Cycle Event Marshals
Discussion
mickmcpaddy said:
It doesn't matter if the cyclists pay to use the road or not, they are still preventing people that have paid too from using it.
If I go to a concert I can't demand a private showing because I have paid the same as everyone else.
How much do you pay a year to tax your car? If it's less than £240 I demand you pull over if I'm behind you. After all I pay more than you for RFL so have a greater right to use the road than you.If I go to a concert I can't demand a private showing because I have paid the same as everyone else.
Derek Smith said:
A few years ago now a member of the public was warning drivers not to go down a particular road. The reason was a car had driven into some sort of farming behemoth. Someone was standing in the road tending a casualty.
The chap signalled to a driver to turn off but, maybe having come from a supermarket and feeling important, one never knows, the driver decided to ignore the signal and drive on at normal speed. The person tending a casualty was injured.
The driver was charged with careless driving but the fact that he had ignored a person signalling him to take an alternative route was a major factor. The appeal court decided that the driver should have taken notice.
At the time there was no suggestion in the decision that he should have followed the directions but that he should have taken extreme care.
There have been decisions, all of lower appeal courts, that have reinforced this presumption and extended it.
So you can, legally, ignore the directions of anyone regulating traffic outside of a statutory authority, but have an accident and the fact you did so can be proof you drove carelessly.
So, does that mean that a driver could legitimately ignore the directions of a cycle race marshall, on the grounds that no cyclists had yet reached this point and none were in sight at this time, so long as the driver clears the area and goes on his way without interfering with the racers in any way?The chap signalled to a driver to turn off but, maybe having come from a supermarket and feeling important, one never knows, the driver decided to ignore the signal and drive on at normal speed. The person tending a casualty was injured.
The driver was charged with careless driving but the fact that he had ignored a person signalling him to take an alternative route was a major factor. The appeal court decided that the driver should have taken notice.
At the time there was no suggestion in the decision that he should have followed the directions but that he should have taken extreme care.
There have been decisions, all of lower appeal courts, that have reinforced this presumption and extended it.
So you can, legally, ignore the directions of anyone regulating traffic outside of a statutory authority, but have an accident and the fact you did so can be proof you drove carelessly.
Paul Dishman said:
I think the way that unofficial marshals directing events on the road go about dealing with members of the public pretty much guarantees the way that the public will respond to them.
Someone stopping traffic and having a smile and a friendly word about a short delay while the peloton clears the road will get a much better response than the hi-viz red flag waver whose perceived power has overcome his ability to interact with fellow humans.
Of course, without the high vis/flag, the traffic in question won't stop in the first place for the friendly chat with what appears to be any other pedestrian...Someone stopping traffic and having a smile and a friendly word about a short delay while the peloton clears the road will get a much better response than the hi-viz red flag waver whose perceived power has overcome his ability to interact with fellow humans.
rscott said:
mickmcpaddy said:
It doesn't matter if the cyclists pay to use the road or not, they are still preventing people that have paid too from using it.
If I go to a concert I can't demand a private showing because I have paid the same as everyone else.
How much do you pay a year to tax your car? If it's less than £240 I demand you pull over if I'm behind you. After all I pay more than you for RFL so have a greater right to use the road than you.If I go to a concert I can't demand a private showing because I have paid the same as everyone else.
Anyway regardless of personal anger issues pelotons might be irritating but they're safer for both cyclist and motorist because, obviously, there's one big group. Time trials on the otherhand should not be allowed to take place on open road.
p1esk said:
ChevronB19 said:
Given this is a car forum, I’d politely point out that it was the fact that cycle racing in the roads is permitted that has, at least in part, contributed to the recent law change allowing competition car events on closed roads (which might involve similar, although hopefully better controlled, marshalling).
I might have missed something here, but I thought the facility for closing roads for the purpose of allowing motorsport events to take place had been around since at least the 1950s.In Scarborough the roads on Olivers Mount have been closed two or three weekends a year for motorcycle racing, and at other times for hillclimbs and the like; so what has changed? I also seem to recall the same roads being used for special stages on the RAC Rally in the past.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/propos...
It got the go-ahead, and the law changed in England last year, then in Wales a couple of weeks ago.
https://www.msauk.org/Wales-gives-green-light-to-c...
popeyewhite said:
rscott said:
mickmcpaddy said:
It doesn't matter if the cyclists pay to use the road or not, they are still preventing people that have paid too from using it.
If I go to a concert I can't demand a private showing because I have paid the same as everyone else.
How much do you pay a year to tax your car? If it's less than £240 I demand you pull over if I'm behind you. After all I pay more than you for RFL so have a greater right to use the road than you.If I go to a concert I can't demand a private showing because I have paid the same as everyone else.
