- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Urban Hill Climb 2017 - 05.jpegHelmets and front lights to be compulsory on all Cycling Time Trials events – including hill climbs
It appears that helmets and front lights are set to become compulsory on future Cycling Time Trials (CTT) events, including hill climbs, after resolutions on changes to the rules were passed by delegates at the annual general meeting of the organisation’s National Council at the weekend.
While there has been no official announcement yet – CTT, the national governing body for time-trialling, is a volunteer-run organisation with no paid staff – news of the changes spread quickly on social media yesterday, including in groups dedicated to time trialling and hill climbing.
Posts seen by road.cc include confirmation from delegates present at the AGM that the changes will apply to hill climbs as well as time trials. road.cc is seeking confirmation of that from CTT, as well as clarification on several other issues.
Existing CTT regulations only require riders aged under 18 or classified as juniors to wear a helmet while taking part in events.
So far as we are aware, changes to CTT’s regulations still require a majority of two-thirds of delegates to be in favour of the proposal in order for it to be passed.
That was certainly the case in 2019, when despite a majority of delegates at the national council’s AGM in Daventry that year being in favour of a proposal from CTT Scotland that helmets be made mandatory for all competitors, including in hill climbs, it failed to pass because it did not exceed that two-thirds threshold.
One that did two years ago was a separate proposal requiring riders in CTT events to display a rear light when taking part – and now that has been joined by front lights too, we’d not be surprised if twin packs of a set of weight-saving front and rear lights suddenly found a niche audience. road.cc has already seen photos from time trial enthusiasts posted to social media showing compact and strategically-positioned front lights on time trial bar extensions.
One question we did see raised on Facebook is whether a front light would need to be operational throughout the entirety of the event, the poster highlighting that battery life may be an issue during 12- or 24-hour.
The poster suggested that so far as the regulation regarding the rear light is concerned, it only needed to be in operation at the start of the event.
That’s one of the points on which we are seeking clarification from CTT, and we will update this article with their response when we receive it.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- eburtthebike 4 hours 57 min ago
Well, it is humanity's defining characteristic: better get used to it.
- hawkinspeter 5 hours 48 min ago
I would've thought that the alternative to weaving between pedestrians is riding into them. It sounds like a catch-all reason as they can simply...
- hawkinspeter 5 hours 56 min ago
They don't make them like they used to
- ktache 6 hours 31 min ago
Lovely paint job, and the concealed thru axle end is a nice touch, but that frame, and I'm not casting aspersions on anyone who will ride them...
- LongitudeLatitude 6 hours 46 min ago
Thanks for using my picture of chocolate in your opening picture. The original can be found here, chocolate! | LongitudeLatitude | Flickr.
- lesterama 7 hours 13 min ago
Fair comments. I'll put my hands up and say I got the wrong end of the stick with this one. ¡Feliz navidad! Here's a pic for the season of goodwill.
- Mike Holmes 7 hours 18 min ago
A trip down memory lane (or street) for me - Harry Quinn's bike shop was at the top of our Street and I used to spend time staring at the bikes and...
- Bigtwin 7 hours 33 min ago
Because people aren't buying those cars. They are effecively renting them on PCPs or via companies. The bike market doesn't work like that.
Add new comment
60 comments
Has a certain poster been banned? I'd expect them to be all over this like a STI.
Don't say their name! Beetlejuice rules apply.
Careful - that's the second time in the last day or so someone's said 'Beetlejuice'!
Oops...
Seems to be a trend of less engagement with them recently, maybe being sent to Coventry means it's not fun anymore?
Sorry everyone - I thought at worst we'd get actual Beetlejuice.
"It's showtime!"
I kind of got rear lights... a lot of TT's are on dual carriageways, and often very early in the morning. Even though you can counter argue that dual carriageways offer loads of space and unrivalled line of sight, etc. etc. the speed differential is such that forcing the use of a rear light can be seen as a responsible action.
I struggle more with front lights... this to me seems more pandoring to paranoia and the notion that cyclists are hard to see. In daylight at least, as someone with average eyesight, I never struggle to see cyclists on the road.
I'm concerned that so many seemingly do...
However, I guess as more TT's move from the dual carriageway to more minor roads, the need to mitigate for cars turning onto courses from side roads etc. becomes more relevant... I guess.
Helmets I am on board with, up to the point of hill climbs. I'd love to know how many accidents (total and then numbers leading to head injury) have happened during a hill climb event in the past few years. Or is this about mitigating risks on the way back down the hill (post event) or when cycling to the start?
Whilst front lights do make cyclists more visible to all road users - the real benefit of riders in TTs using them is that they are more readily visible to marshals and timekeepers - particularly if the riders are wearing dark kit. If you've ever had to be involved with organising events you''ll know what I mean. Our club runs in excess of 20 events per season - mostly in the evenings. Marshals need as much warning as they can get when riders are approaching at 30mph to check for other traffic at junctions, and to safely direct the riders. The new rules get 100% approval from all of our club marshals who stand at roundabouts and junctions in all weather conditions throughout the course of a season.
An excellent decision on both counts. The front light rule in particular should have been brought in at the same time as rear lights.
I have marshalled at numerous TTs and agree riders are quite often very difficult to spot head-on, and that's when I'm looking out for them.
As for the helmet rule, I've yet to see anyone not wearing a helmet at our club organised TT events, so making it mandatory is hardly a chore for the riders.
Example of helmet concerns
StClair and Chinn reported ‘However, in both low speed linear impacts and the most severe oblique cases, linear and rotational accelerations may increase to levels corresponding to injury severities as high as AIS 2 or 3, at which a marginal increase (up to 1 AIS interval) in injury outcome may be expected for a helmeted head. Assessment of current bicycle helmets for the potential to cause rotational injury (trb.org)
A recent article contained data showing severe head injuries for helmeted to be 2.16% v 0.69% for non-wearers, head injuries in general where lower for helmeted, see Unreliable claims regarding bicycle helmet law in Western Australia https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00701-021-04949-2
Moore et al. reported on adult cyclist post-concussion syndrome (PCS) that “The mean duration of PCS for helmet wearers was 22.9 months, and 16.8 months for patients not wearing a helmet at the time of concussion (p=0.41)” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340303406_Bicycling-related_con...
Research shows helmet use is associated with a higher accident rate, Zeegers analysed 3 large data sets from the Netherlands, Victoria Australia and Seattle and described a marked overestimation of the effectiveness of helmet usage which ranged from +8% to a massive more than 400% and when the data was reanalysed in two out of three series the risk of head injury for helmeted cyclists was not lower and across all three studies the risk of non-head related injury was higher.
See, Clarke CF, Gillham C, Effects of bicycle helmet wearing on accident and injury rates, GB National Road Safety Conference, November 2019
Children have been strangled by their helmet being caught on things leaving the child hanging, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-51139789
TRL PPR 446, 2009 has some different conclusions that are worth reading. So I suppose one can cherry pick one's own statistics.
Personally I'm prepared to believe (from my own empirical evidence) that falling off, or colliding with a car hurts a lot. The likelihood of my head hitting the floor is about 50/50 as attested to by one broken wrist, one broken collarbone and two helmets with damage. In the cases where my helmet sustained damage I have no doubt I would have had at least some nasty head wounds.
Your link's broken so I can't comment on the individual case, but as has been noted elsewhere, never when cycling, only when a kid was wearing their helmet when doing something else.
"across all three studies the risk of non-head related injury was higher"
That tells us that it's not the same kind of riding which is done with a helmet or without.
If I'm going to the shops I won't carry a helmet but I'll be riding at 20 km/hr, maybe 30 km/hr downhill. Training or racing I will carry a helmet and I'll go over 30 km/hr and reach 80 km/hr downhill relying on a contact patch the size of a postage stamp.
It’s not an apples to apples comparison.
More context about journeys / demographic would be useful I'm sure. As with all these studies you gotta read them to see what they say - or don't. Right now wear what you like I say, it's a very minor factor in your safety.
It's all a bit backwards, because for the speedy ride you describe last the helmet is arguably least effective ( in part because you may be riding in a different place for that kind of ride). Helmets may be more effective for low speed single-bike accidents - which if we get more younger / older riders may predominate. However they're most likely off-putting to that demographic / less likely to be worn for those rides.
Anyway we'll not mention pedestrian or driver helmets or even removing them from motorbike riders to try to persuade them to ride more carefully / stop hitting others. Or just stop riding themselves.
If no one is not wearing a helmet, why must helmet wearing be enforced? So it becomes a piece of red tape that achieves essentially nothing, other than to normalise helmet regulations.
Because they can help protect against some avoidable injuries right? So why not?
So can knee, elbow, shoulder and shin pads, gloves, glasses and gumshields. There's usually some level of inconvenience (and expense) when wearing PPE, so people tend to wear them only when appropriate.
I can see why they might want to mandate helmets (as they're commonly believed to prevent head injuries), but I don't see much point in having the lights. I don't know whether glasses and gloves are already essential, but in my view they are the best protection for the least inconvenience.
You've obviously never marshalled a TT event on a busy road.
Because some people don't want to wear them and as adults they should have the choice.
But you justified the helmet regulation by saying that it changed nothing - the cyclists already wear helmets anyway. How then can the regulation that changes nothing prevent injury?
Woooosssshhhhhhh
??
Re read Srirarchas response and question. Then re read your counter....
Woooossshhhhh x2
I was speaking from personal experience. I'm sure there are some people somewhere that don't wear helmets when competing in TTs, and it's the intent of CTT to capture these individuals. I still maintain it's a good idea.
That wasn't Srirarcha's point - I'll let you re read at your leisure.
No, just pro reading peoples posts before responding. But mistakes happen...
If you don't like a debate why post? Or do you only like posts that agree with you
Well you seem like a nice chap.....
Ditto, it's personal choice
Ditto again, which is why I choose to wear one. I'm a bit of a rebel though - I don't wear one whilst driving. Or going upstairs. Or down the stairs....
Of course, had either you or F&C read Srirachas post, you might not have got so hot under the collar
One might be tempted to say (at risk of provoking debate) Whoooshhx3
Mt only head injury in 40 years of racing has been a concussion from when the tail of my standard road helmet caught the ground as I rolled and snatched on the asphalte. Most TT helmets have longer tails. Maybe standard helmets should be mandated to reduce the risk?
But how does being able to see riders approaching you head on help ? Unless you are standing in their way, or driving head on at them, it's simply not an issue is it? Or am I missing something really obvious at turns or junctions and we are putting all the responsibility for people not to do stupid things on the riders rather than expect better from them.
Pages