Long Distance Competition/Ultracycling, Randonneuring and Endurance Cycling - Less expensive, more self-supported 1200K randonnees

I just found out the price of the RM1200 ... a whopping $535!

Personally, I would like to see an increase in number of inexpensive, lightly-supported, pay-as-you-go 1200Ks ... sort of like what the RM1200 was when I rode it in 2002. The cost was something like $175.00, and the riders paid for our own meals as we went. Because I have food allergies and a limited diet when I ride 1200Ks, that was absolutely perfect for me. I simply brought what I needed with me, rather than feeling forced to eat whatever was provided ... or worse, not being able to eat what I've paid for in my event fee because of the allergies ... or worse yet, not being provided with an adequate amount of food. I've experienced all three of those situations on "all-inclusive" 1200K events.

The Last Chance is another example of a lightly-supported, pay-as-you-go 1200K, and although I had a few minor, easily fixed, issues with that ride (accuracy of the cue sheet, and anti-climatic ending for slower riders), I very much liked the minimal support. It was just enough (a couple bag drops, booking the two motels, and providing pizza the first night), while still leaving us out there to fend for ourselves.

Even the PBP is pay-as-you-go ... it is up to the riders whether or not we want to eat at a control, and what we want to eat there is our choice too. We could opt to eat at a patisserie for breakfast rather than standing in line with 200 hundred other riders to eat breakfast at a control. Or we could opt to take advantage of the convenience of the control. Even sleeping accommodations were pay-as-you-go ... a nominal fee was charged for a bed at certain controls. Or we could sleep in ditch or a train shelter for free.

Why can't we have more 1200Ks where riders pay a basic fee to cover the cost of doing a bag drop or two, perhaps a motel or hall rental in a convenient location (i.e. the 400K and 800K points), and perhaps fuel for a sweep vehicle or two to check on riders on the last day or so ... and then leave the riders to pay for whatever else they may need as they need it?

Isn't the whole idea of randonneuring to be relatively self-supported, or at least to be allowed that choice? Isn't part of the excitement of a randonnee that feeling that it is you, the cyclist, vs. the environment with only your bicycle and whatever you can carry to get you through?

<hijack>
Machka, if you do the last chance this year, come stay at my house or at least have a coffee or something, it's practically right here.
</hijack>

One of my club buddies did the PBP last year. He did it in style. He had a complete support team that drove his car with a caravan between the stops (they had to drive far from the PBP route between stops to comply with the rules).

He then slept and ate in the caravan. He had his food cooked for him so all he had to do was eat, sh*t and sleep while he was off his bike. He finished at around 85-86 hours, IIRC. They also provided him with a freshly charged GPS unit (he used two identical units, so one would always be charging) and batteries for his non-generator lamp (main lamp was powered by a Schmidt generator hub). He even had time to post to his blog during the stops.

Maybe not quite true to the spirit of randonneuring, but still within the rules of the PBP.

the cascade 1200 (http://cascade1200.com) is "only" $275, it seems a bit more reasonable than $500+ at least.

CdCf: i thought any outside support was against rando rules? or are those just the un-written rules?

The rules state that support is allowed as long as it is provided ONLY at the controls. Support between the controls is "illegal".

In the case CdCf talks about, if the rider was provided all this support at the controls, that would be fine. If it were provided elsewhere along the route, the rider should have been disqualified.

Although all kinds of support are technically allowed (at controls), I just think something of the spirit and excitement and challenge is lost when riders are "hand-held" and "spoon-fed" all along the way. However, that's not really the point of my comments. The reason why the prices of some of these events is going through the roof is because organizers are trying to "hand-hold" and "spoon-feed" riders all the way through the events rather than setting them loose on a course to fend for themselves ... and I think organizers could easily cut back on support, lower the costs, and still run a very good event.

Personally, I don't want that much support.

I have NEVER wanted to have meals included in the price of my randonnees. In my experience, organizers just don't know how to feed long distance riders anyway ... so why bother trying. (As an aside, if organizers are going to include meals, I strongly believe they should talk to clubs like the Elbow Valley Cycling Club in Calgary and the Edmonton Bicycle and Touring Club in Edmonton. The EVCC does an incredible job with the food on the Golden Triangle Tour, and the EBTC did a great job with the food on their Tour de l'Alberta. Lots of other rides could learn from them.)

I also prefer to limit myself to one (if the route is an out and back) or two (if the route is a loop route) bag drops. There were something like 5 for the BMB, and that was just confusing and frustrating. I'd much rather just deal with one bag. That way I've either got it on the bicycle, or it is in the bag, or I have to buy it along the way. Nice and simple.

Most controls could be information controls, or controls where riders get their cards signed by business people of the town they are going through. That's the way the brevets in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba are run. They could have a couple volunteers at the first control because riders might still be coming through in a group, but riders usually spread out so stamping cards wouldn't be a hardship on the person in the local convenience store.

And I like the idea of having a hall or a place of some sort at about the 400K and 800K points where riders can sleep for a while, without having to track down a motel.

A sweep vehicle employed during the last 24-30 hours or so of the event would also probably be a good safety idea ... checking up on the slower riders, making sure that everyone is accounted for, etc.

But really, other than that, how much support do we need?

Yeah, I was planning on doing the Rocky Mountain 1200 until I found out the price. That combined with the airfare to Kamloops is too expensive for me this year. I agree with Machka, there should always be an option to pay as you go. I'm vegan, so chances are good I won't be eating any of the provided food, making it a big waste of money for me.

The rules state that support is allowed as long as it is provided ONLY at the controls. Support between the controls is "illegal".

In the case CdCf talks about, if the rider was provided all this support at the controls, that would be fine. If it were provided elsewhere along the route, the rider should have been disqualified.


Only at the controls, of course. He didn't spend all that money and training just to be DQ'd in France...

Of course, the Americans do tend to stretch the rules to suit their own. On PBP, we noted one American rider who received support from a registered support vehicle on course. Evidently, the problem was a crook rear wheel. We saw the crew replace the wheel for him on the side of the road as we rode past. The support crew then used the official riding course to access their way back to the next control. We were flabbergasted that this had been so blatant. But what can you do? If that rider finished, there would be no amount of persuading that could make him see the incident as anything but required and expedient -- and to hell with the rules.

I have to say, I am quite comfortable with doing no 1200s and very few other randonnee events this year. I am seeing more and more cheating come into the sport, and our leadership in Australia has shown a prediliction for breaking the association's privacy rules to enable another member to gain a financial advantage (while not a direct riding issue, it is one that reflects the degeneration of the sport's administration).

BMB was a particularly bad experience for me, mainly because of the effect spoiled food had on Machka and her chances of finishing. I had paid a large amount of money to travel half way round the world and an expensive entry fee (by comparison to other 1200s I had ridden) to be served crap by the organisers that made people sick. The attitude of many associated with the organisation was lousy, starting at the top, and it is little wonder the event is now defunct.

The two 1200s other than PBP 2003 I have finished, the Great Southern in Australia and the Last Chance, both hold a very dear place in my heart (astonishing for the Last Chance, isn't it?). The GSR for the support that was willingly provided by volunteers for an entry fee way, way below the BMB one (and the food didn't make people sick), and the Last Chance for the surprise support that the organisers were able to weedle out of the entry fee.