Anyway regardless of personal anger issues pelotons might be irritating but they're safer for both cyclist and motorist because, obviously, there's one big group. Time trials on the otherhand should not be allowed to take place on open road.
He'd probably explode if I mentioned I also cycle, my partner drives a horsebox and rides a horse , all on public roads.
I don't know about "proper" races with "proper" marshals, etc.
I only ever do Time Trials on roads, and even then not very many of them. There are a few marshals posted on routes, but they are as much aimed at making sure the riders make the correct turns for the route as they are about traffic control.
In fact they seldom attempt to control traffic in my experience. They usually stand on a turn or a roundabout looking conspicuous in their hi-vis with "Caution. Cycle Event" signs out. The riders are briefed (or at least it used to be the case) that despite being involved in a competitive event, they can in no way circumvent the rules of the road. To be seen ignoring the law or riding dangerously would be punished with disqualification and likely a ban from future events on the course. No organiser wants competitors bringing the event's name into disrepute.
One particular event I'm thinking about, the marshal at the big roundabout where the turn-around was made used to signal the riders to slow down if he felt there was potential conflict with cars already on the roundabout. But just having a marshal or two is often enough for drivers to take a little more care, and the odd second look at junctions etc.
At the end of the day, a Time Trial is just a bunch of individual cyclists using a (typically) ten mile route for an hour, with 30 seconds to 1 minute between riders which leaves plenty of space for safe overtaking. And races with marshals who ARE authorised to stop and/or control traffic? Probably a whole lot safer and more efficient than getting stuck behind three random club rides of twenty plus riders each who've all coincidentally and independently decided to use the same stretch of road at almost the same time. Even as a committed cyclist, that would annoy the hell out of me. I mean, I'd respect their right to use the road, of course I would, but I'd also reserve my right to be annoyed at any UNNECESSARY delay...
I only ever do Time Trials on roads, and even then not very many of them. There are a few marshals posted on routes, but they are as much aimed at making sure the riders make the correct turns for the route as they are about traffic control.
In fact they seldom attempt to control traffic in my experience. They usually stand on a turn or a roundabout looking conspicuous in their hi-vis with "Caution. Cycle Event" signs out. The riders are briefed (or at least it used to be the case) that despite being involved in a competitive event, they can in no way circumvent the rules of the road. To be seen ignoring the law or riding dangerously would be punished with disqualification and likely a ban from future events on the course. No organiser wants competitors bringing the event's name into disrepute.
One particular event I'm thinking about, the marshal at the big roundabout where the turn-around was made used to signal the riders to slow down if he felt there was potential conflict with cars already on the roundabout. But just having a marshal or two is often enough for drivers to take a little more care, and the odd second look at junctions etc.
At the end of the day, a Time Trial is just a bunch of individual cyclists using a (typically) ten mile route for an hour, with 30 seconds to 1 minute between riders which leaves plenty of space for safe overtaking. And races with marshals who ARE authorised to stop and/or control traffic? Probably a whole lot safer and more efficient than getting stuck behind three random club rides of twenty plus riders each who've all coincidentally and independently decided to use the same stretch of road at almost the same time. Even as a committed cyclist, that would annoy the hell out of me. I mean, I'd respect their right to use the road, of course I would, but I'd also reserve my right to be annoyed at any UNNECESSARY delay...
TooMany2cvs said:
p1esk said:
ChevronB19 said:
Given this is a car forum, I’d politely point out that it was the fact that cycle racing in the roads is permitted that has, at least in part, contributed to the recent law change allowing competition car events on closed roads (which might involve similar, although hopefully better controlled, marshalling).
I might have missed something here, but I thought the facility for closing roads for the purpose of allowing motorsport events to take place had been around since at least the 1950s.In Scarborough the roads on Olivers Mount have been closed two or three weekends a year for motorcycle racing, and at other times for hillclimbs and the like; so what has changed? I also seem to recall the same roads being used for special stages on the RAC Rally in the past.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/propos...
It got the go-ahead, and the law changed in England last year, then in Wales a couple of weeks ago.
https://www.msauk.org/Wales-gives-green-light-to-c...
So far as Scarborough is concerned, the local council seems to have long had the facility for closing roads that are normally open to the public, so just at the minute I don't see what's changed, but presumably something has.
popeyewhite said:
So you're in agreement with him?
Anyway regardless of personal anger issues pelotons might be irritating but they're safer for both cyclist and motorist because, obviously, there's one big group. Time trials on the otherhand should not be allowed to take place on open road.
