Bonkers time triallists

[Dave Barter]

Just one other thing to consider in this debate, and many will baulk at this..but..dual carriageways may be the safest place to time trial.

Anyone involved in an RTTC event will know that it cannot go ahead without insurance or a risk assessment being carried out. The terms of the insurance include rider briefings and safety standards for the event, including signage for motorists advising them there is a cycling event taking place. When I was racing we were advised to use rear lights in the day time by organisers, this may even be a condition of racing now, I'm not sure.

So the riders are heading out onto a road that is signed and marshalled (at turns). Motorists are made aware of these riders being there by both the signs and the volume of racers who are no more that a minute apart. Also most DCs are relatively straight and they can see cars in front of them moving over to pass cyclists. So there are multiple "things" making them aware of riders on the road. Lights, signs, motorist activity and volume of riders.

Now compare this to a mass start ITT which takes in a road section. No insurance, no briefing, no risk assessment, no signage. A rider venturing onto the road (often twisty, rural, at night etc...) is potentially at a high risk of being hit than the time trialists.

You could argue that the speed of cars on a DC is a factor, but I think I am right in stating that most cyclists that die on the roads do so in towns and as a result of low speed collisions.

I accept that motorist idiocy is the main factor in taking lives. But I'm not 100% convinced being on a DC increases that risk, I feel it only exposes the rider to the consistent risk of meeting a twit. I also feel that the organisers take whatever steps they can to mitigate which may not be taken by an individual on the road elsewhere.

We see high speed and traffic volume as being the huge risk but I'm not sure that plays out in the stats? I think large vehicles and left turns are maybe more dangerous, but nobody looks aghast at a cyclist waiting at a junction with a lorry behind them.

My solution will never happen as I want absolute presumed liability when you hit a cyclist who was not making a manoeuvre. Driver training tells you all about stopping distances and assessing risk on the road. You hit something, your fault. You were trained to anticipate and avoid it but you decided you knew best. I do not care if the sun was in your eyes, slow down. I don't care if it was dark, drive to your lights. Your job is to imagine everything that could appear in front of you and avoid it.

On a lighter note I did a tour end-to-end across France many years ago with 5 other riders one who was a committed tester. My job was to plan the route every day and then get berated by Graham in the evening when we'd gone up mountain passes looking down on dual carriageways below. He loved his fast roads and hated my wigglying routing with a vengeance.

[Alpinum]

You could argue that the speed of cars on a DC is a factor, but I think I am right in stating that most cyclists that die on the roads do so in towns and as a result of low speed collisions.

Most likely because much more folks are riding in town, not on DC... I guess.

I see the point made about ITT vs. a marshalled TT organised by (liable?) bodies. More precise as to what I tried to point out with some route choices during named events.

[ChrisF]

All good points Dave. It could well be that it looked riskier than it really was, and I may have felt quite different if I’d been on a bike rather than watching from behind the wheel. Human perception of risk is very inaccurate.
As for signage - there wasn’t any where I joined the DC (at a slip road)or any along the road. There were marshalls in the lay-bys but none that I saw at roundabouts. Only a few riders had rear lights, less than half of those I passed. It was very obvious they were there though.

[Bearbonesnorm]

You're right Dave and I imagine the figures would suggest that a road based ITT is far more hazardous than any DC TT.

[redefined_cycles]

Thanks for that Dave. Gives it another (probably the more accurate) perspective and doesn't feel as gut-wrenching (and pathetic sorry) anymore...

[Dave Barter]

All good points Dave. It could well be that it looked riskier than it really was, and I may have felt quite different if I’d been on a bike rather than watching from behind the wheel. Human perception of risk is very inaccurate.
As for signage - there wasn’t any where I joined the DC (at a slip road)or any along the road. There were marshalls in the lay-bys but none that I saw at roundabouts. Only a few riders had rear lights, less than half of those I passed. It was very obvious they were there though.

That’s poor on the signage and marshalls pov. Should have been at the turns.

[ScotRoutes]

dual carriageways may be the safest place to time trial.

Yep. It might be annoying to other road users but a well signed TT over a road with good sightlines and an additional lane for overtaking makes a lot of sense.

A regular spot near me is the A9 north of Evanton. That's reasonably straight but has some awful junctions and is single carriageway. I've always considered it somewhat less than ideal but it's the Highlands and there's little available dual carriageway anywhere.

[redefined_cycles]

Less likely to knock and kill a pedestrian aswell I guess whilst trying to maintain (I assume) speeds of 30mph and 40mph+

Suddenly they don't seem that bonkers afterall (maybe)