Name (required):

  Expression ^{(Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)}

  E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:
>Thanks for the massive response to my message on TT >advance bookings. I’ve read through all 22 of them >(including non-members!) and am encouraged that most >are in favour of my suggestion of “squad numbers”. >However some opinions conflict directly with one >another – I guess that what debate’s all about. I will >try and respond here to the comments made: > >Warwickshire police are against 30 sec starts, >although it’s accepted in some other counties. Also >extending the 6.30 or 6.45 start time early season >would obviously help. There seems to be general >agreement that those who have paid up front for the >season should have priority. There’s a risk that this >could be seen as an enhanced form of membership, but I >can also see that those members might feel miffed if >they don’t get a ride. So far we have 27 who have paid >in advance so it isn’t a serious problem if they have >a reserved number. > >The idea of having to count the number of advanced >bookings (eg 3 max) is administratively difficult, >together with some of the other “spreadsheet” >suggestions. Also it’s common sense that we need a >system that can continue in my absence. The basis of >what I’m suggesting is for the system to be simple >(for all of us) and for everyone to know where they >stand. I don’t want to have to say “no” to people, >simply because it’s seen as my decision, and have them >respond in a challenging manner. I can challenge with >the best of them, but that’s not why I turn out on >Wednesdays. > >It’s clear that people are arriving early for TTs >(like one hour before the start) just to get a number, >then have to hang around for ages. On the other hand, >because of other commitments some people can’t arrive >early and would actually prefer a late number – so >long as they get one. We’ve had 64 club members >compete so far this season and about 35 or 40 members >are riding regularly – say 3 weeks out of 4. If they >had a regular number this would be kept open for up to >say 15 – 20 minutes before their actual start time, >then re-allocated in the event of a no-show. To have >those numbers spread over 50 or so places would leave >some gaps for the less regular riders and a few >guests. Most of the current telephone entries would be >unnecessary. As has been stated, to reduce the queue >waiting to sign-on would improve safety and reduce the >pressure on us. The onus would be on anyone unable to >ride to inform us before the event so we could >reallocate their number. The downside is riders would >be starting amongst the same riders most weeks, >although they could swap with others occasionally if >that’s a problem. > >I have drafted a set of rules for what I’m proposing >and last week sent it out to my committee colleagues >for comment. I am hoping to achieve a consensus in >order to put something in motion before waiting until >the next meeting on 18th May. So far only 3 have >responded, although it’s early days. It’s clear from >Greg’s comments on Hinckley that every club finds >their own way of dealing with the problem. Whatever we >do will be an experiment and it won’t suit everyone, >but only time will tell if we have made an >improvement. If not, we’ll try something else!

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.