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

Beasty

Just on numbers. On mobile at present and can't confirm, but I think there's a UCI upper limit of 200. If that's as many as they allow on the Tour with closed roads and all the support they get it is in my mind absurd if we are getting anywhere near those numbers on open roads. I think CI do need to step in and at least start to limit numbers allowed on the road at any one time.

wirelessdude01

ericzeking wrote: »

From a distance it appears that the A4 bunches are getting smaller (I would suggest that, in this particular cycling boom, almost anyone that was going to take up racing has done so at this stage and A4 numbers are petering out as a result-could be wrong). It is thus much easier to negotiate to get the 2 results you need to get up.



.

Totally disagree that A4 races have smaller bunches, if anything A4 has swelled in number. Take last Sunday for example. 80+ A4 bunches in both Carlow and Loughrea. As Courdelion said within our club we have more A4 riders than last year and that will further increase during the year as the stronger inter riders who have yet to take out a racing licence realise via the club league that they are indeed strong enough to compete.

wav1

Cond0r wrote: »

If juniors mop up the points, assign points to the unplaced A3 riders.

Cycling Ireland deemed it unworkable after attempts by myself at 2 AGMs so its CI you need to talk to re that one.BTW I fully agree

pprendeville

wav1 wrote: »

Cycling Ireland deemed it unworkable after attempts by myself at 2 AGMs so its CI you need to talk to re that one.BTW I fully agree

What were there reasons? Seems like a logical idea.

Cond0r

wav1 wrote: »

Cycling Ireland deemed it unworkable after attempts by myself at 2 AGMs so its CI you need to talk to re that one.BTW I fully agree

I think we need to lobby harder for that as IMHO it's the only way to solve this problem, and I don't understand why it's that hard to implement.

Chips Lovell

pprendeville wrote: »

What were there reasons? Seems like a logical idea.

Feedback from some race organisers said it would be impossible to implement with the resources they had. If for example, the top 30 crossing the line in a bunch gallop was a mix of Juniors and Seniors, it would be very had to pick the top eight of each.

wav1

I've said it before but once again.There is one day a year CI AGM in November when these cans be debated and real change made going forward.Guys can rant on forums like these for ever,but you know what,come next November when the season is long forgotten there wont be a word about it.

wirelessdude01

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Feedback from some race organisers said it would be impossible to implement with the resources they had. If for example, the top 30 crossing the line in a bunch gallop was a mix of Juniors and Seniors, it would be very had to pick the top eight of each.

Have heard it said that it is hard to read numbers but an easy solution to that is to also issue numbers that are attached to the sleeve on the side that faces the camera. Problem solved. This is always a possible solution but with that possible solution there are naysayers who just want the status quo.

Chips Lovell

You're assuming the race organiser has a camera. Some don't.

Cond0r

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Feedback from some race organisers said it would be impossible to implement with the resources they had. If for example, the top 30 crossing the line in a bunch gallop was a mix of Juniors and Seniors, it would be very had to pick the top eight of each.

Organisers of events run on a handicap basis seem to be able to manage it pretty well?

Surely those expensive finish line cameras can pick this stuff up?

I raced in the US a couple of years ago, and they have finishing times for every rider in the race - without using transponders. My assumption is that the finish line camera (+software) is able to read the numbers as riders cross the line. Numbers were pinned over your left shoulder blade instead of the pockets.

Cond0r

wav1 wrote: »

I've said it before but once again.There is one day a year CI AGM in November when these cans be debated and real change made going forward.Guys can rant on forums like these for ever,but you know what,come next November when the season is long forgotten there wont be a word about it.

I'll be there this year. Had intended go to last year but unforeseen consequences meant I couldn't make it.

On the other hand, these kinds of issues appear here and elsewhere and are seen (apparently) by folks that do attend the AGM, so there seems to be some value to discussions like this.

Inquitus

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

Totally disagree that A4 races have smaller bunches, if anything A4 has swelled in number. Take last Sunday for example. 80+ A4 bunches in both Carlow and Loughrea. As Courdelion said within our club we have more A4 riders than last year and that will further increase during the year as the stronger inter riders who have yet to take out a racing licence realise via the club league that they are indeed strong enough to compete.

Yes and 72 points were handed out to A4's at those 2 promotions, which is enough for 7 upgrades, meanwhile at the Des in A3 6 points were handed out to A3's resulting in not even half an upgrade.

Chips Lovell

I think anyone who proposes capping field sizes at an AGM will be met with fairly stiff opposition from clubs who organise races.

pprendeville

wav1 wrote: »

I've said it before but once again.There is one day a year CI AGM in November when these cans be debated and real change made going forward.Guys can rant on forums like these for ever,but you know what,come next November when the season is long forgotten there wont be a word about it.

Would be a good idea to setup a dedicated thread so people can post up what they deem NB for the AGM and it's there for people to have a look at to refresh their memories.

Junior

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I think anyone who proposes capping field sizes at an AGM will be met with fairly stiff opposition from clubs who organise races.

Wasn't that what the mandatory online registration that's to be brought in was to help do ?

Chips Lovell

It was voted down at the 2013 AGM.

Cond0r

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I think anyone who proposes capping field sizes at an AGM will be met with fairly stiff opposition from clubs who organise races.

Why?

Chips Lovell

Cond0r wrote: »

Why?

Because your only hope of breaking even or turning a small profit is that you get a decent entry. Lots of races run at a loss.

Cond0r

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Because your only hope of breaking even or turning a small profit is that you get a decent entry. Lots of races run at a loss.

So the primary focus of organisers is to make sure the race runs at a profit/breaks even, and never mind the safety of all involved? That's ludicrous.

If there's a financial worry, you set the cap at the appropriate level and work backwards from there to work out what the entry needs to be.

couerdelion

Cond0r wrote: »

If there's a financial worry, you set the cap at the appropriate level and work backwards from there to work out what the entry needs to be.

But it's capped at €15 so you don't really have a choice.

Chips Lovell

I find that a bit hyberbolic.

Races are run by a small minority of clubs, some of whom run as many as eight or more every year. And it's usually the same few people in these clubs who run all of their races. If the membership of CI turns around and makes it even harder for these people to run their events, it wouldn't be that implausible if some of them just walked away from it. And who's going to step into the breach?

I know from involvement in my own club how hard it can sometimes be to justify running a loss making event to the non-racing members of the club. It's (in part) their money we are spending after all.

Cond0r

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I find that a bit hyberbolic.

Races are run by a small minority of clubs, some of whom run as many as eight or more every year. And it's usually the same few people in these clubs who run all of their races. If the membership of CI turns around and makes it even harder for these people to run their events, it wouldn't be that implausible if some of them just walked away from it. And who's going to step into the breach?

I know from involvement in my own club how hard it can sometimes be to justify running a loss making event to the non-racing members of the club. It's (in part) their money we are spending after all.

Being on the committee of a large club, I'm well aware of these types of issues. However, there's something seriously wrong if we're justifying ignoring safety concerns on the basis that it won't work financially if we don't.

If these issues continue go on ignored, we won't be allowed to run races anymore (see Fingal).

Junior

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I find that a bit hyberbolic.

Races are run by a small minority of clubs, some of whom run as many as eight or more every year. And it's usually the same few people in these clubs who run all of their races. If the membership of CI turns around and makes it even harder for these people to run their events, it wouldn't be that implausible if some of them just walked away from it. And who's going to step into the breach?

I know from involvement in my own club how hard it can sometimes be to justify running a loss making event to the non-racing members of the club. It's (in part) their money we are spending after all.

How many events would hit a maximum entry level of say 150 Per Race ?

Surely if you are running A1/A2 (*150) A3/Junior (*150) and A4/Ladies(*150) that should be enough to cover most all costs ?

I don't think anyone is calling for a race field of 20.

wirelessdude01

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

It was voted down at the 2013 AGM.

What were the main reasons for people voting against it?

lennymc

Cond0r wrote: »

Being on the committee of a large club, I'm well aware of these types of issues. However, there's something seriously wrong if we're justifying ignoring safety concerns on the basis that it won't work financially if we don't.

If these issues continue go on ignored, we won't be allowed to run races anymore (see Fingal).

Does your club run closed road, capped races? If not, why not?

Chips Lovell

Junior wrote: »

How many events would hit a maximum entry level of say 150 Per Race ?

Very, very few. But the complaints people are making are about field sizes of near that size or less.

If you introduced the Cycling Ulster system, where numbers are usually capped at about 70 or 80 per race, then you'd definitely encounter resistance.

wav1

Junior wrote: »

How many events would hit a maximum entry level of say 150 Per Race ?

Surely if you are running A1/A2 (*150) A3/Junior (*150) and A4/Ladies(*150) that should be enough to cover most all costs ?

I don't think anyone is calling for a race field of 20.

Carlow was a one off..Wont even come close to them kind of numbers for the rest of the season..Graph will be on a downward trend after Easter

bwalsh1983

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Because your only hope of breaking even or turning a small profit is that you get a decent entry. Lots of races run at a loss.

I hope that if you hit, lets say an 140 entries, you wont make a loss. Therefore if it is capped at that, the club may not make a loss and the lower numbers are enforced. The bigger races will make these numbers easily and the smaller races, which may not have had this bunch size anyway, will not be affected.

Triathlons are often used as a comparison but they have much higher entry fees, waves of competitors, and as comlex the safety may have to be for the three disciplines, are ultimately safer events (road aspect at least).I'm amazed at our race being run with €10/€15 enry fees.

I fully appreciate that it is a small number of club and individuals who do all the work so we can race. I'm always impressed and thankful for the hard work of these individuals and see it as a totally under appreciated sport in terms of the commitment from these people, and the efforts of the commnity around them with post race refreshments and marshalling etc etc. A relatively small network of people contribute to making the scene (for want of a beter work) what it is.

Lumen

I know lots of people hate the idea of pre-entry, but wouldn't this provide a platform for addressing the problem of demand smoothing, e.g. massive bunches in March/April and then low race turnout later in the season, or too many people in a particular category?

Inquitus

wav1 wrote: »

Graph will be on a downward trend after Easter

And that's worthy of it's own thread, the ridiculous race season we have, racing in blizzards in Feb with the season peaking in May before Summer even arrives.

Chips Lovell

bwalsh1983 wrote: »

I hope that if you hit, lets say an 140 entries, you wont make a loss. Therefore if it is capped at that, the club may not make a loss and the lower numbers are enforced.

How many races are exceeding 140 or 150? I think the debate would be better informed if we could see sign-on numbers. My suspicion is that not many are and of those that do, not by much.

Lumen wrote: »

I know lots of people hate the idea of pre-entry, but wouldn't this provide a platform for addressing the problem of demand smoothing, e.g. massive bunches in March/April and then low race turnout later in the season, or too many people in a particular category?

The issue is that that the season is structured around a few landmarks and there's a significant chunk of people who're racing to prepare for specific events, namely the Easter stage races and then the Rás. Someone going for these isn't going to be interested in missing races before their objective in favour of races that occur later in the year.

Inquitus

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

How many races are exceeding 140 or 150? I think the debate would be better informed if we could see sign-on numbers. My suspicion is that not many are and of those that do, not by much.

Its been around the 140-150 mark in most A3 races I have done this year as far as I am aware.

Cond0r

lennymc wrote: »

Does your club run closed road, capped races? If not, why not?

Ah, good one. I'm sure you know well that there are no clubs (at the moment) running closed road, field capped races, so instead of contributing to the discussion about the issues raised you'd prefer to divert from them by essentially saying "put your money where your mouth is". Fair enough.

My club has been working on it for a long time now, and the points I'm trying to raise in this thread have either been the causes of or potential solutions to the problems related with running races on closed vs. open roads.

The biggest issue I see is that Cycling Ireland need to step up and take ownership of these problems, as we've already discussed further back in the thread. I think that wav also agrees that without proper support from CI, we're not heading in a good direction at the moment and also that the status quo can't be maintained.

Chips Lovell

Cond0r wrote: »

The biggest issue I see is that Cycling Ireland need to step up and take ownership of these problems.

Look forward to hearing your proposals at the next AGM.

Lumen

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

The issue is that that the season is structured around a few landmarks and there's a significant chunk of people who're racing to prepare for specific events, namely the Easter stage races and then the Rás. Someone going for these isn't going to be interested in missing races before their objective in favour of races that occur later in the year.

But riders in A3 and A4 are not targetting the Rás.

lennymc

I think it's a very fair point, and a very pertinent, genuine question. You put forward a number of points about race safety, and, with you being on a committee, you are in a position to implement these points in events that your club organises. The safety points included closed road capped field races, so I don't think my original question was diversionary and do think that it contributes to the discussion. What obstacles have your club encountered when attempting to run closed road capped field races, At what stage has your club got to in planning them? What problems has your club encountered? What feedback has your club got from riders, CI, county councils, gardai, residents etc when working on it. Is there anything else that your club has encountered that may be of use to other clubs hoping to run closed road capped races?

You don't give any details of that in your post above. Sharing that information could only be beneficial to cycling as a whole. FWIW I also agree that CI need to step up and do something - I made that point in advance of last years AGM, which, like you, I unfortunately couldn't attend.

Chips Lovell

Lumen wrote: »

But riders in A3 and A4 are not targetting the Rás.

No, but a lot of the A3s would be building up for the Easter stage races.

YeahOK

It seems to me the solution might be to combine the various thoughts on open versus closed roads, online pre-registration, wave / staggered starts and combining race grades. A way to do this might bas as follows;

1. Centralised online race registration system run by Cycling Ireland. Clubs contact Cycling Ireland in advance of staging an event (they do this anyway to have the event added to the calendar). Race registration is opened 2-3 weeks in advance of the race.
2. Clubs get an idea of numbers in advance.
3. If numbers exceed X then roads must be closed or fields are split to safer numbers with staggered start times. If your late registering you get the later starting race etc.
4. Where Junior numbers allow, separate Junior race will be run. Pre registration allows clubs to understand level of interest in advance and whether or not there will be a sufficient field on the day for a separate Junior race.

But maybe that’s what has already been proposed…...

lennymc

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

No, but a lot of the A3s would be building up for the Easter stage races.

I propose we move Easter to July.

07Lapierre

YeahOK wrote: »

It seems to me the solution might be to combine the various thoughts on open versus closed roads, online pre-registration, wave / staggered starts and combining race grades. A way to do this might bas as follows;

1. Centralised online race registration system run by Cycling Ireland. Clubs contact Cycling Ireland in advance of staging an event (they do this anyway to have the event added to the calendar). Race registration is opened 2-3 weeks in advance of the race.
2. Clubs get an idea of numbers in advance.
3. If numbers exceed X then roads must be closed or fields are split to safer numbers with staggered start times. If your late registering you get the later starting race etc.
4. Where Junior numbers allow, separate Junior race will be run. Pre registration allows clubs to understand level of interest in advance and whether or not there will be a sufficient field on the day for a separate Junior race.

But maybe that’s what has already been proposed…...

The only problem with this suggestion is that the County Council will require advance notice of the closed road. the application takes a few weeks. so a decision about the open or closed road might have to be made before the total number of entrants is known.

Peterx

Sorry now, I think I'm repeating myself here but I think everyone else is too.

The costs of putting on a race are mentioned quite a lot.
Scrap prize money for all except the the first 3 home in the main event. A3 and A4 riders don't need money, they are getting a a great race for €15.

Spend a third of the savings on extra cake for everyone.

Clubs and organisers within clubs should not have to worry about the race making money, they have plenty of other worries to be getting on with.

The reasons put forward for not giving out separate A3 points are selective and very negative. It's disappointing to hear that because some organisers do not have video cameras all the results of races with video cameras have to be ignored.
Many race organisers have absolutely no difficulty recording the first 6 A3 riders home, those riders should get their points.

Keeping the junior riders within the warm comforting embrace of the A3 bunch appears to working very very well, for the juniors. There's no real need to change that, maybe acknowledging the occasional superjunior and letting him/them do half their programme with the A1's would be no harm (I believe that happens already? ) If a junior amasses 50 points at A3 it's obvious they are good enough for the odd test at a higher level.
edit - some junior number crunching.
249 juniors on the CI system.
Only 28 have points.
The top ten have 244 points but the top 3 have 106 of those.
Most juniors are not strong enough to get points at A3. It's a good level for them.
Those top three possibly need more competition.

ROK ON

Question: does the rule relating to Juniors stem from a time when there were more long A category races? If so I can understand the concern of burnout. But there are now very few races on the calendar that are the length of the Des Hanlon.

Chips Lovell

Rule was passed at the 2012 AGM and came into place for the 2013 season. I haven't noticed A1/A2 race distances decreasing in the intervening period.

buffalo

Cond0r wrote: »

Ah, good one. I'm sure you know well that there are no clubs (at the moment) running closed road, field capped races, so instead of contributing to the discussion about the issues raised you'd prefer to divert from them by essentially saying "put your money where your mouth is". Fair enough.

My club has been working on it for a long time now, and the points I'm trying to raise in this thread have either been the causes of or potential solutions to the problems related with running races on closed vs. open roads.

I'm genuinely interested if your club has indeed been working on holding a race on closed roads, what has stopped you? Cost? Lack of Garda cooperation? Local objections?

edit: and now I read lenny's other post fully. snap!

ROK ON

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Rule was passed at the 2012 AGM and came into place for the 2013 season. I haven't noticed A1/A2 race distances decreasing in the intervening period.

Thanks.
You are correct in length since 2012 but I am thinking of a longer time frame than that.

DKO

Many of the suggestions in this thread are good and have been made before. As I see it though individual members and clubs can not resolve this. A clear strategy with definite objectives must be decided by CI, published and then big efforts made to implement it. Perhaps CI has a strategy and I have not seen it (very, very possible).

However, it seems that despite the increase numbers racing (it is still only a few hundred each weekend nationally), the representational power of CI still seems relatively limited, as are its resources. It has to deal with international competitions, national competitions in MTB, CX, track, BMX and road. So a lot on the organisations plate to deal with. I think that perhaps the current approach is one of 'lets see what happens' and let race organisers work within the current status quo.

Also if CI engages nationally and openly in this area, it could put the cat among the pigeons and push Councils and the Garda to adopt National Approaches in response - which might not actually be to the racing communities liking. There could be an element of 'be careful what you wish for' involved? As it is there is an element of discretion depending on where you are in the country - in some areas I expect everyone welcomes a bike race as a novelty.

CramCycle

wav1 wrote: »

Not enough yet to have races on their own,and even if there was enough,it would add an extra race to an already crowded programme.

I think people underestimate how difficult it would be to sandwich in another race between the 4 running already, only really applicable if the race is only A3 and A4 only before the Junior split.

Upgrade them like in the past?To me that's a big no no.

Agreed

At least the amnesty upgradeis an attempt at a solution to solve the field sizes and you can only try

Far from perfect but it is a fair point, presumably those complaining about Juniors and super vets are those who believe they would have gained points without their presence. If this is the case, then upgrade, obviously if its a case that the Junior/Supervet inclusion is making it to fast for them, then they would not make A2 anyway.

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Feedback from some race organisers said it would be impossible to implement with the resources they had. If for example, the top 30 crossing the line in a bunch gallop was a mix of Juniors and Seniors, it would be very had to pick the top eight of each.

Indeed but not impossible, delay the results for the A3 placings, have a decent standard camcorder (or iphone/android device) on each side, with maybe one person standing on something to get an overhead shot. Normal winners get their mention but unplaced A3s get their points if video footage allows easy identification, if it doesn't , tough sh1t unfortunately, if it does, great. Points on the board a few days later.

lennymc wrote: »

I propose we move Easter to July.

Not a bad idea either, or we could have a non denominational week in July, where offies close on a Friday, much to the shock of people all over the country and we get Monday off to recover from the shock of it all.

Chips Lovell

DKO wrote: »

As I see it though individual members and clubs can not resolve this. A clear strategy with definite objectives must be decided by CI, published and then big efforts made to implement it.

There's no "them" and "us" though. The members and their clubs are Cycling Ireland. While it does have a small administrative staff, the vast majority of the work done in organising the sport is done by members volunteering their time.

And on the evidence of the last three or four AGMs, there doesn't appear to be that much of an appetite among member clubs for making a lot of the changes suggested here.

Of the regular issues that get an airing here, going by my recollection, I don't recall a single club suggesting race numbers be capped and there are several who are actively opposed to it. A good chunk of clubs would appear to want A3s and Juniors given separate points but accept it can't be done at the moment. And the regulations regarding veterans grading were passed with very little debate and have never been raised since.

Inquitus

CramCycle wrote: »

Far from perfect but it is a fair point, presumably those complaining about Juniors and super vets are those who believe they would have gained points without their presence. If this is the case, then upgrade, obviously if its a case that the Junior/Supervet inclusion is making it to fast for them, then they would not make A2 anyway.

A2 should be a standalone class that is a logical progression from A3, in the same way A3 is a logical progression from A4. This is currently not the case, due to the fact A2 numbers are artificially stunted by the ludicrous points policy. People are complaining because A2 as a cat is broken.

We should have a more even distribution of people across cats, currently we have 2400 A4 and A3's and 400 A2 and A1's. If A2 was allowed to grow organically via a properly functioning A3->A2 upgrade path then it could have its own races instead of being flogged by the A1's week in week out, and anyone earning a merit upgrade from A3 would be ready for the higher intensity of the A2 racing, just as A4's getting upgraded to A3 are generally ready for it.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread 72 points were dished out to A4's at the weekend, enough to send 7 up to A3, in contrast 6 points or less than half an upgrade were dished out to A3's.

CramCycle

Inquitus wrote: »

As I mentioned earlier in the thread 72 points were dished out to A4's at the weekend, enough to send 7 up to A3, in contrast 6 points or less than half an upgrade were dished out to A3's.

My point was that those who are complaining about points being held from them on a continual basis by Juniors and Supervets, presumably are in the front group with these riders or they are not far behind them.

If I finished in the front of the field for lets say 5 A3 races, just shy of points, I would say well, fair enough, I am clearly good enough for A2, I will auto upgrade to A2, if people done this, then the low numbers in A2 would become less of an issue or I don't want to upgrade, thankfully those Juniors are holding me back till I upskill/reach a higher level, It is far from an ideal solution, I am just making suggestions based on the complaints and within the framework at the minute.

Again the system needs work but there are workarounds for riders who feel they should have had the points to upgrade.