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
I don't entirely understand this sentence. What is the relevance of the doctor driving past there every day as part of her commute?
Is the implication that drives there every day so she is fully aware that hedges etc could block the view and always takes that into consideration? Because on the face of it, she's almost said "Well, I drive there every day and I've never seen cyclists there before".
I suspect it has all these meanings. e.g. "I know this road really well" (so there must have been something very unusual to cause a collision - with an undercurrent of "If I've done it tons of times without trouble it can't be my fault, can it?").
Or you could read it as "got complacent" - something which had some degree of hazard has become commonplace. No issues occurred before, so maybe done with less sense of caution / on autopilot.
Maybe even "I am a doctor - I have to drive this route (as opposed to e.g. recreational cyclists, choosing to cycle)".
Sadly it's possible to imagine the scenario too easily - without attributing malevolence or "DGAF". Because the car had stopped the cyclists proceeded (their right of way, and otherwise you'd never pass in front of a motor vehicle...) Speculating but presumably the coroner saw the driver's failure to properly or effectively observe before making a manouever as "a moment of inattention / distraction" and humanly understandable - given the doctor regularly drove the route. (Perhaps they were working 12 hour shifts, saving lives etc...)
Then it's "sadly these things happen. One-off tragic accident etc." (The latter because the article doesn't say they made any recommendations about the junction design etc.)
every other day the cyclists were not there, so she was surprised by their presance. If anything it points to complacency. The cyclists were riding two abreast, the second cyclist would have been nearly as far out as a car. But a car would be travelling faster and so would need to be seen further away. It all points to failing to look, properly. If it was really impossible see past the tree/hedge/whatever. We would be seeing collsisions there between motor vehicles all the time.
London Dynamo TTs that take place on traffic free roads before Richmond Park opens to vehicles cancelled by Royal Parks over 'saftey concerns'
https://www.instagram.com/p/C8IoGMdopaN/
Is there a list of the 43 counties? With all the local government reorganisation over the last 50 years, I am interested in what counts as a county? (Also, when I've got five minutes I'm going to work out how many I managed in the week I rode from Sunderland to Liverpool via South London.)
Alex Dowsett said it just needs a rule change on position.
The most aero position is with head close to hands, with hands flat you put your head down and so you are looking down.
If you change the angle so you are bringing hands to head then visibilty is good.
A reminder that the door zone is bigger than you might think...
https://youtu.be/louKInpTBEA?feature=shared&t=30
TTs are only safe because everyone is separated out rather than riding in a bunch. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't be safer if ridden on road bikes, and also ignores the issue of training on TT bikes on open roads.
Also
Um, yeah - I think you have a bit of a base rate error there.
I think his point is a single TT crash inevitably leads to calls that something must be done to make this "incredibly dangerous" part of cycling safe. Yeah tell the riders to look where they're going for a change could be a start.
Versus the multiple bunch crashes that happen in every road race stage where people regularly break bones and it's just ah that's racing in cycling mate.
Whatever his point was, it doesn't change the fact that it was a statistically illiterate comment.
Pages