wrote: I am very pro these events. I would like to think that those responsible for the tacks are hooligans out to cause trouble whatever the occasion and not the "respectable" New Forest locals. I just cannot understand the mentality of people that carry out these actions.[/p][/quote]They are obviously the same people who asked residents to report 'anti-social behaviour' by cyclists! SeafaringMan
  • Score: 4

6:18pm Mon 14 Apr 14

SeafaringMan says...

Sir Beachy Head wrote:
I wonder if the New Forest residents have finished evolving into full human beings or if they are still doing so and will qualify in about 2 million years time.
A bit inbred I shouldn't wonder!
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: I wonder if the New Forest residents have finished evolving into full human beings or if they are still doing so and will qualify in about 2 million years time.[/p][/quote]A bit inbred I shouldn't wonder! SeafaringMan
  • Score: -1

7:28pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Midge910 says...

Scarecrow52 wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
Bonkeydollocks wrote:
Think cyclists generally raise blood pressure on the narrow roads in the New Forest as there is an increasing tendency to not pull over and ride in a single file to make it easier to overtake.

No idea why more and more cyclists do this, it actually increases the chance of an accident. Idiots
On the contrary, it leaves the motorist in no doubt that they "might just be able to squeeze past".
It is actually much safer (and recommended by government bodies and cycling organisations) to "take the lane".
Furthermore, by not riding in the gutter a cyclist then has somewhere to go should a motorist insist in forcing their way past.
So what you are doing by 'taking the lane' is actually braking the Highway Code, which clearly states that you should allow all traffic to pass you on your right. Further, what's the point of councils then spending tens of thousands of pounds on cycle lanes if cyclists do not use them.
Sorry to say but it is this very attitude that causes the problems that we have seen during these events.
Rule 66: never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends
The majority of cycle lanes are just a tick the box exercise. Several that I have cycled on recently have been dangerous as they are not maintained, to narrow and rattle your fillings out.
[quote][p][bold]Scarecrow52[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bonkeydollocks[/bold] wrote: Think cyclists generally raise blood pressure on the narrow roads in the New Forest as there is an increasing tendency to not pull over and ride in a single file to make it easier to overtake. No idea why more and more cyclists do this, it actually increases the chance of an accident. Idiots[/p][/quote]On the contrary, it leaves the motorist in no doubt that they "might just be able to squeeze past". It is actually much safer (and recommended by government bodies and cycling organisations) to "take the lane". Furthermore, by not riding in the gutter a cyclist then has somewhere to go should a motorist insist in forcing their way past.[/p][/quote]So what you are doing by 'taking the lane' is actually braking the Highway Code, which clearly states that you should allow all traffic to pass you on your right. Further, what's the point of councils then spending tens of thousands of pounds on cycle lanes if cyclists do not use them. Sorry to say but it is this very attitude that causes the problems that we have seen during these events. Rule 66: never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends[/p][/quote]The majority of cycle lanes are just a tick the box exercise. Several that I have cycled on recently have been dangerous as they are not maintained, to narrow and rattle your fillings out. Midge910
  • Score: 2

7:58pm Mon 14 Apr 14

sundaydriver says...

BarrHumbug wrote:
The cyclists should get their own back by going back at night and digging big muddy puddles to stop the NIMBY's from driving their X5's and Cayenne's
What!! - I drive home through the forest every day and the roads already have big muddy puddles which are better known as pot holes that the council don't get to fill in but do generate a good revenue for tyre companies
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: The cyclists should get their own back by going back at night and digging big muddy puddles to stop the NIMBY's from driving their X5's and Cayenne's[/p][/quote]What!! - I drive home through the forest every day and the roads already have big muddy puddles which are better known as pot holes that the council don't get to fill in but do generate a good revenue for tyre companies sundaydriver
  • Score: 1

8:40pm Mon 14 Apr 14

bordercollie2 says...

Clearly the event needs better organisation - these problems wouldn't occur if the organisers arranged for the necessary roads to be blocked off for the days, giving the cyclists a much safer environment, and redirecting the cars. Putting 2000 cyclists on the same road at the same time on a busy weekend is fundamently a poor idea - frankly it's a surprise that nobody gets hurt!

At the very least residents in the local area need a lot more warning that the event will be passing through their area so they can make travel arrangements to avoid the cyclists - trust me, none of us want to get stuck in the middle of all those bicycles!!
Clearly the event needs better organisation - these problems wouldn't occur if the organisers arranged for the necessary roads to be blocked off for the days, giving the cyclists a much safer environment, and redirecting the cars. Putting 2000 cyclists on the same road at the same time on a busy weekend is fundamently a poor idea - frankly it's a surprise that nobody gets hurt! At the very least residents in the local area need a lot more warning that the event will be passing through their area so they can make travel arrangements to avoid the cyclists - trust me, none of us want to get stuck in the middle of all those bicycles!! bordercollie2
  • Score: -4

8:47pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Mike R-B says...

