NFNPA: is actually war that they want?

Only last week, we were slagging off the New Forest charter as bollocks, with those final changes showing the real opinions of the group

• The cause of the charter is "concerns from some local people"
• The issue is not "Impacts on the Forest", it is "inconvenience to other road users"

Our summary was: The whole thing is bollocks and the NFNPA should be told to fuck off.

Which is exactly what the CTC and the organisers of the Wiggle event have done.

And the reaction of the NFNPA? Parish business as usual. According to road.cc, the "amended minutes" are:

1. The NPA will only support the draft Charter if it is amended to include  cap of 1000 cyclists and to require that rides wear rear numbers and
2. If the Charter is not adhered to … the NPA will look to persuade the Government to change legislation so that local authorities will have control over the events.

They recognise that the charter has no teeth to it —and rather than say "never mind, please work with our SAG to ensure we all get on", they say "If it is not adhered to we want laws to give local authorities control over events".

They would fucking love that control, wouldn't they. No doubt driving somewhere to their meeting where they set the limit on cycle groups for the season. The Bournemouth Echo says 

NPA member Maureen Holding, said: “If this doesn't work we should call in the MP and pursue rules and regulations that are enforceable. We want safety in our forest and we want everyone to be able to enjoy the area, not just cyclists.”

Meanwhile, road.cc adds "Our source at the meeting reports that Ms Holding said she believed a limit of 500 would be more appropriate"

This woman is still claiming the "safety in the forest" myth, even though the final charter admits it is inconvenient, then says "well, let's just call our MP"

That's Maureen "I'm not anti-cycling but"  Holding, who is "not anti cycling, but " ... “I’ve always said the cycling charter needs more teeth – it hasn’t got the bite that it needs.”

She's the one who has been saying for months that "a change in the law is needed". And clearly she thinks that 500 should be the limit. Remember though: that limit is not "per ride", it is "total number of participants in sportives that day". 

If  Maureen "I'm not anti-cycling but"  Holding, gets her way, she'd have a limit of 500 bicycles/day in her forest.

Sadly for her: it's not going to happen. 

What will happen?

The next Wiggle sportive will be a test. Will the uncontroversial bits of the charter be followed,  and will it go down well? If not, what are the problems? Will there be locals putting up posters? Criminals putting down tacks at risk of causing injury? Or just some gripes about "too many cyclists"? Regardless: if there are any issues, the cyclist haters in the NFNPA will be blaming the cyclists, saying there were too many of them, etc, etc. 

There will be a summer. The forest will grind to a halt on holiday weekends, animals will get killed by cars, there will be multiple crashes and possibly some deaths related to it. Hopefully none, especially any involving cyclists. If a cyclist is on the KSI statistics, this will reinforce prejudices "they shouldn't have been there". The presence of large traffic jams most weekends will not be considered a problem.

Cyclists will cycle round the forest. As is their right. They will spend money in cafes and restaurants, B&Bs. Anyone planning to visit the forest should try to spend money ostentatiously "I wanted to visit the forest while it was still legal to cycle here", or "I know the forest has got a reputation for hating cyclists, but having visited it I can see it's just a few parish councillors and not the majority of the people". There's no harm in making clear that you are aware of and don't approve of the NPA members' actions —while recognising it doesn't imply the rest of the area is so narrow minded.

The Bournemouth Echo will print cycling scare stories. This paper could say "we're not anti-cycling, but..." as the opener to their weekly editorials.  They've printed articles on "growing number of cyclists 'frightening' people in the New Forest". They've consistently used resentment to sportives to support the killing of the Boris Bike plans: sportive photos over family ride photos, no attempt to even defend the ideas. Presumably they will repeat their tired, repetitive agenda. Which is a shame as there's another big story they havent looked at: how a small clique of parish councillors took over the national park authority, lost the region £1.6M of government funding and are now threatening the sole tourism mechanism that the forest could realistically sustain. 

The NFNPA members will remain in power. The power group that got in on the basis that something must be done will stay in their committees, have a meaningless piece of paper and will have their supporters fuming whenever they are held up. These are the same people that lost the forest £1.6M already. What they will do is refuse to recognise the loss is their fault "the government' didn't accept our reasonable proposals from local people," and double-down on their efforts to have some kind of legislation to put teeth behind their bollocks. What they've probably underestimated is how hard it would be get any legislation through. It's one thing to set lighting up times in a parish, to push through your agenda in a park authority for which membership has not been contentious in the past —another for a clique of NIMBY parish councillors to try and set the laws of a country.

There will be an election. It's too late for the NFNPA to ask for local authority "regulation" before that election. After it, there's a new queen's speech and then "100 days" for the new government to make a visible impact. Possibly, if the new government is conservative majority, or Conservative+UKIP+DUP, the new forest MP has a chance of going to them and arguing that some form of regulation is worth listing. If its Cons+LibDem, he can ask, but there's less chance of it flying. If it is labour: they won't even sit down to talk to him. He's not on their team and they have other things to worry about.

The only way some form of regulation on cycling on public roads will come about is tacked in to some other general bill, such as some road traffic one. So look out for them.

And cyclists who care? There's the sportive, there's day trips. 

There's also the option to stage a mass informal protest.

1. Agree on a single day to visit the forest, some time in spring, post sportive, before peak season.
2. Plan to come over to the forest, ideally on a weekend trip, staying nearby and spending money locally.
3. Even if there is only 1 or 2 of you: contact the SAG, announce that you are coming, check to make sure that you are below the "1000 limit" for aggregate event attendees, ask what numbers you should wear. Do this to make a point that an aggregate limit is unworkable.
4. Turn up and ride. Maybe plan in advance some meetup points. Maybe not: the key thing is a mass visit of cyclists to the area, riding down every road, enjoying themselves. 

Because this sends a message to the NFNPA

It says : we will not be intimidated.

It says: you can make up whatever charter you want, you can't stop us without making cycling in the forest illegal. 

It says: you are outnumbered.

The New Forest NPA: criminalising cycling in the countryside

So, the NFNPA cycling "charter" is up, some nominal support from cycling organisations,  and Hants police. What's in it? Being a word document showing last minute revisions, extra insight

Why the charter? "concerns from some local people". Nobody else. Not the NPA itself, not the police or council, locals.

This charter does  not replace or detract from the need to comply with the highway code or highway legislation

What it doesn't say is 'all the rights granted by highway legislation are not removed by this charter'. Especially the one where it says cyclists have a right to cycle on a public highway.

Because this charter isn't about rights, its about taking them away

All rides of 100+ are expected to contact the group. Planning a club ride? It's ok if there there is 99 or less. 100 or more: expected to co-operate and comply.

 This shows the truth, the impacts of the forest aren't irreplaceable environment damage, household pets being run over, speeding cyclists killing children. No, it's "inconvenience to other road users". They throw in the sop of 'and other cyclists', just to spread the blame.

"avoid use of quiet country roads". This again shows the real concern "inconvenience", and why so many millions in the now-defunct "Plan B" was to be spent widening a road. For the haters behind this charter, there is nothing worse than being held up by cyclists"

Again, that repetition of the duties of the highway code, not the rights. And we've suddenly gone from implying that cyclists are an "inconvenience' to "irresponsible"

Maybe pre-event briefings should cover those rights too, just for completeness. And for fairness, when the "New Forest Drivers Charter" is published, anyone organising an event with >100 cars will have to offer a pre-ride briefing on the highway code responsibilities

Again, the mention of "riding in single file", and highlights this. Note that the comment claims that it could be for an emergency vehicle: it's for your own good.  We call that "post-rationalisation"

This raises some questions. The implication of wearing a number is that "offenders" can be reported: but what for? For cycling two abreast? Could someone really phone up and say "I was held up by four cyclists riding two-abreast, here are their numbers?"

The second paragraph implies it, taking action against participants who "contravene event rules", e..g "banned from future events for ... cycling in a peleton".

In the absence of any definition of "peleton", what the fuck does this mean? As on a sportive its inevitable groups will form. Not necessarily fast ones, but groups, wheelsucking or turn taking. Is this now a crime?

As for banning: will that be from a specific event, like "wiggle sportives", or will it be from all rides in the area

Are the NFNPA proposing being able to ban cyclists from all events in the area?


The whole thing is bollocks and the NFNPA should be told to fuck off.

