Yes, I realise how that all works and hasn't changed. sorry I should have been clearer around Admin - I was thinking of having to look up / keep track of people attending rides repeatedly with different ride leaders and keep some sort of central log.
The collecting of run fees etc is all part of being a lead and not much effort at all.
Are all runs still limited to 6, incl lead? I ask as I passed a group of riders near Tilford about a week ago, must have been 20riders and thought that was odd as to big a group for the usual TRF rides.
Cobweb run
-
silvergull
- 400cc Thumper
- Posts: 354
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:11 pm
Re: Cobweb run
Thanks. well its a detail for the group officers to sort out, and maybe someone will even respond to your point. Lets hope so.
As to the group size you mention, this must have been a so called cobweb run, so the group officers ought to be aware of this yet no mention has been made about this. Tilford is the most sensitive area and really this should never have happened. Lets hope consequences do not follow. Total failure in the planning, assuming this was in fact one of the so called cobweb runs. Glad you mentioned it, it needs to be explained, maybe again a group officer/organiser can respond? I had heard this 'off the record from someone else only a week ago, so it is interesting to have confirmation now. It is just not acceptable. All the best, bc
As to the group size you mention, this must have been a so called cobweb run, so the group officers ought to be aware of this yet no mention has been made about this. Tilford is the most sensitive area and really this should never have happened. Lets hope consequences do not follow. Total failure in the planning, assuming this was in fact one of the so called cobweb runs. Glad you mentioned it, it needs to be explained, maybe again a group officer/organiser can respond? I had heard this 'off the record from someone else only a week ago, so it is interesting to have confirmation now. It is just not acceptable. All the best, bc
Beano: Appears on a Wednesday
-
stevent
- 1150 adventurer
- Posts: 1217
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:42 pm
Re: Cobweb run
Brian
Please see responses to your points
I was responding to your point that you cannot see why fee paying members only have a little more access than the non members. I will repeat my point: I believe many members sign up not for access to the forum, but to know that their membership fee is contributing to the TRF fighting fund”. I also made the point that the fighting fund has been spent fighting local battles.
I think this is incredibly unfair. The individual involved invests hundreds of hours into the TRF voluntarily. They have increased the number of legal cases the TRF pursue. The success rate of our legal cases (where legal proceedings are starts) s 85% and TRF have only lost two cases since January 2015.
Hexham - success
Bentworth (Hampshire) - success
Seggimire - success
Dorset Map Scales - success
Smugglers Lane - success
Burry Port (Carmarthenshire) - success
Monks Trod - success
Ramsden road - success
Essex ETRO - success
Piddlehinton - lost
Oakridge Lane - success
Netherton s.116 (Hampshire) - success
Warnford (Hampshire) - lost
Stonehenge ETRO - success
On the two cases TRF lost, the odds of winning were judged at 55% and 60-70% - so a fair chance of losing. The decision was taken given the benefits associated with if we had won. I recall much correspondence and I was consulted on the decision to proceed with Warnford. I recall that the Appeal Court Judge found that the Highway Authority hadn’t acted lawfully in its decision making but despite this decided not the quash the TRO. You are right that members were not asked to write in. I very recently queried whether the were any lessons learned here and the response was it probably wouldn’t have made any different and that the other case we lost had hundreds of responses and it was still lost.
Have you previously asked for the costs? They were in the region of £88K for the high court case and the court of appeal case. If you don’t think TRF should be spending the fighting fund then question, what is it for? If you think we can only do cases we know we will win, then are you suggesting TRF throws in the towel? Even though the Warnford case was lost - Highway Authorities will know TRF to be an organisation which will challenge in court what it perceives to be unfair / unjust decisions and this makes them think twice about closing routes to bikes.
Also on Warnford, it is not over yet: the fellow member you refer to is meeting with Hampshire County Council this week, asking that they consider a non-statutory consultation on varying the Traffic Regulation Order.
I do not agree TRF funds are being wasted. For those reading who do not know what this is about. The South Downs National Park Authority ran a scheme to make repairs to various routes. Our Surrey TRF group considered whether to make a contribution. I prepared a short note for officers, I recommended we contributed, along with other local groups, as I believed there were significant public relation benefits. Correct me if I’m wrong but when Surrey Group officers voted I think you were the only one to vote against? In the event, just the groups in the South Downs National Park actually contributed and our offer was not called upon.
The officer you suggest wasted funds corresponded with you at the time and explained the money spent and rationale. In short, if TRF have made financial contributions to support maintain routes, it is helps win over the “moderates” on the National Park committees when others argue for closures. It is TRF being part of the solution and building a positive reputation. That is not money wasted in my opinion.
The national TRF Directors recently shared with officer their view on “the bigger picture”. Which reads:
There are approximately 6000 miles of unsurfaced green roads In England and Wales it is inevitable that from time to time, regrettably a lane will be lost despite our extraordinary efforts to save it. The Technical Director has quantified the unjust loss as less than ten Green Roads over the past five years.
Over the last ten years, the number of successes the TRF has had far outweighs the number of setbacks. There have been 4 or 5 large scale attempts to decimate the number of green roads available in the same way. Those 6000 miles would have been reduced to 3000. And the 3000 reduced to a few hundred.
We will not carry on being able to defend so vigorously the thousands of green roads if we are unduly affected by small setbacks of losing the odd green road or fear of failure on each case we undertake.
The TRF fighting fund is the main defence that all Trail Riders have against widespread closure and in 2020, after 5 years of success, it needs to be replenished.
Not sure what this means? In what way are TRF falling short?
I repeat my earlier point, “I completely agree that we need to analyse our data to evaluate how effective our efforts have been.”
I welcome any offers to ask and compile the spreadsheet as you suggest. I would suggest getting anyone to do anything is far from easy.
Luke has been asking for feedback on Facebook, there are 51 replies so far. I appreciate those not on FB will not have read them so if I have time I’ll copy and paste into the forum. Lots of guys saying they have signed up as a result.
I also said “Before Christmas I contacted the new TRF membership Director Andrew Byatt to discuss general membership issues and today I have requested an updated membership list.”. I’m pleased to say I have now received an updated membership list. I’ve not opened it yet as I’m spending the evening writing this response, but I will get to it, and eventually, I should have some results of some analysis.
I repeat, “a closed/private section is there, available to you and others to use, if you want to.” So the fact that many do not use facebook is addressed by the fact we have a forum.
I repeat, “The approach we have adopted is to experiment, try new things and see what works and how people vote with their feet.”.
How is this not useful? If there are hundreds of interactions on the forum and only a dozen on posts on Facebook, or vice versa, doesn’t that tell you something about what the preference of many are?
You can read into what I’ve put as you wish. I didn’t say it is too tricky, I said it requires “not insignificant amount of effort to administer”. Its more like it is proving tricky to find some more people keen to help administer it. If nobody comes forward then members won’t be granted access by magic.
I’m certainly no champion of Facebook but it is a fact that the administrative effort and expertise needed to operate a group page on Facebook (whether open or closed) is significantly less than for a forum.
That is probably why other TRF groups run now entirely on Facebook. (Herts TRF - one of the largest - hasn’t totally collapsed).
I too hope someone steps forward to help with the forum but if they do not then what do we do?
There haven’t been any policy decisions.
We have the forum. We have an open facebook page. As we always have.
My last run I posted on the forum and it filled in no time. Other run leaders may post on the forum if they so wish.
What has changed is one individual, who is not an officer I might add, has encouraged greater use of Facebook, given how little activity there has been on the Forum. The results have been spectacular.
I have also been at every club in 2019 (except once when I was on holiday). I have led discussions including on Forum vs FB, I have listened to members views and taken those views on board. You cannot complaint of silence if you choose not to come to club night where we have the opportunity to discuss face to face.
Noted.
We don’t allow this on Facebook. I spent a few hours over Christmas/New Year break updating our desciption including our rules to make it clearer what is acceptable and that action will be taken if unacceptable posts are put up. We have blocked individuals and removed damaging posts. So you do not need to worry on this score.
Please do ask questions and offer suggestions. But all these negative comments like “totally mismanaged”, and “wasted many thousands” and "why officers keep so silent”, and continually raking up the same issues which we've gone over again and again (like Hyden Lane), isn’t really helping us take the group forward. In my humble opinion.
You have contributed so much good stuff to the TRF in the past and I hope that continues in 2020. I just ask that you remember we are an organisation of many individuals with different views which need to be taken into account and those who contribute to the group do so voluntarily.
Please see responses to your points
silvergull wrote: Warnford: I fail to see how this demonstrates how the trf keeps byways open.
I was responding to your point that you cannot see why fee paying members only have a little more access than the non members. I will repeat my point: I believe many members sign up not for access to the forum, but to know that their membership fee is contributing to the TRF fighting fund”. I also made the point that the fighting fund has been spent fighting local battles.
silvergull wrote: the trf officer involved totally mis- managed this, kept it more or less to himself, and instructed members not to write in. he also failed to noiify the wider membership of this case, until it was too late, and in the event, the trf lost the case.
I think this is incredibly unfair. The individual involved invests hundreds of hours into the TRF voluntarily. They have increased the number of legal cases the TRF pursue. The success rate of our legal cases (where legal proceedings are starts) s 85% and TRF have only lost two cases since January 2015.
Hexham - success
Bentworth (Hampshire) - success
Seggimire - success
Dorset Map Scales - success
Smugglers Lane - success
Burry Port (Carmarthenshire) - success
Monks Trod - success
Ramsden road - success
Essex ETRO - success
Piddlehinton - lost
Oakridge Lane - success
Netherton s.116 (Hampshire) - success
Warnford (Hampshire) - lost
Stonehenge ETRO - success
On the two cases TRF lost, the odds of winning were judged at 55% and 60-70% - so a fair chance of losing. The decision was taken given the benefits associated with if we had won. I recall much correspondence and I was consulted on the decision to proceed with Warnford. I recall that the Appeal Court Judge found that the Highway Authority hadn’t acted lawfully in its decision making but despite this decided not the quash the TRO. You are right that members were not asked to write in. I very recently queried whether the were any lessons learned here and the response was it probably wouldn’t have made any different and that the other case we lost had hundreds of responses and it was still lost.
silvergull wrote: he costs incurred were not disclosed, probably in the tens of thousands.
Have you previously asked for the costs? They were in the region of £88K for the high court case and the court of appeal case. If you don’t think TRF should be spending the fighting fund then question, what is it for? If you think we can only do cases we know we will win, then are you suggesting TRF throws in the towel? Even though the Warnford case was lost - Highway Authorities will know TRF to be an organisation which will challenge in court what it perceives to be unfair / unjust decisions and this makes them think twice about closing routes to bikes.
Also on Warnford, it is not over yet: the fellow member you refer to is meeting with Hampshire County Council this week, asking that they consider a non-statutory consultation on varying the Traffic Regulation Order.
silvergull wrote: The same officer also wasted many thousands on supporiing repair of a perfectly good lane for PR reasons and loss of face to him personslly, a byway which was not under threat of closure, ( hydons lane)
I do not agree TRF funds are being wasted. For those reading who do not know what this is about. The South Downs National Park Authority ran a scheme to make repairs to various routes. Our Surrey TRF group considered whether to make a contribution. I prepared a short note for officers, I recommended we contributed, along with other local groups, as I believed there were significant public relation benefits. Correct me if I’m wrong but when Surrey Group officers voted I think you were the only one to vote against? In the event, just the groups in the South Downs National Park actually contributed and our offer was not called upon.
