NW Rideouts & accidents

Originally Posted by fizzwheel

Agreed, but also theres no point in sweeping an issue like this under the carpet, if somethings wrong and nobody speaks up then you'll never sort it out.

Thats the whole point Fizz, there is nothing wrong and nothing to sweep under the carpet. Some people are making a mountain out of a mole hill and reading to much into things.

You can make statistics show anything you want if you look hard enough and that is what has happened here.

No one once has said out of all the 4 rides the total number of riders has been x and they all made it round safe and sound.

I am sure the number of ofs is no higher statistically than across the uk for the percentage of riders involved.

[fizzwheel]

Originally Posted by neio79

Thats the whole point Fizz, there is nothing wrong and nothing to sweep under the carpet. Some people are making a mountain out of a mole hill and reading to much into things.

Then you guys have nothing to worry about do you

Whilst it appears the group idea has been shot down in flames, few assumptions have been made (I feel wrongly so). To clarify my thinking...

Originally Posted by Lissa

And who is going to decide who should ride in each group? Who has the right to say to anyone 'sorry Mate, you ain't quick/ experienced enough to ride in the fast group'.

The point was it would be the individual rider that decided on the group, as in the case of the Glencoe rideout.

Originally Posted by Lissa

For me, the biggest thing about these weekends is us all being together, riding together, laughing and bantering together at the stops, pulling together if problems happen.................if that ends I don't know if I would still want to attend because then the spirit of these weekends would be lost.

The groups idea was more about choice, rather than restriction. I don't see how that would of taken any of the spirit away.

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

The glencoe massacre one is different in that it's a chance for people to do a little extra mileage if they fancy, it's not going to be determined by percieved ability.

Exactly right, and I'm not really sure why people have assumed the groups idea was all about ability.

However, the vast majority are opposed to the groups suggestion. Being that it was only a suggestion, I'll take it as a conclusive vote 'no' unless someone brings the issue up again at a later date.

NW1, I was TEC, as I was for NW2. On NW3 I specifically said that I wanted a bit of a play, so would act as marker, not TEC. Then on the ride, the TEC said he wanted a play, and asked if I'd mind doing TEC duties, no problem, I'd had a play. Desire more than ability.

Originally Posted by fizzwheel

Threads like this are good they get it out in the open and you talk about things and it makes the next rideout go smoother and even better.

Thanks fizz, that's exactly why I started this thread. Sort of a "we all love the NW rideouts, is there anything extra that could be done to improve things?" type thread.

Ruffy, excellent post. That's exactly the angle I'm looking at things in my head. That's why it comes back to me time & time again as to possible correlations. I'm sorry you feel a little taken back by drawning attention to the risks associated, but as said by many people, you're old enough to make your own decisions. I hope to see you on NW4.

Originally Posted by Speedy Claire

This is starting to go way too far. I`m tempted to say if people want to take part then come along if you don`t then don`t bother, no need to make such a huge song and dance about it

This thread was started to get group thinking on the issue, to start a discussion. I'm not sure comments like that are conducive to a productive environment.

Neio raises a good point. OK I can only speak for the NW rideout I attended but we had what? 30 riders and one accident?? I can`t see how anything has been swept under the carpet cos you only need to look at the number of replies to see that the original question has been discussed and considered.

All I can see that you can do to reduce the risk in possibly 2 of the accidents is to not ride when it`s wet.... that, however is not possible as weather can`t be predicted. There`s also experience to be learned in riding in bad weather conditions.

I know that the accidents have been discussed as a group because i`ve been there and discussed it with other members. Also when a rider has an "off" the whole thing is analysed to death by the other rideout members. If anything needed to be changed I`m sure it would`ve been changed by now. We`re sensible people, the type of people who i`d like to think would learn by mistakes if a mistake had been made.

I`m not knocking the fact that this has been raised in the first place.... I agree that if someone has a concern then it needs to be raised. My objection is that it seems to have been blown out of all proportion. Maybe what we need is for the four unfortunate people who have actually had the accidents to say what they think went wrong. Maybe then this matter can be satisfactorily put to bed.

Originally Posted by Baph

This thread was started to get group thinking on the issue, to start a discussion. I'm not sure comments like that are conducive to a productive environment.

Fair point Baph and I apologise, but I`m sure my comment is one echoed by other people. I`m just concerned that if this issue carries on being blown out of proportion the NW rideouts will be scrapped and that would be such a shame.

Originally Posted by Speedy Claire

I`m just concerned that if this issue carries on being blown out of proportion the NW rideouts will be scrapped and that would be such a shame.

I don't really see it as being blown out of proportion though. I knew this would be a dangerous subject to raise because it's such an emotive issue. That's why I took so long to write the OP.

I'm actually generally curious as to if there's anything I can personally do as a local to NW rideouts. I fully accept that accidents happen, and that the NW rideout accident ratio may just be a coincidence.

But as I posted before, if there's a possibility that it's not coincidence, I feel it's an issue that should be explored.

There are a number of things I've thought about in the past, but they are things that would bring inevitable negativity to NW rideouts. Hell, look at what the suggestion to offer more alternatives to people (the groups idea) did!!

Originally Posted by Baph

The point was it would be the individual rider that decided on the group, as in the case of the Glencoe rideout.


.

Wouldent work for the simpole fact we all sometimes assume we are better than we are. You would still get people insisting they can handle the fast group when they cant.

IMO having seperate groups is MORE likley to lead to offs as people are either riding beyond their skill level, or geting frustrated as they are finding it too easy going and try to press on a bit in the group they are in.


As you know the NW ride outs tend to split into 2 or 3 sub groups naturally where people settle into their own style and stick with people of similar skill.

Then as its one big group still thse who want to press on do so to catch up with the bikes a few min ahead of them.

Also the point i have raised before is still valid, the marker system used enables those beter riders to continually move through the pack.

Originally Posted by neio79

As you know the NW ride outs tend to split into 2 or 3 sub groups naturally where people settle into their own style and stick with people of similar skill.

Then as its one big group still thse who want to press on do so to catch up with the bikes a few min ahead of them.

Also the point i have raised before is still valid, the marker system used enables those beter riders to continually move through the pack.

I agree completely mate, there's nothing wrong with the time-tested marker system.

The thoughts in my head about the group idea was basically that the faster group would ride longer distances, but each group (however many) would meet up at all the stops (ideally - though practically?). That would allow people to swap groups whenever they fancied it.

As I previously posted, I loved the sight of 30+ bikes strung out across the valley when I was TEC at NW3. The groups thing would prevent that realistically.

FWIW, I've also contacted Northwind (who organised the Glencoe rideout with the groups system), and he has reservations about it because it hasn't run perfectly in the past. Mainly the problem that he's seen is that people post on the org one thing, then do another, even with one route getting scrapped etc.

[quote=Baph;1515033]
- Experienced rider on vaugley familiar road, loss of grip.


i'm just a knob lol

[Luckypants]

I am as concerned about the crashing rate as much as anyone, to the point of seriously reconsidering organising another. It is all very well saying we are concerned about the accident rate - but so far no one has come with any new reasons for this or specific problems.

The group idea has been mooted and discussed as a potential alternative way of organising things, but to my mind this does not address any specific problem as none has been identified. As has been pointed out, this may actually cause more problems.

We also had ruffy talking about generic and specific risks, which was a bit of a waffly way of saying bikes are dangerous per se (generic risk) but failed to identify any risks associated with a ride out (specific risks). We still await his comments about what he sees these specific risks to be.

So folks it's time to put up or shut up.

What are the risks specific to these North Wales rides? (I have my ideas and believe these to be addressed - but have no wish to pre-empt the discussion)