Were the runners or the resident being unreasonable?

[AdventureBe]

I was at a very large running event yesterday. It's been going for 20 years and has raised £100,000s for charity.

Generally well organised, but there aren't enough toilets - as there often aren't at running events.

The main carpark was a field with a 20m wooded area along one edge. On the other side of the wooded bit there is a 6 ft fence which is the boundary for gardens.

Many runners, male and female, were going into the woods for a last minute wee. Some residents were stood on steps to look over their fences and shout at people relieving themselves. They were going in the woods, not against the fence.

Opinion was very split. Most runners thinking really, what's the harm of having a wee in the woods, residents obviously feeling differently about lots of people weeing quite close to their gardens.

Runners are used to some pretty awful facilities at races and to having to make do with what's available, so may have warped ideas of what's Ok

What do you think?

The runners are definitely being unreasonable. If local businesses make so much money from the event I suggest they pay for more portaloos.

Oh and if I needed to go three times in 40 minutes I would be booking an appointment with my doctor.

It is absolutely down to the organisers to sort this out.

They must have to get permission from the council and whoever else to hold the event. Oh, but I bet they do quite nicely out of it. The residents need to complain more loudly if it really is a massive problem, not just by yelling over the fence, but in writing to the council.

Also whoever makes the rules on how many loos to have for public events needs to revise them for sport events like these. They need to recognise that most people will want to to a nervous last wee 10/15 mins before starting. I once complained to a half marathon organiser that there weren't enough loos and their response was that they were meeting the minimum amount for the number of people for a public event. In this case they have actually put on more loos in subsequent years, but unless events are MADE to supply more they won't.

Really, runners aren't that bothered about using a portaloo (poo and periods aside), just rig up a big tent where we can squat (over a trough or something).

VLM has it right, though the only race I've done where there have been enough loos was The Race for Life.

Sigh. Bathtime, have you missed the bit about how I was in the queue, not the bushes?

It is a fact that most people do need to go in the last few minutes. Therefore, that is the issue that needs dealing with. Silver, you need to run to understand. It's not that they're regularly going every 10 mins, it's that before a race most people do because of a mixture of nerves and over hydration. (nerves mostly IMO and certainly in my case)

Catheters for everyone.....

bath and silver I am a very experienced runner and usually have my hydration spot on. I sometimes fuck it up if I over drink when it's warm, but that's rare.

For me, the last wee is a nervous one.

Needing a nervous wee before a race doesn't justify pissing on the ground.

It's foul and filthy, and if it's just nerves, queueing shouldn't be a problem.

Tough shit if you miss the start of the race. Your chip will give your actual time.

It is a fact that most people do need to go in the last few minutes. Therefore, that is the issue that needs dealing with
So, the issue is that there aren't enough loos through bad organisation and/or penny pinching and the runners are inconsiderate where they piss.

But you didn't like the idea of more loos as that would mean less money for charity.

Why should local residents suffer just because the proper facilities would have an associated cost?

the fact that some of the profits of the race go to charity is irrelevant. The organisers will spent loads on admin, advertising, stewards, race numbers etc as well as paying themselves a salary.

No-one said it did Bathtime, but in the real world, where people do prioritise a race they've trained long and hard for, it does mean that it's not as simple as providing more toilets.

It's nothing to do with what I like or don't like SoldierBear. I was hoping to have a discussion.

The race is organised to raise money. Therefore the fact that providing more toilets would affect profits (and likely not solve the problem anyway) is relevant.

The race is organised to raise money. Therefore the fact that providing more toilets would affect profits

Charity doesn't justify bad behaviour.

If it's the one I took part in yesterday...agreed, there were no toilets on the route. Why put water stops every 5k, but no facilities?

It has everything t do with what you like, because your subjective feelings (aka likes) are very obvious.
The fact an event is organised to raise funds for charity is irrelevant to those who suffer as a direct result of that event.
It is irrelevant to the runners who decide to piss next to houses rather than wait for a loo.
The race will cost thousands to organise, so the charity will only get a percentage of the funds raised anyway.
Of course more toilets and proper precautions (stewards/ fencing/barbed wire whatever) would solve the problem by making it impossible for the runners to get to that area.
Yes, there will be a cost - but one which is essential to the proper running of the event. You don't like that idea, and you don't like any solutions to the issues of runners being inconsiderate arses. So how can there be a discussion when you clearly think there is No solution, which in turn implies the residents just have to put up with it?

Nice selective quotation Gemauve!

As I said earlier, I have emailed the organisers and told them they need more toilets next time. But, I don't believe this will fully rectify the situation and it will affect the amount of money the charity gets. No-one said, anywhere, that bad behaviour is justified by charity.

These races are not really organised to raise money.

They're organised to provide an enjoyable leisure activity for fit, active, usually reasonably well off people.

People sometimes get sponsorship, or the race is run for charity, but people who run, run because they enjoy it. And running in races is loads of fun and a real buzz.

When you are out enjoying yourself, it is not OK to come in huge groups to somebody else's neighbourhood and piss all over the ground.

No matter how much you've trained, or how much money you've raised.

The last thing any of us who enjoy running needs is for selfish, disgusting people who could up local areas giving running such a bad name that local areas will resist having races run through them.

But you keep on implying the bad behaviour is okay - because the provision of toilets will cost money.
It is irrelevant that the race raises funds for charity. They need more toilets and should either provide more or reduce the number of runners. They should also make it impossible for the runners to use this area as an improntu communal loo which could be done easily and at minimal cost.

If the runners still refuse to queue for a toilet, then that is their look out.

Who foul up local areas

If I lived in one of those houses, and had a downstairs loo, I'd put up a notice advertising clean toilet facilities at 50p a go.

I bet, given the choice, most runners would rather not pee in the trees...

That's not true Bathtime.

It's true most of the runners aren't running to raise money for charity, but because they like running and entering races. However, the Charities absolutely do organise them to raise funds. This one and three others like it in the county are the primary fundraising tools used by the small charity that organises it.

That's a good idea Shockers. And if you were prepared to give the money to the charity, we'd pay more than 50p. Actually you'd have to charge more than 50p or your queue would be too long too

I bet, given the choice, most runners would rather not pee in the trees...

But they did have a choice - to queue up for the toilets.

They chose to piss in the woods because they couldn't be arsed to queue. I'm sure walking around the block to a stranger's house wouldn't have been that attractive either.

This one and three others like it in the county are the primary fundraising tools used by the small charity that organises it.

Well if the runners keep up their antisocial behaviour, they'll have to find a different kind of leisure event to organise.

This one and three others like it in the county are the primary fundraising tools used by the small charity that organises it.

Sorry, I thought you said that charity doesn't excuse bad behaviour? And yet here you are, using charity to excuse bad behaviour.

Agree with bathtime. People needing to pee 4 times before a race is just poor preparation. If you hydrate well the day before you shouldn't need to be drinking gallons on the morning- it's completely ineffective for one thing. I'm all for mass participation races to get people running, but that doesn't excuse people pissing wherever they like. Go to the loo at the start or hold it till the next lot of loos. I've run trail races where there's nowhere to pee (sheer drop down one side, rock face on the other) and managed to run perfectly fine with a foolish bladder for more than an hour. Not ideal, but perfectly doable.

fullish bladder, not foolish, clearly

No, Gemauve. I'm saying that these are important events for the charity, so it would be preferable to find a way they can continue.

I didn't use the woods and I have emailed the organisers to tell them they need to provide more toilets. I don't however, think this will fully resolve matters and was hoping for some suggestions.

Aggressive, it's not over hydration inmost cases. It's nerves and knowing that you won't be able to go again for a couple of hours. I ran most of London needing the loo, but I've done 100s of races and know that I can. Most of the runners in these mass participation races are not "runners".

They should just hand out shewees and then everyone can just piss in their empty water bottles and pop them in the bin.