The Great Barrow Challenge | Cycle The Great Barrow Challenge
The Great Barrow Challenge | Cycle The Great Barrow Challenge
Welcome to the Great Barrow Cycling Challenge, the greatest four day endurance event on the sportive calendar, with the chance of winning the coveted Great Barrow Challenge Medal
This September in the wonderful countryside of East Anglia, home to two of last years `Tour of Britain ` stages, we offer a cycle -sportive like no other, not just one day of 125 miles through fantastic countryside on great roads but four days giving a total of 500 miles to be completed within 44 hours.
Are you up for the challenge? We offer a medal for anyone who can finish the full distance within the time allowed. It won’t be easy and not everyone will win the medal, but we believe it will be among the greatest four days of your cycling year and you will be hooked forever.
The original team from the Great Barrow Walk are planning this fun event that gives every cyclist the perfect opportunity to get active and enjoy Suffolk’s beautiful countryside and picturesque towns while also raising money for charity.
This ride is suitable for anyone, regardless of their age or fitness, It is not a race as everyone can take it at their own pace but should you wish to get ambitious and go for the medal the opportunity is there.
Rest assured you will be well looked after and safe in the knowledge that you efforts out on the road will be fully supported.
Regular participants know what a great experience the Great Barrow Walk has been and the addition of cycling and running events this year will only make this event even more popular and enjoyable.
So if you fancy something a little out of the ordinary and perhaps experience for yourself a little of what its like to ride in a stage event, why not sign up for this awesome cycling challenge and help a charity at the same time?
• Medical Attention
St John Ambulance will be on-hand for the duration of the event to attend to any minor medical needs.
• Medal
The successful entrants completing the full 4 day 26.5 mile event will receive the now- prestigious Barrow Challenge medal.
• Sponsorship
• The Great Barrow Challenge is an excellent opportunity to complete a demanding physical challenge and at the same time raise money for your chosen charities or a good cause. It is entrant’s responsibility to raise money and to ensure payment to the chosen charity or good cause. A generic sponsorship form is available to download.
• We would appreciate at the end of the event if you would confirm how much money you raised and for whom.
There will be a limited number of entrants for the walking event so sign- up as an individual or a team as soon as possible to secure your entry. Simply follow the steps in the ‘Sign- up’ area of the website to become part of one of the UK’s premium annual challenge events. We look forward to welcoming you at The Great Barrow Challenge.
GENERAL INFORMATION
The Highway Code does not stipulate that bells must be used. It states: “Be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians. Let them know you are there when necessary, for example by ringing your bell.”
Another ‘audible warning device’ is the human voice: a polite ‘excuse me’ can often come across as a lot less aggressive than the apparently insistent tinkling of a bell. However, ‘angry of Tunbridge Wells’ type letters to newspapers continue to insist that cyclists – from church-hopping old maids to downhill mountain-bikers – ought to use bells, despite the fact their use often scares the bejesus out of pedestrians.
On the Continent, the use of bells is more widespread and pedestrians do not leap out of their skin when they hear a bicycle bell behind them. Perhaps, in time, the use of bicycle bells in the UK will once again mean cyclist approaching, please don’t move to the side rather than oi, cyclist coming, get out of my way.
HIGHWAY CODE
There are many ‘do’s’ and ‘don’ts’ in The Highway Code. It’s important to note that cyclists have rights and responsibilities – not just rights…
The ‘must’ rules in the Highway Code represent laws of the land and must be obeyed. Those rules which omit ‘must’ are advisable but not compulsory.
The Road Traffic Act 1988 says: “A failure on the part of a person to observe any provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person to criminal proceedings of any kind, but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.”
CYCLING WHILE DRUNK
Cycling is intoxicating, it gives a natural high but it’s also a very sociable activity and those who partake in the weekend ‘pub run’ will attest that cycling is easier after the odd drink or two.
A social tipple, imbibed in moderation – the proverbial swift half – will not lead to a massive impairment in your ability to ride home but, despite alcohol’s pain reducing effect, it impairs athletic performance so too much booze is bad for biking.
The Licensing Act 1872 makes it an offence to be drunk in charge of a bicycle (or any other vehicle or carriage, or cattle) on a highway or in a public place but this old law also forbids any public drunkenness – even in a pub – so is clearly never enforced.
In law a bicycle is defined as a carriage for use on the highway but cyclists are not in charge of ‘mechanically propelled’ vehicles so, in law, do not have to adhere to exactly the same ‘drink drive’ rules as motorists.
Section 30 Road Traffic Act 1988 says: “It is an offence for a person to ride a cycle on a road or other public place when unfit to ride through drink or drugs – that is to say – is under the influence of a drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle.
In Scotland a PC may arrest without warrant a person committing an offence under this section. There is no obligation for a cyclist to submit to a blood or urine alcohol test.
‘Road’ in the above bit of legislation includes a bridleway so don’t think you can get blotto at a country pub and ride home ‘off road’ without risk.
And here’s the rub. If you ride drunk you risk endangering yourself and possibly others by your actions. Would you ride home blindfolded? Beer-googles and bicycles do not mix. And, as stated above, cycling ‘dangerously’ can be fined by up to £2500.
You cannot get endorsements on your UK driving licence for a ‘drink cycling’ offence. Some US States have such a law so be careful when searching on this topic via Google.
The UK Highway Code – a useful but not a definitive source for UK legislation on motoring and cycling offences – says the penalty point system is “intended to deter drivers from following unsafe driving practices…The accumulation of penalty points acts as a warning to drivers that they risk disqualification if further offences are committed.”
Note the word ‘drivers.’
In law, cyclists propel vehicles on the highway and so have to adhere to the same rules as motorists. However, the fines and penalties for offences are different. Cyclists DO NOT qualify for three penalty points for failing to comply with a red light. Offending cyclists, when caught, are given a non-endorsable fixed penalty ticket for £30. There are no offences that carry penalty points for cyclists.
CYCLING FURIOUSLY?
It’s an in-joke in cycling that cyclists can’t be booked for speeding but can be fined for “pedalling furiously.” Many cyclists list being cited for “cycling furiously” as one of their life ambitions. Professor David S. Wall, Head of the University of Leeds Law School, a professor of criminal justice lists his hobby as: Cycling (Furiously)
However, these legal eagles say they have been unable to find a a reference to such a cycling offence in Blackstone’s Criminal Practice or in Halsbury’s Laws of England.
Which is odd, as Christopher McKenzie, an Australian barrister, pointed Bikeforall to these cases: Taylor v. Goodwin (1879) 4 QBD 228, a case where the Queen’s Bench Division held, on appeal, that a cyclist was appropriately convicted by a magistrate for furious riding of a bicycle. The dicta of Justice Melor in the case has been cited and followed in a number of cases since: see, for example, Smith v. Kynnersley [1903] 1 KB 788 (cyclist not liable to pay bridge toll) and Corkery v. Carpenter [1951] I KB 102 (cyclist liable for offence where cycling drunk).
Although a legal eagle searching Blackstones will not find a specific offence of “furious cycling”, cyclists can nonetheless be convicted for “wanton and furious driving”.
The wording of S35 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1948 (c. 58), s. 1(2)) is as follows:
“35. Drivers of carriages injuring persons by furious driving Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years.”
OBSTRUCTING MOTORISTS?
In August 2006, a new legal peril appeared. A district judge fined a cyclist for using a road in Telford when the cyclist could have used the less-direct, slower and dirtier cycle-path nearby.
The decision by the district judge didn’t set an official precedent but could still have been used by some as “proof” that cyclists must use cycle lanes, not roads, a prospect that has long been challenged by the CTC and other cycle campaign groups. As widely expected, the Telford decision was overturned (in February 2007).
According to this advice issued by the Department of Transport, cyclists likely to be riding 18mph or faster should use roads not cycle-paths.
There’s a specialist charity that champions the rights of cyclists in court cases: the Cyclists’ Defence Fund . This body is always in need of expert help and funds.
“BLOODY CYCLISTS, THEY SHOULD PAY ROAD TAX!”
The majority of adult cyclists own cars. Hence they pay Vehicle Excise Duty, known, inaccurately, as ‘road tax’. Winston Churchill started to abolish this tax in 1926. He didn’t want motorists to think a token payment gave them “ownership” of the road. It was an ex-tax by 1937. Road tax doesn’t pay for the roads anyway, general and local taxation does that so even those cyclists without cars still pay for roads. The Road Fund (1910-37) only ever paid for the maintenance of a few ‘national’ roads, never local ones. Paying VED gives no “right to the road” for motorists (or car-owning cyclists). There’s much more on this subject on iPayRoadTax.com, a campaign to put the record straight on ‘road tax’.
CYCLING WHILE TALKING ON A MOBILE PHONE
A bicycle is a vehicle but according to the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, amended 2003, it is only illegal to drive a motor vehicle while using a mobile phone. There is nothing about bicycles in the phrasing so, in effect, cyclists are exempt from this extremely sensible law. That doesn’t mean cycling while phoning or texting is not dangerous and you could be pulled over for a related, not-paying-due-care-and-attention offence.
LANE SPLITTING
In some US States, so called ‘lane splitting’ by cyclists is illegal. Lane splitting is where a cyclist under- or over-takes in a stream of traffic.
In Australia and in the UK, lane splitting is legal, although requires rapt attention because motorists can switch lanes suddenly. Many motorists fail to look out for cyclists when switching lanes but it’s also important for cyclists to recognise that they may be riding in a motorist’s ‘blind’ zone.
According to CTC’s Roger Geffen, there used to be an element of doubt about whether or not lane splitting was contrary to the UK Highway Code and hence whether cyclists who did it could potentially be prosecuted for a general offence such as “careless” or “inconsiderate” cycling. But this has now been cleared up in the latest version of the Highway Code.
The old Highway Code (1998 version) had two rules which, in different ways, told drivers not to change lanes to overtake on the left. The old Rule 129 (which was about driving in slow-moving traffic) said:
129. You should
• […]
• not change lanes to the left to overtake
And old rule 139 (which was about overtaking) said:
139. Overtake only when it is safe to do so. You should
• […]
• only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so
• stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left
The problem was that it was never really clear how this last bullet-point applied to a cyclist. The traffic on his/her right might be moving more slowly, but the cyclist him/herself wouldn’t be moving slowly in a queue, nor was there a lane that they should stay in (unless there was a marked cycle lane).
The new Highway Code has cleared up the uncertainty. Old rule 129 has been replaced by new rule 151, which has a new bullet-point on the end:
151. In slow-moving traffic. You should
• […]
• be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side
So cyclists and motorcyclists overtaking slow-moving traffic on either the left or the right can now say that this is sanctioned by the Highway Code, as it alerts drivers to both possibilities.