Why shouldn't they?Anyway regardless of personal anger issues pelotons might be irritating but they're safer for both cyclist and motorist because, obviously, there's one big group. Time trials on the otherhand should not be allowed to take place on open road.
okgo said:
popeyewhite said:
So you're in agreement with him?
Anyway regardless of personal anger issues pelotons might be irritating but they're safer for both cyclist and motorist because, obviously, there's one big group. Time trials on the other hand should not be allowed to take place on open road.
Why shouldn't they?Anyway regardless of personal anger issues pelotons might be irritating but they're safer for both cyclist and motorist because, obviously, there's one big group. Time trials on the other hand should not be allowed to take place on open road.
yellowjack said:
Because clearly it's far too difficult to manage to overtake a number of individual cyclists spread out over the length of a road. I mean, that would be similar to trying to overtake a strung-out line of cycle commuters with hefty gaps between them. No, that would never do. The cycling commuters must be held back by a marshal until they form a large enough group, then be set off down the road in a blob of up to five abreast. Because 60 cyclists in one large group MUST be easier, and safer to pass than a number of individuals spread out over ten miles? Surely?
I'm not sure I agree with that. I only ever cycle alone, and on a reasonably sized A-road it's very easy for motorist to overtake me. The road is wide enough to overtake whilst leaving plenty of room without the need for a vehicle to cross the white line, or even slow down, really, although most motorists do slow.Now, if I was with one other person, riding two abreast, it would be much more difficult. Two or three of us in single file would still be easy.
Sixty together? Not a chance of overtaking, as it would be necessary to use the other side of the carriageway, something which is very difficult on the busy roads of the South East.
Given that the time trials and road races serve no purpose and are just leisure activities, perhaps they should be run in private venues, much like all motorsport (recent changes notwithstanding).
The cycling community has large sums of money (as evidenced by the amount spent on equipment), so it makes sense that they get together and set up some venues of their own, in much the same way as the motorsport community has done.
That would be much safer for all involved.
okgo said:
Why shouldn't they?
Because it's racing and when people race they disregard other elements that require attention, such as safety ie for themselves and the other members of the public that use the roads at the same time. Attention is finite. Close the road, then let them do time trials. No idiocy from either impatient drivers or cyclists that put speed before personal safety.LG9k said:
yellowjack said:
Because clearly it's far too difficult to manage to overtake a number of individual cyclists spread out over the length of a road. I mean, that would be similar to trying to overtake a strung-out line of cycle commuters with hefty gaps between them. No, that would never do. The cycling commuters must be held back by a marshal until they form a large enough group, then be set off down the road in a blob of up to five abreast. Because 60 cyclists in one large group MUST be easier, and safer to pass than a number of individuals spread out over ten miles? Surely?
I'm not sure I agree with that. I only ever cycle alone, and on a reasonably sized A-road it's very easy for motorist to overtake me. The road is wide enough to overtake whilst leaving plenty of room without the need for a vehicle to cross the white line, or even slow down, really, although most motorists do slow.Now, if I was with one other person, riding two abreast, it would be much more difficult. Two or three of us in single file would still be easy.
Sixty together? Not a chance of overtaking, as it would be necessary to use the other side of the carriageway, something which is very difficult on the busy roads of the South East.
Given that the time trials and road races serve no purpose and are just leisure activities, perhaps they should be run in private venues, much like all motorsport (recent changes notwithstanding).
The cycling community has large sums of money (as evidenced by the amount spent on equipment), so it makes sense that they get together and set up some venues of their own, in much the same way as the motorsport community has done.
That would be much safer for all involved.
LG9k said:
yellowjack said:
Because clearly it's far too difficult to manage to overtake a number of individual cyclists spread out over the length of a road. I mean, that would be similar to trying to overtake a strung-out line of cycle commuters with hefty gaps between them. No, that would never do. The cycling commuters must be held back by a marshal until they form a large enough group, then be set off down the road in a blob of up to five abreast. Because 60 cyclists in one large group MUST be easier, and safer to pass than a number of individuals spread out over ten miles? Surely?
I'm not sure I agree with that. I only ever cycle alone, and on a reasonably sized A-road it's very easy for motorist to overtake me. The road is wide enough to overtake whilst leaving plenty of room without the need for a vehicle to cross the white line, or even slow down, really, although most motorists do slow.Now, if I was with one other person, riding two abreast, it would be much more difficult. Two or three of us in single file would still be easy.
Sixty together? Not a chance of overtaking, as it would be necessary to use the other side of the carriageway, something which is very difficult on the busy roads of the South East.
Given that the time trials and road races serve no purpose and are just leisure activities, perhaps they should be run in private venues, much like all motorsport (recent changes notwithstanding).