The officer you suggest wasted funds corresponded with you at the time and explained the money spent and rationale. In short, if TRF have made financial contributions to support maintain routes, it is helps win over the “moderates” on the National Park committees when others argue for closures. It is TRF being part of the solution and building a positive reputation. That is not money wasted in my opinion.
silvergull wrote: There are probably other examples, in the wider scope of thngs, but the two referred to above are 2 that surrey trf uses regularly.
The national TRF Directors recently shared with officer their view on “the bigger picture”. Which reads:
There are approximately 6000 miles of unsurfaced green roads In England and Wales it is inevitable that from time to time, regrettably a lane will be lost despite our extraordinary efforts to save it. The Technical Director has quantified the unjust loss as less than ten Green Roads over the past five years.
Over the last ten years, the number of successes the TRF has had far outweighs the number of setbacks. There have been 4 or 5 large scale attempts to decimate the number of green roads available in the same way. Those 6000 miles would have been reduced to 3000. And the 3000 reduced to a few hundred.
We will not carry on being able to defend so vigorously the thousands of green roads if we are unduly affected by small setbacks of losing the odd green road or fear of failure on each case we undertake.
The TRF fighting fund is the main defence that all Trail Riders have against widespread closure and in 2020, after 5 years of success, it needs to be replenished.
silvergull wrote: Another point is that the majority of byways users are not TRF members, this much is known, so not really sure why the TRF are falling short here.
Not sure what this means? In what way are TRF falling short?
silvergull wrote: We really do need to know how many actually join due to the recent efforts,
I repeat my earlier point, “I completely agree that we need to analyse our data to evaluate how effective our efforts have been.”
silvergull wrote: surely it is a simple matter to ask each run to gather this, ie its only 5 or 6 to ask, ascertain who is who, and make a note of it, and compile this data centrally. a simple spreadsheet would do it. We could do this locally, on the day, rather than depend on national figures which by nature are always out of date, and do not gather the detail needed specifically anyway.
I welcome any offers to ask and compile the spreadsheet as you suggest. I would suggest getting anyone to do anything is far from easy.
Luke has been asking for feedback on Facebook, there are 51 replies so far. I appreciate those not on FB will not have read them so if I have time I’ll copy and paste into the forum. Lots of guys saying they have signed up as a result.
I also said “Before Christmas I contacted the new TRF membership Director Andrew Byatt to discuss general membership issues and today I have requested an updated membership list.”. I’m pleased to say I have now received an updated membership list. I’ve not opened it yet as I’m spending the evening writing this response, but I will get to it, and eventually, I should have some results of some analysis.
silvergull wrote: Facebook vs forum. the fact that many do not use facebook is not addressed,
I repeat, “a closed/private section is there, available to you and others to use, if you want to.” So the fact that many do not use facebook is addressed by the fact we have a forum.
silvergull wrote: you suggest to vote with feet if not happy. Hardly a useful approach.
I repeat, “The approach we have adopted is to experiment, try new things and see what works and how people vote with their feet.”.
How is this not useful? If there are hundreds of interactions on the forum and only a dozen on posts on Facebook, or vice versa, doesn’t that tell you something about what the preference of many are?
silvergull wrote: You also seem imply that the forum is too tricky to manage, and hint also at possible closure. This would be in my view lead to total collapse of the group. I hope someone steps forward to help here. TR has done, and is doing, a good job for sure!
You can read into what I’ve put as you wish. I didn’t say it is too tricky, I said it requires “not insignificant amount of effort to administer”. Its more like it is proving tricky to find some more people keen to help administer it. If nobody comes forward then members won’t be granted access by magic.
I’m certainly no champion of Facebook but it is a fact that the administrative effort and expertise needed to operate a group page on Facebook (whether open or closed) is significantly less than for a forum.
That is probably why other TRF groups run now entirely on Facebook. (Herts TRF - one of the largest - hasn’t totally collapsed).
I too hope someone steps forward to help with the forum but if they do not then what do we do?
silvergull wrote: But I fail to understand why the group offiecrs keep so silent on these policy matters?
There haven’t been any policy decisions.
We have the forum. We have an open facebook page. As we always have.
My last run I posted on the forum and it filled in no time. Other run leaders may post on the forum if they so wish.
What has changed is one individual, who is not an officer I might add, has encouraged greater use of Facebook, given how little activity there has been on the Forum. The results have been spectacular.
I have also been at every club in 2019 (except once when I was on holiday). I have led discussions including on Forum vs FB, I have listened to members views and taken those views on board. You cannot complaint of silence if you choose not to come to club night where we have the opportunity to discuss face to face.
silvergull wrote: I would still like to know how many on facebook are members and who the users are
Noted.
silvergull wrote:
and why damaging posts and unsuitable videos and photos are posted there, when we do not allow this on the open area of the forum . surely this is damaging to the trf and contradictory?
We don’t allow this on Facebook. I spent a few hours over Christmas/New Year break updating our desciption including our rules to make it clearer what is acceptable and that action will be taken if unacceptable posts are put up. We have blocked individuals and removed damaging posts. So you do not need to worry on this score.
silvergull wrote:
In conclusion, probably a good idea to get my walking boots dusted off, it seeems, and knit a new TRF bobbly for 2020.
Please do ask questions and offer suggestions. But all these negative comments like “totally mismanaged”, and “wasted many thousands” and "why officers keep so silent”, and continually raking up the same issues which we've gone over again and again (like Hyden Lane), isn’t really helping us take the group forward. In my humble opinion.
You have contributed so much good stuff to the TRF in the past and I hope that continues in 2020. I just ask that you remember we are an organisation of many individuals with different views which need to be taken into account and those who contribute to the group do so voluntarily.
-
stevent
- 1150 adventurer
- Posts: 1217
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:42 pm
Re: Cobweb run
Faisal wrote:Gents,
just my feedback from using the events page for the first time from the face book page:
- difficult to know who is a member and who isn't when advertising rides, this in turn then makes prioritising riders difficult. I am assuming you are part of the group (800+) you are not necessarily a member? Looking at the feeds, it does increase the profile for the trf, but in turn may end up with more non members on a run, than members. Can the facebook events page address this?
- not sure how I can stop people accepting a ride once the event is full, accept deleting it - any ideas?
- a real pain trying to check the forum and facebook when managing rides
Personally I think the forum worked well for me anyway. Advertised rides personally for me should be in the members area - with a try before you buy option.
Just some constructive comments (not criticism!).
Cheers
Faisal
Thanks Faisal for the input. Much appreciated.
Agreed we don't know who is a member and who is not on Facebook. We had this issue previously on the forum. Reconciling users with membership data requires some effort. I am hoping we get some help with this. I absolutely agree we need to find a way to address this and ensure our non-member one trail run policy is enforced.
On stopping people accepting the ride once full. I would suggest using the text in FB to indicate that they do not have a place unless you have allocated one and keeping a 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. list updated in the event description.
Agreed it is a hassle checking in two places. I've had to do this myself. We are in an experimental phase. You are welcome to continue to post on just one platform. I noted your run filled up in no time on Facebook. As mine did on the Forum.
Agreed the forum has served us well. The issues are there is very little obvious traffic leading to members to say it is dead - not the case on FB. And we need help administering/upgrading our forum. As covered in my replied to Brian.
Thank you again for being such a reliable and regular run leader!
-
stevent
- 1150 adventurer
- Posts: 1217
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:42 pm
Re: Cobweb run
boredus wrote:After reading this thread I have only just found the SurreyTRF page on facebook and asked to join.
It is fair to have an 'About the group' and advice offering but rides should not be published on there at all. A positive ride report on the FB page would be good publicity for the group, however 10 unannounced riders turning up on a closed ride because it was public for a while is not ok. I also do not want someone associating my van with me and my bikes. I live on the tri-counties borders so I am local, how long before some scoundrel sees my van parked up at home and realizes they saw it at an organised TRF ride.