Machka mentioned two touring clubs that could provide great lessons on catering. I would also toss in the organisers of the two Mid-West UMCA 24-Hour races that I have done. On both occasions the facilities and food were simple but extremely effective.

The challenges of randonneuring are diminishing, and my feelings over the past few years that the influx of racer cyclists (and not the 24-hour mob) who want to have support, support, support is contributing to this erosion. But then maybe I have a jaundiced view of that because my randonneuring experiences was based on rides in Tasmania with limited or no supported.

One poster on another forum unrelated to BFs, put it very nicely by saying: "I think with 1200k's priced at $540, we as a Randonneuring community run the risk of becoming exclusionary. One of the attractions of randonneuring is the socio economic and racial diversity of the people riding events (yes I know, we need more gender parity, but that is another topic), with BIG events, the ones that many aspire to ride some day priced at $540 plus, we run the risk of basically Ranodonneuring for some, that some being the Serotta riding, Mercedes driving, trophy house buying lads and lasses."

I haven't done any audax events so far, due to family commitments.

I contemplated just doing the LEL (london-endinburgh-london) as it would be easier to plan for one humungeous event than several smaller ones.

I contemplated it right up until I discovered that it was 'all inclusive', without an option to opt out of the food. Like Machka, I have food intolerances, and I couldn't trust the controls to provide me with 'safe' food. Equally, I couldn't justify spending over $300 USD on entry fees and then have to buy my own food.

At least in the U.S., there does seem to be a good diversity of 1200K experiences, both geographically and considering the level of cost one wants to bear and the services one wants included. The Shenandoah is a great value for the money ($175; $275 if you want the jersey and the bag drops), the Cascade is relatively inexpensive, and Bonifay 1200 (when its run) is also pretty low-frills. Machka already mentioned the Last Chance, which when I did it was $150 and got you two nights' hotel stay and all the pizza you could eat, personally delivered by John Hughes. The BMB and Gold Rush are more service-oriented, but then they're also much larger rides presenting more complex logistical challenges than these others.

I've only done two 1200s, but my limited observation was that most of those who didn't finish probably weren't going to finish no matter what the level of support was. The support at brevets varies tremendously throughout the U.S. -- from "next to none" in the midwest and parts of the south, to "fully catered and supported" on the West coast. It didn't seem to matter what one's previous experieces were, support-wise, when it came to finishing (or not) PBP. Oregon had a 100% finish rate (9/9), and I'd swear that out here you could get a manicure at some of the controles, they're so well provisioned. My Ohio bretheren, however, had an average finish rate, and these are folks who ride year-round in terrible weather with support that consists of being told to "go with God" after being handed the cue sheet (figuratively speaking, of course).

Personally, although I can live without it, I'm glad there's a lot of support and "hand-holding" out there at many randonneuring events. Seeing it means that there are huge numbers of volunteers, many of whom are giving up their own rides to help others, working to help out the riders, cheer them on, keep them dry, and get them fed and back on the road again. As long as so many people feel passionately about the sport to volunteer their time this way, I think the sport is in good shape. I'm also glad that there are so many people out there willing to organize events. At least in the U.S., this is relatively new; the number of brevets and 1200s has exploded in the last few years, and our permanents program (which takes a lot of work from a lot of people) I think has really added to participation in the sport (and provides for a very low-cost, DIY randonneuring option).

The big question for our sport is how to bring more young folks into it. In U.S., anyway, we're a growing sport, but it's growing by adding many more of the demographic that already makes up the vast majority of the riders. All these baby boomers will move on to other things (or pass on to the great controle in the sky!) and then there will be a big change in the sport. I'd be very, very surprised if PBP in 2015 draws 5000 riders.... I think finiding a way to draw in new blood is criticial to the sport surviving in as healthy and as diverse a form as it is today.

Finally, I'm not sure about the "true spirit of randonneuring" arguments (not that anyone here is making them). None of us -- even the bearded guy with his wool threads, down-tube shifters, and aged Brooks -- compares to the folks who pioneered the sport a century ago. And those who come after us will find their own ways to mold the sport to fit their times and lifestyles. The beauty and fun of randonneuring to me is that it is such a very, very big tent that welcomes everyone and treats them equally. How we ride, and what we ride, I expect will continue to change as it always has. But I hope this spirit of cameraderie will continue to endure, as it always has.

People shouldn't think the randonneur rules were/are 'writ in stone'. It wasn't until 1966 that the PBP maximum time limit was reduced to 90 hours (previously 96) and support between checkpoints was banned.

Expensive 1200s will ultimately live or die by their popularity. If you will only ever do one 1200, the entry cost is almost irrelevant. If you do two or more a year, entry cost becomes a significant factor. First-time riders tend to want the security of more extensive support, rather than the 'go with god' approach. I would guess that most randonneurs only do one 1200...

The big question for our sport is how to bring more young folks into it. In U.S., anyway, we're a growing sport, but it's growing by adding many more of the demographic that already makes up the vast majority of the riders. All these baby boomers will move on to other things (or pass on to the great controle in the sky!) and then there will be a big change in the sport. I'd be very, very surprised if PBP in 2015 draws 5000 riders.... I think finiding a way to draw in new blood is criticial to the sport surviving in as healthy and as diverse a form as it is today.


The average age of PBP riders has remained fairly static (just under 50) for the last few events (don't have the 1995 or 1991 average age figures to hand). This suggests that riders generally attempt brevets when they hit 'a certain age'. The historical descriptions I've read suggest that brevet riders have always leaned towards the gray-haired. Sure, as the number of riders hitting that age drops, the number of randonneurs will probably drop but that is inherent in any bulge in population distribution.

As I posted when this came up on the Randon list - one can ride out your back door and do a 1200k anytime one feels fit enough - but there wouldn't be any support, medals, jerseys, livebloggin, photos on the web, t-shirts, and cow bells. Nor would you be enshrined in someone's giant book of cycling...

So... in some cases - you get what you pay for. And in others I think it is organizers just trying to cover costs.

almost all of our events here in Texas are little to no fees at all.

To suggest that people would ride a 1200 on their own within the 90-hour limit is a bit disingenuous. The medallions really are the only constant along with the recognition (which is almost zero if you belong to an organisation like mine and do international events other than PBP).

And the trouble is, if you are a backmarker, often you don't get what you paid for. And even otherwise, you can get more than you bargained for with bad food!

Plus let's be quite clear... BMB when I participated wasn't, in my estimation, a big event despite all the hype associated with it, and the high entry fee. About the same time, I did the Mid-West 24H and that poohed all over the BMB for support, friendliness, road conditions, and so on. And the price was comparatively much better.

Oregon had a 100% finish rate (9/9), and I'd swear that out here you could get a manicure at some of the controles, they're so well provisioned.

It is all part of our evil plan to get people addicted to long distance riding. If I remember correctly, at the 200k spring last year we had fresh donuts and coffee at the start, a very nice variety of food and beverages at the 60k controle, and chocolate milk and cookies at the end. The 300k had food at the 120k controle, and the leftovers from that were brought to the finish line. The 400k had some cold pizza at the end, and no support on the course. On the 1000k we did last August, on the weekend after PBP, you pretty much got the brevet card and cue sheet, and that was it for the next three days.

I do solo unsupported rides, although I'll brag a little medals really don't mean too much for me, the only person I really feel I have to prove something to is me.

Several countries allow permanent brevets, allowing riders to do brevets whenever they want and at whatever cost they want . They are eligible for domestic awards but usually not for international randonneur awards. These events would seem to bridge the gap between 'overpriced 1200s' and doing long rides 'without recognition'.

There are no permanents in Australia, as far as I am aware. Only raids, which are a completely different animal.

There also is no pre-ride option -- something that would have allowed me to complete a 1200 for an international award if the pre-ride had been at Easter for the event that runs a week after. The pre-ride is a very attractive proposition for the purposes of course checking and increasing the pool of volunteers, who also have the chance of gaining credit for their ride.

And Australia also seems to have no six, 12 or 24-hour races as conducted by the UMCA. I suck at the races, but I still beat the guy who finished fourth in RAAM two years ago in Illinois (he retired, but is still registered as a finisher with the distance he recorded :D ). And I have never finished last :D :D.

However, like the 1200s, these races can take me places I haven't been before and there is an eclectic mix of competitors, most of whom don't have an elitist attitude, even if they are elite athletes of the highest standard. In other words, I can mix with those riders at a reasonable entry cost.

Also, don't think that I am in it for the medals. But bragging in Australia is a worthless exercise.

This question of expense of rides is, I think, something that Audax Australia is grappling with, particularly in how it should frame its 1200 calendars. One of the significant fears I have is that because Audax Australia has adopted a lowest-common-denominator approach by running myriad short rides (50, 100, 150 but no true centuries), the pool of volunteer organisers for longer, quality events is severely diminished.

Having chatted to members of BC Randonneurs, I understand that organisation veered away from running so many short rides, relying instead on a few quality short rides as pipe-openers to the season. The result is large turnouts, wiht one event basically paying for the remaining year's rides. And there is still an enthusiastic volunteer support base for the longer rides.

The volunteer issue also plays a pivotal role in ensuring event costs are contained. This was particularly evident with BMB where I understand many of the costs related to paying personnel at controls. That those employees at controls had not empathy for cycling was pretty evident on occasions. It could be argued that PBP does the same with its controls and catering, but the entry fee is such that you aren't paying for that service until you actually partake of it. And if you don't like it, there are many cafes and other eateries along the way.

For me, the single worst aspect ogf BMB was that the control that served up bad rice that made Machka so ill, and upset several other riders that we know of, was run by a high-falluting figure in randonneuring from the West Coast of the US. Go figure that he and his wife should have known better. But I do wonder who paid their air fares to attend the event on the East Coast.

Permanents are currently being discussed by Audax Oz, as noted recently in 'Checkpoint' and on the email list. Australian Raids are generally similar to European Raids and are brevets, just not ACP- or LRM-homologated brevets. Check the FFCT calendar, you will find more non-ACP than ACP brevets. Australian brevet organisers and their support crew can ride up to 8 days before or after their event and have it validated as if they rode on the day.

Some of your other points are a matter of opinion. The British have a different approach to running events to the Canadians (in respect to short vs long events) and, by chance, Australia is somewhat closer to the British model. Britain's experience is that involving more people with shorter brevets tends to result in a number of enthusiastic randonneurs that are not interested in riding long brevets but are happy to provide support to those that do.

I'm with Machka on wanting to pay for less support on 1200K's. I also got sick on BMB (but not as sick as her). Those of us who were riding at the end of the BMB train got pathetic support at many of the controls. I prefer the model of just stopping along the road to get food when you need it, and then at the control you check in and check out and you're on your way. At least you get moderately fresh food that way instead of stuff that's been sitting out for hours and who knows who has leaned over it and had their sweat drip on it or whatever. Bag drop at 400 and 800, since I do need/like to have food items that can't be bought roadside (hammergel).

As to in-between-control support at PBP, I saw this being provided to Italian, French, and Spanish riders (based on team jerseys). There were vehicles parked all along the summit of Roc Trevezel that seemed to be providing support to their riders. What can you do? Just ride your ride and be a happy camper. They have to live with themselves and look themselves in the eye when they're shaving or putting on makeup :-)

Best,

Nick

To suggest that people would ride a 1200 on their own within the 90-hour limit is a bit disingenuous.



yeah, but that is what it is really about, no? self reliant, self supported, long distance rides. officially, i think the fine print on most rides is that you are to assume you are on you're own ride when you are out there - you just happen to be out there with other people doing the same route at the same times as you are.

i guess i can't get my head around complaining about the cost (and not picking with you, but in general) - yet still wanting to have an organized 'ride' - organizers probably make little to no $$ on this. folks should choose events that suit them - if its fully catered - don't go, or pressure the organizer for a different option.



sorry you're BMB sucked. it was the end of a run for them - perhaps they were just done with it and dropped the ball.

and it is also odd that the support was so horrible - i emailed about a month or more prior - stating that i wasn't qualified for the ride but would volunteer for support in burlington or brattleboro. (the ride went right past my office in putney, vt) - i was turned down and told that 'BMB is fully staffed and we didn't need any volunteers'. i was also told to register for one of the longer events that didn't require a SR series - which i found was a bit odd - maybe they were short on cash?

so i planned a moving day and between loading my truck i sat on the front porch of the office and watched folks go by (about 8 miles north of brattleboro). i had a good chat with some folks who were on the return leg and had eaten at the diner across the street - remarkable energy and spirits for where they were in the ride.

Well, while I know that we can all go out and do a non-permanent, self-organised 1200 on our own... the big question is: Why? Tell me, how many posters here actually have and done it within the prescribed time limit.

But there is another issue at stake here for organised rides and that is Duty of Care. It is part and parcel of any event that is organised, not just randonnees. The participant makes a binding contract with the organiser, by filling out and entry form and paying a fee, that the organiser has taken all steps to ensure risks during the ride are reasonable, and that there has been no negligence on behalf of the organiser to minimise those risks and ensure the rider is capable of riding, continuing and completing the event. It also means there should be a plan if someone goes missing on an event to ensure their whereabouts is identified.

The things that are really starting to annoy me (I would use the P-off words actually) are organisers who are at the start, then aren't seen forever... or ride the event themselves! In one example of the first case, I had to mail my card to the organiser; too bad if I was still lying in a ditch somewhere three days later because the organiser was too incompetent to keep a proper check on my whereabouts during the ride. In the second, well, it happens too frequently... even the 1200 this month, the organiser is riding, and the entry fee isn't $15 -- more like $95. At 60 hours into the ride and without much sleep, how is he functionally going to be able to make a decision on an incident -- if anyone can even contact him?!!!!

I have organised both randonnees and public cycling events. Believe me, public cycling events really open your eyes to all sorts of these issues. And don't come at me with the "insurance will cover everything". Anyone who has had to deal with insurance cases knows that it can become a nightmare, and ultimately, you as the organiser are still held responsible.

I was always very nervous about the welfare of cyclists on my events, and ensured there was a proper count at the finish, and a follow-up if everyone wasn't accounted for. Apart from that, my risk management was good, and we never received a claim... although there was one occasion when a police officer knocked on my front door over pelotons upsetting traffic.

But it seems a laisse-faire attitude in riding randonnees also seems to be the culture among many organisers. And unfortunately, many of them concentrate too much on "looking after the rider" with support, rather than concentrating on the impact of their course, route instructions, and risk management.

The additional support in the form of huge quantities of food, and subsequent costs in entry fees, is not needed, in my view, and in many ways comes from some notion that we have to get more people into the sport. We are a marginal group -- we are sneered at by the racers and regarded as eccentric at least by other cyclists (and utterly stupid and fit for the mad-house by the remaining public).

Take as an example. I am not sure of the financial outcomes this year, but in 2007 I understand that Audax Australia's flagship event, the Alpine Classic 200, which has a good volunteer base but offers a huge support, ran at a loss! Why?!! It brings out hundreds of riders who couldn't give a hoot about randonneuring at any other time of the year. Yet the regulars like me have to underwrite the Alpine Classic. When a large event gets to a loss-making point, then a severe review of its intentions and benefits to the sport needs to be done. As far as I can see, except for internal coverage through the AA newsletter, there are no benefits deriving from what is just another 200km randonnee.

Rowan, attitudes differ between countries, regions and organisers regarding support and duty of care. As an example, Britain has a documented risk analysis method for its events and an organiser classification and mentoring system but explicitly states that entrants are on their own ride and that the organiser has no obligation to sweep the course or transport DNFs (some organisers choose to do so, of course). It is fairly common for their 'shoestring events' to require the rider to post completed brevets cards to the organiser, whether the organiser is riding or not (effectively riding a group permanent). Australia has more of a culture of providing support to riders but currently has no documented risk analysis or organiser mentoring (both still being developed/agreed). Provided the rider is aware of the circumstances when entering, I think there is room for different approaches. There is more than one method of holding a good event, speaking as someone who has organised both randonnees and 'public cycling events'.

The Alpine Classic has traditionally made an excess, with significant money going to Audax Australia. I'm not sure of their 2007 figures but personally, I am not going to get too hassled about a single year over-budget.

I can only speak to the U.S., but it sounds like the duty of care is very different here than in Australia. It's assumed, even on highly organized club and century rides here that you're out there on your own, ultimately responsible for yourself, and that you have no or, at best, little recourse against a ride organizer or ride sanctioning body if something goes wrong, even if it's the fault of the organizer. Depends on the state, but the waivers we all sign are generally enforced and even if they're not, good luck recovering for your injuries when counsel for defendant ride organizer waives the release you signed in front of the jury. That takes care of negligence. Intentional torts generally are not waivable, but then your remedy is against the individual and not the club/organization, and good luck with recovering on your judgment from Joe or Jane Blow ride volunteer. (Sorry, law geek here.)

It depends on the RBA, but the expectation and the understanding in the States is that you’re really out there on your own, no matter what you were promised or what you were delivered. There is no sweep. So one is obligated to after DNFs, although if you DNF you’re encouraged to call someone so that folks know where you are and that you’re o.k. Organizers who do their own rides are common. Posting cards is very common (or leaving them under the wiper blade of the RBA if you beat him to the finish).

One of the take-aways I have from this thread is that us randonneurs could collectively do a better job at expectation management. There’s such a diversity in our sport in how rides are organized and run. I’ve found that most people are o.k. with most circumstances and levels of support/service/whatever, so long as they know what the deal is beforehand. I’m not talking about getting poisoned or paying for food that you never get. Those are problems and they’d be treated as problems anywhere and,, I hope resolved in the future if not made right on the present ride. But I’ve seen a lot of dissatisfied folks at rides and have thought, “Well of course thus-and-such was the way it was. That’s how it always is here.” We could do a better job proactively educating folks about what to expect, and those

It also sounds like bringing permanents or something similar to other parts of the world would also be a good idea. The permanent system in the U.S. is wildly popular and growing exponentially. And there are a couple of them that are over 2000K long. No medal, but I imagine the bragging rights and respect that would come with pulling either of those off (Salt Lake City to Navoo, IL, and Sacramento to St. Joseph, MO) would be tremendous. Many of the permanents are free. Many more are $5 to cover the cost of posting the control cards. Don’t like any of the routes? Create your own. Build it, and they will come.

It is well recognised in Australia that the waiver of responsibility and conditions of entry of an event are virtually worthless in a court of law if an aggrieved participant (or their estate) takes action against negligence of an organiser. Negligence is negligence, and no amount of "accepting responsbility and liability" can mitigate the outcomes of that negligence. But you talk to the average organiser about this, and they give a blank stare, chuckle, then say it's OK because we have insurance.

I have so often heard the words: "We don't need insurance, we can take responsibility for our own actions". Sadly, it doesn't work like that when the person saying that is permanently paralysed and faces an expensive future, or dies and the beneficiaries of their estate are left bereft. Insurance companies are not renowed for making big payouts here in Australia without pursuing every minor avenue to prevent that loss.

Hell, we are having enough trouble here in Australia convincing travel insurers, for example, that participating in a randonnee is not bicycle racing; to get insurance to cover things like PBP and other similar randonnees overseas now requires additional paperwork indicating coverage does in fact exist. Otherwise, a participant who is injured may face huge medical and repatriation expenses if the insurer decrees the event to be racing. It's also why I get irritated when people, even within the sport, described randonnees as "races".

The liability for individuals is as open as it is for an organisation. The World Pennyfarthing Championships in Evandale, Tasmania, placed its organisers at huge risk (to the point of bankruptcy) when they failed to carry adequate PL insurance... a rider went off into the crowd and severely injured a spectator who then took appropriate liability action.

In fact, the US is so litigious about these sorts of things, that tourism operators in Australia have been told in the past to be cognisant that if an American has a bad time on a trip here, the aggrieved American has a right to sue the operator for recovery of all expenses of that trip. Could that extend to making a special trip to participate in an Australian randonnee? Quite possibly!

And just to balance things a bit about BMB, the one thing that did impress us was the close attention paid by the co-organiser to the welfare of cyclists along the route, both mechanically and physically. In fact, it was sensational. But I can't help but think that the reason is that because it was a privately run event, there was more acute awareness of risk management and liability than exists for club events where a gung-ho attitude can take over.

Another example... the Perth-Albany-Perth 1200 randonnee was put at risk several years ago because during (I think) it's inaugural running, a rider suffered bad chest injuries when the stem broke on the bike. There were some other issues related to the incident, although I never got down to the details. However, the impact of that incident and I believe subsequent actions were profund enough to suggest at the time the event would not run again, at least under those organisers.

And I would truly be concerned about a culture that left me totally with the responsibility of making my own way on an organised ride despite negligence by the organiser. I seriously doubt that as a defence, giving up rights against negligence would stand up in court under the Westminster system.

Apart from that, yes, The Octopus, I agree with the other points you have made. Just be aware, this is an international forum, and while differences in (legal) cultures might exist, the physical and emotional outcomes for an individual rider of an incident resulting from organiser negligence can be as severe in the USA and UK as it is in Australia or South Africa. And I would rather more resources be put in to making organisers aware of those issues than putting another box of energy bars on a control table.