The cycling community has large sums of money (as evidenced by the amount spent on equipment), so it makes sense that they get together and set up some venues of their own, in much the same way as the motorsport community has done.
That would be much safer for all involved.
...avert your eyes for a moment sir - they won't take long.
popeyewhite said:
okgo said:
Why shouldn't they?
Because it's racing and when people race they disregard other elements that require attention, such as safety ie for themselves and the other members of the public that use the roads at the same time. Attention is finite. Close the road, then let them do time trials. No idiocy from either impatient drivers or cyclists that put speed before personal safety.yellowjack said:
And sir would like? A Scarlet Macaw? An African Grey? Or just in off the boat, these lovely Rainbow Lorikeets...
...avert your eyes for a moment sir - they won't take long.
D'oh. fair play, although having read many of your previous posts, it was an easy mistake to make....avert your eyes for a moment sir - they won't take long.
Still, it would be better for all if cyclists funded their own places to race, well away from the dangers of the road.
p1esk said:
So, does that mean that a driver could legitimately ignore the directions of a cycle race marshall, on the grounds that no cyclists had yet reached this point and none were in sight at this time, so long as the driver clears the area and goes on his way without interfering with the racers in any way?
It means you must drive carefully and with consideration for other road users at all times.If a person directing traffic is doing so with the authority of legislation then, depending on the wording of course, it could be an offence to ignore the directions. Beyond that, if the person directing traffic is not acting with legal authority then we are into grey areas. Further, one might well have to consider what might have been coming along the road.
Gargamel said:
I think cyclists are very well aware of the risks involved and pretty much anyone who has "raced" on the road, well have given up time to ensure they make it to the finish line.
Are you saying the (quite considerable) research looking at the effect of racing on attention is incorrect? [quote=yellowjack
"self entitled dog walkers
[/quote]
Oh they so can be! :-) Dog walkers, "I've walk accross here every day!!" - "yeah, but it's closed for now, sorry", "but it's public land", "no, sorry, its private", "prove it!" - I've had that convo.
Same guy then walked into my mortar site - on cool down - after firing a display (a very dangerous place to be for a good 15 minutes at least) screaming at me that I'd upset his dogs, that he walked on the beach, that was closed, that I told him twice after catching him clibming under barrier tape to leave and be nowhere near. Quite agressive he was too. Good job he had no idea me and my colleague were not really up for the challenge of fighting a big bloke with two bull mastiffs (?).
Ahhh, barrier tape. It doesn't work :-)
"self entitled dog walkers
[/quote]
Oh they so can be! :-) Dog walkers, "I've walk accross here every day!!" - "yeah, but it's closed for now, sorry", "but it's public land", "no, sorry, its private", "prove it!" - I've had that convo.
Same guy then walked into my mortar site - on cool down - after firing a display (a very dangerous place to be for a good 15 minutes at least) screaming at me that I'd upset his dogs, that he walked on the beach, that was closed, that I told him twice after catching him clibming under barrier tape to leave and be nowhere near. Quite agressive he was too. Good job he had no idea me and my colleague were not really up for the challenge of fighting a big bloke with two bull mastiffs (?).
Ahhh, barrier tape. It doesn't work :-)
popeyewhite said:
Because it's racing and when people race they disregard other elements that require attention, such as safety ie for themselves and the other members of the public that use the roads at the same time. Attention is finite. Close the road, then let them do time trials. No idiocy from either impatient drivers or cyclists that put speed before personal safety.
Should we not ban cars that can do over 70mph then? This is a car enthusiasts site, which has the motto 'Speed Matters, to which I wholeheartedly agree with. But if the safety which you describe is so paramount, then how can any speed be justified? Let's stick to 30 mph overall, the casualty rate will tumble.I don't think the cyclists on a time trial are a problem, I think it's the motorists who struggle to overtake cyclists on a wide road that are the problem.
If we banned cycling time trialing then we'd need to also ban road rallies, which are a motorised form of time trialing which largely takes place at night on open roads.
I've been involved in road rallying quite a lot, they're events which require precise navigation and precise time keeping, which of course could be a distraction to the driver. I've known of a few accidents between rallyists and the members of the public, and without exception it has been the mop at fault. But let's ban the time trialists and let the mops carry on hitting what they like.
It's very depressing to see such attitudes on a car enthusiasts site. You'd think we'd be more open minded, and more minded to let sport take place, but in the UK the Ban Everything (except shopping) brigade is just too big and too vocal.
On the subject of closed roads, there are very few locations indeed where roads become closed for events, and it's a lot of hard work by countless volunteers to get these roads closed and marshaled. There has been a change in the law to allow more roads to be closed, but it's resulted in a very tiny increase in the numbers of events taking place.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff