“Perfectly legal and carefully controlled”: Cycling club defends dual carriageway time trials after rider knocked unconscious in fall

A cycling club which organised a time trial on a national speed limit dual carriageway, during which a participant was knocked unconscious and suffered a broken collarbone when they fell from their bike, has reassured the public and local press that all time trials are “carefully controlled with strict safety requirements” and “statistically events on dual carriageways are safer than those on single carriageway roads where junctions and driveways pose safety threats”.

The comments come after a rider taking part in a time trial on the A428 near Hardwick in Cambridgeshire on Sunday was taken to hospital with the collarbone injury having been briefly unconscious following a fall during the event. No other road user was involved and the Cambridge Cycling Club time trial was abandoned.

Police and an ambulance attended the scene following reports of a collision, however a police spokesperson and a representative for the cycling club later confirmed that the incident did not involve any other road user and the “cyclist had not been struck by a vehicle, but had fallen off her bike”.

Chris Dyason from Cambridge Cycling Club confirmed to the Cambridge Independent that five emergency service vehicles attended the scene and the rider crashed on the dual carriageway adjacent to the start of the slip road and was briefly unconscious.

“Anyone passing the scene on the A428 yesterday morning could be forgiven for thinking that there must be a serious injury incident,” he said. “What actually had happened was that a rider had crashed on the dual carriageway adjacent to the start of the slip road and was briefly unconscious.

“She was taken to Addenbrooke’s because of the concussion and was found to have a broken collar bone along with the expected grazes and bruises. No other vehicle was involved. The event was abandoned as quickly as possible and all riders withdrawn from the dual carriageway.”

Cambridge Cycling Club’s Dyason went on to defend the safety of holding time trial events on dual carriageways, a point of discussion that has been the topic of much conversation due to several high-profile incidents in recent years.

Back in 2022, National Highways (the body responsible for England’s motorways and some A-roads) said there were “significant dangers” in racing time trials on major roads, that after Cheryl Tye was killed in a collision with a van driver while competing in the East District 50-mile time trial championship on the A11 in Norfolk.

“For a number of years, we have warned the groups about the significant dangers in running time trials on major A-roads. But from a legal perspective there is nothing we can do to stop them,” National Highways said.

In August, the van driver involved, who Norwich Crown Court heard had been “engaged with [his] phone” for 10 seconds before the fatal collision was cleared of causing death by dangerous driving, but will be sentenced for a lesser charge of causing death by careless driving in the autumn. National Highways has not commented on its earlier statement in light of the police investigation, court case and guilty plea.

Following Ms Tye’s death, National Highways said it will continue to issue advice to ensure guidelines surrounding insurance, race marshals and signage are followed, and twice yearly meetings with cycling groups, the police and the road network body will continue.

“The sport is carefully controlled with strict safety requirements and roads are used when relatively quiet”

Defending the safety of holding time trials on dual carriageways following Sunday’s incident in Cambridgeshire, Mr Dyason from Cambridge Cycling Club continued: “Motorists often ask or complain about cycling time trials taking place on dual carriageways, but the fact is that it is perfectly legal and statistically events on dual carriageways are safer than those on single carriageway roads where junctions, driveways etc. all pose safety threats that don’t occur on dual carriageways.

“Although no other vehicle was involved in this case I saw a comment on the Hardwick village Facebook page saying these events need better signage to warn drivers. I can say that I erected 30 cycle event warning signs on the A428 and approach roads in the early hours yesterday so every driver on the road passed at least two signs before seeing a rider.

“The sport is carefully controlled with strict safety requirements and roads are used when relatively quiet.”

road.cc contacted Cambridge Cycling Club for comment.

In July, a law firm hailed an “important judgement” for local cycling events after a High Court judge threw out a claim that a Ferryhill Wheelers cycling club was liable for a driver seriously injuring a time trial participant in a 2019 collision on the A689 dual carriageway.

The driver was driving westbound on the A689 and he intended to turn right across the eastbound lanes, decelerating to 20mph in the right-turning lane before crossing ‘give way’ markings and causing a collision with the oncoming rider.

The cyclist was seriously injured and suffered life-changing injuries which included a severe traumatic brain injury. Civil proceedings were brought by the cyclist against the driver. However, in response, the driver’s representatives brought proceedings against Ferryhill Wheelers cycling club and alleged negligent risk assessment and failure to put out adequate signs and/or a sufficient number of marshals.

The club denied liability and the case was set for a High Court trial. Then, shortly before the trial, the driver’s insurers admitted liability in full for the collision, but continued to argue for a contribution from the cycling club. It was that second aspect which went to court and was subsequently dismissed by Mr Justice Ritchie.

In his judgement, the judge said the driver Mr Fell had failed to see hazard warning signs informing road users of the cycling event and failed to see marshals with high viz jackets at two roundabouts which he passed shortly before the collision. He did not adjust his driving on his approach to the slip lane despite signs warning of cycling, horses and pedestrians.

The sign at the junction was clearly visible to drivers turning right and it showed a bicycle. The wording at the bottom was partly obscured by grass but, the judge continued, a reasonable driver would have realised that the sign related to a cycling event being held at that time.

Mr Fell maintained he never saw the cyclist, despite the rider being in clear sunshine for 40-60 metres before the collision.

When assessing the cycling club’s responsibility, the judge said it is true that the event organiser had a duty to take reasonable care through risk assessment and implementation of reasonable warning measures to the riders to avoid acts or omissions that would foreseeably injure riders.

However, when considering the scope of that duty, the standard of care to be applied was that of a reasonably competent and reasonably informed volunteer, and that as far as they reasonably could, Ferryhill Wheelers had brought its event to the attention of road users via signs and marshals.

“All those involved gave their time for free, for the love of the sport and to help each other enjoy the sport,” he said. “Bicycle riding on public roads is inherently dangerous but people love it. Riding bicycles is encouraged in cities and in the country. Sport is good for health.

> “It would be a tragedy if we abandoned time trialling in Britain because of bad drivers”: Lawyers discuss duty of cycling clubs after rider seriously injured by motorist during time trial – and why cyclists should “expect better” from the police

“If a standard of care in relation to risk assessment which is too high is imposed on time trial clubs, people may be put off contributing for free or at all. Insurance premiums will rise. Volunteers are not looking to be sued, they are looking to help others. I find that this club and CTT itself was carrying out an activity for the benefit of the cycling members of society.

“It is not the responsibility of the club to force or persuade 3rd party drivers to fulfil their responsibilities. Drunk drivers, drugged drivers, stressed drivers, distracted drivers, all drive on our roads. In my judgment it is not reasonable to expect the club to mark every side road or junction as ‘high’ risk and assign a marshal to each just because of such errant behaviour.

“This was a voluntary organisation carrying out tasks for free for the benefit of members of society and the standard of care placed upon them in law is not so high that it would discourage such beneficial voluntary activities.”