gogo@

Some event photos: THE START

Will put the word out for you!

With an online entry, no problem!! See you at registration 6am to 8am tomorrow, Pennypinchers Warehouse off Rautenbach Rd.

Hey Gas, We've kept aside some entries for those who can only drive up on the day, although we've been pushing for people to enter online... This is our first running of this event and one thing we've learned is there is fantastic support! So we're trying to juggle it so everyone's happy - phone me on 0825622388 and we'll see what we can do. Same for any other hubbers... No promises, but we'll really try & help!

That's what it looks like to me. I'd like proof to the contrary, though.

Some views along the route...

Have a look at the event website or the Facebook page for more info, including our sponsors who are putting up some great prizes and items for goody bags...

You miss my point. The vote is irrelevant. It is apparently government decree to CSA. So no vote matters. That is what is coming out strongly from all sides of this sorry story so far. You can only have one authority and that authority apparently made room for a relationship with the PPA but, to keep in with SASCOC, went against the agreement. Or are all the PPA people telling porkies? I heard Steve Hayward being interviewed and it would seem that, amongst other things, PPA's decision to go to court is sparked by CSA threatening to close down all their events aimed at fun riders, despite the grey area into which they fall. Go have a listen here: http://joffers19899.podomatic.com/entry/2013-06-13T10_11_22-07_00

OK, then I'm corrected on that one, which is what I asked for. But all these votes meant nothing when it came down to changing the constitution in 2012.

This is true, very true -- but it's not really that simple. It goes back to what I said about how strong your club structure is, and what kind of people with what interests are involved at the club level. Which is why I say running one system through CSA which covers such a broad church of issues and interest, and squeezing it the way CSA is with its particular constitution and agenda, does not work. And also why I say more of us need to find out what's going on and get involved, one way or another. Getting involved means thinking about how cycling works in this country -- it's not a sport like golf or even soccer, although many sporting codes have similar problems like access to venues. And I'd love to know how recreational cycling and "fun" rides are run, in relation to national sports bodies in the UK and Oz, say. You also say that "PPA needs to negotiate". If my memory is right, and I'm sure it is, this has also been part of the problem. From the start (when one, unified cycling association was being negotiated and the constitution set up) PPA was involved in these negotiations and has been all along. Eventually an agreement was reached and a constitution written up to reflect that. CSA later changed the constitution. Their "right" to do so was on the basis of representatives, and even though PPA represents a large number of cyclists, both in the Western Cape and elsewhere, their vote does not reflect the number of members that they have. I really don't know how this should work, but it clearly is not working the way it is right now. Do you think PPA is really that frivolous to take the CSA to court? It would be like saying each province in this country has one vote for President of SA, so forget how many people live there. Would you sit back if SA's Constitution was changed against your interests which have been written into it? I hope PPA Exco, or someone with proper info and insight, does come along, correct what I may have got wrong here, and answer some of these questions. But where too is CSA's voice in this?

To add to what I said above. If I play in my local club squash tournament, am I obliged to take out a day license to do so? I think the problem is that cycling is such a broad church (even broader than many other sports) whereas CSA is trying to squeeze everyone into one queue going past the same cash register. If they want to do that, then they need to take on the priorities and principles of the PPA, look at them carefully and possibly broaden them further.

These are public documents. You should look for them, then make your comparison. PPA regularly sends out newsletters to members in which they tell you how to apply to funds for projects and what they are spending money on. Does CSA do this for its members? People don't even seem to know what the basic costs to event organisers are. What happens to this money? Most people riding events are, whether you like it or not, not classified as "racing" cyclists (they have neither domestic nor recreational licenses). And if you want to grow the sport, that is where you're looking for new entrants. It is these people who are being "taxed" at R35 per event and primarily for CSA's benefit. For them, CSA is asking R41 (R35+RR6); of this R26 goes to CSA, R10 to the provincial body, R5 to the organisers. This is possibly ok if you are running an established event with a large field, but if you are not, if your numbers are small, your pool of potential riders are price-sensitive and you are taking the risk of running a new event with all the costs associated, then this does not work. I wouldn't be so interested in all this if I saw something going back into local cycling development, but this seems to be left to clubs, and in areas where cycling is not strong (i.e. where you might want to see development) clubs are obviously not strong either... yet CSA is asking clubs to reach out to support cycling development in their areas. Without a strong club environment, this cannot happen. I'm not even sure that clubs should be the chosen vehicle for this -- which is where a body like PPA comes in. The focus for developing cycling is multi-faceted. It's not just about races. Everybody who races has to train. Obviously this involves using public roads, so you are in the same space as me, the leisure cyclist, the cycling commuter, and everyone else on a bike, not to mention vehicles. (I shouldn't have to point this out, but the issue of safe cycling seems to get knocked out of the equation.) Further, to support the cycling industry, you need a broad base of consumers buying entry level equipment, getting hooked on cycling and moving up the chain as their interest is sustained. This is why people, who see the picture beyond the racing scene, are seeing a major difference between CSA and the PPA. It is about so much more than pro races, national colours and international competitiveness. I looked at CSA financial statements which are on their website. What I found was, to me, strange. It's difficult to see actually what they are spending money on, especially at a provincial/regional level. And they seem to be sitting on a little bit of money. I'm familiar with how non-profits work and can read financial statements, but maybe I needed to look at CSAs statements more carefully. How about someone with a proper brain for this has a look and tells us what they think? I've attached the latest set if you'd like to do so. CSA Balance sheet june 2012.pdf CSA income st yr to 06 12 no2.pdf CSA income st yr to 06 12.pdf

OK, we're organising an event at the moment, and this is how it seems to break down for us. 1. Non-licensed riders pay R35 day license 2. Every participant's entry fee is levied another R6 3. Commissaire costs of travel and accommodation are also for our expense 4. There is a fee for having the commissaire present... possibly negotiable...??? 5. We pay CSA R500 for event insurance (not bad, not bad) I think that's it. The main issue for us is how much of this money stays in our area, for local/regional cycling development, because it seems the system is exceptionally top-heavy, besides it's lack of focus on the very people we are trying to attract into cycling as a sport. So far, PPA gets my vote, but I am really keen to see what CSA can do for us on the day... COrrect me if I'm wrong -- but this is how I understand it

Are you sure about this? That there is no other cost to event organizers, besides the R35 day license for non-licensed riders, to have CSA there?

Same for cycling, actually. The stipulation - CSA's stipulation, nobody else's, so far as I can see - is any event over 20km which is timed, must be sanctioned... how did they arrive at that?

Anyone from out of town doing this one? Finish is at Port Alfred's Rosehill Mall. It's a point-to-point ride, but you can pre-book return transport to Grahamstown for yourself and your bike, so you don't need to worry about having a car at the finish.

A great reason to join the Festinos at this year's National Arts Festival... G2C, a new event event hosted by Saints & Sinners Cycling Club.

Event Name: G2C -- Pennypinchers Grahamstown2Sea 7 JULY When: 7 July 2013 Where: Grahamstown to Port Alfred, Eastern Cape Category: MTB Track, dirt and serious fun! The Pennypinchers G2C is Grahamstown's first MTB event, a 58km ride from the hills to the sea. The challenge is on to set the course record! Start: Grahamstown, Pennypinchers warehouse, off Rautenbach Road Finish: Port Alfred, Rosehill Mall, just off the R72 The route takes riders over Mountain Drive, past the toposcope, down through Woesthill pass and on through Southwell and the coast. Riders beware: it's not all downhill! There is some technical jeep track to negotiate on Mountain Drive, but the course is suitable for all kinds of riders -- ride it or race it, the choice is yours! Route profile and map available on the event website -- www.grahamstown2sea.co.za G2C takes place on 7 July, the last day of the National Arts Festival, so Festinos, bring your bike! Start is 8h30 - plenty of time if you want to drive in from out of town. Return transport for you and your bike from Port Alfred to Grahamstown is available. Cost R90 (online entries) or R130 (late entries). Enter online at www.grahamstown2sea.co.za Go to Event Page

It's... really... not... difficult!!! Time to bin idiots with influence who make stupid statements like this. FFS. Proves cyclists aren't seen as traffic: road rules need not apply to motorists interacting with bikes on the road.

Agreed. But there is a but... for me the thing is if you see yourself as yourself alone, or as part of society. That's where it gets difficult. When a hubber from my home town was killed by a motorist who crossed the full width of the road to hit him from behind while he was running, one of his friends wrote a similar piece to this one. The difference is what got me thinking and it's this (as my memory serves): we know there's a problem, we may choose to drive like you do, to be responsible people - but where does that responsibility end? Only with the way we, as individuals, behave? So for me, I agree that you didn't kill Burry, the way it's argued here, but, for me again, the feeling is strong that everyone needs to be involved in bringing about change. Not easy. But, obvious place, you can start with your own children, family, friends. Ride with your children, walk with them, teach them about not only why there are road rules (and what they are of course) but also about "defensive living", like defensive driving, looking out for people who might harm you, giving them enough space to stay away, not getting involved with aggressive encounters because you have "right of way". Everyone around me is talking about how we need to change attitudes, but what does that mean? What are attitudes and how are they shaped? That usually gets round to rights and responsibilities, but again what are those? Mine? Yours? Ours? There's also context, like infrastructure, or society and its rules, if you want. My point is attitude change is what you do. There are things that you can do even if you feel you won't change much about the world. How do you know if you don't try? And change it with more than yourself in mind. How do you want things to be for your children, for when you yourself are old? Some people think the solution is to stop riding, to get bikes off the roads, to ride counterflow into the traffic - but those are sticking plasters over potholes. We need to fix those holes, fix our roads, fix what's wrong with us all, the way we behave (which means the way our thinking influences the decisions we take). Just to add: the discussions here (crazy as they may seem) are part of this too. If you don't know what happened, how will you know what the problem is that you want to fix?

Going to look into this when I have time. If you're right, we then have something just over 1000 cyclists killed on our roads each year? compared to the 122 the Brits (with respect) are squealing about? Does not sound like the same magnitude of problem for them then does it.

Same. And it would be nice to know that he's not out driving but I bet the argument he has a family to support plays a big role.

If the guy crossed a solid white line as seems to be indicated, I don't think it's considered an accident. Liability in law starts there with breaking the law. This is why it would be a charge of culpable homicide. If it were an accident or the cyclist's fault, no culpability on the driver's part.

Now I feel better!

AAAHHHhhhhh... huh? ok. But I think, lets stick to mirrors, it's a bit removed from M.A.D.