PUZZLED ONE wrote:
The 2014 Wiggle New Forest event over the weekend saw 2,000 cyclists take to the roads for the popular sportive.

I see that the Echo journalists have coined a new noun, a 'sportive', what ever that is.
Did they perhaps mean a 'sportive event' but couldn't think of the second word?
The event supports the Bournemouth "Lap dancing Gentlemens Club" I guess.
[quote][p][bold]PUZZLED ONE[/bold] wrote: The 2014 Wiggle New Forest event over the weekend saw 2,000 cyclists take to the roads for the popular sportive. I see that the Echo journalists have coined a new noun, a 'sportive', what ever that is. Did they perhaps mean a 'sportive event' but couldn't think of the second word?[/p][/quote]The event supports the Bournemouth "Lap dancing Gentlemens Club" I guess. Mike R-B
  • Score: 0

9:35pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Ayles 10 says...

no_driver_trolls_ple
ase
wrote:
Ayles 10 wrote:
steve518 wrote:
It was actually a all organised event, with clear instructions given that anyone riding more than two abreast or seen leaving litter would be banned from this and all future events. I took part in the event and I did not witness any one riding more than two abreast and I saw no litter being dropped.
I drove from Avon to Christchurch & back, around an 8 mile round trip. I didn't see any littering, but did however have to navigate past one lot of three abreast riders followed by a four abreast group. Also, I didn't see a single rider signal when making a left turn onto the Avon Causeway. Its this sort of thing that makes the event a nuisance to locals trying to get about.
Do you get annoyed every time a driver doesn't signal when turning? oh dear... you should stay at home and never go out then.
Read the post first you eejut before posting an irrelevant comment!
[quote][p][bold]no_driver_trolls_ple ase[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ayles 10[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]steve518[/bold] wrote: It was actually a all organised event, with clear instructions given that anyone riding more than two abreast or seen leaving litter would be banned from this and all future events. I took part in the event and I did not witness any one riding more than two abreast and I saw no litter being dropped.[/p][/quote]I drove from Avon to Christchurch & back, around an 8 mile round trip. I didn't see any littering, but did however have to navigate past one lot of three abreast riders followed by a four abreast group. Also, I didn't see a single rider signal when making a left turn onto the Avon Causeway. Its this sort of thing that makes the event a nuisance to locals trying to get about.[/p][/quote]Do you get annoyed every time a driver doesn't signal when turning? oh dear... you should stay at home and never go out then.[/p][/quote]Read the post first you eejut before posting an irrelevant comment! Ayles 10
  • Score: 0

9:51pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Midge910 says...

Mike R-B wrote:
PUZZLED ONE wrote:
The 2014 Wiggle New Forest event over the weekend saw 2,000 cyclists take to the roads for the popular sportive.

I see that the Echo journalists have coined a new noun, a 'sportive', what ever that is.
Did they perhaps mean a 'sportive event' but couldn't think of the second word?
The event supports the Bournemouth "Lap dancing Gentlemens Club" I guess.
Sportive is an established term for such an event.
[quote][p][bold]Mike R-B[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PUZZLED ONE[/bold] wrote: The 2014 Wiggle New Forest event over the weekend saw 2,000 cyclists take to the roads for the popular sportive. I see that the Echo journalists have coined a new noun, a 'sportive', what ever that is. Did they perhaps mean a 'sportive event' but couldn't think of the second word?[/p][/quote]The event supports the Bournemouth "Lap dancing Gentlemens Club" I guess.[/p][/quote]Sportive is an established term for such an event. Midge910
  • Score: 0

11:02pm Mon 14 Apr 14

scrumpyjack says...

JackJohnson wrote:
Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
Never been a great fan of cyclists in the New Forest having had to maneuver a Mercedes Sprinter around them whilst doing deliveries but this was an organised event and anyone stupid enough to deliberately cause criminal damage should seriously have the book thrown at them. People should use their mobile phones to video these idiots and then hand the evidence to the police, so they can prosecute them.
The whole event should be videoed from start to finish, then anybody who has caused trouble (pro- or anti-event) stands a decent chance of being identified and banned from future events, or prosecuted if they comitted prosecutable offences.
Video all of it, all at the same time, with all of the people there? Hmmmm.

