Discussion
gazza285 said:
728 finishers at Huddersfield today...
That's mad! I wonder if at some time there will need to be a restriction on numbers (no idea how you do it though!). Starting new events to curb numbers has been a spectacular failure (or success, depending how you look at it) from Bushy there have been 700+ new events and they've had bugger all effect on numbers at Bushy.
john2443 said:
That's mad! I wonder if at some time there will need to be a restriction on numbers (no idea how you do it though!).
Starting new events to curb numbers has been a spectacular failure (or success, depending how you look at it) from Bushy there have been 700+ new events and they've had bugger all effect on numbers at Bushy.
752 finishers at my local course (Poole Parkrun) on Saturday - which I think is a record. Recently, a new Parkrun was established up the road at Moors Valley Country Park (a bit further inland from Poole), which I thought would have soaked up a few of the runners from Poole. But it seems to have had no effect Starting new events to curb numbers has been a spectacular failure (or success, depending how you look at it) from Bushy there have been 700+ new events and they've had bugger all effect on numbers at Bushy.
Both are nice courses with pleasant scenery, but Poole is almost completely flat - which I think some people prefer.You're right though, there has to be a point where having so many runners on a 5K course is going to need some form of restriction (staggered starts perhaps?). If the number in Poole reaches say 1,000, then I'd say some of the narrower parts of the course are going to get over congested in the mid-field.
It's a pleasant problem to have though - great that so many people want to run.
northandy said:
Snuck under 20 yesterday at albert park, 19:58 well pleased with that as I never thought I'd ever achieve that target 6 months ago.
Doing some more challenging ones now before I go back in a month after the Sunderland half so will see if I can improve on that.
People that have managed to speed up, how did you do it eg training etc? Or is it just young legs Doing some more challenging ones now before I go back in a month after the Sunderland half so will see if I can improve on that.
TX.
john2443 said:
That's mad! I wonder if at some time there will need to be a restriction on numbers (no idea how you do it though!).
Starting new events to curb numbers has been a spectacular failure (or success, depending how you look at it) from Bushy there have been 700+ new events and they've had bugger all effect on numbers at Bushy.
We're in a similar situation at Cannon Hill in Birmingham where large numbers have persuaded us to modify our course, which now takes over almost the entire park again. For around an hour a week, we are a very visible group that's attracted some unpleasant attention from other park users, and also road users due to people leaving it a little too late to park up, so people end up dumping their cars by the side of nearby roads.Starting new events to curb numbers has been a spectacular failure (or success, depending how you look at it) from Bushy there have been 700+ new events and they've had bugger all effect on numbers at Bushy.
The 18 month old Perry Hall event down the road has grown slowly and has attracted new runners, but only a few regulars from Cannon Hill moved over due to either living much closer, preferring the smaller field etc. If like me, most will have developed friendships and bonds at their home event, especially if they've attended for several years, and would be reluctant to move elsewhere.
Southampton has a similar problem as they had 802 finishers on Saturday. I have heard that they are working on a second venue to take some of the pressure off (assuming people would switch) as the number of runners shows no sign of decreasing over time.
Another new parkrun started in our area on Saturday but there was little change to the number of people at the other established parkruns surrounding it. It seems that if you built it then they will come - out the woodwork rather than from other parkruns
Another new parkrun started in our area on Saturday but there was little change to the number of people at the other established parkruns surrounding it. It seems that if you built it then they will come - out the woodwork rather than from other parkruns
Did my first Parkrun since August this weekend - my 9th ever - in 27.44 (46.88%), 1.20 slower than my PB last year, but I've done nothing over the winter due to being injured / lazy.
To be honest I'm just glad to make it round without stopping. But it's a marker in the ground to work from, next week will be better!
To be honest I'm just glad to make it round without stopping. But it's a marker in the ground to work from, next week will be better!
ewenm said:
Terminator X said:
People that have managed to speed up, how did you do it eg training etc? Or is it just young legs
TX.
Intervals - sessions where you run at or just faster than your target race pace. Hill reps for strength.TX.
One possible 'solution' to the overcrowding problem at some events...: Bristol parkrun joggers face being charged to use paths
Cybertronian said:
One possible 'solution' to the overcrowding problem at some events...: Bristol parkrun joggers face being charged to use paths
Its not a solution and goes against what parkrun stands for. A response from the parkrun here:http://www.parkrun.org.uk/littlestoke/news/2016/03...
Edited by KTF on Tuesday 12th April 11:38
Cybertronian said:
One possible 'solution' to the overcrowding problem at some events...: Bristol parkrun joggers face being charged to use paths
That's the event my daughter has been to a couple of time (the junior one on Sundays). I'd rather the event folded than the parkrunners be charged to use it. Given that the vast majority are locals, they've already paid for the upkeep of the park through their council tax.Oh and BBC, there is NO SUCH THING AS JOGGING! Run or run not, there is no jog.