Realistically, Wiggle aren't going to, as they don't want to have the council, verderers and park authorities go out their way to make things already harder than they have. Wiggle are already forced to start outside the NF, they have to deal with Verderers apparently changing drift dates, and if people really did want to protest against cycling, tacks on the ground are an easy way to injure a lot of people.

Everyone else though should think long and hard about whether to agree to this. What it represents is an attempt to limit the number of cyclists in a bit of the countryside -and if the new forest does it, Surrey will be watching to see how it goes. Both these places have the same clash of locals thinking they have exclusive rights to drive down back country roads at speed, both blame cyclists,

And they both have councils saying "legislation may be needed". That's going to go down well with their narrow-minded haters, but nationally, it would be vicious.

What to do instead? Get out and ride! Don't be afraid of cycling two abreast or in a group. Don't be afraid to walk into pubs and buy food and beer. That doesn't mean be antisocial: let cars past when you consider it safe for them to do so, don't scatter gel wrappers everywhere (hint: there are pockets in your jersey for them), and be considerate of pedestrians in villages. Consider also fixing a camera or two on the bike, so if you do get tailgated by a car, or overtaken dangerously, you can be the one phoning in the number to Hants police, with a video.

Finally

Lucky they haven't heard of Strava or they'd be demanding it doesn't record rides in the forest on the day of an event. Or even more: ban recording any rides in the area, ever.

New Forest: Cyclists Fuck off. Official

In June, an article arguing that Sportives are the new Critical Mass —and that the way to get back at the haters would be to go to the Wiggle event, wave your wallet around and bring tourist ££s to the community.
and

This week the New forest National Parks Authority —which already has a code of behaviour for everyone, and one for organised events, has come out and is planning to hand back £3.7 Million pounds to encourage family cycling round the area by having a boris-bike scheme biased towards leisure use.

That's nothing to do with Sportives, nobody is going to turn up, rent a forest-boris-bike and then do an 80 miler. Few people are going to head down to the forest for a weekend carrying Sky team wear and get changed in it to cycle with the rest of the family for half an hour. Boris Bikes and Sportives have nothing in common except they involve people cycling on public roads.

The NPAs rationale for their decision makes it clear this is because they hate cyclists.

Since the original feasibility study was done and the invitation to tender was issued, the backdrop to cycling in the New Forest and elsewhere has changed significantly.

Actually, nothing major has happened nationally, only locally:

In the New Forest a major anti-cycling sentiment has come to the fore in the wake of large-scale cycle sportive events which have impacted on local people.

True. But what does this have to do with leisure bike rentals?

A fresh wave of concern exists about the safety of on-road cycling. 

From who? People who want to cycle, or people who hate cyclists and are trying to come up with reasons to block these proposals?

Concerns about safety featured prominently in the responses to the recent questionnaire about the proposed scheme, especially amongst those who live and work in the Forest.

That is a metric for sentiment against cyclists in the area, not evidence that cycling in the forest has become less safe.

To put it differently:

1. If no evidence that cycling has got more dangerous  "emerged in timescales parallel to the running of the procurement process" then the safety claim is completely spurious and should be dismissed. 

Because if it hasn't actually got more dangerous, then the safety conditions for cycling in the forest are exactly as they were when the process started. All that has happened is that NIMBYs objecting to the proposal out of their hate for sportives have been using safety as an excuse in their objections.

2. If it has got more dangerous, then this is a situation which the NPA and local authorities must address, not by discouraging cycling —but by making the roads safer.


The NPA should publish their objections. No doubt the haters couldn't just say "I hate them lycra-clad riders we should ban them all", so do have to hide it "I don't think it's safe for people to cycle on the roads"

And the authority has gone along with sentiment, rather than saying "we have a duty to encourage sustainable tourism". Instead they are saying

Some of those who live and work in the Forest hate cyclists and will do anything to stop people cycling in the Forest. We, the National Parks Authority are prepared to acquiesce to their demands, even if it means returning millions of pounds of central government funding which was meant to encourage tourists to visit the area in ways that minimises congestion.

What to do now? There's still the wiggle sportive: get down there and show the haters that you are not intimidated. Make it the cyclists equivalent of Pride Parades.

And now that the NPA are using "perceived cyclist safety" as a reason for cancelling projects, then any proposal that appears to endanger cyclists in the area must be objected to on these grounds. To show them up for being hypocritical wankers that they appear to be.

Sportives are the new Critical Mass

Critical Mass rides grew as a form of protest, for cyclists to say "We are allowed here too". They've been controversial -in New York, very much so; then there was the Olympics Critical Mass.

Are they effective? Who knows. But they make a point -they are a chance for the cyclists to get out together and say "there are enough of us that you have to pay attention to us and our needs"

Cities are slowly coming round to see this. In Bristol, with Infrastructure. In London, with words. In Bath with putting on hold "improvements to the urban realm", and in glasgow with patronising bollocks.

Outside the cities though, things are different. There's the semi-rural commuter belt of many cities -S Gloucs and North Somerset being Bristol's examples. Here in S Gloucs, the council still thinks they can add more suburbs without congestion, without having to spend any money on cycling infrastructure other than a few more Cyclists Dismount signs on the A38.

As for North Somerset, it's "improvements" are so bad they make it to the BBC, and not even Sustrans will lend their support.

As for elsewhere, Magnatom's daily near death videos show the reality: the roads may look like country lanes, but they are really rural-rat-runs, where drivers think they can drive at 60 mph and will overtake any bicycle holding them up -irrespective of the benefits or safety of their action.

Which is why we have to move beyond just protesting about conditions in the cities, and start protesting about conditions outside them.

And where better to start than The New Forest.

The New Forest, Britain's newest National Park, is now a park governed by a committee of cycling haters. As the article says "After the meeting members cited the need to tackle the problems being caused by huge cycling events in the area.". That's the big traffic issue in the area. Not the vast traffic jams on summer weekends, nor the number of New Forest Ponies getting killed by cars. No, it's the cyclists, where the most absolute exemplification of this is the Wiggle Sportive Series, Spring and Autumn.

This is the one where three times already people have sabotaged the race. Where local councillors put up posters denouncing the ride. And as usual, there's a local paper stirring things up.

The New Forest Haters seem to have their central power base in the Verderers, who can apparently choose the date and location of their pony round-ups  to bring them into direct conflict with the next pre-planned cycling event.

Their attempts to impose "codes of conduct" are the next issue. They've had a general one for a while,  which isn't too bad -apart from (a) its narrow view of cycling as a leisure activity and (b) its "no cycling two-abreast" demand

Clearly it is only cyclists that hold up cars -but it shows that it isn't just sportives that are perceived as a problem. It is just that the Wiggle sportive represents the ultimate travesty of those UKIP-voting cyclist-haters who start fuming the moment they are held up for 15 seconds by a bicycle.

The charter for sportives somewhat more controversial. While most of it is about how to set one up effectively, anything that covers "riding two abreast" or -in the original draft- "riding as a peleton" being a bannable offence, show that holding up drivers is one of the key troublespots. Yes, for two or three days a year it happens, But has anyone tried to drive round the new forest on a saturday in august? It's almost as bad as trying to drive down the M5 over the Avonmouth bridge towards Cornwall on a Friday evening between now and September -you'll get held up by peletons of caravans, with tailbacks of them queueing to get into every service station. Nowhere do you hear residents of S Gloucs or commuters from Portishead to the North Fringe demanding a code of conduct for Caravans. But in the New Forest, cyclists represent outsiders, and are clearly resented all year round for holding up cars, and clearly hated at sportives.

And with the recent coup at the New Forest Park Authority, things will only get worse.

What to do? We could all just go somewhere where we are welcome. There's a wiggle event in the Cotswolds soon, one down in the Mendips mid-August. While some people may resent the cyclists, they aren't going to sabotage the race. The main hazard would be getting into trouble on the Cheddar or (worse) Deer Leap descents, but the organisers have wisely made them climbs. Road riders who want pleasant days out should consider attending.

But to give up on the New Forest -that would be to surrender; to be chased away by tack-dropping, mud-spraying cyclist haters who would love to declare "Victory!" if events get cancelled.

Which is why there's another action: make a stand, go to the New Forest ride. Stay somewhere local, eat out local, and make it clear that you are only visiting the area for the ride. Follow the bits of the charter that are polite, and don't leave empty gel packets everywhere. But not ride two abreast on roads too narrow for a car to overtake without changing lane. They'll have to suffer on that one. Welcome to Britain: share the road or fuck off.