The discussion around the safety of TT bikes has been resumed this week, a duo of legendary retired Dutch riders, Annemiek van Vleuten and Tom Dumoulin, disagreeing over whether the specialist aero set-ups are "dangerous" and whether the peloton would be better off simply using road bikes instead.
Van Vleuten — who won gold at the Tokyo Olympics and was a two-time time trial world champion during her career, but also spent a week in hospital with injuries sustained in a collision involving a driver as she trained on a time trial bike in Italy in 2015 — told Dutch news outlet NOS it is "with a heavy heart" she believes "it would be better to ride time trials on regular (road) bikes again".
"Since then [the aforementioned 2015 collision] I have always been aware of the dangers," she explained. "I have never been able to train uninhibitedly on the time trial bike again. Even though you are cycling at 50km/h where no one else is riding. It is very vulnerable: the brakes are stuck. not near your hands.
"You want to win, it's all about seconds, and then you take risks. Especially when you're in that steering wheel and you're throwing yourself down a hill at 80km/h. Then you just have to trust that things will go well.
"The fact is: we ride much faster than ten years ago. It's going faster and faster. I'm sometimes afraid that something super serious has to happen first before the UCI makes changes."
> Road bike category introduced by British time trial governing body to "get more people time trialling"
The argument is nothing new, Chris Froome making the case for road bike TTs after his former teammate Egan Bernal suffered a devastating crash while training on his Pinarello time trial bike in Colombia, Froome himself having also suffered career-threatening injuries in a crash while training on his time trial bike at the 2019 Critérium du Dauphiné.
"Is it really necessary for us to have time trial bikes in road cycling?" Froome said two years ago. "Being out on my time trial bike this morning, and in light of recent events, time trial bikes are not really meant to be ridden on the roads the way that we need to ride them in order to be ready."
Tom Pidcock too has said he believes time trial bikes are too dangerous for riders to train on public roads. At the time of the 2022 discussion, Froome's teammate Michael Woods said he believes "the majority" of teams, manufacturers, mechanics and staff would be "pretty happy" ditching TT bikes.
However, Bernal, whose crash sparked plenty of debate about road bike TTs and whether time trial bikes are safe for training on open roads, acknowledged that while it is "more dangerous", the time trial bike is part of the fabric of the sport and "without it cycling wouldn't be the same".
He said: "Time trialling is part of the spectacle of cycling and it's something a lot of riders and fans like. So I think they should stay."
In September, Stefan Küng's bizarre crash straight into barriers at the European Championships prompted former UCI chief Brian Cookson to call on the sport's governing body to crack down on the "crazy trend" of riding head down in time trials, riders sacrificing being able to see where they are going in search of aero gain.
Jumping back to the present day, Tom Dumoulin "absolutely disagrees" with Van Vleuten and co. and does not "understand what is dangerous about time trials", suggesting that riders probably rode head-down less in the past.
"I think it is the least dangerous part in the entire sport of cycling," he said. "Riders fall much more often on road bikes than on time trial bikes. Just add up all the falls. So I don't see a pattern yet, to be honest.
"As a rider, you understand that if you want to look down during time trial, you shouldn't do that on a road with a lot of traffic? I always did my time trial blocks along the canal where no one comes, and certainly no cars. I also rode in hilly landscapes, but then I didn't look down all the time."
The former time trial world champion added that if the discipline were to be moved to road bikes, teams and riders would just look "for other ways to gain profit with even more dangerous bicycle designs".
"Then you end up with far too long stems or strange positions on the bicycle that are completely unsuitable for riding in a peloton," he said.
Add new comment
41 comments
We need more bikes but we need more cyclists who ride to the rules and use plain commonsense like having lights reflectors riding on the right side of the road stop at red lights and use the lanes allocated to them not hop up on the pavement to get passed lights . When we have that everyone will welcome cyclists with open arms but what we have now is so bad and dangerous that we need new heavy fines for bad bikers and stop them from driving as well
I do all of the above (except I ride on the left) and I still don't feel welcomed with open arms.
Maybe by "welcome with open arms" they meant "rugby tackle"?
What's a passed light? And how do I get one?
I don't want to ride on the right side of the road. Common sense tells me it's not a good idea. Keep the ideas coming though.
Are we to understand that Boardman is putting oreos in his bottle of drink? Doesn't that rather clog the spout?
Choosing between the Tory and Labour manifestos is like choosing between shades of beige. Both talk of putting 2 hours of PE a week into the curriculum whilst also attacking "the war on the motorist".
Here's a mind blowing idea to get children active; make the roads safer so kids can cycle/walk/scooter to school and get their exercise, break their dependency on cars toward a greener future and reduce the burden on the NHS by instilling the importance of living in good health not ill health.
I cycle to the local gym. Usually there are no other cycles locked up outside, sometimes one or 2. But the car park is full. I never understand why people drive to a gym then spend 20 minutes walking on a treadmill. Driving is so deeply ingrained in culture that people don't see that driving to a gym to then walk on a treadmill is oxymoronic.
I think gym memberships are often used for social signalling which also fits in with people using their brand of car for a similar purpose. It's far more difficult to advertise your social status if you're walking/running in a park and of course you may have to mix with the lower social classes there as well.
There's also the modern trend of separating physical activities from the rest of your life. There's definitely a social stigma to being sweaty which is also a message being pushed by Big Deodorants with a LOT of advertising. Maybe we should be looking to normalise sweaty clothing with clothing that has pre-stained armpit areas?
Mostly women, perhaps? In which case possibly scared by all the meeja stories suggesting they will get raped or murdered if they set foot outside their homes alone, so of course they HAVE to drive to where they get their exercise. Whereas, of course, statistically the odds of anything bad happening on a short walk from home are extremely low.
I think that Facebook is probably the wrong crowd to present with stuff like that, Councillor Ley.
But I'm not sure that Twitter/X/The Musk Show is any better…
With regards to time trial bikes; was Van Vluten suggesting that TT bikes are too dangerous to train on open roads, hence remove them from races otherwise riders have to put themselves in danger in training. I think Dumoulin's comment is that TT races are safe as there are no other riders close. I think some of these view points might be slightly different points (training vs racing).
Relevant to road safety and thus cycling...
I nearly fell off my chair when I red this:
-Mrs Suffield said they never felt they should blame the young driver because
"it could have been any one of the other boys in that car driving".-
The number, or presence, of passengers is irrelevant to safe driving.
Yes, the vehicle was overloaded.
But if a driver is not operating a motor vehicle safely and to the conditions then anything can happen, even if it is just the driver inside.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgrr917en6do
True.
In the bigger picture though we do need to consider how people actually behave though - sometimes there's more than one way to steer that. There was an interesting point on this raised RE: young drivers and having a number of other young people in the car (statistical observations being that is a major risk factor). Not sure where it started it / original research but it was flagged by the AA and was proposed as part of a "graduated licences" idea in parliament. Last I saw it was still progressing - not sure where next?
"They decided with their youthful excitement to all pile into a small car," he said. "Six of them in a car that was built for four, with a driver who’d only just passed his test.
"Of course if we'd had graduated driving licensing, six wouldn’t have got into the same car."
So is it legal, if the driver has a full licence, for six to pile into a car built for four?!
Well... that was 1986. AND in Loughborough...
Currently:
https://www.gov.uk/seat-belts-law
Unfortunately if this happened now I suspect they would be fined "up to 500 pounds" (e.g. zero) as presumably you'd have to prove who didn't have one AND I'd guess this would be seen as "persecuting innocent young victims of a tragedy"...
Meanwhile - don't try this at home...
Cycling Scotland news article here.
While this is all good we should keep in mind the potential when you have mass cycling: on the "busiest in the Netherlands" there can be more than double that 2000 daily total in an hour. Anyone got any London numbers?
I suspect much of the increase in counts is due to takeaway delivery cyclists. This has been a massive recent "growth industry" - plus of course they're doing multiple journeys over their shift - and in some cases this will be repeately past cycle counters e.g. particularly up and down Leith Walk.
That may still indicate some improvement to conditions but "acceptable for below-minimum-wage delivery folk to use" is NOT the same as "going to encourage mass cycling".
The journey counts on Melville Street are perhaps more interesting. I think that represents a (slightly) broader demographic of cyclist. It is it's part of the route from the West / Northwest into town and also connecting to rail transport at Haymarket. From my observations (mostly evenings so that will skew things) the dominant form of cyclist on Leith Walk is - by far - the delivery cyclist.
I saw this headline and couldn't believe that it is true
Eastleigh man died after unavoidable accident, inquest hears
They say unavoidable and then go into victim blaming about clothing and helmets
https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24383541.eastleigh-man-died-unavoidable...
That's horrific. The collision was clearly avoidable if the driver just hadn't pulled out in front of the cyclists.
Just read the article and couldn't believe it either. How can a collision like this be deemed ''unavoidable''? And trying to deflect blame from the driver is just despicable.
https://tinyurl.com/463bcts4 (streetview of location (with ghost bike))
So, it was unavoidable to pull out from a side road when the cyclists were approaching? I'm sure the Highway Code would not agree, but doctor?
The doctor in the car said she drove there every day as part of her work commute and had not seen the pair until it was too late.
She got out of the car and gave CPR to Mr Davenport until paramedics could arrive.
Mrs Rhodes-Kemp read a report prepared by Hampshire police investigating the collision, which had concluded: "The collisions could not reasonably have been avoided".
The report said Mr Davenport was not wearing a helmet when the incident occurred and that he and Mr Martin were not wearing high-contrast clothing during the ride.
As it was daytime, the pair were also not using lights.
It also found that the view of Woodman Lane turning right from Sarum Road was obscured by trees and signs.
Think we need to know the context of "The collisions could not reasonably have been avoided".
If the police report is saying the cyclists could not reasonably avoid the collision that would be correct. If they're saying the driver could not have reasonably avoided the collision then I'd disagree. We all know drivers are in control of the decision to pull off from a junction.
That report is a difficult read and hard to swallow.
Look at the junction. https://www.google.com/maps/@51.0608072,-1.3809199,3a,90y,270.26h,84.61t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sqwIYhCikrHTPRDjolSyqkA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DqwIYhCikrHTPRDjolSyqkA%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D286.98105%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu
Dr Robson it seems pulled out of a junction across two cyclists, one dies and the coronor declares it an 'unavoidable accident' !! Why was she not prosecuted for undue care and attention? If that had been two cars and someone had died, would the outcome be the same? What the hell - how was it an accident.. how was it unavoidable? This makes no sense. The poor family having to hear that. This appears to be a disgrace!
We can only speculate without reading the coroner's report - although as you note the mention of PPE is maybe concerning. Things which might have steered the coroner: the "view obscured by signs and bushes" (judge for yourselves) and "who ran into who" (also unclear) - but again this is speculation.
Also not sure whether this had any bearing but it sounds like the road markings may have been unclear or absent? An article notes they have "returned".
Another "cyclists saw car, but driver says they didn't see cyclists" one though.
Junction as seen from the cyclists' viewpoint AFAIKS here - now with ghost bike.
Driver's view - assuming they were travelling east-west - but from article I also can't tell for sure exactly which side of the junction they were on when they pulled out.
There's a brief note here remembering the cyclist.
Confirmed: https://www.cyclestreets.net/collisions/reports/2021440223675/
This just makes the coroners report more shameful.
Is it possible to appeal a coroners report? Or ask for a second opinion?
Incredible. Yet another green-light to kill and maim cyclists without fear of punishment.
This bit is quite telling from the (presumably) OIC:
"The coroner read out a statement from PC Anthony Clifford which said: “I am aware that the family have found that report difficult. I am sorry for their distress.
“I do not know why Dr Robson did not see the two cyclists. If it was for lack of high contrast clothing or lack of vision.
“While the general advice is to wear a bike helmet for protection, we will never know if this would have made a difference.”
Ie: The family are equally as shocked at the report as we are. Let's face it, it was 'lack of vision'. If you don't look, you can't see hi-viz.
Basically having attended the scene, he cannot identify any reason why they couldn't have been seen. no physical obstruction, no environmental or lighting issues. But despite this the officer speculates and the court accepts there must be a reason other than driver carelessness, perhaps cyclists clothing. No suggestion it had been dark, or rainiy or foggy to justify why hi vis clothing is needed.
If the other cyclist hadn't testified the car had been stopped while they approached, I'd suspect driver pulling out without stopping at all, because nothing ever comes down that road.
I think that is exactly hitting the nail on the head about our general attitudes.
In the absense of any significant additional sign of wrongdoing or unusual lack of care (the mere fact of crashing doesn't show anything) we've got to find some reason beyond just that "the driver did something wrong".
Again don't have the inquest detail but it there is no mention that the coroner *didn't* accept the cyclist's report that they saw that car, and it was stopped. There is no mention of blame for the cyclists for not slowing or stopping.
So shouldn't the implication be "the driver proceeded when the way was not clear - others were proceeding (perfectly reasonably). Given that the driver did so when the cyclists could see them they cannot have carried out proper and effective observation before making a manouver"?
Why don't we follow the line of thinking above? I think it's the usual story - driving is a normal activity. People do it all the time. Almost every time we drive (obviously every time I drive...), nobody crashes, dies or even gets injured. Drivers are responsible people - nobody wants to inflict suffering, or cause themselves inconvenience (damage to car, getting involved with the legal system).
And yes - it's a complex world and as noted crashes can be the results of a series of events. Culpability may not lie solely with one person. Perhaps it's true that the junction wasn't as well maintained or even designed as it could be? But ... again the rules seem to be clear - you shouldn't just proceed if you cannot tell that it's safe to do so.
Pages