Are Time Trials Safe?
Comments
-
In general TTing on DCs typically carries an increased risk of fatalities than other TT courses. Trev did post some figures on our club forum some time ago and they were fairly conclusive in that regard. Of course that doesn't mean the racing on a dual carriageway is high risk - just that it is higher risk. Whether that risk is acceptable is in my view something that should remain for the rider to decide.
Personally I don't think I'll ride one again and I've tried, unsuccessfully, to get our club to drop their BAR competition based on average speed as it incentivises riding these kind of events. If others want to organise or ride DC events that's up to them though - it's a bit like wearing a helmet - I most often don't but I'm not going to insist nobody else does.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
DC events are popular, you can't argue that, until such a time as the demand isn't there, or they aren't allowed anymore, I will still ride and promote DC events.0
-
Tom Butcher wrote:In general TTing on DCs typically carries an increased risk of fatalities than other TT courses. Trev did post some figures on our club forum some time ago and they were fairly conclusive in that regard. Of course that doesn't mean the racing on a dual carriageway is high risk - just that it is higher risk. Whether that risk is acceptable is in my view something that should remain for the rider to decide.
Personally I don't think I'll ride one again and I've tried, unsuccessfully, to get our club to drop their BAR competition based on average speed as it incentivises riding these kind of events. If others want to organise or ride DC events that's up to them though - it's a bit like wearing a helmet - I most often don't but I'm not going to insist nobody else does.
Did his numbers take account of the relative numbers of miles time trialled on the DCs against other courses though? I agree that there are some risky courses out there, I don't ride events on the R25/7 anymore despite the fact it used to be the quickest course in the area before the R25/3 courses and it still being the course on which I set my modest PB. There have been a couple of fatalities on that course and I don't like the way I have to cross 3 junctions with slip roads. It was taken out of action for a while but that may have been due to the long term roadworks.
Personally I'm never going to be a serious tester and do few open TTs so won't be going around the country chasing times on drag strips but I think it is going too far to call the sport dangerous and suggest it should be banned.0 -
In my experience time trials have been far safer than road races!0
-
When was the last fatality in UK road racing - I know they have happened but I can't remember one since I've been competing which is 10 years or so.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
Pross wrote:
Did his numbers take account of the relative numbers of miles time trialled on the DCs against other courses though? I agree that there are some risky courses out there, I don't ride events on the R25/7 anymore despite the fact it used to be the quickest course in the area before the R25/3 courses and it still being the course on which I set my modest PB. There have been a couple of fatalities on that course and I don't like the way I have to cross 3 junctions with slip roads. It was taken out of action for a while but that may have been due to the long term roadworks.
Personally I'm never going to be a serious tester and do few open TTs so won't be going around the country chasing times on drag strips but I think it is going too far to call the sport dangerous and suggest it should be banned.
How many fatalities do you need before you consider a course dangerous?
My numbers did not take account of miles ridden on dual carriageways compared to single carriageways because in the years I quoted all the deaths were on dual carriageways. In fact I don't know when the last death in a single carriageway TT was but I'm told by advocates of dual carriageway TTs that they are more dangerous in that there are more serious injuries on them.0 -
Tom Butcher wrote:When was the last fatality in UK road racing - I know they have happened but I can't remember one since I've been competing which is 10 years or so.
road races have the benefit of leading cars/bikes and following event associated traffic so they do not get overtaken by vehicles as often as tt riders do, completely different event environment. RR's take place on rural roads and not DC's. Probably more rider pile ups in RR though.Team4Luke supports Cardiac Risk in the Young0 -
To be honest, the chances are on a DC you will be hit from behind, or struck from the side (ie at a junction) at high speed and you are likely to become a fataility, whilst on a SC you are probably less likely to be hit from behind (though if you are I don't think being hit at 60 rather than 70/80 will change the outcome), but might be more likely to be hit from someone pulling out of a side street. There is obviously more likelyhood of crashing on a more techincal SC course through rider error.
More people die commuting to work on busy SC roads no doubt, should you be banned from there as well. Not all DC courses are equal however, I agree with Trev on the A50, and hence I will not ride on it, but there are other quite DC courses (either the time a TT is run, or just because it is a quiet DC) that are probably safer than alot of SC courses.
One of our local courses has to go over 2 train level crossings each lap, contend with vehicles in and out of a busy boot fair each lap as well as being a fairly techincal course, try telling me that is safer than all DC's and I will just laugh in your face. It is not only fast moving traffic that can be a danger to a cyclists, surely every cyclists knows this from incidents with cars on even the most rural roads whilst training.0 -
Trev The Rev wrote:Pross wrote:
Did his numbers take account of the relative numbers of miles time trialled on the DCs against other courses though? I agree that there are some risky courses out there, I don't ride events on the R25/7 anymore despite the fact it used to be the quickest course in the area before the R25/3 courses and it still being the course on which I set my modest PB. There have been a couple of fatalities on that course and I don't like the way I have to cross 3 junctions with slip roads. It was taken out of action for a while but that may have been due to the long term roadworks.