It's totally gash.
Each year, the government spend millions upon millions trying to persuade people to stop being fat b
ds. It fails, and they spend further millions on the symptoms of being fat bds.
A group of voulanteers run a non profit that succeeds in trying to get people to stop being fat bds. The local government try to stop it.
As for the "the runners re making the path break"? What standard did the wkers spec it to when they built it? Average of 242 runners. 52 weeks a year. 12,500 runs down that path due to parkrun.
What would you spec a path to? 5 years? If it is, that's under 10 people down the path per day to cover parkrun's use. If the council didn't spec the path to be used high hundreds of times daily, it's that department that needs to be closed to pay for the repair, not a bunch of slightly clammy people on a Saturday morning (who will all pay tax).
Each year, the government spend millions upon millions trying to persuade people to stop being fat b
ds. It fails, and they spend further millions on the symptoms of being fat bds.A group of voulanteers run a non profit that succeeds in trying to get people to stop being fat b
ds. The local government try to stop it.As for the "the runners re making the path break"? What standard did the w
kers spec it to when they built it? Average of 242 runners. 52 weeks a year. 12,500 runs down that path due to parkrun.What would you spec a path to? 5 years? If it is, that's under 10 people down the path per day to cover parkrun's use. If the council didn't spec the path to be used high hundreds of times daily, it's that department that needs to be closed to pay for the repair, not a bunch of slightly clammy people on a Saturday morning (who will all pay tax).
Cybertronian said:
One possible 'solution' to the overcrowding problem at some events...: Bristol parkrun joggers face being charged to use paths
I think the council decision is being made today. I'm sure if they were able to balance the cost saving on health against wear and tear on the park they'd see the benefits, but they probably come from different budgets so can't be balanced.They also probably don't realise that if parkrun stops it will quite likely be a long time until people stop meeting to run round the park at 9 on a Saturday and there's not much they can do if 300 individuals turn up independently.
Now on the front page of BBC News. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-36014...
The whole idea is a nonsense anyway. The parkrun people wont collect the money (well the event wont be on anyway if this does go ahead) but, aside from that, is the council going to send someone to do it instead. Who will pay for this individual (on min wage + workplace pension), what happens if you 'forget' your £1, will they charge spectators and other people who are running on the same paths, etc. as they also cause wear and tare.
Its totally unworkable. Councils like to aim at their feet but you really couldn't make this up. A spectacular own goal.
The whole idea is a nonsense anyway. The parkrun people wont collect the money (well the event wont be on anyway if this does go ahead) but, aside from that, is the council going to send someone to do it instead. Who will pay for this individual (on min wage + workplace pension), what happens if you 'forget' your £1, will they charge spectators and other people who are running on the same paths, etc. as they also cause wear and tare.
Its totally unworkable. Councils like to aim at their feet but you really couldn't make this up. A spectacular own goal.
Edited by KTF on Tuesday 12th April 14:13
john2443 said:
Cybertronian said:
One possible 'solution' to the overcrowding problem at some events...: Bristol parkrun joggers face being charged to use paths
I think the council decision is being made today. I'm sure if they were able to balance the cost saving on health against wear and tear on the park they'd see the benefits, but they probably come from different budgets so can't be balanced.They also probably don't realise that if parkrun stops it will quite likely be a long time until people stop meeting to run round the park at 9 on a Saturday and there's not much they can do if 300 individuals turn up independently.
parkrun's response to the Council's claims is at the link below - 4th item on the page (dated 30 March)
http://www.parkrun.org.uk/littlestoke/news/
This seems to have taken a step up in wider media this week, which is great. Little Stoke is a great parkrun and we thoroughly enjoyed our runs there and my junior parkrun training. I'll be interested to see how the parish council reverse out of this IF they decide they don't fancy shooting themselves in the foot. Their argument seems to be based around the fact parkrun has 'paid directors' and sponsors. Typically they can't see the wider implication if parkrun were to bend over and somehow it could be made to work.
On one of the many facebook threads about this someone basically said that they are deciding whether to ban parkrun (apply the charge) from the park or let it stay (no charge).
The council will never get the revenue anyway as if they do decide to apply the charge the parkrun will no longer run there/move to another location so the whole thing is a nonsense.
My money is on them kicking it down the road for another 6 months like they did at the last meeting where this was discussed.
The council will never get the revenue anyway as if they do decide to apply the charge the parkrun will no longer run there/move to another location so the whole thing is a nonsense.
My money is on them kicking it down the road for another 6 months like they did at the last meeting where this was discussed.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff