Roadworks and perm routesheets - a debate

[DanialW]

They can. Most riders inform by email these days though, or give you the date they intend to ride when they apply. It should catch 95% of riders.

It's a Permanent, you don't when they will ride it . The bridge might be fixed when they get to do the ride. there's bound to be an easy local diversion for pedestrians which a cyclist could use.

Yes, which is why they should let you know the day they intend to ride.

and if they are not contactable other than by post? can a rider bung a letter in the post the night before?

[PloddinPedro]

They can. Most riders inform by email these days though, or give you the date they intend to ride when they apply. It should catch 95% of riders.

But is a system which catches only "95% of riders" really fair?

[Controversy alert - this could take us back into the debate about whether riders of DIYs and Permanents really need to advise the date of their ride in advance !  ]

[PloddinPedro]

......................... though I'd like to see a return to compulsory routes. ...........

Just out of interest, why?

Because the reasons for changing, not that long ago, were - in my opinion - spurious.

You have the advantage of me here, because my historical knowledge on this is poor. I have long understood that the routesheet is advisory and the requirements are simply to visit the controls in the prescribed order and within stated time limits. I take it that, once upon a time, the rules (or perhaps only the spirit of the rules?) required that riders followed strictly the route set down in the organiser's instructions?

Do I take correctly then, that this was at some time changed to conform with my understanding and that you feel the reasons for doing so are not valid?

(I'm not trying to be provocative, just interested .....  oh, and sorry if I'm highjacking the thread!  )

[Greenbank]

They can. Most riders inform by email these days though, or give you the date they intend to ride when they apply. It should catch 95% of riders.

But is a system which catches only "95% of riders" really fair?

[Controversy alert - this could take us back into the debate about whether riders of DIYs and Permanents really need to advise the date of their ride in advance !   ]

It's completely fair if the 5% are the riders that it doesn't catch are the ones taking a chance by sending in entries (or last minute ride date changes) without enough time for the organiser to respond. If they don't like it they should enter/change-date with more notice.

[PloddinPedro]

They can. Most riders inform by email these days though, or give you the date they intend to ride when they apply. It should catch 95% of riders.

But is a system which catches only "95% of riders" really fair?

[Controversy alert - this could take us back into the debate about whether riders of DIYs and Permanents really need to advise the date of their ride in advance !   ]

It's completely fair if the 5% are the riders that it doesn't catch are the ones taking a chance by sending in entries (or last minute ride date changes) without enough time for the organiser to respond. If they don't like it they should enter/change-date with more notice.

[I did warn you]

Or, we could drop the nonsense of having to pre-advise the actual date of riding, cut down on the admin hassle and just concentrate on promoting long distance cycling!

(Ducks and runs .... very fast !! 

[frankly frankie]

Because the reasons for changing, not that long ago, were - in my opinion - spurious.

You have the advantage of me here, because my historical knowledge on this is poor. I have long understood that the routesheet is advisory and the requirements are simply to visit the controls in the prescribed order and within stated time limits. I take it that, once upon a time, the rules (or perhaps only the spirit of the rules?) required that riders followed strictly the route set down in the organiser's instructions?

[nb I think we're in the wrong thread here]
The history is actually very poorly documented.

Up until and including 1999, there was an AUK regulation which said
"Routes should be interesting.  Riders must keep to the alloted route and should they leave it must retrace to join the route. ..."

The 1999 AGM changed that, and subsequently there is just
"AUK and organisers will be responsible only for indicating or agreeing control points to confirm that a participant has completed a predetermined distance ..."

The minutes of that AGM (currently hard to find, temporarily lost in the AUK website migration, try here) don't document any discussion of the change, which was part of a wide-ranging regs review introduced at that time.

So the reasons for/against are a bit lost in the mists, but as I recall it was simply recognition of the fact that mandatory routes were not being enforced anyway (organisers don't have that sort of manpower), so why have a regulation that can't stick?
It's true though, that the change has had some unforeseen (and undesirable) consequences, including the ridiculous proliferation of info controls.

[Panoramix]

Can't we have the best of both worlds by letting the organiser decide whether the route is compulsory or not?

[frankly frankie]

Yes, IMO that would be entirely workable and I don't know why AUK don't give this idea a try.

No-one can stop Organisers adding 'extra' rules to their events over and above what AUK stipulates - they are after all the Orgs' events, not AUK's.   See mudguards.
If an Organiser wants a compulsory route, and is prepared to stipulate that they are happy their riders are following it (eg maybe using secret controls) - then I think AUK should be able to take this declaration at face value and not insist on 13 infos ...

[DanialW]

Yes, IMO that would be entirely workable and I don't know why AUK don't give this idea a try.

No-one can stop Organisers adding 'extra' rules to their events over and above what AUK stipulates - they are after all the Orgs' events, not AUK's.   See mudguards.
If an Organiser wants a compulsory route, and is prepared to stipulate that they are happy their riders are following it (eg maybe using secret controls) - then I think AUK should be able to take this declaration at face value and not insist on 13 infos ...

Extra rules is very different from different rules. A 'compulsory' route, with a honking great shortcut towards the end, run by 2 people at the start/finish, all sounds a bit club runny to me, rather than validation by a national body that expects to paid for its stamp of approval.

Of course, the events reps could do a lot more work with organisers, discussing routes and options and the like, but to do that you need either another dozen reps, or a considerably smaller calendar.

[frankly frankie]

No, I think the events team went too far down that road ('interfering' with the Organiser's choice of route) long ago, and made a rod for their own backs into the bargain.

Ultimately, AUK's concern is about certifying that a distance has been ridden.  But in practical terms, this certification already depends almost entirely on the Organiser's say-so.  Even for events where AUK still requires to scrutinise the actual cards - basically they see the cards the Organiser sends in, and they don't see any others - the primary selection of who has done a 'valid' ride is always down to the Organiser. 
So if the Organiser stipulates a 'compulsory' route (and clearly marks the heading of the routesheet as such, and has it calendared as such) then presumably he will form a view as to who has ridden this route and who hasn't, and submit only those finishers for validation.

If he doesn't feel able to make that judgement - then clearly it wasn't a 'compulsory' route at all, hence the dropping of that regulation.

[MSeries]

There are no info controls on the MELCL and the route, like all AUK ones is not mandatory so feel free to find your own detour around the demolished bridge. You might prefer to go through Bedale anyway for an extra stop, some nice cafes there but take care on the level crossings.