We struggle with ride leads as it is and to then leave them with more admin work for a ride to note non members / members is not fair. I ride most weekends and was only recently thinking about looking in to run lead training to start helping out on rides but when helping/providing a ride starts to impact my busy work/home life balance, I will just ride on my own.
Thanks for your input. Going on your user handle, I'm not sure who you are or if we've spoken before.
There are other members who do not agree that rides should not be posted on FB. So this will need discussion and debate. If an individual is happy to post a run on FB, I am not convinced we should tell them they are not allowed to.
I have never known 10 unannounced riders turn up. Have you led runs yourself? Has this happened to you?
Agreed on the security concerns. You can post your runs on the member only forum if you are concerned about posting on the open facebook page. All members should take care and not feel compelled to take risks they are not comfortable with. Note my last run on the forum filled in no time so you can still post your run on just the forum.
There is obviously always some security risk involved in life otherwise we would never leave our homes.
Agreed we want to make the run leading experience as easy as possible.
Thanks for your input
Steven
-
stevent
- 1150 adventurer
- Posts: 1217
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:42 pm
Re: Cobweb run
boredus wrote:Yes, I realise how that all works and hasn't changed. sorry I should have been clearer around Admin - I was thinking of having to look up / keep track of people attending rides repeatedly with different ride leaders and keep some sort of central log.
The collecting of run fees etc is all part of being a lead and not much effort at all.
Run fees can be paid in to the Surrey TRF account: sort code 30-92-45 account number 29135360. Or also paid in at club night or on a subsequent run. We don't have any TRF Finance Police. (Yet
) boredus wrote:Are all runs still limited to 6, incl lead? I ask as I passed a group of riders near Tilford about a week ago, must have been 20riders and thought that was odd as to big a group for the usual TRF rides.
Yes runs should be 6 max. I will admit taking out 6 plus myself on my last run. I generally go down to a crawl whenever we pass anyone and always say hello and wave when people are picking up their dogs to show we are considerate of our presence.
I'm not sure when you saw 20 riders together. With our first Saturday runs becoming popular I've proposed that a greater number of starting points are used across a wider area of lanes; and also whether we cap the number of runs. In the past when I've led a run I have bunched up with another group and when this has happened I've tried to separate by stopping or going in a different direction.
Thanks for the input.
-
Faisal
- 350cc Veteran
- Posts: 143
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 5:52 pm
Re: Cobweb run
Steven I think this was always going to be a tricky one - I suspect for this weekends ride I would have been riding with 1/2 people via the forum as opposed to a full house of riders from Facebook and potential new recruits.
I’m sure the process will evolve with time and will continue to post in both places.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m sure the process will evolve with time and will continue to post in both places.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
stevent
- 1150 adventurer
- Posts: 1217
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:42 pm
Re: Cobweb run
Faisal wrote:Steven I think this was always going to be a tricky one - I suspect for this weekends ride I would have been riding with 1/2 people via the forum as opposed to a full house of riders from Facebook and potential new recruits.
I’m sure the process will evolve with time and will continue to post in both
Indeed!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
silvergull
- 400cc Thumper
- Posts: 354
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:11 pm
Re: Cobweb run
Thank you Steve for your full and comprehensive reply. I am sorry it took my post to ellcit this, but I thank you for the time and trouble taken even if on some points we will have to agree to differ.
I must correct you on one point: the approval of surrey trf funding for Hydons lane was voted on, and the group officers agreed reluctanly to support, in view of the fact the decision to support with funds had been promised BEFORE the meeting took place, without the knowledge of the officers. So the decision was in fact reached under duress, and it was also agreed at the same meeting by all present that in future no support would be given unless consulted first. It is true that I was the only one not to support, on the principle that we shoud have been asked to vote before funds were comittted, and for the reason that hydons lane was in perfectly good condition, and required no repair. The perceived PR gains never came to pass, as we saw recently in later TRO decisions in Hants. But that is as you say in the past, and we move on. but the group decision was carried, but not with good feeling from all present, and this was made clear to you at the time.( I recall you were not there for that one). Just to be clear.