Another 'great' suggestion.....
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: Never been a great fan of cyclists in the New Forest having had to maneuver a Mercedes Sprinter around them whilst doing deliveries but this was an organised event and anyone stupid enough to deliberately cause criminal damage should seriously have the book thrown at them. People should use their mobile phones to video these idiots and then hand the evidence to the police, so they can prosecute them.[/p][/quote]The whole event should be videoed from start to finish, then anybody who has caused trouble (pro- or anti-event) stands a decent chance of being identified and banned from future events, or prosecuted if they comitted prosecutable offences.[/p][/quote]Video all of it, all at the same time, with all of the people there? Hmmmm. Another 'great' suggestion..... scrumpyjack
  • Score: 2

12:42am Tue 15 Apr 14

forest-dweller says...

Throwing tacks is not the answer.

Reading the comments here, it seems that people are very entrenched in their views. Their are obviously cyclists who cannot understand the frustrations of motorists and those that live here, and there are those that don't tolerate cyclists. I also think that there are those who live in the Forest who do not realise quite how many cyclists there really can be.

I live in an area where there are a huge number. Every weekend there are a huge number on the roads, and to be honest, their attitude towards motorists is pretty poor and is the root cause of the antagonism. We all have to live here, so it would be far better to try and get on with each other, with a bit of give and take. It seems however that it is the motorist who gives. It is a shame that a minority (however sizeable) give the majority of cyclists a bad reputation.

It would be good to remember, some of us live here and need to go about our daily business, while those on cycles are undertaking a recreational activity.
Throwing tacks is not the answer. Reading the comments here, it seems that people are very entrenched in their views. Their are obviously cyclists who cannot understand the frustrations of motorists and those that live here, and there are those that don't tolerate cyclists. I also think that there are those who live in the Forest who do not realise quite how many cyclists there really can be. I live in an area where there are a huge number. Every weekend there are a huge number on the roads, and to be honest, their attitude towards motorists is pretty poor and is the root cause of the antagonism. We all have to live here, so it would be far better to try and get on with each other, with a bit of give and take. It seems however that it is the motorist who gives. It is a shame that a minority (however sizeable) give the majority of cyclists a bad reputation. It would be good to remember, some of us live here and need to go about our daily business, while those on cycles are undertaking a recreational activity. forest-dweller
  • Score: 4

5:02am Tue 15 Apr 14

Dchadder says...

I cycled, motor cycled and drove through sleepy Bransgore countless times during 1958-1974, never saw a sharp thing around there.
I cycled, motor cycled and drove through sleepy Bransgore countless times during 1958-1974, never saw a sharp thing around there. Dchadder
  • Score: 2

9:15am Tue 15 Apr 14

suzigirl says...

Midge910 wrote:
Scarecrow52 wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
Bonkeydollocks wrote: Think cyclists generally raise blood pressure on the narrow roads in the New Forest as there is an increasing tendency to not pull over and ride in a single file to make it easier to overtake. No idea why more and more cyclists do this, it actually increases the chance of an accident. Idiots
On the contrary, it leaves the motorist in no doubt that they "might just be able to squeeze past". It is actually much safer (and recommended by government bodies and cycling organisations) to "take the lane". Furthermore, by not riding in the gutter a cyclist then has somewhere to go should a motorist insist in forcing their way past.
So what you are doing by 'taking the lane' is actually braking the Highway Code, which clearly states that you should allow all traffic to pass you on your right. Further, what's the point of councils then spending tens of thousands of pounds on cycle lanes if cyclists do not use them. Sorry to say but it is this very attitude that causes the problems that we have seen during these events. Rule 66: never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends
The majority of cycle lanes are just a tick the box exercise. Several that I have cycled on recently have been dangerous as they are not maintained, to narrow and rattle your fillings out.
So we spend thousands of pounds on cycle lanes to help keep cyclists safe and all cyclists do is moan about them...............A
s far as I can see it the Dorset roads are not maintained very well either........so best to use the pavements then! On my way home last night there was a cyclist on the road snaking all over the place because he was texting on his mobile...........unb
elievable but if a car had collided with him it would have been the car driver's fault of course.
[quote][p][bold]Midge910[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scarecrow52[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bonkeydollocks[/bold] wrote: Think cyclists generally raise blood pressure on the narrow roads in the New Forest as there is an increasing tendency to not pull over and ride in a single file to make it easier to overtake. No idea why more and more cyclists do this, it actually increases the chance of an accident. Idiots[/p][/quote]On the contrary, it leaves the motorist in no doubt that they "might just be able to squeeze past". It is actually much safer (and recommended by government bodies and cycling organisations) to "take the lane". Furthermore, by not riding in the gutter a cyclist then has somewhere to go should a motorist insist in forcing their way past.[/p][/quote]So what you are doing by 'taking the lane' is actually braking the Highway Code, which clearly states that you should allow all traffic to pass you on your right. Further, what's the point of councils then spending tens of thousands of pounds on cycle lanes if cyclists do not use them. Sorry to say but it is this very attitude that causes the problems that we have seen during these events. Rule 66: never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends[/p][/quote]The majority of cycle lanes are just a tick the box exercise. Several that I have cycled on recently have been dangerous as they are not maintained, to narrow and rattle your fillings out.[/p][/quote]So we spend thousands of pounds on cycle lanes to help keep cyclists safe and all cyclists do is moan about them...............A s far as I can see it the Dorset roads are not maintained very well either........so best to use the pavements then! On my way home last night there was a cyclist on the road snaking all over the place because he was texting on his mobile...........unb elievable but if a car had collided with him it would have been the car driver's fault of course. suzigirl
  • Score: -2

11:05am Tue 15 Apr 14

Reconciler says...

To all who condemn nail-scattering, I completely agree with you Other road-users' frustration needs to be understood after so many years of trying for more reasonable use of the roads by, let's face it, pretty selfish organisers and participants, but such action negates all attempts at conciliation and gives all residents a bad name, as well as being unlawful and dangerous. The sooner the culprits are brought to book, the better.

Bonkeydollocks: Riding 2 abreast is lawful and not of itself dangerous. However, as you say, it is very selfish when there is a tail of traffic behind, and on lanes as narrow as some of those used for these events it can cause accidents, especially on blind bends with oncoming traffic. However, I congratulate Wiggle on a reduction of this behaviour, as I drove much of the course and actually received the courtesy of "singling out" several times as I came up behind groups.

PuzzledOne and Paul Weaver: In law any form of racing on the public highway has to be properly regulated under strict rules. The sportive organisers have discovered a loophole, and avoid the cost and effort of complying with these rules by calling their very profitable events "Sportives" and sending riders out in groups instead of all at once, as in a legally defined race. Riders are sternly warned against referring to them as races, even though the majority are racing, timed to one hundredth of a second and competing against the clock as well as each other. The best definition of a sportive I have come across (from a participant) is: A SPORTIVE IS A NON COMPETITIVE COMPETITION BETWEEN NON RACING CYCLISTS RACING EACH OTHER. Wiggle state that anyone found to be racing will be disqualified and banned from future events. However, despite ample proof of racing submitted over the previous five years, none, so far as I am aware, has received these sanctions.

Wiggle know that one really helpful move would be to put identification numbers on riders' backs, as it is virtually impossible to read the handlebar labels in order to report culprits. They still evade their responsibilities by refusing to do this. It is easy to work out their reasons - and it is not because expensive lycra would be torn by the pins - there are other ways of fixing the labels round the waist!
To all who condemn nail-scattering, I completely agree with you Other road-users' frustration needs to be understood after so many years of trying for more reasonable use of the roads by, let's face it, pretty selfish organisers and participants, but such action negates all attempts at conciliation and gives all residents a bad name, as well as being unlawful and dangerous. The sooner the culprits are brought to book, the better. Bonkeydollocks: Riding 2 abreast is lawful and not of itself dangerous. However, as you say, it is very selfish when there is a tail of traffic behind, and on lanes as narrow as some of those used for these events it can cause accidents, especially on blind bends with oncoming traffic. However, I congratulate Wiggle on a reduction of this behaviour, as I drove much of the course and actually received the courtesy of "singling out" several times as I came up behind groups. PuzzledOne and Paul Weaver: In law any form of racing on the public highway has to be properly regulated under strict rules. The sportive organisers have discovered a loophole, and avoid the cost and effort of complying with these rules by calling their very profitable events "Sportives" and sending riders out in groups instead of all at once, as in a legally defined race. Riders are sternly warned against referring to them as races, even though the majority are racing, timed to one hundredth of a second and competing against the clock as well as each other. The best definition of a sportive I have come across (from a participant) is: A SPORTIVE IS A NON COMPETITIVE COMPETITION BETWEEN NON RACING CYCLISTS RACING EACH OTHER. Wiggle state that anyone found to be racing will be disqualified and banned from future events. However, despite ample proof of racing submitted over the previous five years, none, so far as I am aware, has received these sanctions. Wiggle know that one really helpful move would be to put identification numbers on riders' backs, as it is virtually impossible to read the handlebar labels in order to report culprits. They still evade their responsibilities by refusing to do this. It is easy to work out their reasons - and it is not because expensive lycra would be torn by the pins - there are other ways of fixing the labels round the waist! Reconciler
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree