Bicycles Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people who build and repair bicycles, people who train cycling, or commute on bicycles. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
I find it tedious to spend half a day riding the dangerous streets of the city to purchase a mountain insurance, then spend money on race subscription and in then arriving early as hell on the start line to get my number.
Provided I do not take any water or food from the checkpoints and I do not cross the finish line, is there an ethical reason not to ride with the race?
Unethical, because you're imposing costs on the organisers anyway. Apart from the obvious "if you get hurt they're going to help you", they almost always face costs per participant and often have a limit on numbers. Violate those limits and the organisers will have problems.
You're also causing wear and tear on the track, equipment and marshals. You can't pretend that away by saying "other people do it too"... yes, and they paid for the privilege. You're stealing it. Not really ethical IMO.
This is another case where your exact marginal impact is low, but at some point one more increment like that will get the race cancelled or refused permission to do it again.
The other thing is that if you are involved in an incident and are deemed to be at fault, you will not be insured. The race insurance won't cover you (obviously), but whatever insurance you have almost certainly has a an illegal activity exclusion. They'd most likely leave it to you to show that what you were doing was lawful. But since most races take place on temporarily closed areas, that would be hard. They close the area specifically to people like you. For exactly that reason.
I’d say it’s totally okay if the road is not closed for the event and still open for cars and other vehicles.
If it's a race with competitors who are trying to win, then I would definitely say no. Like time travel, just being there at the same place and time can cause unknown effects on future outcome.
If you want to use the track, contact the race organizers and see if they want people to help out checking the track the morning or night before the race for unplanned obstacles or other problems with the route. See if they need referees (not sure if this is the correct term in cycling) to follow the riders to make sure everybody is following the track and not taking short cuts. Do you have any first aid certifications? Maybe they need on-the-trail first-aid care for riders who get injured. If it's a route without laps, they may even allow people to ride a safe distance (half hour or more) behind the actual competitors.
If it's a charity or other type of non-competitive road ride, and the roads are open to cars, then you technically have every right to be there, and although some may frown at it, there isn't really much of a reason not to go, provided you are a courteous rider and don't use any of the facilities furnished to riders.
I think that any kind of closed course, even on the road, and even for a non-competitive rides is probably off limits. And "closed course" doesn't mean that the entire thing is behind a barbed wire fence. It would be impractical for them to block off every entrance to a course. A closed course is any course where they have made some effort to try and stop unregistered riders, vehicles, and pedestrians from being on the route.
Yes, that's highly unethical. This isn't any different than banditing a marathon. Race organizers go through quite a bit of trouble and expense to provide a safe racing environment, especially if the race goes over public roads. By jumping into a race you're exposing race organizers, participants and yourself for liability and in some situations stealing "resources."
Would you ride that exact route on another day, when there was no race on? I'd say stop being frugal and support cycling in your area.
I contemplated the topic, visited a local XC/Enduro* race, asked the guys that organise it.
"Are riders without subscription and numbers hindering the race, they are not one or two but about 20%?"
"No. Why would they?"
My conclusion is that any cyclist without registration is no different than any other bystander. Consequently, if the race organisers have taken strain to restrict outside personnel**, then Mσᶎ's answer applies with full strength. On the other hand, if travel is allowed, cycling is no more immoral than walking on the race course. However:
Those are supposed to be objective arguments, on the basis of which each individual can decide.
* - 100m positive attitude gain, 1700m negative attitude gain, mix of loose gravel road and singletrack of moist sharp stones; hikers, children, dogs, automobiles everywhere
** - for example, I would consider a large warning sign a suitable restriction for hikers, or a police car a suitable restriction to automobiles
