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.
61 thoughts on “Helmets and front lights to be compulsory on all Cycling Time Trials events – including hill climbs”
Front lights is an
Front lights is an interesting one. I wonder what their angle is? Any connection with a couple of the recent TT deaths?
seems like it could do with a little more finesse on that ruling tbh, and that comes front someone who habitually uses lights in the day.
Given that many people will
Given that many people will use the smallest most aero light they possibly can, and many such small lights are as much use as a chocolate teapot in daylight…………….
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Hopefully slightly down, towards the road, so as to avoid dazzling oncoming traffic.
I used to put on hair gel to
I used to put on hair gel to make me more aero when I was TTing in the early part of this century! Never wore a hat.
swldxer wrote:
The more of your comments I read, he more you are coming across as a dick. I usually comment on the post rather than the person who posted their view but in your case I will make an exception, you are a dick. I suppose you got some pleasure in getting a response though.
But tell us, how do you
But tell us, how do you really feel?
Surprising that another
Surprising that another cycling organisation has fallen prey to the helmet propaganda. Did no-one point out the fact that helmets don’t save lives? I suppose we’ll know when the minutes of that meeting are published. I hope the count was rather more reliable than that of the BMA meeting that changed their policy all those years ago; I wonder if they ever got around to reviewing like they said they would?
It’s worse than that – they
It’s worse than that – they have killed as well. https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1227.html
Just to be clear, not whilst
Just to be clear, not whilst cycling but other activities such as trampolining.
swldxer wrote:
But have you got any evidence of cycling helmets killing cyclists involved in crashes? Kids climbing out of windows, kids being trapped on play equipment and so on really doesnt make an argument for cycling helmets killing when used for their intended use. I really hope that you were tongue in chek when you posted your comment.
As a regular TTer, event
As a regular TTer, event organiser, volunteer and so on I am conflicted by the new rules. Virtually all TTers already wear a helmet of some kind. However, the fact that it’s now compulsory does not sit well with me, there is nothing to be gained by the new ruling. On a personal evel I’m very disappointed that it will apply to hill climbs.
Regarding front lights, the lengths people are going to in order to be as aero as possible inevitably makes their frontal area very small. Combine that with dark clothing and riding on potentially busy SC roads in a variety of weather conditions and I can see that a front light may be a good visibility aid.
My suspicion is that the helmet reg is more about CTT and the risk of being sued ; sadly, I think that the helmet rule is IMHO part of the slippery slope to a helmet law.
It’s even more of a shame
It’s even more of a shame they voted down the proposal for equal men’s and women’s prize money (and by a huge margin) for TTs. Again.
I agree, as long as the
I agree, as long as the events are the same distance for men and women.
biker phil wrote:
Do marathon runners get paid 400 times more than 100m runners?
Does the Sumo Wrestling
Does the Sumo Wrestling champion of the UK earn as much as their equivalent in Japan?
I take your point about a
I take your point about a sport’s popularity and revenue potential. However I think there is something else at work here – sex equality is seen as socially good and worth working towards. Sumo isn’t.
It depends if you value the
It depends if you value the equalising of outcome or the equalising of opportunity.
The current situation gives equal opportunity which is, IMHO, far more important than an equal outcome.
Rich_cb wrote:
Is that like the equal opportunity for women to do the same job but earn less, when averaged out across the economy? Or are you making a different point?
We’re discussing the prize
We’re discussing the prize funds for TTs.
If you want to discuss the wider gender pay gap go for it.
What is the actual gender pay gap for people doing the same hours in the same job?
Well, I was asking you. If
Well, I was asking you. If the prizes for the women’s TTs are lower than the men’s, does that give equality of opportunity to win prizes for cycling fast? Or are you saying that the men’s events are open and hence anyone can win the prizes, and that’s the equality of opportunity?
If the prize funds are some
If the prize funds are some function of the total entry fees for each event then the opportunity is the same for both men and women.
If fewer women enter then the outcome may be different.
biker phil wrote:
IIRC one of two of CTT’s ‘Classic series’ may run a shorter distance for women, paracyclists and juniors but the vast majority of CTT events are fixed distance – women race the same distance as men on the same day with the same rules (and in the 12hr & 24hr for the same duration).
I believe there has been some debate about whether it is CTT’s responsibility to mandate that equal prize money is offered at all events. Pressure from the racing community in general has meant that there are fewer and fewer events where women are treated differently from men in this regard.
Fortunately, prize money is
Fortunately, prize money is at the discretion of the event organiser and many have now seen the light and offer equal prizes for men and women.
I can undestand the new rule
I can undestand the new rule regarding lights. Many times whilst marshalling on my local evening 10 course, depending on the weather it can be very difficult to see some riders coming, and that is from someone stood at the roadside looking for cyclists, never mind other road users. Not sure about the helmets, whilst I always wear one and would never go out without mine, if this becomes the norm it may become more widespread, and put some people off cycling.
An excellent decision on both
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
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_concussions_leading_to_postconcussion_syndrome_in_adults
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
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.
Colin Clarke wrote:
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
“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.
Branko Dodig wrote:
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.
FishandChips wrote:
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
Because they can help protect against some avoidable injuries right? So why not?
FishandChips wrote:
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.
hawkinspeter]
You’ve obviously never marshalled a TT event on a busy road.
Because some people don’t
Because some people don’t want to wear them and as adults they should have the choice.
FishandChips wrote:
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?
FishandChips wrote:
Woooosssshhhhhhh
??
??
FishandChips wrote:
Re read Srirarchas response and question. Then re read your counter….
Woooossshhhhh x2
I was speaking from personal
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.
FishandChips wrote:
That wasn’t Srirarcha’s point – I’ll let you re read at your leisure.
Captain Badger wrote:
Dhill wrote:
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
Captain Badger wrote:
Mt only head injury in 40
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
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.
Awavey wrote:
Te driver coming fro behind will likely see you lights or not, as they will be using their own lights. The driver that pulls out of a side road into your path, is the one most likely not to see you without lights.
The driver that pulls out of
The driver that pulls out of a side road into your path, is the one most likely not to
see you without lightsbother looking correctly.It helps drivers pulling out
It helps drivers pulling out of junctions obviously.
which is putting the onus on
which is putting the onus on the riders to use in effect PPE, to mitigate the irresponsible actions of others, which is the opposite way it should work i feel.
if the danger is drivers not driving safely, tackle them.
Awavey wrote:
Not riders, TT racers who are travelling at a higher speed, busier & faster road, massively more exertion (at their limit) and at a (presumably) high risker of getting hurt if they fall off. I think you are so ingrained with a HiViz/PPE knee jerk reaction that you are failing to consider this specific case again the general case. Will you be arguing against helmets in the TdF next? That ship has sailed – you werent aboard.
Making TT’er and Hill Climbers have lights and helmets is highly unlikely to make anyone give up the sport or dissuade anyone from taking it up, unless they are totally bloody minded.
I’m ingrained against knee
I’m ingrained against knee jerk overreactions that propose mandatory things that have little to no benefit to those its imposed upon,except making the rule makers feel all warm & fuzzy theyve done something.
If visibility of riders is such a key concern for TTers then why stop just at lights, why not impose mandatory hi-viz kit, why not force all TTs to run during accepted levels of daylight measured with light meters, why not just ban racing on the road completely and use static bikes, if it saves one person from serious injury it’s got to be the right thing to do surely…
Or we accept the risk to a TTer is not actually themselves, but those around them who are careless,who become reliant on others mitigating & excusing their faults whilst not being held properly accountable for them, and simply adding extra layers of things for others to do never ever fixes the root problem.
I kind of got rear lights…
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
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.
Has a certain poster been
Has a certain poster been banned? I’d expect them to be all over this like a STI.
Don’t say their name!
Don’t say their name! Beetlejuice rules apply.
Careful – that’s the second
Careful – that’s the second time in the last day or so someone’s said ‘Beetlejuice’!
Oops…
Seems to be a trend of less
Seems to be a trend of less engagement with them recently, maybe being sent to Coventry means it’s not fun anymore?
hirsute wrote:
Alas, rumours of my demise have been exaggerated.
Unfortunately work has got in the way over the last day or two… I’ll be back soon, as sharp as a Hanzo sword, as intelligent as a brain surgeon and as skillfully incisive as Nick Freeman!
See you soon, I’m ratcheting up expectations over the next couple of days.
Garage at Large wrote:
Has a certain poster been banned? I’d expect them to be all over this like a STI.
— Garage at Large Alas, rumours of my demise have been exaggerated. Unfortunately work has got in the way over the last day or two… I’ll be back soon, as sharp as a Hanzo sword, as intelligent as a brain surgeon and as skillfully incisive as Nick Freeman! See you soon, I’m ratcheting up expectations over the next couple of days.— hirsute
Sorry everyone – I thought at worst we’d get actual Beetlejuice.
mdavidford wrote:
“It’s showtime!”