It is well recognised in Australia that the waiver of responsibility and conditions of entry of an event are virtually worthless in a court of law if an aggrieved participant (or their estate) takes action against negligence of an organiser. Negligence is negligence, and no amount of "accepting responsbility and liability" can mitigate the outcomes of that negligence.

[snip!]

And I would truly be concerned about a culture that left me totally with the responsibility of making my own way on an organised ride despite negligence by the organiser. I seriously doubt that as a defence, giving up rights against negligence would stand up in court under the Westminster system.

All I can say is not so in the U.S. In an international forum, we all need to be aware that the rules can be totally different once we start crossing boundaries. Here, waivers are generally good as to ordinary negligence, sometimes good as to gross negligence, and good only under special circumstances as to intentional acts. Heck, if you can get beyond the waiver/release, in some states you're barred if you contributed to any degree to your own injury. So for those of you riding the Shenandoah 1200, beware -- Virginia is a pure conrtrib state. Insurance? In the U.S., insure yourself; no event organizer (and heavens forbid, certainly not the government!) is going to do it for you.


Just be aware, this is an international forum, and while differences in (legal) cultures might exist, the physical and emotional outcomes for an individual rider of an incident resulting from organiser negligence can be as severe in the USA and UK as it is in Australia or South Africa. And I would rather more resources be put in to making organisers aware of those issues than putting another box of energy bars on a control table.

I didn't think this was in dispute. The point originally raised was as to the contractual -- i.e., the legal -- obligation of an event organizer for the event's riders. This is, of course, totally separate from one's moral responsibility or whether the ride organizer did the "right" thing in creating or responding to a situation. Also, in the U.S. we tend to think of liability as entirely separate from one's injury or damage(we think this way because that's what our law is.... or vice versa. That's a tough one....). One who wrecks due to a broken stem (been there, done that) is just is hurt in the U.S. as in one of the Commonwealth countries and the impact of the tragedy on that person and his or her family is likely the same, but what one's stading in the eyes of the law is seems to be totally different.

...As an example, Britain has a documented risk analysis method for its events and an organiser classification and mentoring system but explicitly states that entrants are on their own ride and that the organiser has no obligation to sweep the course or transport DNFs (some organisers choose to do so, of course).

I'd be interested to know more about the risk analysis / organizer classification and mentoring, if you could either post more about it or include a relevant website. This sounds like a good idea.

Thanks.

There is some information on http://www.aukweb.net/official/index.htm and in their Arrivee magazine regarding risk assessment and suchlike but detailed information is only available to AUK organisers. Perhaps it would be better to ask the question to AUK itself via http://www.aukweb.net/feedback/trialcontactus.html

In summary, AUK organisers are Class 1,2 or 3, based on whether they have previously organised events lasting 1,2 or more days (<400, 400-600, >600). Their classification is noted in the calendar. Organisers have to get approval to organise an event beyond their current classification. That approval includes review of their 'mentor', an experienced organiser of higher classification. The mentor offers suggestions to the organiser and answers questions but makes no decisions regarding the event (the organiser has control). The mentor can mention items of concern to Audax UK, if they believe that problems may result.

It is fairly common for jaded organisers to pass their events to new organisers and to become their mentor. This system gives some continuity and a safety net against significant mistakes for new organisers.

So, The Octopus, tell me the legal processes involved in this article originating from the US and why the same principles of negligence could not apply in an randonneuring event (put aside the fact it is an Australian facing the charges, and take particular note of the final paragraph):

------

Aussie drag racer to learn US crash fate
Monday Mar 10 09:56 AEDT

Australian drag racer Troy Critchley will soon know if US authorities will charge him for last year's car show crash in Tennessee that left six spectators dead and more than 20 injured.

A grand jury was convened in Tennessee's McNairy County last week to probe the June 16 incident.
The court proceedings were held in private to decide if criminal charges should be filed and the recommendations may not be made public for several weeks.

Critchley, a 37-year-old Queenslander who moved to the US a decade ago and earned the nickname "The Burnout King" from American motoring fans, was one of the star attractions at the 18th Annual Cars for Kids charity event in the Tennessee town of Selmer.

Amateur video footage showed Critchley's high-performance Corvette crashing into a crowd unprotected by safety barriers.

Tennessee District Attorney General Michael Dunavant declined to confirm or deny if a grand jury had been convened and if indictments had been issued against Critchley or anyone else.

Dunavant said state law prohibited him from disclosing information about grand jury sealed indictments.

However, a lawyer representing victims of the car crash, Mark Donahoe, told Tennessee's Jackson Sun newspaper a special session of the McNairy County Grand Jury convened last week.

Donahoe could not confirm if anyone was indicted but told the newspaper, based on his legal experience, Critchley would be an obvious person the grand jury would consider charging.

If Critchley escapes criminal charges, he will still have to contend with civil legal action.

At least 16 civil lawsuits have been filed against Critchley, his racing team, the Cars for Kids organisation, Cars for Kids founder Larry Price and the city of Selmer seeking more than $US100 million ($A108 million) in damages.

©AAP 2008

------

The point I am trying to make is that the discussion we have had actually encourages organisers of events (in the US) to not take their duties of care seriously when patently cases like this show they should take those duties of care a lot more seriously.

and why the same principles of negligence could not apply in an randonneuring event


It is pretty hard to do a burnout on a bike? ;)

Yes, I thought someone would make a wisecrack like that. But deaths do occur on randonnees (one in Australia, even, and on PBP) and other LD events (Bob Breedlove on RAAM). We don't hear of serious and incapacitating injuries, and admittedly, some of the issues are clouded here in Australia by compulsory motor vehicle insurance and what really is poor coverage by the Cycling Australia master insurance policy that also covers Audax Australia.

The matter, for me, in this instance, relates to the negligence of the promoters in not providing a fence to protect the people (something that is similar in a way to the Pennyfarthing accident I mentioned previously). Plus, more importantly, the trail of liability that the civil suits obviously have identified.

I am using this case to illustrate that organisers and promoters can't always put themselves above negligence and risk management issues as suggested by other posters.

Rowan, you are making some good points but not every statement has to be deathly earnest...

I raced in Evandale back in the early 90s (brag: 3rd in the Oz championships). Any barrier high enough to stop a crashing penny means nobody gets to see them at all. Spectators regularly get collected by rally cars but rallying still goes on with spectators standing by. Not all risks can or should be 'designed out', although the number of risks can be reduced.

By the way, there have been at least 2 rider deaths due to traffic incidents during Australian brevets, including our first ever 1200 in 1992. Neither were the fault of the organiser.

Am I to understand that we want cheaper events, but we want organisers to do more for our safety and well being, and we need to be sure we can sue them if the rice goes bad and something goes wrong up the road?

Seems like I'd be raising my rates if I were running an event...

I contemplated just doing the LEL (london-endinburgh-london) as it would be easier to plan for one humungeous event than several smaller ones.

Well, there's the (new for this year) Flamborough Head 1000 (http://www.aukweb.net/cal/calsolo.php?Ride=08-888)? A snip at a mere £5? :-)

So, The Octopus, tell me the legal processes involved in this article originating from the US and why the same principles of negligence could not apply in an randonneuring event (put aside the fact it is an Australian facing the charges, and take particular note of the final paragraph):

...