I have no more words on this, and I wish you success in the future .
All the best, bc
I must correct you on one point: the approval of surrey trf funding for Hydons lane was voted on, and the group officers agreed reluctanly to support, in view of the fact the decision to support with funds had been promised BEFORE the meeting took place, without the knowledge of the officers. So the decision was in fact reached under duress, and it was also agreed at the same meeting by all present that in future no support would be given unless consulted first. It is true that I was the only one not to support, on the principle that we shoud have been asked to vote before funds were comittted, and for the reason that hydons lane was in perfectly good condition, and required no repair. The perceived PR gains never came to pass, as we saw recently in later TRO decisions in Hants. But that is as you say in the past, and we move on. but the group decision was carried, but not with good feeling from all present, and this was made clear to you at the time.( I recall you were not there for that one). Just to be clear.
I have no more words on this, and I wish you success in the future .
All the best, bc
Beano: Appears on a Wednesday
-
boredus
- 250cc Trail Rider
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 10:08 pm
Re: Cobweb run
stevent wrote:
Thanks for your input. Going on your user handle, I'm not sure who you are or if we've spoken before.
There are other members who do not agree that rides should not be posted on FB. So this will need discussion and debate. If an individual is happy to post a run on FB, I am not convinced we should tell them they are not allowed to.
I have never known 10 unannounced riders turn up. Have you led runs yourself? Has this happened to you?
Agreed on the security concerns. You can post your runs on the member only forum if you are concerned about posting on the open facebook page. All members should take care and not feel compelled to take risks they are not comfortable with. Note my last run on the forum filled in no time so you can still post your run on just the forum.
There is obviously always some security risk involved in life otherwise we would never leave our homes.
Agreed we want to make the run leading experience as easy as possible.
Thanks for your input
Steven
The large group I met was heading down the Tilford Road byway towards Sandy lane. It was not that they were in any way being offensive or causing nuisance, on the contrary there were some interesting bikes, it was just strange to see given how the public feel about mass gatherings of dirtbikes.
I have attended several rides since 2017 however with work/life commitments I generally ride solo every other weekend or lead groups of friends around Surrey/Hampshire/Sussex. I have recently moved central to these areas so thought I would give a little back to the likes of Derek, Christian, Peter and Steven who have arranged the runs I attended and share some of the load. I get pulled in to arranging rides in Wales and going abroad to ride so I get side tracked with new and exciting rather than supporting the group
There are 800+ members on the Facebook page, it is inevitable that some people with feel entitled and just show up for rides despite being full, it's a public space on the www and we are still a democracy after all. Then there is the rules are made to be broken crowd
Having spent a couple of years racing with Mid Sussex MX, we were warned at most events to watch for being followed home. It's been ground in to me over the last 10 years that when a meet is public, it encourages the optimist to watch, learn and follow. My van doesn't stay at the house very often for that reason is has been left as a plain old white van.
The FB page will get more footfall and bring new blood in to the group as it is just so easy and available right at your fingertips. Updating my feed live etc, it is great for that. imo it should be a publicity awareness tool. 'Here were are, this is what we do' look at what we did last week etc. interested, want to know more. Sign up here xx
Facebook pages are a pig to search and find the same thing twice over a few years. I know I curse the Beta Xtrainer page each time I buy a new one and go looking for the jetting / mods info. Even when I posted some of it myself! Forums are more useful knowledge bases and more practical when used to give advice and share things.
Guess it's time to finally get round to a club night. Lived in Woking 15 years and never got round to it, now I am 25 miles away I decide it's time
Regards
Ian
-
Billy
- woz bus pass
- Posts: 1766
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 7:49 pm
Re: Cobweb run
All this bickering and infighting is not making good reading , especially for new or potentially new members .
-
stevent
- 1150 adventurer
- Posts: 1217
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:42 pm
Re: Cobweb run
Billy wrote:All this bickering and infighting is not making good reading , especially for new or potentially new members .
Healthy debate? (positive hat on!)
I thought it important to respond.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk