Safety and the rules/regulations/law of open road racing.

Beasty

Balbriggan raced cancelled posts moved here from Lucan GP thread

couerdelion

From FB

Background information:
The Club has been informed by the Balbriggan Swords Operations Department of Fingal County Council (FCC), the Road Authority under Section 74, Roads Act, 1993, that it has no objection to the holding of the races subject to, among other requirements that “A Temporary Road Closure Order is in place with local access maintained for the full duration of the races and in this regard an application under Section 75 of The Roads Act 1993 is required”.

BCC has had a number of meetings and correspondence with FCC following its submission, in January, of all the relevant documentation involved in organising and running of these events and considers this requirement, which refers to Section 74 of the Act and which has yet to become operable, unnecessarily restrictive. FCC has eventually conceded after eight weeks interaction that it does not have this role.

The race documentation was also sent to An Garda Síochána, Balbriggan contemporaneously and has yet to be acknowledged. A further communication with An Garda Síochána has now elicited the response that a policing presence would only be provided if a Temporary Road Closure Order was in place.

BCC cannot believe that An Garda Síochána would support unnecessary restrictions in the running of a race in memory of a former colleague and not facilitate the continuation of traditional annual community based events on relatively quiet roads in north Fingal as heretofore.

The Ben McKenna Memorial Races have been run by Balbriggan Cycling Club, initially in conjunction with An Garda Síochána Cycling Club (GSCC), for the past twenty two years. The GSCC resumed its involvement again this year.

The Race Headquarters for the inaugural event was Balbriggan Garda Station.
The Harry Reynolds Memorial Race has been run since 1941.
The Jim Wherity Memorial Race has been run since 2005.

These Memorial Races have been organised and run successfully, with safety as the primary objective and without incident over these years.BCC questions and fails to understand the apparent absence of integration and collaboration between statutory bodies in practice as the introduction of these restrictions is in direct conflict with the Department of Sport’s goal viz. “To increase participation and interest in sport, to improve standards of performance and to develop sports facilities at national, regional and local level, thereby contributing to healthier lifestyles and an improved overall quality of life, through a Departmental policy and resource framework in partnership with its Agencies, other Government Departments and the National Governing Bodies of Sport”.

Ben McKenna was a Garda Sergeant with the Traffic Corp based in Dublin Castle and up to the time of his untimely death in 1992 went over and beyond the call of duty to facilitate the safe running of cycle road races throughout Ireland. He is one of only two cyclists inducted into the Garda Sports Hall of Fame. A former winner of the Rás he also made a major contribution to the sport of cycling both at national and international level as an administrator and race commissaire. His family has strong connections with Balbriggan.

dermabrasion

Unless this is clarified and ruled from centrally, I see many more Garda divisions pulling the plug on road racing, because the recent precedent is now there. It looks like it is easier to say no than yes.
Perhaps we need to lobby or get on the media and argue our case strategically. We cannot have a situation that Britain ended up in. And its not just us, triathletes too a re affected by this BS.

brasshead

Statement from Fingal Co Co on the Balbriggan race cancellation here

maloner

Was wondering what was applying for a road closure actually involved (from my own curiosity - I've nothing to do whats being discussed regarding races in Balbriggan). This would appear to answer that question:

http://www.fingalcoco.ie/roads-and-travel/temporary-road-closures/

CramCycle

As a matter of interest, what would happen if a temporary road closure was issued, but the road was not closed.

Serious questions that I do not know the answer too.

Would this give marshalls the right to stop traffic?
Also the openness not to have to close of or impede local access (pretty much what happens with a road closure order in alot of events).

Does a road closure like this require a Garda to be there?

Is there a large fee involved?

Could the Gardai and Council consider waving this fee (if there is one) in order to promote sports in the locality or could a volunteer system like I have seen other clubs operate be asked, such as the members of the cycling club participate in a tidy towns initiative for a day.

Its hard to say but it looks like everyone wants it to go ahead, the obstacles are minor if approached correctly (they appear to be if all of the released statements are taken at face value).

Inquitus

CramCycle wrote: »

As a matter of interest, what would happen if a temporary road closure was issued, but the road was not closed.

Serious questions that I do not know the answer too.

Would this give marshalls the right to stop traffic?
Also the openness not to have to close of or impede local access (pretty much what happens with a road closure order in alot of events).

Does a road closure like this require a Garda to be there?

Is there a large fee involved?

Could the Gardai and Council consider waving this fee (if there is one) in order to promote sports in the locality or could a volunteer system like I have seen other clubs operate be asked, such as the members of the cycling club participate in a tidy towns initiative for a day.

Its hard to say but it looks like everyone wants it to go ahead, the obstacles are minor if approached correctly (they appear to be if all of the released statements are taken at face value).

If the roads are "closed", who is liable for any accident be it car or bike that may occur on the "closed" roads. And yes a road closure order gives the marshall's the power to control the traffic, and they could allow traffic onto the circuit as they wish.

Cond0r

Inquitus wrote: »

If the roads are "closed", who is liable for any accident be it car or bike that may occur on the "closed" roads.

This is a very valid question, to which Fingal CoCo in particular did not have a good answer.

Junior

maloner wrote: »

http://www.fingalcoco.ie/roads-and-travel/temporary-road-closures/

CramCycle wrote: »

Is there a large fee involved?

Looks like a 2k fee and whatever the insurance costs would be to ensure the 6.5 Million cover as per the link above.

wirelessdude01

I would imagine the fee for the temporary road closure is one of the main issues here. 1000e is a sizeable amount of money for a local(ish) race.

As regards the released statements one side of the issue has to have taken a hardline stance or else it wouldn't have come to this point. Someone somewhere has released a statement made up of porkies.

wirelessdude01

Inquitus wrote: »

If the roads are "closed", who is liable for any accident be it car or bike that may occur on the "closed" roads. And yes a road closure order gives the marshall's the power to control the traffic, and they could allow traffic onto the circuit as they wish.

I'm assuming liability would be with the organiser. Think they are liable up to 6.5million euro. Also local traffic entering the circuit would be an issue such as cars from houses and also tractors from fields.

Junior

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

I would imagine the fee for the temporary road closure is one of the main issues here. 1000e is a sizeable amount of money for a local(ish) race.

As regards the released statements one side of the issue has to have taken a hardline stance or else it wouldn't have come to this point. Someone somewhere has released a statement made up of porkies.

It looks like it's 2K - 1k Admin Fee and 1K for actually closing the roads.

CramCycle

Inquitus wrote: »

If the roads are "closed", who is liable for any accident be it car or bike that may occur on the "closed" roads. And yes a road closure order gives the marshall's the power to control the traffic, and they could allow traffic onto the circuit as they wish.

I presume this is what the 6.5m insurance is for, but I will hold my hands up and say I have no idea. Suppose it depends on who caused the accident.

Junior wrote: »

Looks like a 2k fee and whatever the insurance costs would be to ensure the 6.5 Million cover as per the link above.

In their statement they said this fee would be waived, not sure if they would do this for club races as well but in regards the race mentioned that fee no longer existed according to the CoCo, there maybe a separate Garda fee, not sure about that.

07Lapierre

The Garda do charge and while the fee for their services is one issue, a more important issue is Garda availability..they are under resourced as it is.

Harrybelafonte

Are Fingal really at a loss as to why the club refused to take the road closure option? Was it not explained to them. Both statements read like angry little jibes at each other.

I'm a pessimist, yes, but this does not bode well. The sooner this bloody velodrome is finished the better.

ThisRegard

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

I would imagine the fee for the temporary road closure is one of the main issues here. 1000e is a sizeable amount of money for a local(ish) race.

Didn't Fingal say they waived the fee?

Beasty

ThisRegard wrote: »

Didn't Fingal say they waived the fee?

Yes. There is no "statutory" road closure fee for road races. They indicate there is an administrative fee that they will waive for cycle races. I am also aware that for my club they would help out with the required advertising costs in connection with road closures for club league events. The problem with the club league is it runs for 20+ weeks and finding appropriate circuits (not involving motorway junctions for example, and where their are adequate diversions) is very difficult. Ideally you need 4 or 5 circuits to avoid putting the locals out too often.

Beasty

Just to add, at club league level, based on numbers last year we would probably end up with half the numbers racing doing the admin, marshalling, sorting out road diversions etc. The approach we took was to run a few races outside of Fingal, hire Corkagh Park around once a month, and we did get permission to run TTs entirely within the RoTR in the county

bcmf

The problem that could stem from this is that ,as mentioned in an earlier post, other CC's could see this and follow suit.
Many circuits could be found in Meath,Louth and Kildare but as Beasty mentioned these circuits could get overused and we end up with nowhere to go except the North!
Deeply worrying for the future of road racing.

bcmf

Beasty wrote: »

hire Corkagh Park around and Mondello once a monthy

Maybe this is the future!

Beasty

bcmf wrote: »

The problem that could stem from this is that ,as mentioned in an earlier post, other CC's could see this and follow suit.

In this particular case the Council have stated (as has been sugegsted here many times in the past) that S74 of the 1993 Roads Act is not operative (as no road races have been "prescribed"). They have therefore passed this back to the Gardai who will not "support" races unless they are on closed roads. Hence the underlying issue here is very firmly in my view (and that has been borne out in all discussions I have been involved in or seen reports of) the local Gardai and not the Council.

bcmf

Beasty wrote: »

In this particular case the Council have stated (as has been sugegsted here many times in the past) that S74 of the 1993 Roads Act is not operative (as no road races have been "prescribed"). They have therefore passed this back to the Gardai who will not "support" races unless they are on closed roads. Hence the underlying issue here is very firmly in my view (and that has been borne out in all discussions I have been involved in or seen reports of) the local Gardai and not the Council.

I will be more cycnical and say that FCC saw the oppurtunity to pass the decision onto the Gardai.( Its not phrased well but I cant say what I want to say on a public forum).
I want to re read the statement from BCC as I was reading it in the move today, but got the impression that BCC were at a bit of a loss and angered at AGS change of stance!

Beasty

Throughout the problems my club have had on this issue it's been very clear who has been pulling the strings, and it's not the local Council.

Hi Ho

Plastik wrote: »

It's great that threads about road races are once again descending into this sort of discussion as soon as the season starts. It's becoming as tiresome as helmet, high-vis and RLJ threads.

And wheels ... and rubbish Cat4 riding ...

wav1

bcmf wrote: »

The problem that could stem from this is that ,as mentioned in an earlier post, other CC's could see this and follow suit.
Many circuits could be found in Meath,Louth and Kildare but as Beasty mentioned these circuits could get overused and we end up with nowhere to go except the North!
Deeply worrying for the future of road racing.

its not that they ''could'' be overused bcmf.The fact is some of them are currently being overused.

bcmf

wav1 wrote: »

its not that they ''could'' be overused bcmf.The fact is some of them are currently being overused.

Yes. Worringly so!

The only solution that I can see is that Beasty will have to give up some of 'estate' to build a North County version of Corkagh Park.
A Beasty Drome if you will!

Harrybelafonte

Hi Ho wrote: »

And wheels ... and rubbish Cat4 riding ...

Yeah, cos A3 are exemplary in their keeping the rules of the road. As that previously posted video proved.

Inquitus

So the long and the sort of it is Fingal have interpreted the RTA to mean its up to the Gardai to decide the conditions for racing, due to particular issues with a senior Garda in Fingal, a closed road order is required. Gardai in other parts of the country are more supportive and don't require a closed road order, nor do the local CC's. So this is currently a uniquely Fingal problem?

wav1

After digesting and reading through the statement issued by Fingal Co Co today,i see it as good news of sorts from a promoters view.
They now admit that section 74 is in fact ''inoperative''
A more knowledgable person than myself has been saying this for years and he now indeed proved correct..Basically that act was never signed in to law by the minister of the day.
Outcome as I see it is,that we are really no longer at the mercy of local authorities [well not as much as was perceived anyway]
Whats required now is that those promoters with good relationships and support from their local area Supt,continue to build on those relationships,and those that don't have to start building them straight away.At least there is clarity of sorts in the statement,and I think it can be worked on from here.
C I has to help promoters now in this regard,and take its head out of the sand before the situation is allowed spread.
Good news stories about planning for velodromes etc are all well and good but if they don't help sort out this problem going forward our sport as we know it could fall on its knees.
Anyway even allowing for the race cancellations I still read it as positive.

ROK ON

Wav - that is all fine and well but if a Garda is interpreting a statute incorrectly then CI should file a report with the Phoenix Park and if that is not rectified then legal action against the Garda should be considered.
The police force does not exist to incorrectly interpret law. I accept that many clubs, promoters and the CI may not want to go down this route for fear of widespread backlash. But if the relationship is already dysfunctional then maybe the risk is lower.

Cond0r

ROK ON wrote: »

Wav - that is all fine and well but if a Garda is interpreting a statute incorrectly then CI should file a report with the Phoenix Park and if that is not rectified then legal action against the Garda should be considered.
The police force does not exist to incorrectly interpret law. I accept that many clubs, promoters and the CI may not want to go down this route for fear of widespread backlash. But if the relationship is already dysfunctional then maybe the risk is lower.

That's a dangerous road (pardon the pun). Road races can't be run in accordance with the rules of the road (two abreast, yield/stop signs..), and if the Gardaí are generally made into an enemy it's very easy for them to come along and call a halt to any race on these grounds.

bcmf

CI should really step in here in some shape or form and take a pro-active approach.
Sitting in their offices while they take licence fee's and sit and watch as a whole weekend of races are cancelled and the whole of Fingal becomes a race free zone.

Beasty

ROK ON wrote: »

Wav - that is all fine and well but if a Garda is interpreting a statute incorrectly then CI should file a report with the Phoenix Park and if that is not rectified then legal action against the Garda should be considered.
The police force does not exist to incorrectly interpret law. I accept that many clubs, promoters and the CI may not want to go down this route for fear of widespread backlash. But if the relationship is already dysfunctional then maybe the risk is lower.

They are not to my knowledge interpreting the law incorrectly. The issue is we need them onside both to satisfy CI requirements and also to avoid the risk of riders or organisers getting themselves arrested as soon as a rider fails to observe a stop or yield sign or commits any other offence under the Road Acts

Bear in mind discussions have been taking place up to ministerial level involving both the cycling and triathlon communities. We have all raised the s74 point (which, btw, could be addressed by a minister signing an order - the enabling legislation is definitely valid - I suspect that's not going to happen in the current climate though) but I have always personally been much more concerned about the wider powers of the Gardai to stop racing and possibly escalate the issue in a way that spreads to other counties

wav1

ROK ON wrote: »

Wav - that is all fine and well but if a Garda is interpreting a statute incorrectly then CI should file a report with the Phoenix Park and if that is not rectified then legal action against the Garda should be considered.
The police force does not exist to incorrectly interpret law. I accept that many clubs, promoters and the CI may not want to go down this route for fear of widespread backlash. But if the relationship is already dysfunctional then maybe the risk is lower.

I def wouldn't favour taking on the law TBH..A gentle approach would be my favoured route.I think its well known that one particular member of the force is taking this stance.I just wonder has anybody made contact with any other Supt within Fingal in this regard.My information is that there are Supts within the Fingal area who would be more receptive?

Beasty

wav1 wrote: »

I def wouldn't favour taking on the law TBH..A gentle approach would be my favoured route.I think its well known that one particular member of the force is taking this stance.I just wonder has anybody made contact with any other Supt within Fingal in this regard.My information is that there are Supts within the Fingal area who would be more receptive?

Going behind his back is not going to do us any favours in my view. Balbriggan's races were in conjunction with the Garda Cycling Club but that didn't help. If one Supt. has taken a decision you can only realistically get it overturned at a higher level.

One of the issues here is the individual in question does not appear keen to engage directly meaning we hear most of the Garda position second hand. There was that meeting a week or 2 ago which involved CI and the Gardai, but no-one has contacted our club about this yet. I guess we will need to approach CI to find out what was agreed given our club was named in dispatches.

ROK ON

Cond0r wrote: »

That's a dangerous road (pardon the pun). Road races can't be run in accordance with the rules of the road (two abreast, yield/stop signs..), and if the Gardaí are generally made into an enemy it's very easy for them to come along and call a halt to any race on these grounds.

I accept that and all the others - but to open another worm can I think that you have pinpointed the issue.
Road races on open roads by their very nature cannot be run in accordance with RTA. Because of this the operate in a grey area. As such they exist until such a point that the powers that be (local government or the Garda) decide that they do not want to put up with them.

Now CI (and TI) can choose to accept this - this maybe the most optimal outcome if the risk of 'legislating' for road racing means closed road races only.

Or CI and TI could try to do something about this to put events on an unequivocal legal footing. I suspect that this would ultimately mean closed road racing only. If that instate case then the cycling community may have to put up with this.

Interestingly my club held a Marshall training evening last week that was delivered by a senior CI commisaire. It was an excellent evening and one that all clubs should look to role out. An interesting point was made by the comm where he outlined how those anti racing members of the community are attending races with cameras to build evidence of wrongdoing.
It is in this basis that at the very least comms and CI need to enforce parts of the RTA that can be enforced - ie take no overtaking action that brings you over the white line that a person would not make safely and legally if driving a car.

Cond0r

ROK ON wrote: »

I accept that and all the others - but to open another worm can I think that you have pinpointed the issue.
Road races on open roads by their very nature cannot be run in accordance with RTA. Because of this the operate in a grey area. As such they exist until such a point that the powers that be (local government or the Garda) decide that they do not want to put up with them.

Now CI (and TI) can choose to accept this - this maybe the most optimal outcome if the risk of 'legislating' for road racing means closed road races only.

Or CI and TI could try to do something about this to put events on an unequivocal legal footing. I suspect that this would ultimately mean closed road racing only. If that instate case then the cycling community may have to put up with this.

Interestingly my club held a Marshall training evening last week that was delivered by a senior CI commisaire. It was an excellent evening and one that all clubs should look to role out. An interesting point was made by the comm where he outlined how those anti racing members of the community are attending races with cameras to build evidence of wrongdoing.
It is in this basis that at the very least comms and CI need to enforce parts of the RTA that can be enforced - ie take no overtaking action that brings you over the white line that a person would not make safely and legally if driving a car.

Yup, totally agree. I was in meetings with CI and Fingal, and told the CI representative that their comms were not enforcing the rules strictly enough, and this is giving the Gardaí (and unfriendly locals) ammunition against road racing.

The IVCA are much better at this, and sanction riders that break the rules.

Lusk_Doyle

Beasty wrote: »

One of the issues here is the individual in question does not appear keen to engage

The day that one individual can simply avoid engaging with other people or groups, etc, and that this results in a county wide embargo on races is a sorry state of affairs. If it is true then that individual should be called out publicly. What's he gonna do?

Beasty

Maybe the day will come when we have to adopt something similar to the Ulster model, where at least the PSNI are fully bought into road racing but they have imposed some restrictions to get there

Cond0r

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

The day that one individual can simply avoid engaging with other people or groups, etc, and that this results in a county wide embargo on races is a sorry state of affairs. If it is true then that individual should be called out publicly. What's he gonna do?

I think it's widely known that the problem here is the Superintendent in Balbriggan. That was stated in the statement from Balbriggan CC.

wav1

Beasty wrote: »

Maybe the day will come when we have to adopt something similar to the Ulster model, where at least the PSNI are fully bought into road racing but they have imposed some restrictions to get there

TBH I hope that situation is a long way off..I know of one rider who hasn't been successful in getting entered for a single race up North so far this year.

Lusk_Doyle

Cond0r wrote: »

I think it's widely known that the problem here is the Superintendent in Balbriggan. That was stated in the statement from Balbriggan CC.

Quite right. I didn't see the "Balbriggan" in the reference to the Gardai previously.

Chips Lovell

Fair play to Balbriggan. It must have been very hard to let their races go but I think it was the right call.

Aside from the danger of creating a precedent, I don't think any race promoter in their right mind could sign up to "road closures that aren't really road closures". On most race circuits, the majority of traffic is likely to be local traffic. You're left in a very dubious situation where the roads are meant to be closed but there's still traffic on the circuit.

Inquitus

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Fair play to Balbriggan. It must have been very hard to let their races go but I think it was the right call.

Aside from the danger of creating a precedent, I don't think any race promoter in their right mind could sign up to "road closures that aren't really road closures". On most race circuits, the majority of traffic is likely to be local traffic. You're left in a very dubious situation where the roads are meant to be closed but there's still traffic on the circuit.

I am not sure that's correct, it depends on the legal status of the roads while under the "Road Closure Order" and the associated liabilities. If CI Insurance reaches the required 6.5m of liability and the Club concerned are indemnified against any claims that might arise, closing the roads would require little or no additional manpower to what we use today, 2 marshalls at each corner, this time with the law on their side with regards to stopping and directing traffic.

maloner

Also wouldn't different courses become an option with closed roads (as I understand them under these rules anyway)? More right turns are now on the menu for example.

lennymc

Closed roads will lead to higher running costs for organisers, and with many of them just about breaking even, I would imagine closed roads would kill off a lot of races.

maloner

lennymc wrote: »

Closed roads will lead to higher running costs for organisers, and with many of them just about breaking even, I would imagine closed roads would kill off a lot of races.

I agree.

CramCycle

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Aside from the danger of creating a precedent, I don't think any race promoter in their right mind could sign up to "road closures that aren't really road closures". On most race circuits, the majority of traffic is likely to be local traffic. You're left in a very dubious situation where the roads are meant to be closed but there's still traffic on the circuit.

Inquitus wrote: »

I am not sure that's correct, it depends on the legal status of the roads while under the "Road Closure Order" and the associated liabilities. If CI Insurance reaches the required 6.5m of liability and the Club concerned are indemnified against any claims that might arise, closing the roads would require little or no additional manpower to what we use today, 2 marshalls at each corner, this time with the law on their side with regards to stopping and directing traffic.

I presume it depends on what the Gardai think of your road traffic management plan, presumably if it was a regular occurance (eg a club league) you would be expected to provide a reasonabable level of access to homes and workplaces during the races, kind of how most club leagues are run and have been run for years.

maloner wrote: »

Also wouldn't different courses become an option with closed roads (as I understand them under these rules anyway)? More right turns are now on the menu for example.

In regards to my above comments, for open races, sure but for regular events etc. I wouldn't be attempting it, I would be trying to stick to as much left turn only/mainly routes as possible.

lennymc wrote: »

Closed roads will lead to higher running costs for organisers, and with many of them just about breaking even, I would imagine closed roads would kill off a lot of races.

Depends on the nature of the closed road, what the gardai agree too and what is in your road traffic management plan. Like I said, if the road closures were granted, therefore giving powers to marshalls to stop traffic when necessary, it would not increase the cost at all as it would be exactly what it is now, only marshalls would be able to wave down traffic without fear of reprisal from some one reporting them to the Gardai for stopping traffic, so long as councils covered the admin and registration fee and the Gardai were satisfied that their presence was not needed, the only extra cost would be the advertising in the papers.

lennymc

CramCycle wrote: »

Depends on the nature of the closed road, what the gardai agree too and what is in your road traffic management plan. Like I said, if the road closures were granted, therefore giving powers to marshalls to stop traffic when necessary, it would not increase the cost at all as it would be exactly what it is now, only marshalls would be able to wave down traffic without fear of reprisal from some one reporting them to the Gardai for stopping traffic, so long as councils covered the admin and registration fee and the Gardai were satisfied that their presence was not needed, the only extra cost would be the advertising in the papers.

The marshalls don't normally cost anything (they may get a sandwich or lunch) so I agree that there would be no increase in cost there, but there is a background cost to getting a road closed, and even if a CC waives the fee the first time, they probably wouldnt do that every time. On top of that, if the gardai are there, they are within their rights (afaik) to charge for their time. I heard the figure of about 80 euros per hour per garda, so, for a 6 hour event, with three gardai, and closed roads and admin/advertising costs, you could be looking at about 4k.

The stephen roche crit cost about 1500 to close 1km of road in a housing estate last year iirc.

I would also imagine that it would set a precedent for all cycling events, including sportives, that there must be a road closure, which would skyjack the cost of those aswell. Mandatory road closures, while great in theory (yay we can cycle on the 'wrong' side of the road and turn right), have the potential to kill organised cycles in Ireland IMHO.

Beasty

Inquitus wrote: »

I am not sure that's correct, it depends on the legal status of the roads while under the "Road Closure Order" and the associated liabilities. If CI Insurance reaches the required 6.5m of liability and the Club concerned are indemnified against any claims that might arise, closing the roads would require little or no additional manpower to what we use today, 2 marshalls at each corner, this time with the law on their side with regards to stopping and directing traffic.

One of the problems I forsee with closed roads is it may restrict the length of circuit to avoid any busy roads, or alternatively you could end up having to incorporate more junctions to avoid those roads (which would mean more marshals). In addition you do have to put in place adequate diversions which may require more manpower (to avoid motorists heading up what turns into a no through road when they do hit the circuit)

There is one big plus though as it opens up additional roads that may previously have been considered too narrow - with no risk of oncoming traffic riders no longer have to worry about keeping to the correct side of the road