The point I am trying to make is that the discussion we have had actually encourages organisers of events (in the US) to not take their duties of care seriously when patently cases like this show they should take those duties of care a lot more seriously.

The case is fundamentally different. Legally, the anaology you're looking for would be if the guy who crashed into the crowd sued the organizers for failing to put the proper safety fence in place. Duties to the public (spectators) are fundamentally different than duties to participants, especially when the event one is participating in is inherently dangerous (a legal term of art, which I'm sure drag racing is and I'll bet that randonneuring would be found by our courts to be).

All you need to sue someone in the U.S. is a complaint and the filing fee. That the injured spectators sued everyone in sight is not surprising, but it means nothing in analyzing whether their case is meritorious or, if it is, whether they would ever recover anything. Note that cases on spectator injuries in the U.S. are a mixed bag, at best. People get hit by hockey pucks and baseballs here all the time. Some of them are killed; many more are seriously injured. Lots of them sue. Many of those cases are dismissed long before trial, even cases where one is severely injured and where the spectator was doing nothing "wrong." I'm glad to discuss further the intracicies of the U.S. legal system, but it's probably best discussed off-line at this point as we've drifted a bit afield from the original subject of the thread.

At least in the U.S., I don't think that the call for less expensive events can be squared with the call for more event organizer responsibility for the riders. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way here. A lot of what you're talking about are services that we associate with a "guide" -- one who ultimately acepts responsibility for the participant's safety and well-being during participation in the event. I can't speak to cycling, but in the skiing world, having someone take on that kind of duty for you increases the cost of participation by a factor of 10 (same is true is Canada, actually, at least in the Selkirks). Not only does the cost increase by an order of magnitude, but the other thing that happens is that those taking on that kind of responsibility (again, in the U.S.) get really picky about who they'll allow to participate. Look for qualification standards for the longer brevets and especially the 1200s to increase, which would result in the back-of-the-pack crowd no longer being permitted to participate. The U.S. being the market-driven place that it is, some outfits would permit participation by slower/less-prepared/less-experienced riders, but they would only be permitted entry if they paid more than everyone else (to compensate for the increased risk in taking them on). Think of the 90-hour starters at PBP being charged twice as much as the 84-hour group to do the ride. Of course, this would be completely fair since, as a group, their DNF rate, and thus the attention that they would require from the organizers and the risks to themselves and others that their participation entails is twice that of the 84-hour group.

My guess is no one would like that system, but that's what we'd soon have in the U.S. if the risk/responsibility dynamic were altered as you suggest.

Am I to understand that we want cheaper events, but we want organisers to do more for our safety and well being, and we need to be sure we can sue them if the rice goes bad and something goes wrong up the road?

Seems like I'd be raising my rates if I were running an event...

I want less expensive events, where the organizers have taken due care to put the route on the best roads possible (light traffic, shoulders, etc.) and provide me with the best instructions possible (accurate route sheets). That's all.

I don't need food or accommodations or any of that, although accommodations at the 400K and 800K points would be a nice additional touch. Sweep vehicles in the last 24-30 hours would also be a nice additional touch.

Producing an event like that would be relatively simple for the organizers, and cost-effective for them too. I say "relatively simple" because as an organizer who has designed a set of routes for a full Super Randonneur series, I know that designing a good, accurate route is a little bit time consuming and challenging. But on the day of the event, I have nothing to do but ride it, and it costs me no money.


---------------------------------------------------------------
The insurance etc. talk above has kind of lost me but I will say this ... here in Canada there is a national cycling association called the CCA. The CCA has connections with an insurer. All the racing cycling associations (Manitoba Cycling Association, Alberta Cycling Association, etc.) are linked to the CCA, and if you want to race, your annual licence includes insurance. This insurance does nothing for the racers ... it protects the ride organizers and the cycling associations. Most cycle-touring clubs also link up with the CCA and get insurance through them too for the same reason ... for the club's protection, not for the cyclist. When I was with the Manitoba Cycling Association, they had not linked up with the CCA. I'm not sure what they were doing with regard to insurance. However, the Alberta Cycling Association is linked with the CCA.

This means that all Alberta Randonneurs pay a $50 membership fee. Of that fee, $25 goes to the club, and $25 goes toward the insurance. What this means for me as an organizer is that if someone wants to come out and try my 200K, and that's the only ride they want to do this year, I still have to charge them $25 to cover the insurance fee ... ultimately so that I am protected in case something goes wrong.

Riders of any sort here in Canada have to get their own insurance if they want to be covered for medical expenses over and above what is normally covered here in Canada (or in your own country).

I had sort of assumed that all organized rides around the world had a similar system in place.


---------------------------------------------------------------
Incidentally, if I were going to organize a 1200K, I'd do it like my 600K. My 600K is a sort of misshapen figure 8. I've got a 400 km loop to start with, and then a 200 km loop to finish. Where the ride starts, ends, and comes in at the end of the 400 km loop is an area of town with a couple hotels, and a couple restaurants, and a couple nearby 24-hour convenience stores. If I were to get a rider from out of town, that rider could opt to book a room in a hotel there if he/she wanted, for the night before the ride, for the night during the ride, and for the night after the ride. It's very convenient.

I'd do the same with a 1200K ... I'd probably have three different 400 km loops, like petals of a flower, all starting and ending in some convenient location where there would be accommodations and other facilities available. I'd give the riders the best/most accurate instructions I could, including information about sources of food and water along the route, and send them on their way.

A route like this would make it very convenient for the riders because they could just come and book in at a hotel of their choice (or campground, or whatever was available), and keep the place for a 5 days or whatever they wanted. They wouldn't have to seek out accommodations along the route. Also, I wouldn't need to provide bag drops because they could leave whatever they wanted in their hotel room and pick it up when they came through. They could also arrange to have the food of their choice in their rooms ... for example, I'd have several bottles or cans of Ensure waiting for me. I also wouldn't need volunteers because the riders should be able to take care of themselves for 400 kms (they would have completed at least one 400K brevet before the 1200K), and then at the end of 400 kms they would be back in a town with all sorts of facilities available if they needed something in particular ... and a town they might have become a little bit familiar with if they arrived a day or two in advance.

I don't know why more, or some, 1200Ks aren't run like this.

Machka,

Couple of comments...

This means that all Alberta Randonneurs pay a $50 membership fee. Of that fee, $25 goes to the club, and $25 goes toward the insurance.

Insurance through the RUSA costs each rider, $1.60 per day. So a 1200k costs $6.40. Brevet fees include this insurance in the cost. Permanent ride insurance coverage is included in the $20 annual RUSA membership fee.

I don't know why more, or some, 1200Ks aren't run like this.

From RUSA website:
"Daisy" routes composed of a set of loops or out-and-backs that keep returning to the starting/ending point should be avoided. Riders never get very far from the starting point, so it is likely they will be riding on familiar roads the whole time. Others will be tempted to quit each time they return to the starting/finishing point.

--
SharpT

I don't know why more, or some, 1200Ks aren't run like this.

From RUSA website:
"Daisy" routes composed of a set of loops or out-and-backs that keep returning to the starting/ending point should be avoided. Riders never get very far from the starting point, so it is likely they will be riding on familiar roads the whole time. Others will be tempted to quit each time they return to the starting/finishing point.

--
SharpT


I'm thinking that's RUSA's rule, not the ACP rule.

But then here's my question ... what's wrong with riding on familiar roads? Riding on familiar roads reduces the risk of getting lost, and may reduce the risk of getting hurt because you know that this particular intersection is one you have to watch out for, or that stretch of road has a lot of potholes so you've got to be careful, etc. Also, if you take the RM1200 for example, the stretch from Jasper back to Kamloops is one I'm VERY familiar with. Not only have I cycled it several times, but I've also driven it more times than I can remember, so even with an out and back, or one big loop, there will be riders who know the route like the backs of their hands.

I can see how it might be a temptation for some riders to quit, but on any 1200K there are going to be riders who quit. Approx. 30% of us quit on the Gold Rush the year I rode it, and approx. 30% of us quit on the PBP last year. To me, a "daisy" route gives those who are thinking of quitting the incentive to make it to the 400K or 800K point, back at the starting point again. And if you finish one loop and can get a bit of rest and something to eat in familiar surroundings, maybe you might perk up and be willing to have a go at another loop.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Oh, in thinking about it, I think the ACP rule is that the route cannot contain the same road going the same direction. So a person could create a "daisy" route as long as each loop was different from any of the other loops ... used different roads, or at least different roads going the same direction as before.

ACP rules state:

Preferred preference is to make a circuit (de preference en circuit).... no multiple loops allowed (plusieurs boucles ne sont pas admis). I assume they mean multiple same loops, but they don't make the distinction.

I have no real opinion on this matter, just trying to gather info on the subject.

--
SharpT
Je parle comme une vache espagnole.

ACP rule refers to riding the same roads multiple times, particularly in the same direction. Some countries interpret things more strictly than others.

It seems that the more opportunities that riders have to pull out of an event, the more they are likely to do so.

ACP rules state:

Preferred preference is to make a circuit (de preference en circuit).... no multiple loops allowed (plusieurs boucles ne sont pas admis). I assume they mean multiple same loops, but they don't make the distinction.

I have no real opinion on this matter, just trying to gather info on the subject.

--
SharpT
Je parle comme une vache espagnole.

Yes, they mean multiple same loops. When I created my 600K, I had to submit it for approval, and it was approved, but I was also told that I could not use my 200K, 300K, or 400K routes as any of the loops on my 600K. So in other words, I couldn't just put together my 200K route and 400K route to create my 600K route.

It seems that the more opportunities that riders have to pull out of an event, the more they are likely to do so.

Is that actually a problem? IMO, if a rider wants to pull out of an event, that's fine. It's the rider's decision based on his/her inner dialogue. I know from the organizer's perspective, it's nice to have a high percentage of riders finish, but from both an organizer's perspective and a rider's perspective, I'd rather have somewhat more convenient rides ... potentially safer rides.

I don't know how the men here feel, but I'm now speaking from a female perspective ...

I rode the RM1200 in 2002 because I knew my father would be providing support for some of the ride (he ended up providing a lot more support than I anticipated), and because at that time, I didn't realize it was possible for riders to ride alone. At that point, I was riding with the Manitoba Randonneurs and they didn't let any riders ride alone, unless the rider wanted to ride alone. In other words, they didn't leave female riders stranded out there on their own.

I rode the PBP in 2003 because I was told over and over that I would never ride alone. As it happened, within about 10 kms from the start I did ride alone for a while but then I hooked up with people.

I rode the Great Southern in 2004, the Last Chance in 2005, and the BMB in 2006 because I had ride partners.

One of the reasons I DNF'd the Gold Rush was because the group of 3 guys I was riding with DNF'd at about the same place I did. If I were to continue, I would have had to head out into completely unknown territory at night ... ALONE. And I knew that there would be no sag support between the control I DNF'd at and the next control ... no one checking up on me, no one riding with me ...

And here in Alberta, I do most of my brevets solo. Here, the other riders don't care about leaving female riders stranded out there on their own ... and they have lost female riders because of it. (Lost, in the sense that these women have absolutely no desire to ride brevets anymore ... one in particular is ademently opposed to them).

It was with that in mind, that I created my 600K the way I did. At the end of my 400K loop on my 600K, I'm back home. I can spend a couple hours in my own bed, surrounded by my own things. This is VERY comforting when you've just spent 24 hours or so in the middle of the Canadian prairie with nothing to keep you company but a fading radio.

And it is with that in mind, that I would like to see the creation of "daisy" 1200Ks. I (or other women) could do a 400K loop on my own, if necessary ... chances are I (or other women) have already done one previously (and in my case, those chances are VERY good! :D). And then coming in to a central place which is familiar would allow us to relax mentally as well as physically.

Organizers keep asking how to get more women involved in the sport ... well .... there's one suggestion!


Edit: BTW - this is also why I suggest sweep vehicles in the last 24-30 hours of a ride. I'm usually OK out there early on in the ride ... it's later in the ride when the hallucinations start, the mental functions get fuzzy, and the isolation and loneliness sets in. It's possible I might have continued the Gold Rush if I knew that on the way back I'd have regular sweep vehicles going by checking up on me to make sure I was OK, but I knew that wouldn't happen.

The matters of risk management and insurance do in fact impinge on the costs of running an event. In the context of the overall expenditure, it might be minimal, but nevertheless, they do exist, at least in Australia and Canada.

But let's be quite clear here. While in the US there patently exists this "No Care, No Responsibility" ethic, it isn't so in other countries. Indeed, Audax Australia had to suspend all its events at one stage several years ago until it could find an insurer willing to take on the risk. This was after all but one insurer in the Australian market (companies based in the US and Europe) withdrew their coverage of cycling (competitive and otherwise) because of severe losses arising, as I understand, out of the 11 September event.

The issue wasn't only for cycling in Australia. The ridiculously exhorbitant increase in premiums or axing of coverage left many, many community organisations uninsured and their officers exposed to unreasonable risk of being sued.

The one cycling insurer left got into bed with Cycling Australia, and the only avenue for Audax Australia left was to lose its independence as a cycling organisation, and become affiliated with CA. Many other cycling organisations had to do the same thing. Some, like the one I worked for, were able to find a solution through a municipal community insurance program, but that was more sheer good luck than anything else... and it wasn't a competitive organisation.

The cost impact for Audax Australia members meant a (small and admittedly reasonable) rise in the annual membership fee, and a rise in entry fees.

I am just fascinated by the concept in the US that someone potentially can organise an event, be negligent in producing route instructions that result in a turn left over a cliff in the middle of the night, and not be cited for it in any jurisidiction. We've already had an example of bad instructions on the Gold Rush, and I know of other events in other countries where bad instructions have been drawn down from previous years, because the organisers have been negligent in re-checking them.

And bmike, no-one said anything about suing for bad rice (but if someone had died, you betcha!). I would, however, do without the rice, enjoy the same same level of attention to rider care on the course that was offered, and have a lower entry fee.

And LWaB, cite some evidence supporting your argument about riders more like to withdraw from an event based on the daisy-flower or loops concept. With mobile phones, and motor vehicle support, plus the need for checkpoints on any route, surely the same temptations exist on a linear return or single loop course. I didn't see any particular high rate of withdrawal on the 400 and 600 PBP qualifiers I did in Victoria last year, and they were daisy-flower events. Id did the same 600 the previous year, and the finishing rate was probably higher!

I am just fascinated by the concept in the US that someone potentially can organise an event, be negligent in producing route instructions that result in a turn left over a cliff in the middle of the night, and not be cited for it in any jurisidiction. We've already had an example of bad instructions on the Gold Rush, and I know of other events in other countries where bad instructions have been drawn down from previous years, because the organisers have been negligent in re-checking them.

First, I need to correct something I said in an earlier post; I was thinking of the right doctrine, but wrote the wrong thing. Randonneuring probably is an "untrahazardous" or "inherently dangerous" activity. That means if you, the rider, hurt someone while doing it, you're going to be strictly liable for the injuries you cause. More good news for you from the States....

The idea I meant to convey is what we call "assumption of the risk," which is related but different. One assumes the risk of an activity when he or she voluntarily engages in an inherently dangerous activity. The law (in the US, of course) deems that person to be partially or entirely responsible for his or her own injuries. (Just when it's "partial" and when it's "entire" is complicated and I'll spare you all unless you clamour for more law jibberish from me.) An essential element of assumption of risk is the extent to which the risk of the injuries was inherent to the activity and was a foreseeable part of the activity. Getting misrouted is typical (it's the rare cue sheet in my experience that matches road signage perfectly), and the kinds of injuries one might suffer from getting misrouted are probably inherent in trying to ride 1200K in 90 hours or less (getting lost, getting hit by traffic, etc.). The idea is that this is expected, to some degree, so when it happens, it's not the fault of the organizer. Now knowingly routing someone over an unmarked cliff? That's not negligence, that's an intentional act and that individual is going to be liable. Note that RUSA/Audax Australia/Randonneurs BC/etc. isn't going to be liabile for that kind of injury. I think the idea is alive and well in all the common law countries that such an act, unless ratified (and who the heck would do that?), is beyond the scope of one's duties and authority and is, therefore, not the responsibility of the organizing body. So you'd have a remedy against the RBA personally, but not likely against RUSA.

++++

As for clover-leafs, I'm a fan. Easy to organize, cheap, and totally eliminates the need for drop bags. I understand those who want rides that really get out there into distant terrain, but then those folks tend to come from clubs that have a lot more volunteers.... Our Ohio 1000K is set up in three different loops and it's really a great route (400/300/300). It's Labor Day weekend, so anyone needing a 1000K for their R5000, come on down and tour southern Ohio with us for three days. You won't be disappointed!

As for DNFs on clover leafs, I can offer that I've had riders tell me they quit because of the route design. Heck, a friend started the 600 with no real intention of riding more than the first 400 because he knew he could quit then. Would these guys have DNF'd anyway? Who knows. I'd be curious if there were actual data on DNF rates by route type as that would be interesting to see.

And LWaB, cite some evidence supporting your argument about riders more like to withdraw from an event based on the daisy-flower or loops concept. With mobile phones, and motor vehicle support, plus the need for checkpoints on any route, surely the same temptations exist on a linear return or single loop course. I didn't see any particular high rate of withdrawal on the 400 and 600 PBP qualifiers I did in Victoria last year, and they were daisy-flower events. Id did the same 600 the previous year, and the finishing rate was probably higher!

I can see we are going to disagree on this point Rowan. There are no published figures directly relating finish rate to course design, because nobody has bothered to categorise and analyse event results (most of us prefer to ride our bikes). Analysing individual events is meaningless, you need a significant sample size to get reasonably reliable results.

There is plenty of anecdotes noting that easy DNFing increases the rate of DNFs. Let's just say this is a well-known truism amongst for American, Australian, British and French randonneur organisations. Check the rates for car-supported and unsupported riders at PBP, car-supported riders always pull out at a greater rate. Multiple loop events also make it easy to pull out. I've ridden and organised several and it takes some extra determination to head out into the rain and dark for another 400 km when you could pack the bike in the car and be heading home within 10 minutes. If you look at where people DNF on multiple loop events, it is overwhelmingly at the 'home base', not 'out in the sticks'.

Personally, I don't particularly care if other people DNF, that is their concern. I have ridden brevets with new riders that have gone through a tough patch and seen their elation at successfully finishing a tough event. The ones that are having a low point near an easy DNF point quit more often than those who go through it elsewhere on the course. I can't argue that it is easier to organise a multi-loop course (that is why I occasionally do it myself) but it is a pity that riders (including me) may miss out on the joy of success purely because of geography.

The Octopus, I need to clarify something. When I refer to the turn over a cliff, I mean that the organiser has not deliberately and mischievously put the instruction in there, but rather in drawing up the instruction got the direction wrong, and then failed to check the course to ensure the instructions in their final form were, in fact, accurate. The act of negligence and failure in the duty of care could be seen as coming from the failure to check the accuracy of the instructions, which should be a matter of course for all organisers.

The Octopus, I need to clarify something. When I refer to the turn over a cliff, I mean that the organiser has not deliberately and mischievously put the instruction in there, but rather in drawing up the instruction got the direction wrong, and then failed to check the course to ensure the instructions in their final form were, in fact, accurate. The act of negligence and failure in the duty of care could be seen as coming from the failure to check the accuracy of the instructions, which should be a matter of course for all organisers.

Would it be better for the route sheet to be a list of towns to control in and their nominal distances, with no intermediate directions at all? This format is much more likely to be accurate (less to go wrong) but takes more thought from the rider to complete the course.

There are several permanents in Britain that use exactly this format and it is an interesting way to ride a brevet. It is up to the rider to work out how to get to each control and the organiser has no responsibility for the route at all.

Perhaps for discussion at another time. Bear in mind the circumstance I've used might be unlikely, but not impossible, and focusses on the need for organisers to check route instructions against the real course, and not just rely on information several years or more out of date.

What you suggest in the second instance there sounds a bit like a long-distance bicycle rogaine (but with a defined sequence for the controls) or a version of the old navigational car rallies. Now they both are lots of fun.

In England, as I understand it, and in other countries, but not Australia, there is a requirement that where a shorter course than that indicated by the organiser can be achieved, the organiser shall take steps to ensure the full course is completed -- that is, there is a personned control or an information control on the required course.

Anyway, I think this particular discussion has run its course. There has been much to think about, not necessarily for riders, but those who may be thinking of becoming organisers. Personally, I'd pay first for good, accurate instructions for a carefully considered route before any of the other add-ons.

In England, as I understand it, and in other countries, but not Australia, there is a requirement that where a shorter course than that indicated by the organiser can be achieved, the organiser shall take steps to ensure the full course is completed -- that is, there is a personned control or an information control on the required course.


Every country's agreement with the ACP precludes running brevets that can be shortcut AFAIR, but this may be another thread. The AUK 'list of controls' nominal distances are calculated to be the shortest bike-legal distances between the nominated controls. I prefer accurate route sheets with directions myself.