With the next 12 car season is due to commence in a few weeks we have been contacted by the local Essex Police - Motorsport UK Regional Liaison Officer (whose authority is required to issue all 12 car permits). He has been involved in some recent PR complaints that arose from recent CMC 12 car rallies and which escalated to Essex Police. He is concerned about the disturbance that our events are causing and wants us to self-police ourselves to ensure the continuity of our sport. This is an extract from his recent email with additional notes inserted by me in brackets:
'Something must be done to reduce the impact (of 12 cars), particularly as noise and driving standards have been raised (with Essex Police). I am loathe to enforce blue book PR requirements (visit to every property) as it can cause as many problems as it solves for early evening events. Can I suggest the following:OTL time for the last car 10.00pm. This may mean reducing event length which is not necessarily a bad thing as it reduces the time that an event is out there. 12 cars starting at 8.00 equates to about 40 miles. Standard road cars and exhaust systems to be encouraged. I know it is fun to take out the rally car etc but noise has been raised as an issue and a competition type car with cage/spotlights etc can give an image problem, particularly if being driven quickly. If its noisy, then it will appear to be being driven quickly, even if it isn't!!No auxiliary lamps. Modern car lamps should be perfectly adequate for the job in hand. If an older car with 7" round lights, a set of halogens is about £40. If the thought is that standard lamps are inadequate, then they are driving too fast - speed and driving standards again! It also makes a difference to residents in that they haven't got a set of searchlights illuminating windows, kids bedrooms etc. The ideas above will reduce the impacts without a shadow of a doubt.'
The event organisers have already taken action to ensure noise checks and scrutineering are consistent and routes do not overlap so that no road is used more than once in a year. but clearly this is not enough.
At this month's CMC committee we discuss this email, which was also supported by the Suffolk RLO. No firm conclusions were reached and we discussed some of the contributing factors but we are open to suggestions. Opinions expressed included :
-Older cars with carburettors and less modern transmissions seem to generate more noise than more modern cars, even when being driven more sedately.
-Spotlights might not be an issue per se as modern car lights are just a bright, but there may be an 'image' issue.
-'Rally' cars generate more noise than 'standard' cars, but how can this be defined?
-The noise test could be reduced.
-Competitors have a responsibility to drive sensibly at all times.
-Organisers have a responsibility to set appropriate routes and navigation.
We need to act fast to protect our sport, but before any decisions are made we would like some comments from competitors (and marshals). Please respond to this forum post or contact a committee member.
I would never suggest taking on the police in a confrontational way, other than as an absolute last resort, but I do think that here protecting our sport means having a meaningful discussion with the officer concerned and trying to negotiate and agree the way forward as opposed simply to accepting changes s/he suggests.
As far as I am aware, 12 cars are automatically authorised by the Motor Vehicles (Competitions and Trials) Regulations and the fact that the police are notified of them is due to an Motorsport UK recommendation rather than requirement. I cannot find any basis for the police being able to require certain conditions such as extra PR for a 12 car - does one exist somewhere?
I would be interested to know how many complaints have been received regarding CMC 12 cars, of what, where and when. So interested indeed that I have sent a Freedom of Information Act request today asking exactly that. Or have they shared such information with the club already?
I think we must be robust in our line - the cars are tested for excessive noise and basic compliance with construction and use regulations, and we ensure that the use is properly insured, taxed and MoTed. So we have legal drivers, in legal cars, on the public highway undertaking legal journeys during a legal event. So far absolutely no reason for the police even to be interested let alone take action.
Of course, if a driver then chooses to drive in an illegal manner it is difficult for the club to prevent it - but no more or less difficult than it is to prevent anybody not on a 12 car from driving their car illegally. Of course we do try, by the posting of DSOs at suitable locations on the route. What actually makes it easier for the police is that we choose to notify them of the 12 car taking place and of its route (although I believe Essex actually ask only for villages and in what order, do we in fact give them a detailed route?) If they then wish to concern themselves with the possibility of competitors committing offences then they know where and when to patrol or observe. I don't suppose any of us to have a problem with this; whether to deploy in response to complaints is an operational decision to be taken by the police in the context of their resource levels and other priorities and commitments. That, I suggest, would be the proper response by the Police to any complaints - not to try to prevent something lawful but to be on hand to take action against any unlawful activities which may arise.
However - and you will appreciate that I do speak with some authority on this, as might some other members - there are circumstances where police, even though there are no actual offences being committed, will try to influence behaviour and activities so as to stop complaints. A good example of this is with noisy parties, where police have absoulutely no power to shut the music down or off but may respond to complaints and visit the party, asking for the volume to be dropped a bit in the hope it will scare the party people into responding and thereby the problem is solved. A bit of bluff provides a practical solution but one for which, in truth, they have no legal backing. They are just asking and often are fortunate enough to get a positive response.
I appreciate entirely that CMC needs to protect its reputation, we want in effect to continue to be a good neighbour to those who live in our catchment area. That is important and a very good motivation not to make this a confrontational battle. For that reason, the fact that we are in a position of some strength legally might not be our best response if we were discussing the issue directly with the (I suspect) handful of resdients who have made a complaint. But we are not, and will not be.
Our discussions ought to be with the Police, where we listen to the nature of the complaints and try to agree measures to prevent them in future but set always within the context of our absolute belief that we are - and will continue to be - engaged only in an entirely lawful pursuit in the proper way. Anything short of that will be the thin edge of a slppery slope to the tip of the iceberg.
I would be very happy to research things more thoroughly and be part of any meeting we might have with Essex Police if the Committee would allow me to. This is too important a principle to us and thousands across the country for any ground to be given unneccesarily.
Colin.
Hi Colin
I think the title Paul has given to the Essex RLO may have given rise to some confusion. While he does receive comments/complaints from the public via the Police, it is in his role as Motorsport UK route liaison officer that the suggestions to 'clean up our act' have come. Police are notified separately of our routes prior to the event and in most cases we do not even receive an acknowledgement. The RLO has to approve the route on behalf of the Motorsport UK before the event can take place, so it is not in fact automatic, although for many years it has appeared to be so.
If we do not enter into negotiation with the RLO on his suggestions, we may be required to PR the entire route for each 12 car, a task which would place an unreasonable burden on organisers and lead to events not being run.
Thanks for your comments and I for one agree with you as to the legality of our 12 cars; the issue is more one of image rather than substance... we have to be seen to do something if we want to continue running 12 cars at all.
Regards
Paul Brewerton
Thanks Paul - that makes more sense. I was a little surprised that, in the current climate, Essex Police were busying themselves with something like this. Still needs negotiation, but possibly of a different type and where we aren't starting from as strong a position. Although something must have prompted RLO to come to his decision, presumably that was learning from the Police of complaints and he is trying to head off problems for the Motorsport UK - which after all, I guess is his job.
I still think it is valid for us to try to establish the number, nature and location of complaints - so that we can speak meaningfully to the RLO.
If all fails there are lots of quiet roads in Suffolk....................
My thoughts on the forum post. There have been a number of complaints about 12 cars in the past year, and whilst there is a certain inevitability about "some public will always complain" the fact that there have been more than zero indicates that there is a problem to be addressed. The RLO's observations and his requirements to reduce the PR issues are a standard reaction to the issue. The Blue Book is non specific in what is required and the RLO has wide ranging powers.
Spotlights are not an issue, typically residents are not disturbed by lights. However, householders who hear cars will look to see what is going on and the lights will then feature in their comments/complaint as they are seen to be "rally cars" which in many cases they are and hence the poor driving standards tag gets attached. The answer BAN spots AND organisers need to place DIP boards out where even standard main beam lights sweep across or point directly into houses. Interestingly on my event some crews had never ever seen a DIP board and wrote it down thinking it was a code board so competitor education is also required!
The key problem is noise, once residents are disturbed there is a problem, and to restrict noise requires some effort. The noise test and the limit applied is pretty useless as the vehicle is not under load and while the check should be done little is gained. The older cars are much noisier, if they are to run, are they running standard (or better) exhaust systems and can we help them to upgrade their cars or encourage them out in their (usual?) normal 'shopping' car. However we should BAN prepared rally cars typically they are noisy and as above residents once disturbed will look out and see these cars think fast/poor driving etc.
I have been particularly disappointed with a number of the 12 car routes used last year as they have gone competitively through villages which can only increase public visibility especially if the cars have spots on and are rally prepped. Avoiding routes through speed restricted areas is virtually impossible but where it is inevitable the section thus affected should be a transport or neutral section with compulsory Q zone restrictions.
OTL for the last car by 22.00 certainly curtails event distance but the RLO is perfectly within his rights to impose this, but it does mean maximum mileage can be no more than 44 miles and that with an OTL of 20 mins. I do not feel that this proposal helps but if that is what it is then so be it.
PR many organisers will shy away from this, but it does repay when done selectively. Linked to route selection some roads will only ever have a residents car down the lane after 18.00 except perhaps for courier / grocery delivery so any car travelling at any speed on such a road will attract attention, as indeed a road leading to a byway (ostensibly a no-through road), all should be PRd as standard. If there is an issue better to find out before the event than afterwards. I do not advocate full PR as this can create more questions than solutions and is indeed very expensive in manpower time and cost.
Finally, how many cars would compete if only standard road cars without spots were allowed? I feel that there is limited enough rallying to suggest that full events should be maintained and if that means more experienced crews get a run then fine.
Touchpaper lit? Stand back!
Bob
I don't think that is THAT controversial Bob. Somehow it is much more palatable to me for the RLO to make conditions than it would be the police.
Anybody want to buy an endurance-prepared 106, though?
No doubt we have to go some way to comply with Essex Police’s suggestions, regrettable though it might be for us. No spots (not sure I agree with Bob that they’re not an issue), and standard exhausts or lower noise test levels strictly applied would be a start but as Bob says, how many entries would we get? Perhaps the biggest problem is driving standards, so we would need to DSO competitive sections as well. But this seems to be very impractical to me, after all we encourage speed by timing to the minute. What might be ok for one DSO might not be for another. If a car uses spots in a quiet zone then clearly there is an offence, and it’s not a question of judgement, but one of fact. And what might be ok driving for a competitor might look like speeding to a resident, and then it becomes reckless driving etc if he’s annoyed. It’s easy for a grumpy resident to phone the police and complain, a fact of life these days! But we all enjoy a good thrash around the lanes, even better if it’s competitive, but clearly we must do something, or a few things possibly, to keep the sport going. I take Bob’s point about competitive sections through villages (do we really do that?) so perhaps we should be more careful with the route but it’s difficult in Essex. Easier in Cambs and Suffolk though, thanks for the invite Colin!
One or two suggestions (not original by any means): More Q and DIP boards, more DSO’s, easier timing (and navigation?) and strictly applied penalties for early arrival at a control, secret timing checks, no spots(?), lower noise limit, and route check and approval from comp sec with some PR if appropriate.
Just a few thoughts, not sure they add to the debate, but please don’t lose the sport!
Thanks to Colin, Bob, Andy and those who have emailed directly for your valid inputs into the debate. The committee would appreciate more comments from competitors/potential competitors, particularly those who compete in historic and/or rally prepared cars who are likely to be affected. Would they be prepared to lose the spotlights and possibly use another car or would we just lose them as competitors and members? As Andy and Bob have said driving standards is the main issue - noise doesn't just come from the engine/exhaust - tyre squeal from heavy braking or hard cornering is even more likely to attract unwelcome attention from residents.
Paul Brewerton
Reading the comments, is it a case that somebody needs to put together a proposal to the RLO of how we are going to self manage the 12 cars. Could we agree on a list of rules going forward. Obviously needs discussion and agreement, but how about
Not sure if any modern cars with reasonable tyres give off much tyre squeal on 12 cars, or am i wrong.
Most road rally or endurance cars give off less light than a standard Ford Focus with Xeon Headlights, so not sure spot lights are such a light output problem
The 12 cars have been great starter events for so many good navigators, so we should try to keep them for future club members to introduce them to the art of navigation and first level of rallying.
I havnt had a suitable car last year, so havnt been out on many, but sounds like a few PR complaints than previously.
With regards to using my road car, this is often not viable as i had a company lease car Audi A5, or a company van, neither would be appropriate to use on a 12 car, maybe others are in the same position. I have recently purchased a road rally Satria, standard engine, gearbox, etc, but does have safety equipment rollcage, seats, belts and navigational lights, as well as spotlights. I would hope this would have been accepotable for this seasons 12 cars either as a board car or competitor on the odd event.
So far, apart from more use of dip boards, we have been looking at the cars, which is the predictable kneejerk reaction to criticism. More importantly we need to look at the driving standards and style. Most 'pressing on' takes place when trying to make up time lost by stopping to plot or for other reasons. The 3/4 rule for make up by definition encourages driving at more than 30 mph average. After some discussion with Tony Burchnall I think we have come up with a possible alternative solution to banning historic or 'rally' cars (most of which are standard except for cages, seats and belts, sumpguards and navigator's 'office equipment'.)
If we make the sections regularity sections timed to the minute at 30 mph, with the usual rules for IRTCs (undisclosed location, no waiting in sight of the control) plus maybe a heavier penalty for early arrival (2 mins per minute) then the reasons for excess speed and the concomitant noise are removed. Timing is from control to control so no make-up is involved. Some control locations or other points on the route could be deemed re-entry points for anyone who gets lost or needs to cut to remain inside OTL.
Combine this with preplot navigation (maybe 15 minutes for novices and experts, 30 for beginners) and more DSOs, and I believe we have a workable solution. I would be prepared to trial this approach in the Priestley if approved.
I realise the above may appear a radical proposal but please consider it seriously if we want to see the 12 cars continue.
Paul Brewerton
Before deciding on a solution it would be helpful if we knew the exact nature and number of complaints. lights,noise,driving too fast, driving too slow, geting out to have a wee.
We know joe public dosn't like us driving past their house but they never have.I tend to take colin's view with the thin end of the wedge. If we can improve things we should try but not at the expence of our sport.
Lets not forget, we do this sport because we like driving fast down country lanes at night. Of course we could all take up knitting
pat tierney
Paul ,Plotting to a control that you don't know where it is isn't much fun(sometimes it helps to plot back from the next control if navigation is tricky).You'd do better to not man them but give their location and instead put people at undisclosed passage checks that are timed as per usual regularity section .(or man both if enough marshals available.)
Pre plot regularity answers a lot of problems but might not be that attractive to some , a couple of sections where the route has less population could possibly still be plot and bash and mixes it up a bit.
Thanks Craig, I totally agree, so would do as you suggest - i.e. each section is plotted to a point or feature such as SH xx in GS xxxx., with "IRTCx, IRTCy will be found on the correct route".
Pat, maintaining a fixed 30 mph average is still a challenge to drivers on the sort of tight and twisty lanes we like to use.
Thanks for your comments. I'd still like to try it and see how it works out.
Paul
Please bear in mind the new members who we are trying to introduce into the sport. It is very important that any change to the format must take into account Begginers who have never competed on any rally type event previously. Over the past few months I have been talking to two new memebers, both are almost certain to try the 12 cars and targa rallies in almost standard cars. Introducing IRTC's may start to complicate things a bit, as well as potentialy requiring additional marshals.
Paul would it help if the interested parties get together at the club meeting on thursday for a round the table open discussion, maybe a bit before the general club meeting.
I've been quite quiet on this as I've seen it more as a car/driving aspect till now but I have been reading all!
The suggestion for change in navigation/style to IRTCs etc is interesting but I can see this as being quite difficult for beginners to get their head round (and the rest of us - even I haven't got round to do regularity things yet). When I've explained 12 cars to others they've understood it quite easily - the fact that they would know when they're expected at defined locations and, as they go through the route, knowing how much they've lost, is quite easily understood. Starting to introduce regularity style timing adds in a difficult aspect for beginners (and novices) to get their heads round whilst also learning so much else. Adding in plotting time would help with this I guess as it would reduce trying to work out so many things at the same time. Interestingly the 12 cars I started out on as a child did integrate regularity timing - we had "Special Time Controls" which would be unknown locations to us - normally on the first couple of sections. These were used for determining positions if crews drew on penalties at the end rather than being used as driving standards checks - and on these all crews got 15 mins plotting time so that we would likely have plotted the sections of route for the STCs. So yes I can see this working - it changes the way our sport runs - it turns it more into other style rallies rather than the challenge of plotting on the move for navigators - one of the reasons I've never ventured much out of 12 cars as it is the on-the-move plotting that I love the challenge of.
I would say that the defined (currently named) time controls are important - for all crews I think. It reduces quite the amount of stress and lack of enjoyment that could ensue if getting really off-track (speaking as a competitor who normally approaches each event for just having some fun rather than seriously competitive). I could also see other issues that people becoming more lost from not knowing control locations - especially that more crews could end up on other roads not PR'd. Even if they are not manned (so IRTCs can be) they do need to be there.
Sorry I can't be at clubnight on Thursday as I'm still up north but I will keep a keen eye on this topic.
Thanks for all the comments - I'm glad people have considered my suggestion seriously..The aim was to eliminate some of the reasons for people driving too fast. If the regularity aspect, especially unknown control locations, is a step too far maybe we could achieve the desired effect by simply introducing early penalties (2 minutes per minute), banning stopping to wait outside a control for the due minute, and abolishing make-up. This would empower the navigator to tell the driver to slow down if there is a likelihood of arriving early at a known control location.
Perhaps experts could also be expected to plot on the move - after all they have shown ability in getting to expert level.
I'm happy to have a discussion at the club night although I'm not sure we need to arrive early - and don't forget this month's club night is at the Six Bells, Boreham.
I'm another who is reading this thread with interest - notwithstanding my reputation for grumpiness.
