Helmets and front lights to be compulsory on all Cycling Time Trials events – including hill climbs

Awavey wrote:

But how does being able to see riders approaching you head on help ? Unless you are standing in their way, or driving head on at them, it's simply not an issue is it? Or am I missing something really obvious at turns or junctions and we are putting all the responsibility for people not to do stupid things on the riders rather than expect better from them.

Te driver coming fro behind will likely see you lights or not, as they will be using their own lights. The driver that pulls out of a side road into your path, is the one most likely not to see you without lights.

The driver that pulls out of a side road into your path, is the one most likely not to see you without lights bother looking correctly.

It helps drivers pulling out of junctions obviously.

which is putting the onus on the riders to use in effect PPE, to mitigate the irresponsible actions of others, which is the opposite way it should work i feel.

if the danger is drivers not driving safely, tackle them.

Awavey wrote:

which is putting the onus on the riders to use in effect PPE, to mitigate the irresponsible actions of others, which is the opposite way it should work i feel.

if the danger is drivers not driving safely, tackle them.

Not riders, TT racers who are travelling at a higher speed, busier & faster road, massively more exertion (at their limit) and at a (presumably) high risker of getting hurt if they fall off.  I think you are so ingrained with a HiViz/PPE knee jerk reaction that you are failing to consider this specific case again the general case.  Will you be arguing against helmets in the TdF next?  That ship has sailed - you werent aboard.

Making TT'er and Hill Climbers have lights and helmets is highly unlikely to make anyone give up the sport or dissuade anyone from taking it up, unless they are totally bloody minded.

I'm ingrained against knee jerk overreactions that propose mandatory things that have little to no benefit to those its imposed upon,except making the rule makers feel all warm & fuzzy theyve done something.

If visibility of riders is such a key concern for TTers then why stop just at lights, why not impose mandatory hi-viz kit, why not force all TTs to run during accepted levels of daylight measured with light meters, why not just ban racing on the road completely and use static bikes, if it saves one person from serious injury it's got to be the right thing to do surely...

Or we accept the risk to a TTer is not actually themselves, but those around them who are careless,who become reliant on others mitigating & excusing their faults whilst not being held properly accountable for them, and simply adding extra layers of things for others to do never ever fixes the root problem.

I agree, as long as the events are the same distance for men and women.

biker phil wrote:

I agree, as long as the events are the same distance for men and women.

Do marathon runners get paid 400 times more than 100m runners?

Does the Sumo Wrestling champion of the UK earn as much as their equivalent in Japan?

I take your point about a sport's popularity and revenue potential. However I think there is something else at work here - sex equality is seen as socially good and worth working towards. Sumo isn't.

It depends if you value the equalising of outcome or the equalising of opportunity.

The current situation gives equal opportunity which is, IMHO, far more important than an equal outcome.

Rich_cb wrote:

It depends if you value the equalising of outcome or the equalising of opportunity.

The current situation gives equal opportunity which is, IMHO, far more important than an equal outcome.

Is that like the equal opportunity for women to do the same job but earn less, when averaged out across the economy? Or are you making a different point?

We're discussing the prize funds for TTs.

If you want to discuss the wider gender pay gap go for it.

What is the actual gender pay gap for people doing the same hours in the same job?

Well, I was asking you. If the prizes for the women's TTs are lower than the men's, does that give equality of opportunity to win prizes for cycling fast? Or are you saying that the men's events are open and hence anyone can win the prizes, and that's the equality of opportunity?

If the prize funds are some function of the total entry fees for each event then the opportunity is the same for both men and women.

If fewer women enter then the outcome may be different.

biker phil wrote:

I agree, as long as the events are the same distance for men and women.

IIRC one of two of CTT's 'Classic series' may run a shorter distance for women, paracyclists and juniors but the vast majority of CTT events are fixed distance - women race the same distance as men on the same day with the same rules (and in the 12hr & 24hr for the same duration).

I believe there has been some debate about whether it is CTT's responsibility to mandate that equal prize money is offered at all events. Pressure from the racing community in general has meant that there are fewer and fewer events where women are treated differently from men in this regard.

Fortunately, prize money is at the discretion of the event organiser and many have now seen the light and offer equal prizes for men and women.

It's worse than that - they have killed as well. https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1227.html

Just to be clear, not whilst cycling but other activities such as trampolining.

swldxer wrote:

It's worse than that - they have killed as well. https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1227.html

But have you got any evidence of cycling helmets killing cyclists involved in crashes?  Kids climbing out of windows, kids being trapped on play equipment and so on really doesnt make an argument for cycling helmets killing when used for their intended use.  I really hope that you were tongue in chek when you posted your comment.

As a regular TTer, event organiser, volunteer and so on I am conflicted by the new rules. Virtually all TTers already wear a helmet of some kind. However, the fact that it's now compulsory does not sit well with me, there is nothing to be gained by the new ruling. On a personal evel I'm very disappointed that it will apply to hill climbs.

Regarding front lights, the lengths people are going to in order to be as aero as possible inevitably makes their frontal area very small. Combine that with dark clothing and riding on potentially busy SC roads in a variety of weather conditions and I can see that a front light may be a good visibility aid.

My suspicion is that the helmet reg is more about CTT and the risk of being sued ; sadly, I think that the helmet rule is IMHO part of the slippery slope to a helmet law.

swldxer wrote:

I used to put on hair gel to make me more aero when I was TTing in the early part of this century! Never wore a hat.

The more of your comments I read, he more you are coming across as a dick.  I usually comment on the post rather than the person who posted their view but in your case I will make an exception, you are a dick.  I suppose you got some pleasure in getting a response though.

But tell us, how do you really feel?

Given that many people will use the smallest most aero light they possibly can, and many such small lights are as much use as a chocolate teapot in daylight................

Secret_squirrel wrote:

Front lights is an interesting one.  I wonder what their angle is?

Hopefully slightly down, towards the road, so as to avoid dazzling oncoming traffic.