Rttc was bloody AUK;

[Arthur Clune]

wafflycat wrote:

> You can take what you want, but you'd be wrong. Nathan isn't fast enough for
> 'fast' courses. He does mostly SPOCO courses. Have gone over the Unfit

That's a good thing. Not sure what you mean about "not fast enough" though -
most people ride the fast courses to go faster than themselves, if you
see what I mean.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune

 

[triddletree]

wafflycat wrote:
>
> "Arthur Clune" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> wafflycat wrote:
>>
>>> Plus, the 'fast' courses are safer than the 'sporting' courses -
>>> counter to
>>> 'common sense' but that's the reality.
>>
>>
>> I'm very unconvinced by the RTTC arguments on this one. People crash
>> on 'sporting'
>> courses yes, but not usually seriously. I take it that Nathen is
>> looking to ride
>> 'fast' courses and improve his times?
>>
>
> You can take what you want, but you'd be wrong. Nathan isn't fast enough
> for 'fast' courses. He does mostly SPOCO courses. Have gone over the
> Unfit Family ethos to cycling many times before - he competes against
> *himself* on whatever course he's on.

So, just for clarity, is he driven by personal bests rather than
position in the field and beating the other riders, because ISTR you had
posted that PBs were of secondary - ICBW.

tt



tt

 

[triddletree]

Arthur Clune wrote:
> wafflycat wrote:
>
>
>>You can take what you want, but you'd be wrong. Nathan isn't fast enough for
>>'fast' courses. He does mostly SPOCO courses. Have gone over the Unfit
>
>
> That's a good thing. Not sure what you mean about "not fast enough" though...

Cut off point on fastest previous times leading to rejected entries?

tt

 

[wafflycat]

"triddletree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> wafflycat wrote:
>>
>> "Arthur Clune" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> wafflycat wrote:
>>>
>>>> Plus, the 'fast' courses are safer than the 'sporting' courses -
>>>> counter to
>>>> 'common sense' but that's the reality.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm very unconvinced by the RTTC arguments on this one. People crash on
>>> 'sporting'
>>> courses yes, but not usually seriously. I take it that Nathen is looking
>>> to ride
>>> 'fast' courses and improve his times?
>>>
>>
>> You can take what you want, but you'd be wrong. Nathan isn't fast enough
>> for 'fast' courses. He does mostly SPOCO courses. Have gone over the
>> Unfit Family ethos to cycling many times before - he competes against
>> *himself* on whatever course he's on.
>
> So, just for clarity, is he driven by personal bests rather than position
> in the field and beating the other riders, because ISTR you had posted
> that PBs were of secondary - ICBW.
>
> tt

Indeed personal bests are not the main reason.

Primary is *fun* as he enjoys his sport

Secondary is it's a healthy exercise

Thirdly are his own personal improvements over time - be it improvements in
personal fitness or personal best times on any given course he rides on

Cheers, helen s

 

[wafflycat]

"triddletree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Arthur Clune wrote:
>> wafflycat wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You can take what you want, but you'd be wrong. Nathan isn't fast enough
>>>for 'fast' courses. He does mostly SPOCO courses. Have gone over the
>>>Unfit
>>
>> That's a good thing. Not sure what you mean about "not fast enough"
>> though...
>
> Cut off point on fastest previous times leading to rejected entries?
>
> tt

No, he's never had a rejected entry - he just hasn't put in for 'fast'
courses as we already know others go faster

 

[triddletree]

Mark Thompson wrote:
>>IMO a parent who allows a child to participate in such an activity
>>would not be acting in a responsible manner.
>
>
> Why not (genuine question)?

It falls under two reason AFAIAC.
Firstly its a 'parent' thingummy.
Try standing by a major trunk road on a wet bank holiday with constant
streams of streams of lorries and caravans travelling at 70-80mph and
throwing up spray, and ask yourself would you like your 12-year old son
or daughter to be in amongst it. Ask would an average person consider it
responsible I think the answer would invariably be no.
I admit, it is a _personal_ decision.

Secondly it is a wish for cycling to be seen as a safe activity. I
regularly hear from work colleagues and acquaintances their views on
these ****-up riders they see hammering up and down the local motorway
extension. All comment is negative.
When they read the anti cycling articles in the DM and elsewhere, seeing
these events just strengthens their opinions.

I really wish the TT organisation would move to closed circuits or
closed roads as believe it or not I do see benefits in the sport as it
_can_ cater for all levels.

However, due to the overwhelming obsessions with achieving fast times
and beating personal bests, pigs will fly first.

tt

 

[Arthur Clune]

wafflycat wrote:
>
> Indeed personal bests are not the main reason.
> Primary is *fun* as he enjoys his sport
> Secondary is it's a healthy exercise
> Thirdly are his own personal improvements over time - be it improvements in
> personal fitness or personal best times on any given course he rides on

That's why I ride TT's as well. Although it's not always obvious I really
like TT'ing. It's just the CTT drives me mad.

--
Arthur Clune

 

[Simon Bennett]

triddletree wrote:

> When they read the anti cycling articles in the DM and elsewhere,
> seeing these events just strengthens their opinions.

Ban the Daily Mail. It's the only solution.

 

[Clive George]

"triddletree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I really wish the TT organisation would move to closed circuits or closed
> roads as believe it or not I do see benefits in the sport as it _can_
> cater for all levels.

IMO that's a **** idea. At least at the moment there's a TT course quite
near me - there's no way this a closed road or circuit would be in cycling
distance.

Now if we're talking about people driving to the events anyway it's not so
bad, but I thought there was still a reasonable amount of people riding to
them.

(not that I've actually ridden a TT since the one I did in 1992...)

cheers,
clive

 

[Clive George]

"Douglas Steel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> That depends on the type of motor racing involved - road rallying
> which is a time trial event is still allowed on open public roads.
>
> See:
> http://www.ukmotorsport.com/road_rally.html

It's not strictly a time trial - you get penalised for arriving early.

cheers,
clive

 

[Phil Cook]

triddletree wrote:

>Mark Thompson wrote:
>>>IMO a parent who allows a child to participate in such an activity
>>>would not be acting in a responsible manner.
>>
>>
>> Why not (genuine question)?
>
>It falls under two reason AFAIAC.
>Firstly its a 'parent' thingummy.
>Try standing by a major trunk road on a wet bank holiday with constant
>streams of streams of lorries and caravans travelling at 70-80mph and
>throwing up spray, and ask yourself would you like your 12-year old son
>or daughter to be in amongst it.

Not all time trials are held on wet bank holidays.

In any case isn't it up to the individual child's parents to decide
whether they compete in an event?

>Secondly it is a wish for cycling to be seen as a safe activity. I
>regularly hear from work colleagues and acquaintances their views on
>these ****-up riders they see hammering up and down the local motorway
>extension. All comment is negative.

Perhaps that is a comment on their attitudes to cyclists in general.
Perhaps they believe cyclists should stick to psyclepaths.

>When they read the anti cycling articles in the DM and elsewhere, seeing
>these events just strengthens their opinions.

Ah, that's it then, their opinions /are/ biased. They think that a
racing cyclist is not aware of what is going on around them and that
they should be banned. Or that all cycling on fast roads should be
banned.

>I really wish the TT organisation would move to closed circuits or
>closed roads as believe it or not I do see benefits in the sport as it
>_can_ cater for all levels.

Moving to closed roads or closed circuits would kill the sport. There
just aren't enough circuits and those that do exist would have a very
limited capacity of riders per event. Getting road closure for an
event on the public roads is going to be impossible.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

 

[triddletree]

Phil Cook wrote:
> triddletree wrote:
>
>
>>Mark Thompson wrote:
>>
>>>>IMO a parent who allows a child to participate in such an activity
>>>>would not be acting in a responsible manner.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why not (genuine question)?
>>
>>It falls under two reason AFAIAC.
>>Firstly its a 'parent' thingummy.
>>Try standing by a major trunk road on a wet bank holiday with constant
>>streams of streams of lorries and caravans travelling at 70-80mph and
>>throwing up spray, and ask yourself would you like your 12-year old son
>>or daughter to be in amongst it.
>
>
> Not all time trials are held on wet bank holidays.
>
> In any case isn't it up to the individual child's parents to decide
> whether they compete in an event?

It is. Which why I said "a parent who allows a child to participate in
such an activity would not be acting in a responsible manner." That is
my opinion.
However a national body should also take some responsibility for how
they run events and who they allow to ride.

>>Secondly it is a wish for cycling to be seen as a safe activity. I
>>regularly hear from work colleagues and acquaintances their views on
>>these ****-up riders they see hammering up and down the local motorway
>>extension. All comment is negative.
>
>
> Perhaps that is a comment on their attitudes to cyclists in general.
> Perhaps they believe cyclists should stick to psyclepaths.

Running red lights, riding on pavements, dodging across zebra crossings,
and riding head-down ****-up chasing artics and caravans all have a
place in how cycling is perceived.

>>I really wish the TT organisation would move to closed circuits or
>>closed roads as believe it or not I do see benefits in the sport as it
>>_can_ cater for all levels.
>
>
> Moving to closed roads or closed circuits would kill the sport.

Possibly. Leaving it as it is definitely will.

tt

 

[Phil Cook]

triddletree wrote:

>Running red lights, riding on pavements, dodging across zebra crossings,
>and riding head-down ****-up chasing artics and caravans all have a
>place in how cycling is perceived.

None of which are permitted in TTs.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

 

[MartinM]

Arthur Clune wrote:
> wafflycat wrote:
> >
> > Indeed personal bests are not the main reason.
> > Primary is *fun* as he enjoys his sport
> > Secondary is it's a healthy exercise
> > Thirdly are his own personal improvements over time - be it improvements in
> > personal fitness or personal best times on any given course he rides on
>
> That's why I ride TT's as well. Although it's not always obvious I really
> like TT'ing. It's just the CTT drives me mad.

I really dislike TT ing because it is elitist; if you can't go sub 5 on
a 25 they look at you as if you're wasting their time (and write it up
in big red letters too). I've even had clubmates apologise on my behalf
and finish controls go home before I got there. Nothing like many other
types of competitive sport where they welcome all abilities. Good for
fitness though if you can put up with all of that.

 

[triddletree]

Phil Cook wrote:
> triddletree wrote:
>
>
>>Running red lights, riding on pavements, dodging across zebra crossings,
>>and riding head-down ****-up chasing artics and caravans all have a
>>place in how cycling is perceived.
>
>
> None of which are permitted in TTs.

Or anywhere, but they happen :-(

tt

 

[Douglas Steel]

Clive George wrote:
> "Douglas Steel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> That depends on the type of motor racing involved - road rallying
>> which is a time trial event is still allowed on open public roads.
>>
>> See:
>> http://www.ukmotorsport.com/road_rally.html
>
>
> It's not strictly a time trial - you get penalised for arriving early.

Not strictly, but the routes are often challenging enough for them
to end up effectively being time trials.

Maybe TT's should start having penalties for averaging over 30mph
as well (over a challenging course) ?

Doug

 

[Richard]

triddletree wrote:
> Mark Thompson wrote:
>
>>> That the national body allows 12 year olds <snippity>
>>
>>
>>
>> I think that is something the parents/guardians should have
>> responsibility for.
>>
>> Has anyone got any stats to back up their prejudices?
>
>
> I don't think you can call a concern about 12-year olds being permitted
> to race on major trunk roads amongst heavy commercial and holiday
> traffic a prejudice.

So, with no knowledge of the statistics of the risk to that child in
that activity, you're not pre-judging the issue? (that'd be a
pre-judice, by the way).

R.

 

[triddletree]

Richard wrote:
> triddletree wrote:
>

>> I don't think you can call a concern about 12-year olds being
>> permitted to race on major trunk roads amongst heavy commercial and
>> holiday traffic a prejudice.
>
>
> So, with no knowledge of the statistics of the risk to that child in
> that activity, you're not pre-judging the issue? (that'd be a
> pre-judice, by the way).

So its impossible to have a concern about anything without having a
whole raft of statistics to back it up?

Boyo, you must live a very 'interesting' life :-(

I bet you ride time trials ;-)

tt

 

[Mark Thompson]

>> So, with no knowledge of the statistics of the risk to that child in
>> that activity, you're not pre-judging the issue? (that'd be a
>> pre-judice, by the way).
>
> So its impossible to have a concern about anything without having a
> whole raft of statistics to back it up?

I read it as:

"So, with no knowledge of the statistics of the risk to that child in that
activity, you're not pre-judging the issue? (that'd be a
pre-judice, by the way)."

 

[Richard]

triddletree wrote:
> Richard wrote:
>
>> triddletree wrote:
>>
>
>>> I don't think you can call a concern about 12-year olds being
>>> permitted to race on major trunk roads amongst heavy commercial and
>>> holiday traffic a prejudice.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, with no knowledge of the statistics of the risk to that child in
>> that activity, you're not pre-judging the issue? (that'd be a
>> pre-judice, by the way).
>
>
> So its impossible to have a concern about anything without having a
> whole raft of statistics to back it up?

I didn't say that. I said that if you don't have the statistics, then
any concerns you do have are prejudices, by definition.

> Boyo, you must live a very 'interesting' life :-(

I do.

> I bet you ride time trials ;-)

I don't.

R.