I think Pat's point, that we should understand the nature of the complaints to be very valid. To me it seems that we have to be careful to seperate fact from theory - the facts I can see that we have been noticed by locall residents and they don't like it. My theory from this (based on marshalling experience) is that it will be a combination of noise and light polution - mostly noise. To many of the public, the "speed kills" advertising campain is not over simplistic BS so they can easily link an annoying noise to dangerous activity in their minds. Never forget that what we are proposing is politically incorrect in the 21st Century. My theory
Thinking about the noise issue. When I've marshalled, I can hear the cars for quite some time. It's not the volume I can pick out but the tone. It's engines running fast and up and down the rev range over and over again - gives the impression that the driver is trying hard for extended periods. No amount of vehiclar "ageism" will change the nature of the noise but we could limit the volume (it would help with the area affected at any given point). My proposal would be a measurement of volume on a rolling road. You can't do this at scrutineering so it means a certificate - which you won't be able to enforce if people want to cheat on event - by the way. It als means a cost and preparation for the crews, so we will lose crews but the events are (or could be) over subscibed so do we care?
Thinking about the light polution, I'm not beleiving that John and Jane public will know the difference between a Cibie and a Hella and I don't think our complaints come from any car parks (where they can actually see stationary cars). My thought is that there are 3 sources for complaint. 1. They go outside and see lights flashing about in the sky - a result of rapid progress and changes of direction. 2. They see lights flash through thier windows - that's about route and driving standards. The see them approaching apparently swiftly when they are driving thier own cars. A no spot lights rule is easily enforced, but competitors will wish to see and be seen, so they will still chose very good lights to the limits of the rules. I expect Zenon and gas discharge bulbs will become de-rigeur with no positive effect.
Thinking about the types of cars. Would I use my everyday car for these events - Are you mad? Half of this croud will be driving SuberEvo on a daily basis (we are a croud of enthusiasts remember), and the others will be in very expensive shiny. To bash either through Essex Pot Hole Lanes is not condusive to reliable motoring on the work run Monday morning. It's the same situation as with lights - I don't see it making a significant difference and it's just going to alienate the half of the club that now need to go and buy a new car on an arbitrary age limit.
Speed. This is one of the big hitters for me. We all know it's 30mph, and that the actual peak speeds achieved are really not fast and furious. The public though don't know this - thier point of reference is hollywood, so it's easy to associate noise and light with racing, very big mph noumbers, and a dramatic fireball at the end. I think we would be wise to assume our critics are not informed on this point!! Regards people driving swiftly, you can't say "first man there wins" and then say "A gentleman wouldn't drive swiftly" in the same event. The solutions to this are regularity (which has it's own problems with annoyuing the other road users) or stay away from the public when you are doing it.
Driving standards and event type. All the time we think of this as introductory event for newbies we are going to run in to problems with people making mistakes - you learn from your mistakes right? A problem here is that (and I know I'm lighting the blue touch paper) is that we don't have the wise old heads teaching the younger enthusiasm. The result (and fair play to those who are putting the effort in - by the way) is that mistakes are made. The problem is that none of the old croud want anything to do with 12 cars at all. Bob, Brian, Ed, Paul (me for old but not wise!) - call me a liar?
Route. I would propose that we ensure that all routes are of a straight line nature (not a big loop that spends all night circling a few houses). In this way - in principle the inconvenience to the home owners should be over and done in ~ 12 minutes.
I'll support a meeting to discuss. Up to and including the point at which I get shouted down - then I'm leaving. My final point would be that there's not much point in continuing to run events that are going to get shut down in blaze of bad publicity. Maybe we should fix it or throw it out while we are still in control of the outcome. The old guys will think about Kent and the nett result there. By the way - where is the Motorsport UK in this? Can we encourage them down from thier Ivory tower to help?
Having not organised a 12 car (due to job constraints), I'm not sure of what PR is handed out? How much explanation is given to those en route of what we are doing? Is it explained that it is a navigational event rather than a driving event, that we have an average speed of 30mph, that routes are chosen carefully to keep disturbance to a minimum, and the two things that I think would be most significant: that noise levels are checked for legality immediately before each event and that there are penalties for arriving early at controls. Explaining this in the context of there only be 14 cars (12 + opening + closing), that we ensure routes don't overlap during the year, and that times are kept to more acceptable times (late enough to avoid causing more problems for themselves being out on the roads, early enough to be before 10:30pm with rare exceptions) may mean they might be more understanding?
How much of this is explained already to people en route?
OK here's my 'twopenworth'.
I've been PR officer on more than a few CMC events and been at the 'sharp end' of speaking to or visiting complaining residents. The view that I have always taken is that it is a legal activity carried out on public roads and that we are informing them as a courtesy, not to get their permission and should not change the route, rules of format. I have on most occasions persuaded people that we are not boy racers tearing up the tarmac ( well most aren't anyway) and sometimes conceded to a Q board or Dip board. Some residents however are just blatant nimby's and will disrupt the event if it does pass their property.
I think the reason that the police and RLO have got involved is that if the event is not PR'd then the resident has no contact number for the club/ organiser to complain to but do you really want to PR a 12 car? By doing so you are inviting people to complain before the event and you may still get some after. On a recent Preston PR we made a personal visit to a house where we where putting a control at the end of a white. The people were happy but on the night of the event they went out and left their daughter at home, she saw us outside setting up the control and phoned the police.
Some people I have spoken to when they have raised concerns about being on the route remember the days of balls out rally cars with as many spots as you can fit on and think it is still like that.
Without knowing how many complaints the police have received and for what reason it's difficult to find a solution, it may be that a crew has stopped near someone's house to do some plotting and they have phoned because they look suspicious. Perhaps you could offer up someone's phone number to the police for the complainants to get in touch. I haven't been involved in 12 car organising but are newcomers briefed on road rally etiquette? Ie don't stop and plot outside properties, dip at junctions, houses & controls, quite in 30mph etc etc
I agree with Pat that we all like a thrash around the country lanes but aren't 12 cars a way in for beginners, particularly navigators. Should crews who have become familiar with 12 cars be encouraged to step up to road rallying proper?
We are trying to find solutions here without knowing the exact nature of the problem. Is it light, exhaust noise, speed, tyre squeal, sitting plotting or simply using roads that don't usually have traffic after dark? Until we know that - either from the RLO or the police - we are in danger of just throwing everything at it in the hope we might meet the actual issues and in doing so taking unnecessary measures which will be difficult to roll back.
It would in any event be useful to document a guide to road rallying etiquette I think. Competitors becoming blinkered to the effect they are having on the residents on the route isn't restricted to 12 cars anyway; didn't we have a crew changing a puncture outside a house in a quiet zone on the Preston last year?
I have no problem with Paul & Tony's idea of regularities - indeed I'd quite like it, personally, as it would mean more practice for us on a skill we use during our main competitive activity. Not sure it will have a massive effect though. There is one unalterable fact that I think it might be impossible to deal with: The two basic requirements of the sport are that time taken is the means of measuring performance and to stay within the time allowed the crews need to navigate accurately. Whether the speed is set at 30 or 20 there will always be occasions when the navigation goes wrong and it becomes a rush to get back to where you should be at something like the time demanded. Which will almost always inspire quick driving, sometimes off-route and in the 'wrong' areas PR-wise. The more difficult the navigation becomes then the more likely is this outcome - especally given that we (rightly) bias the entry towards those who are still learning. We can take out the additional speed required by stopping to plot by making it pre-plot, but nothing the organisers can do will prevent wrong-slots. Even marked maps require accurate finding of slots and relation of the map to what you are seeing outside of the car, and mistakes will happen. The only possible way of reducing this would be a 0 minutes OTL allowance, in other words as soon as you miss your first time you are out. Which would be just daft.
Marked maps set at 20 mph with easy to find slots in standard cars is probably the safest way to avoid problems, but we will need to be prepared for 10 way ties on no minutes and no fails - and PR complaints about the two crews who got lost and tried really hard to get back on schedule from the middle of a housing estate or somebody's drive. Until the entry numbers start to decline.....
It is the beginning of the end unless we fight. I still think our stark choice is either to roll over and let it slip away with dignity or to fight robustly to continue what, after all, we are perfectly entitled to do. One last thought: Will the objecting residents be able or willing to distinguish between 12 cars and closed-road motorsport if and when that ever becomes a reality? Given that both will have equal legality? At least during a 12 car they can still drive where they like themselves, there are no spectators bringing extra traffic and it is all over in 15 minutes.
what you say makes a lot of sence colin its more or less what i said on saturday. " there have been complaints" just dosen't do it we need to know more about the nature of the complaints before we can deal with them. how do we know that all the complaints are about one car and one driver. lets try and find out the exact nature of the complaints then deal with it.
We have had noise tests on 12 cars run by Paul Brewerton for the past year.
Here are the noise test figures from the April Blossom - all below the 98 dB road rally limit:
There is quite a spread, and these figures are not really helpful in indicating which cars are noisy out on the events.
I learnt a lot about noise when we were addressing the issue of noise complaints at an autosolo venue. I spent all day monitoring the test sites whilst in use, at various distances. Although not immediately transferable to rally cars there will be a similarity in the findings.
All cars passed 98dB comfortably and the range was similar to the April Blossom readings.
100 metres from the test sites the highest reading was high 70's. Many were at ambient which was about 65. At 200 metres no car recorded above ambient. Bear in mind this was an Autosolo so everyone was trying as hard as they could and the meter was picking up tyre noise as well.
Therefore, does that mean that cars could not be heard on tests? No. Although the noise was not recorded as 'loud' it was 'different', so you knew they were being driven hard by the TYPE of sound. It's all about perception. If it is evident that cars are being driven hard on a 12-car because of the type of sound ( not the volume ), some people will object. Add flashing lights on the skyline from car lights and there is confirmation that something unusual is happening and this upsets some people. I'm not suggesting they are right or wrong to be upset, just that some are.
We don't generally hear much from our RLO's. They act like 'godfathers' ( without the Mafia connection ) and only speak up if they get a vibe that a problem looms. Therefore we should ask why an issue has been raised, and it won't be for no reason. Our relationship with the police is really quite good. I can only recall seeing one police car on any of our 12-cars. In the good old days it was possible to come off a rally with a trophy for a class win and a couple of speeding tickets as well.
There is clearly a sensitivity issue with some members of the public. What we are doing is legal (although accelerating a bit early out of a 30 limit may be marginal!) but that's not really the point. We don't want the reputation of CMC damaged or events which we run being flagged up by the police because they get complaints ( which they don't want to be bothered with ). This is what our RLOs are trying to avoid. However, they do have sanctions like requiring PR-ing. I have experienced PR-ing the EAC. We split the route into about 25 mile sections amongst those of us who do it. Each section can make two people write off a day to do and this is at the lowest level of PR requirement. I can't imagine two people giving up two days so that twelve cars can spend a couple of hours driving round on a Friday night. I won't.
Just to add a bit of perspective, our 12-cars are timed at 30mph. This is exactly the maximum speed a Targa organiser is allowed to have his tests timed at. Any more and he is in trouble with the Motorsport UK. He will add PC's to slow cars down to get his 30 mph. On a 12-car the time spent at controls is dismissed so in fact we are allowing road time at more than 30mph average. Allow the three-quarters rule and the avarage goes up to 40mph, nearly. There will be many of us, me included, who have had to wait outside a control for our minute. 40 mph is the maximum average for an Endurance test. However, Endurance and Targa events are on closed sites nowhere near houses.
I think we need to reduce our profile, basically so that we become largely un-noticed. Then we will be able to carry on unhindered. At the moment we only use timing to measure loss of pace. It could be used to measure accuracy of navigation but is overlooked for that purpose.
I also appreciate that there will always be wrong slots and the need to catch up, but these will be individual issues and little local incidents, not all of us banging about together. I think we need to look at other's sensibilities and bear in mind that if the only complaints come from the habitual complainers who shout about everything so are ignored, we will have won. After all, 12-cars still operate in areas which are equally populated or have been known to be problematic, just by tempering things a bit.
Tony.
are we saying that we have had complaints on every 12 car or just from a certain area
Apologies for my abstract ramblings...
I have just been reading through all the postings (I didn't even know there was a discussion until I was tipped off)
I am very concerned that we may be staring "12-Car Lite" in the face here. Lower mileages, strict restrictions on the cars used, much simpler navigation or even fully marked maps, much lower average speeds etc etc just to please a few people.
Lack of knowledge (OK, downright ignorance) of what we are doing by members of the general public is going to cause us problems, so we do need to react, but not in the ways being suggested from outside the club.
Cars
There has been discussions of the cars being used. I think I could count on one hand "normal" cars being used. Luis using his RAV4 once springs to mind, and Mark using his converted Kangoo van. No-one is going to use their daily driver regularly for these events. Part of the enjoyment is also in doing the events in cars better prepared for the purpose. Also, what is the point of doing a 12-car in a large, comfortable 4x4 or luxo-barge then going and doing another "higher status" event is a hot, noisy, cramped, smelly little tin-can. It is no preparation, and 12-cars are used by many people as preparation for other events. There is also a nationwide push, backed by vested interests I have no doubt, to “outlaw” older cars, usually on trumped up environmental grounds, or safety grounds. Does the club wish to pander to them, once the rots sets in, ever more things will be restricted. Noise was also mentioned. What limits do we test for at the moment? “Construction and Use” limits? Blue Book limits? Can the club impose limits lower than legal limits for road cars? Perhaps the use of a few noise meters to measure Fly-Past noise on the route is the answer, with penalties and exclusion for infringements.
Lighting
There has been a lot of discussions of spotlights, many other clubs say no spots, in some cases even insisting they are removed. You could class every event as fully QZ, so no main beams either. Fairly easily policed using DSO and TC marshalls. Speeds are kept down by lack of visibility. No need for any QZ or DIP boards. Easier to plan for organisers.
Timings
I think Pauls description of his idea as "regularity" is slightly misleading. It is just an event with no Make-Up available and correct enforcement of the rules on approaching controls. The last event of 2014-5 was of that format, I think there was practically no make-up available. So we have proven it can be done (or not done in my case, my first ever OTL). If we move to secret controls, then yes, it is a form of regularity, but in its simplest form. It would require everyone to have an accurate method of measuring distance and time, so more expense possibly.
Organising
I think it was Colin that asked what was provided to the RLO and the Police. I have always provided a fully marked map to the RLO, and the minimum needed to the Police, just a list of villages passed through and approximate timings. Whether that is correct I do not know. Essex police have never replied, and when contacted by organisers of non-CMC events they have intimated what they do with the letters sent to them, usually involving something bin shaped. Suffolk Police (who have a dedicated resource for dealing with such information) have always contacted me back, thanking me and advising they have passed the timings to the local teams in case there is any feedback, and to also observe if required. Whether they ever intend to, i do not know. But marked cars have been seen on the routes during the event "live" times. I think the Suffolk approach is better, as it is reinforcing our legitimacy.
Should we go about organising the events in a different way? I do not know what others do, but I drive the complete route at least once on my own, and once with another person, as well as individual parts as I choose the route, looking for possible "hazards", windows that lights would shine in, locations of TC's, houses very close to roads. It is practically impossible to devise a route that is guaranteed not to have an impact on someone, so everything is a compromise, degrees of impact so to speak. A few parts of the events I have organised have been "I'm not sure.." so I have had to rely on competitors being sensible and behaving in a manner least likely to cause problems. I hope they have done.
Bob mentions the choices of roads used, but there we have a Catch 22 situation, do we use quiet lanes that see very little traffic, satisfying one criteria, but we are then noticeable by the increased traffic, do we use roads with higher traffic levels, but then we are touching or going through villages, with higher populations. I have toyed with an event that is almost all Main A-roads and Trunk roads (and only because we have no motorways in the Suffolk/Essex borders). It would minimise the likelihood of PR issues, but may not be the most satisfactory for the entrants!
What do other clubs do? I would guess there are people who also participate on other 12-car events. I do non-timed events organised by Club Triumph and Bedford CC, and timed events organised by Civil Service MC and Black Palfrey (some are regularity organised under a 12-car permit).
PR feedback
It will be interesting to see the list of PR incidents. I can think of a couple, the most recent possibly being the one that has sparked this discussion, which I am guessing was from the farmer that tried to run us and at least one other car off the road by blinding us (no worries about using spot-lights on his part!) and driving straight at us at speed.
I have one final observation, is there a concern from some club members / officials that negative PR on the 12-car events will impact on the higher status events such as The Preston and the EAC, threatening their survival, in which case does the club need to stop organising other events to preserve the high status ones, but that would be to the detriment of those members that do not compete in those events? The club would become a single event specialist, is that what we want? Perhaps “CMCevo” is the answer, a new club that is used for organising 12-cars, and can disappear when the PR gets tough and reappear as CMCevo2 shortly afterwards to start again.
Several of you have quite rightly asked how many complaints have been made, where from and to whom. The truth of the matter is we (at least I) do not know what has prompted the Essex RLO to send an email to our chairman timed just before a committee meeting, requiring us to do something to ensure the continuance of 12 cars and making some suggestions.
I can confirm that he has agreed my route for the Priestley on 25th September, without making any PR requirements, largely because we are having this discussion. However we do need to be seen by the RLO to be doing something to 'reduce the impact'. I think we might have to 'bite the bullet' as regards spotlights (interestingly CSMA in inviting us to their 12 cars reported that the Hertfordshire RLO has just relaxed a previous spotlight ban in his region), issue strict instructions to crews regarding driving standards, continue noise tests and scrutineering, empower all marshals as DSOs to exclude competitors as well as using specific DSOs at potentially sensitive spots. I must say I have acted in a DSO capacity on several 12 cars in recent years and all crews have passed quietly. Adding in the requirement to enter the control immediately on arrival with strict penalties for early arrival and reducing/removing make-up would simplify things for beginners and discourage old hands from using some of the 'tricks of the trade'.
We already have a team of experienced route checkers who ensure no over-use of roads (essentially an in-house RLO function) although their role at the moment is advisory to event organisers - maybe they should be empowered to require route changes before submission to the RLOs.
If the intention is to get us to clean up our act (pretty clean anyway in my view) then that should suffice. If there is a campaign (maybe I'm being a little paranoid here) to get rid of 12 cars from the club calendar then nothing will.
I hope to see some of you at the club night tonight (Six Bells Boreham) for an informal discussion.
Paul
Lots has already been said re what should or should not be done. Having marshaled on a few events last season as my driver was moving house noise was the biggest factor that brought the cars to my attention. Most of the cars could be heard at least 1/2 mile away and the noise gave the impression the cars are going much faster than they actually are.
With regard to no makeup time that is fine but having moved up to expert last season some of the rally clues have been a bit obscure. In some cases it has almost stopped being a navigation rally and turned into quiz trying to work out what the clues mean let alone plot them. This then means time is lost so speed is needed to get back on track. It has been mentioned that experts should plot on the move and i do try this as much as possible but in a 1960 car with 1960 suspension trying to plot a grid reference accurately because 1mm left or right could mean you turn left or right is almost impossible. Again speed is needed to makeup time.
We need to look at lots different aspects to our 12 car rallying but perhaps in some cases the Clark of the course needs to be a bit more realistic in what the entrants can acheive with out have to play catchup all the time.
Finally i do wonder if we need to be more proactive with Essex police. The first place most of the public will call if they feel wrongly or rightly that a bunch of hoodlums are driving past there house will be the police. Ideally we need the police to say "yes it an authorised rally and will be over by 11pm" and most members of the public will be placated. But if we sent the information in a month before the rally and that has ended up in the bin it has been forgotten about. Then they will take the public call as a serious issue. Perhaps we need to call the police a couple of hours before the event, email, fax them the route information on the day so it is fresh in there minds.
Mark
I am reading this thread with interest.
Not sure that I can offer many suggestions that have not already been proposed.
I am only entering 12 car rallies at the moment as I dont think my virtually standard 1969 mini cooper 's' is strong enough for other events. But my car is able to succeed in 12 car as the emphasis is on the navigation and not the driving. The slowest car can still win if you have the least fails. I think this is the great thing about the 12 car events.
I was doing 12 cars in the late seventies and early eighties(also in a mini cooper) but our club in Portsmouth was forced to stop due to the PR rules that were introduced by the Motorsport UK. At that time there was a lot more clubs organising a lot more overlapping events. I can understand why the PR rules were introduced because the sport needed controlling.
My impression is that now there a lot fewer 12 car events being organised, and the organisation is much better to avoid over use of roads, and the public are much happier because frequency of the nuisance is much reduced, but the awareness about these events is less. The result is that most complaints from anoyed public seem to be from the disbelief that 12 car rallies on open public roads can be legal. I think if the response by the police to the public when these complaints are received, was that these events are legal and operated within the present laws of the road by a responsable club operating within strict rules, then maybe this might satisfy most of te complainants ( you will never satisfy all). This might require some more work by organisers to educate the local police call centres about the legallity of 12 car night of the rallies.
You asked for feedback from teams using historic cars on these 12 car events.........With regards to car preparation, I don't think anything should be changed, providing the event cars are road legal in every respect, then why should they be further restricted. With regards to the lighting issue, I have driven my mini on events where spotlights are not allowed. My personal experience is that the spread of light by my halogen lights is not sufficient when on the lanes at 90 degree bends and tighter bends, as there is very little periferal lighting, the spotlights greatly aid this. So to ban them makes the event more dangerous for the driver, navigator and third party properties. So I would advocate not to introduce a spotlight ban.
Jim Drake
As requested, some comments/feedback from a driver of an "Historic Class" car; the Triumph Mk3 Spitfire as mentioned in the noise test results further up in this thread. I feel somewhat guilty owning the car that proved to be the loudest under test, by quite some margin. What I can say, is that the static RPM based test is not fully representative of the noise my car (and probably the other historics too) makes when underway. Having marshalled a number of times I know for sure that a certain few other non-historic cars make a far more intrusive and "faster" sound than the older historics do when you hear them some distance away. If we are to change the noise test procedure then it needs to be done in a way that measures on-the-road noise more realistically than at present.
Regarding spotlights and Jim's comments above.... Having done a couple of events as Experts now, we find that we need to drive faster as a result; see Marks's comments above on this. This means that for me, the driver, running without spots (as we did on one event for other reasons) makes things quite a bit more hairy and I would be concerned about this being the norm as it borders on being dangerous when you need to press on a bit. If we are to ban spots, then we have to have a corresponding reduction in Expert clue difficulty, or something else that allows more plot and bash time and less having to stop for plotting. Enforcing restricted use of spots (DIP boards, Q zones, etc) is fine and sensible, but banning them is not a safe move unless the navigation/timing/average speed/etc., is changed to accommodate it.
I have been watching this debate unfold, it has to be said with an element of dismay. In particular I have serious concerns around the implications in previous posts that classics/historics are a problem that needs to be controlled or worse still removed in order for our sport to continue. Firstly for me, the whole point of participating in these events is to get out and drive my Triumphs (none of which are particuarly modified or competitive!). I am not a polisher, having grown out of the show scene many years ago. I plainly and simply love to drive my cars in the manner in which they were designed. To entertain thoughts of "cleaning up" this particualar element of motorsport by restricting/banning classics is to my mind ludicrous. There is enough restriction, angst and misunderstanding originating from our so called friends and partners in Brussels already, not to mention all those quick to jump on the envirnmental bandwagon - and everyone who enjoys driving or even just seeing classic cars not just in motorsport, but in any setting, should be mindful of contributing to this. It really does look like the thin edge of the wedge to me.
With respect to public perception, I wonder if the larger public actually view the sight of classics/historics enthusisatically driving about in a much more favorable light than modern vehicles.
Jim in his last two paragraphs above, has captured really well two of the thoughts at the forefront of my mind. With the tight timing of the events, even when chasing the easy clues, there is a need to press on to beat the spectre of OTL. This inevitably gets worse throughout the course of the event. Having experienced a drive with an expert nav next to me, it is even more necessary on the harder clues as inevitably more time is lost either wrong slotting/or head scratching at a junction whilst the nav catches up. This I think has been further worsened by the removal of the next time control grid ref from the clues given to the experts. Maybe those who have been doing them for a long time find this not to be a problem, however my perception as a driver was that I had to push along a lot harder than I would have normally been accustomed, to at all times during that event.
I have also noticed a bit of a trend (or possible conservative guidance from my navigator) for quiet zones to extend some distance either side of the habitated areas that they are designed to protect. Although generally speaking my cars have no spots, they tend to have strong main beams but weak dips. I have on more than one occasion had to significantly slow down approaching/leaving these quiet zones, because even at normal driving speeds I felt I couldn't see enough of the road on dip lights to drive faster safely. So I can hear some of you thinking that the quiet zone designation is working as intended, however judging by the people that then end up on my tail, the modern brighter lights do not seem to be affected in such a way! The knock on for me is that I then have to press on harder when I can see where I am going again, in order not to challenge OTL.
Finally regarding shorter events, finishing earlier. In my opinion, maybe we should consider the opposite - start a bit later and finish a bit later - the later in the night that we run, the more people will be in bed and less likely to be out walking the dog or chasing the sheep etc.
I'm sure a few more thoughts will come out of my muddled brain, but I've probably written enough for now!
I received an email response to my Freedom of Information Act enquiry today. My query was,
"Since 01-09-2013, how many complaints have been made to Essex Police arising from the running of 12 car motor rallies on the public road? If possible, what is/was the nature of the complaints and what was the rough location (obviously without disclosing the identity of the complainant)."
I won't reproduce all the bureaucratic stuff here, but the important part of it reads:
"The Essex Police Roads Policing Team have received no complaints during this period."
Which is interesting................
Colin.
well that puts a different slant on things. i wonder who did get the complaints ?
And how did the RLO get to hear of them? I cannot imagine any normal member of the public having either the knowledge or the determination to find Ted's name and contact details.
That would seem to be sensible now. What exactly did he get told and by whom? Note too that, despite my carefully-worded enquiry, the Police reply just mentions the Roads Policing Team. Conceivably complaints to the control room or directly to local officers might not have been passed on to them ( yes, I know it is difficult to believe but sometimes intelligence isn't shared.....) - but how would they then make their way to the RLO? Given that his point of liaison is within the Roads Policing Unit? Curious really.
When a resident is disturbed by competitors they invariably telephone '999' which is received in the Force Control Room [FCR] in Chelmsford. They will then log the call and deploy or at least inform a local police resource if they think this is appropriate. Unfortunately, the current policing resourcing levels is not what I would all like to see neither is their workload. Such calls are unlikely to warrant a priority response as a result of these other commitments and I would hate to think of officers being deployed when there is a far more urgent need of their service. Adam Pike who leads the team who 12 car organisers notify, notifies the FCR but if you could see the demand in this room on a Friday night you would reaslise why a 12 car would not make their briefing. Years ago this was not the case but for many many years 12 cars have run without any probem. Last year I was DSO and Closer and both times dealt with an angry resdent who had phoned '999', I ended up speaking with the FCR myself. Neither incident was ever reported to Adam Pike or his team as the majority of FCR staff would not know about this notification process. In the road rallying heyday of 1970's and 80's they all knew. I am therefore not surprised that Colin received the FOI response he did. I also know that many residents in certain parts of the county know about the Motorsport UK and the approval process, they know our web site and I believe some organisers issue 'to whom it may concern' notices, so would not be surprised if notification to the RLO came via the Motorsport UK, I doubt the police have the time but I may be wrong, I will phone Adam on Tuesday and confirm.
In addition to the very thoughtful and useful comments about noise, lights, navigation, cars, competitor awareness and other contributing factors to PR issues on our 12 car rallies there is some speculation from competitors, and some supporting facts from our resident former police officers (Colin & Brian), about the escalation of complaints to the police & RLOs. Generally our 12 car rallies generate a couple of PR issues each year. The majority of these are dealt with diplomatically by competitors or the course closing car talking to the residents in question and are the information about them is circulated to all 12 car organisers and to Ted O'Day & Gary Nicholls, CMC members who are Essex & Suffolk RLOs respectively, for future route planning. Sometimes, as Brian observes above, the complaints go directly to the police but how they get recorded or responded to can vary depending on processes and priorities.
The most recent complaint that went to Essex police arose on the March Hare event this year - it was dealt with directly by a PCSO based at Braintree police station and escalated to Ted and our club chairman, Jim Bowie, who responded directly to the issue. It was this complaint that triggered Ted to request a review of our approach to running events to see if we can reduce the likelihood of future problems occuring.
There is a club committee meeting this Thursday and this topic will be high on the agenda for discussion. The comments on this thread will all be taken into consideration and will be most helpful in guiding the committee to any decision that it may make. In the meantime some additional 'guidance' has been added to the entry form for this month's event.
last week on the local news one morning the report was on Essesx police banning rallies. turned out to be people on the modified/ cruise scene. i suspect most people, would associate the term rally with flat out driving, wrc style - or possibly now illegal road based events.
a name change might well break this unwanted connection. something that emphasises the navigational nature and drops the word rally.
Changing the name isn't going to stop people complaining about what they perceive to be antisocial behaviour.
It does bring me back to something I posted earlier, regarding possible differing public perceptions dependant upon the age of the cars seen. The whole joyride / hot hatch / cruise / drift etc scene drives a perception of hooliganism and lawlessness. Sadly any of us driving a similar car either noisily or seemingly fast will likely be tarred by the same brush.
Regarding historics, it may not always be the case, but possibly due to the nostalga effect if the same is applied to a classic vehicle, the perception/reaction may well be more positive.