You are reading a single comment by @M_V and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.
  • this seems to have developed into almost an argument

    Not my intention, I'm trying to understand rationale. Can only be done by discussion, but here the written word can lack subtlety. I have no beef with you about this.

    I don't think that it's right to be splitting hairs over the details of that on a public forum.

    Agreed. That's why BC should offer clarity to those who stand trackside via a relevant direct communication. It can be done in a sensitive manner & I'd hope the family would be supportive of shared learning if it would reduce the risk of others experiencing the same.

    The venue did, in an informal way, in a zoom meeting I was part of

    This isn't enough IMO. Not a dig at you, or the venue.

    The difference between almost no and a few pretty bad injuries can be seconds or millimetres

    Yes, once someone is sliding everyone else is a passenger pretty much. It is those collected that typically end up with worse consequences, unfortunately.

    There is (now) a coach present for all sessions at Glasgow

    That there ever wasn't is pretty shocking tbh. AFAIK Glasgow was the only uk indoor 250m track to operate in this way.

    you'd need an extra half hour to check everyone's cleats and inspect their tyres!

    Manchester implemented additional checks ahead of sessions taking to the track after the incident got public attention via the cycle-sos write-up (which prompted the zoom calls iirc). Not clear if these'll continue when it reopens. Again NGB should've directed on this so consistent across venues. IMO.

    a touch of wheels you'd try to train out during the accreditation process and with continuing coaching

    Equally, education about appropriate speed when riding above the line should be handled the same way. Once accredited there should be confidence this is known. Poor decision making down the line cannot be legislated for, as we've no doubt both seen first hand from riders we'd have expected better of either in training or racing.

    With rider's own equipment you are relying somewhat on them to look after it, hopefully the accreditation process drives home both the potential for danger and also the responsibility that you have for your own and other people's safety and encourages people to be vigilant with their kit.

    This could/should be a mandatory classroom module during accreditation. 2hrs would probably be enough to cover the basics & stuff like ratios and changing gearing.

    Getting back to ukiva and its failure to do what it was intended to, these comments about climbing walls from the bmc years ago resonate:

    The BMC is fully committed to the continued development of sustainable facilities for climbers and considers a number of key principles when supporting the development of new, or the improvement of existing facilities.

    Facilities should:

    meet the needs of climbers
    be as free from restrictive legislation as possible
    provide interesting climbing across an appropriate range of abilities and styles
    be professionally designed and built to current legislation with experienced climber input
    offer value for money

    A more worrying trend is that for large facilities to succeed commercially they have felt the need to create a demand from new users. This has led to large numbers of novices and young users being attracted into climbing wall use without first having gained appropriate skills. In an effort to limit perceived liability, some operators are introducing more elaborate registration systems and restrictive practices which in many cases actually increase the operators’ liability and which could ultimately have an adverse effect on usage by ordinary climbers.

    All wall providers have a responsibility to the ethos of the sport and to maintain that their actions have no bearing on the rest of the sport is clearly naïve. The BMC recognises the commercial aspects of facility provision but seeks to ensure that artificial climbing facilities continue to be managed in a way which is responsible both to climbers and to the sport, maintaining the responsible, independent use of walls without unnecessary restrictions and encouraging a greater awareness of the self-reliance which is an integral aspect of our sport.

    This could easily be mirrored by BC as the ngb as a set of principles for velodrome operators to focus on to further grow the discipline.

    They may well have been superseded in bmc guidance, as I know there was an indoor fatality a few years back (a Uni Student session iirc?).

  • Fair enough, maybe it was just my interpretation or feeling like I was being argumentative.

    British and Scottish Cycling seem to have a long standing fear of taking too much involvement with equipment. It's like they don't want to look at what you're using incase they see something dodgy and have to deal with it or don't and then there's a problem and someone gets injured and says it should have been picked up, who knows. Maybe there was a lawsuit at some point.

    I think the biggest problem for us is that we are, largely ,managed by people who have very little understanding of cycling, the risks, the people, the equipment etc etc.

  • Maybe there was a lawsuit at some point.

    Yes. I get the feeling there's maybe fear of litigation/ bad p.r. headed their way. The Newport case probably won't have helped calm that fear.

    I think the biggest problem for us is that we are, largely ,managed by people who have very little understanding of cycling, the risks, the people, the equipment etc etc.

    Yup, especially when the managers pass through like busses on their career highway and the same conversations have to be had from scratch with each new one.


Avatar for M_V @M_V started