Personally I'm never going to be a serious tester and do few open TTs so won't be going around the country chasing times on drag strips but I think it is going too far to call the sport dangerous and suggest it should be banned.
How many fatalities do you need before you consider a course dangerous?
My numbers did not take account of miles ridden on dual carriageways compared to single carriageways because in the years I quoted all the deaths were on dual carriageways. In fact I don't know when the last death in a single carriageway TT was but I'm told by advocates of dual carriageway TTs that they are more dangerous in that there are more serious injuries on them.
I do consider that course dangerous which is why I don't do any races on it anymore. Others may have a different opinion. Personally I prefer single carriageway courses but something like the R10/17 on the A40 always feels safe as it is wide and not too heavily trafficked. It's only the turn where I feel a bit vulnerable. I prefer to slow down and move right when it is safe but I know some will take undue risks to save a couple of seconds.0 -
For the 2 years I've managed to find data for....
2009 : 2 fatal, 1 hit from rear by car, 1 crashed into stationary vehicle
2011 : 2 fatal, 1 hit from rear by car, 1 crashed into stationary vehicle
To answer the original question, is time trialling safe, no, of course its not (but statistically, its safer than commuting by bike), but nothing is inherently safe, everything carries some risk.0 -
danowat wrote:For the 2 years I've managed to find data for....
2009 : 2 fatal, 1 hit from rear by car, 1 crashed into stationary vehicle
2011 : 2 fatal, 1 hit from rear by car, 1 crashed into stationary vehicle
To answer the original question, is time trialling safe, no, of course its not (but statistically,its safer than commuting by bike), but nothing is inherently safe, everything carries some risk.
In the politest possible way, statistically it is far safer commuting because there are 3.1 billion (3,100 million) miles ridden each year in total of which only about 3 million miles are ridden in TTs. So deaths per million miles ridden - TTs are more dangerous. There are only a few thousand TT riders at most as opposed to millions of commuters.
I think so far this year out of 83 cyclists killed on the roads in total, two were in time trials, one on a dual carriageway and the other on the A19 which I am not sure is a dual carriageway or not. The deaths in time trials are disproportionate; if you extrapolate the same death rate per mile in TTs to miles ridden commuting you would have thousands of cyclists killed each year. Commuting is safe; in my opinion time trialling is not.
There were 3 deaths in time trials in 2010.0 -
Commuting is FAR from safe.
It's up to me, and the others that partake in the sport, to decide if we want to take the risk, it's not up to you to decide.0 -
There were 4 deaths in time trials in 2010.
Alex Anderson on A417 hit from behind
Cath Ward on A46 hit from behind
Peter Tindley rode into back of parked car
Graham Shinton in 3 up hit by passing car0 -
danowat wrote:Commuting is FAR from safe.
It's up to me, and the others that partake in the sport, to decide if we want to take the risk, it's not up to you to decide.
At the risk of opening a can of worms...what're the numbers like for road racing? It always feels far less safe than TTing subjectively, but I've never heard of anyone at an amateur level being killed - many a broken collarbone and minor injury though!0 -
Anyone know why as a 12yo you can race TTs but BC dont allow youths to ride on public highway until they are 17 ?
So a 12yo on a DC but not in a small bunch race on a rural road.
Infact as i understand it, BC affiliated clubs arnt allowed ie insured - to have anyone under 14 on a club run.0 -
mamba80 wrote:Anyone know why as a 12yo you can race TTs but BC dont allow youths to ride on public highway until they are 17 ?
So a 12yo on a DC but not in a small bunch race on a rural road.
Infact as i understand it, BC affiliated clubs aren't allowed ie insured - to have anyone under 14 on a club run.
because BC receives £ from the government. In order to fulfill the criteria for that , they have to adhere to the rules of the global governing body UCI. We all know that the UCI are a bunch of self centered, inward looking w**kers. In their wisdom , they think anybody under the age of 17 isn't capable of being responsible enough to ride on the road.
CTT doesn't receive any £ from the government . It is paid for in its entirety by its members . It's members make and enforce the rules of the sport and they have more sense .
Also legally a road race is a race , whereas a time trial isn't It is a trial of speed. Road race you need to ask for permission to promote , a time trial you don't . Merely need to inform the police of your intention of promoting an event.constantly reavalueating the situation and altering the perceived parameters accordingly0 -
Over the years , ridden more courses , than i care to remember all over the country. Only ever had one heart in mouth moment , it happened to be on a relatively minor insignificant piece of road right at the end of 100 miler .
My conclusion is that you pay your money , its your choice. Loads of events out there , spread out over the full spectrum of courses and distances. Do what ever floats your boat. Do find it slightly offensive that trev the rev is so righteous , he thinks he's right and everybody else is wrong . If he really doesn't like it as much as he proclaims , slightly baffled as to why he insists on hanging around on cycling forums , giving sh*t to those who disagree with him. Don't mind a meaningful debate but declaring that tting should be banned is hardly a debating point.constantly reavalueating the situation and altering the perceived parameters accordingly0 -
mamba80 wrote:Infact as i understand it, BC affiliated clubs arnt allowed ie insured - to have anyone under 14 on a club run.
that is incorrect. Guidance is members should be age 12 and above, an adult should be responsible for them and a parental consent is signed.
Clubs also may have extra protection in place, they maybe GoRide or like ours, it's with parent on ride or no membership.Team4Luke supports Cardiac Risk in the Young0 -
sub55 wrote:Over the years , ridden more courses , than i care to remember all over the country. Only ever had one heart in mouth moment , it happened to be on a relatively minor insignificant piece of road right at the end of 100 miler .
My conclusion is that you pay your money , its your choice. Loads of events out there , spread out over the full spectrum of courses and distances. Do what ever floats your boat. Do find it slightly offensive that trev the rev is so righteous , he thinks he's right and everybody else is wrong . If he really doesn't like it as much as he proclaims , slightly baffled as to why he insists on hanging around on cycling forums , giving sh*t to those who disagree with him. Don't mind a meaningful debate but declaring that tting should be banned is hardly a debating point.
I only think time trials on the open road should be banned. That is a very small part of cycling as a whole. I have no problem with time trials on closed roads or circuits, track, road racing, cross, mountain biking, commuting or BMX as long as they keep off the pavements. So I shall stay on any cycling forum I please.
It is my personal opinion time trials on the open road should be banned, I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but I asked are they safe.0 -
Trev The Rev wrote:sub55 wrote:Over the years , ridden more courses , than i care to remember all over the country. Only ever had one heart in mouth moment , it happened to be on a relatively minor insignificant piece of road right at the end of 100 miler .
My conclusion is that you pay your money , its your choice. Loads of events out there , spread out over the full spectrum of courses and distances. Do what ever floats your boat. Do find it slightly offensive that trev the rev is so righteous , he thinks he's right and everybody else is wrong . If he really doesn't like it as much as he proclaims , slightly baffled as to why he insists on hanging around on cycling forums , giving sh*t to those who disagree with him. Don't mind a meaningful debate but declaring that tting should be banned is hardly a debating point.
I only think time trials on the open road should be banned. That is a very small part of cycling as a whole. I have no problem with time trials on closed roads or circuits, track, road racing, cross, mountain biking, commuting or BMX as long as they keep off the pavements. So I shall stay on any cycling forum I please.
It is my personal opinion time trials on the open road should be banned, I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but I asked are they safe.
Why should road races be allowed by time trials be banned?
You've obviously never ridden a road race if you don't know some of the risks people take on the open roads in road races (going round a blind corner in the gutter on the wrong side of the road springs to mind)0 -
I would not want to ban road races because, there are no deaths, unlike time trials, where there are 2 to 4 riders killed each year.0
-
I assume you are also going to call for a ban on commuting and lesuire riding too then? :roll:
Bottomline, your personal feelings for the time trialling community as a whole skew's your viewpoint, as such, it's an unbalanced and wholely poisonous attempt to attack them.
Rather than attack a section of "our" sport, how about you use your efforts to something a bit more productive for cycling as a whole?, maybe educating the drivers that kill, not only time triallers, but those who are just riding, quite why you single out time triallers as unacceptable death's, but gloss over the 100 odd other cyclists that get killed every year is beyond me.0 -
danowat wrote:I assume you are also going to call for a ban on commuting and lesuire riding too then? :roll:
Bottomline, your personal feelings for the time trialling community as a whole skew's your viewpoint, as such, it's an unbalanced and wholely poisonous attempt to attack them.
Rather than attack a section of "our" sport, how about you use your efforts to something a bit more productive for cycling as a whole?, maybe educating the drivers that kill, not only time triallers, but those who are just riding, quite why you single out time triallers as unacceptable death's, but gloss over the 100 odd other cyclists that get killed every year is beyond me.
You need to look at the total miles ridden, 3.1 billion miles, and millions of cyclists commuting each year, compared to the few thousand time triallists and only 1.5 to 3 million miles ridden each year in time trails to see that time trialling is far more dangerous than commuting or leisure riding.
I have no animosity towards the time trialling community as a whole, only a small minority who called me names, some of which were abusive, on another forum. What was it you called me on timetrialling forum?0 -
So because of statistics, the 100 or so deaths a year in general cycling is ok? :roll:
Again, its the drivers (lets be honest, the standard of driving in this country is terrible) that need education, not riders removed from the road.0 -
danowat wrote:So because of statistics, the 100 or so deaths a year in general cycling is ok? :roll:
Again, its the drivers (lets be honest, the standard of driving in this country is terrible) that need education, not riders removed from the road.
No it is not OK. But when you consider the millions of cyclists on the road every day the risks involved are incredibly slight. You have more chance of being killed by an inanimate object, alcohol poisoning, accidental hanging / strangulation or inhalation / ingestion of food.
Out of the 100 odd cyclists killed on the roads in England & Wales, in 2007 only 41 were killed in a collision with cars or vans and only 27 in 2009. (one must assume the other deaths were from falling off or crashing into things). Time trials are responsible for an even greater percentage of deaths if you look at deaths involving vehicles.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... wales-20090 -
Whatever your views Rev, the main reason you don't get any support is because of the way you put them across. Think about why that might be....More problems but still living....0
-
amaferanga wrote:Whatever your views Rev, the main reason you don't get any support is because of the way you put them across. Think about why that might be....
And what way is that?0 -
Trev The Rev wrote:danowat wrote:So because of statistics, the 100 or so deaths a year in general cycling is ok? :roll:
Again, its the drivers (lets be honest, the standard of driving in this country is terrible) that need education, not riders removed from the road.
No it is not OK. But when you consider the millions of cyclists on the road every day the risks involved are incredibly slight. You have more chance of being killed by an inanimate object, alcohol poisoning, accidental hanging / strangulation or inhalation / ingestion of food.
Out of the 100 odd cyclists killed on the roads in England & Wales, in 2007 only 41 were killed in a collision with cars or vans and only 27 in 2009. (one must assume the other deaths were from falling off or crashing into things). Time trials are responsible for an even greater percentage of deaths if you look at deaths involving vehicles.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... wales-2009
Your assumption is wrong. The 41 would appear to exclude collisions involving HGVs. I don't have the data for those specific years but for 2005-2007 82% of accidents with cycling fatalities (83% of KSI and 87% of slight) involved a collision with another vehicle. 0% (0.2% KSI and 0.4% slight) involved another cyclist, 0.7% (0.7% KSI and 0.6% of slight) involved pedestrians whilst for non-collision accidents the figures were 17%, 16% and 12% respectively. This should be caveated that the data only relates to reported accidents on the public highway as the figures come from the police STATS19 reports. Source:- TRL Report PPR445 "Collisions Involving Pedal Cyclists on Britain's Roads: Establishing The Causes"0 -
Pross wrote:Trev The Rev wrote:danowat wrote:So because of statistics, the 100 or so deaths a year in general cycling is ok? :roll:
Again, its the drivers (lets be honest, the standard of driving in this country is terrible) that need education, not riders removed from the road.
No it is not OK. But when you consider the millions of cyclists on the road every day the risks involved are incredibly slight. You have more chance of being killed by an inanimate object, alcohol poisoning, accidental hanging / strangulation or inhalation / ingestion of food.
Out of the 100 odd cyclists killed on the roads in England & Wales, in 2007 only 41 were killed in a collision with cars or vans and only 27 in 2009. (one must assume the other deaths were from falling off or crashing into things). Time trials are responsible for an even greater percentage of deaths if you look at deaths involving vehicles.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... wales-2009
Your assumption is wrong. The 41 would appear to exclude collisions involving HGVs. I don't have the data for those specific years but for 2005-2007 82% of accidents with cycling fatalities (83% of KSI and 87% of slight) involved a collision with another vehicle. 0% (0.2% KSI and 0.4% slight) involved another cyclist, 0.7% (0.7% KSI and 0.6% of slight) involved pedestrians whilst for non-collision accidents the figures were 17%, 16% and 12% respectively. This should be caveated that the data only relates to reported accidents on the public highway as the figures come from the police STATS19 reports. Source:- TRL Report PPR445 "Collisions Involving Pedal Cyclists on Britain's Roads: Establishing The Causes"
There don't seem to be figures for HGVs only cars & vans. Even so I find it odd there were so few out of over 100 deaths involving cars & vans, also odd why there are no figures for HGVs when there are figures for everything else.
Also the falling off or hitting something could be caused by a car, van or HGV even if there was no collision with the offending vehicle.0
