Another motorist spotted with 'cyclist tally' decal; Traffic cops schooling ignorant road users...Highway Code edition; Cav: Biggest joy from 2021 was people saying 'thank you'; Guess Alex Dowsett's "irrational" cycling dislike? + more on the live blog

SimoninSpalding wrote:

Serious question, have you ever ridden a TT bike to form this opinion?

....

TFTFY

Ta!

SimoninSpalding wrote:

Ta!

Je vous en prie

Captain Badger wrote:

SimoninSpalding wrote:

Ta!

Je vous en prie

That's quite enough politeness and courtesy for one day, thank you.

Whoops!

chrisonatrike wrote:

....

That's quite enough politeness and courtesy for one day, thank you.

Whoops!

I try not to make a habit of it.

Simon, serious questions to Nigel are a waste of time and his opinions are ill informed and sometimes just stated to wind the forum up.

He defends illegal behavour by motorists (NMotD comments), but attacks cylists for legal activiites (TT bikes, two abreast and group riding).

I know, but I have a bit of time to waste this morning...

Garage at Large wrote:

Ok, but do me a favour. Next time someone gets seriously injured or whacked while riding one, don't delete my comment pointing out the fact that these bikes are more dangerous than any other type of road bike, and in my opinion shouldn't be road-legal on normal open roads.

Do me a favour, explain how someone being whacked while riding a TT bike would reflect on the relative safety of a TT bike vs a road bike?

Garage at Large wrote:

Proportionately, for the miles they cover, you have a far higher chance of being severely injured or killed while riding a TT bike than a standard road bike. TT bikes are ridden on fewer than 1% of all cycling outings (technically they aren't journeys as they don't have a defined destination or purpose), yet account for a disproportionate number of fatalities.

Take this story from Road.cc just a few months ago - two cyclists were killed in time trials just days apart. I say enough is enough.

I'm going to break my own rules.

Please explain in detail Nigel how you manage to come to the conclusion that a TT rider who was struck from behind by a vehicle is anything to do with a TT Bike being unsafe/un-roadworthy?

Again you are portraying your opinion as fact where it clearly is not.

I mean where are your statistics for TT bikes acounting for 1% of 'outings' but a disproportionate number of fatalities?

Garage at Large wrote:

Well, given that there were 140 cycling fatalities in total over an entire year, and yet 2 time trial bike fatalities in a matter of days of each other, where time trial bikes account for fewer than 1% of cycling trips, simply dividing the two numbers already gives a disproportionate number of deaths on TT bikes over the entire year.

There are of course more time trial bike deaths than this, such as https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/safety-review-after-andrew-hornby-fatal-acc... and https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/news/people/lewes-wanderers-cycling-club..., but I'm not going to sift through the figures to find the tragic total number, and I don't believe that the official statistics differentiate between the type of bike used.

If Cycling UK had anything about them they'd commission a study into time trial bikes and the extra level of danger they pose, with a view to improving their safety.

But again how have you come to the fewer than 1% of cycling trips figure?  You yourself said that the figures don't break down between time of bike used in journeys so you have no evidence only opinion of the fewer than 1% of trips.

But more importantly - answer the question about how a TT Rider being killed as a result of being struck from behind has anything to do with a TT Bike being unsafe on the roads.  I know you won't answer that.

*edit* In fact do you have any evidence at all that any of those 4 deaths that you mention were as a result of the rider not being in full control of the bike?
 

Garage at Large wrote:

TriTaxMan wrote:

But more importantly - answer the question about how a TT Rider being killed as a result of being struck from behind has anything to do with a TT Bike being unsafe on the roads.

I bet you I will, and there are a multitude of reasons including: 1) in the aerobar position, TT bikes have no immediate braking capability, meaning that they are a danger both to the cyclist and other vulnerable road users 2) the default position on a TT bike is much more aggressive. The rider's head is facing down, their arms are not in a sensible position to manoeuvre properly. This is to eek out a bit more speed. 3) often TT bikes are accompanied by deep section wheels which are easily buffeted by the wind, leading to an additional lack of control. 4) TT events take place on major (national speed limit) A roads, often dual carriageways, to maximise speed and to try to flatten out curves and bumps. These roads are usually open to traffic simultaneously despite the obvious danger. 5) At the half away point of a time trial there is often a roundabout, which isn't shut to oncoming traffic, but where participants are incentivised to approach at full speed or face a time penalty. These areas should be considered "out of bounds" in terms of the overall time trial, and participants' clicks should be frozen until they have safely navigated it. There are many others, but these five points above by themselves illustrate important disparities between TT bikes and their more sensible road bike cousins.

Nice try but that is your opinion on why TT Bikes are dangerous, not actually answering the question.  

Where is your evidence that any of the 4 fatalities that you highlighted were directly related to the construction of the Time Trial Bikes or that the riders in question were at fault in any way.   And specifically, where the articles you quoted gave details that the rider was struck from behind by a van as they were riding along a dual carriageway give evidence to support your assertion that the construction of the bike played any part in the accident.

So try and answer the question this time not provide your opinion as to why you think TT Bikes are dangerous.

Garbage writ Large wrote:

...evidence-based facts...

'alternative facts' maybe 

Garage at Large wrote:

I've provided evidence-based facts to you to comprehensively answer your question, I cannot do any more.

Why don't you get yourself down to the other article and tell the guy whose mate is now wheelchair bound - as a direct result of riding a TT bike - that he's lying and it's just his opinion.

Nigel.... lets follow your train of thought.  You said "Proportionately, for the miles they cover, you have a far higher chance of being severely injured or killed while riding a TT bike than a standard road bike." and to back that up you referenced 4 fatalities involving riders on TT Bikes.

However you have no evidence to prove that the deaths that you reference had any direct link to the riders being on Time Trial Bikes only your opinion.  And when you asked about it you come back with reasons as to why you think Time Trial bikes are more dangerous, but not providing evidence that the TT Bikes played any part in the accidents involving the cyclists.

So now you seem to be attempting emotional blackmail...... in the other thread CXR94Di2 does not make any reference as to whether or not they feel that TT Bikes are more or less dangerous than road bikes..... so the only one that is lying is you...... par for the course.

Garage at Large wrote:

 I don't have any actual evidence.

Pretty much like most of your posts then.

Garage at Large wrote:

Well no, I don't have any actual physical evidence to prove incontrovertibly that all these time trial bike deaths were linked to the bikes themselves, due to the fact I wasn't there.

Perhaps all these various TT bikes casulties were simply unlucky beyond statistical chance. Perhaps when Chris Froome crashed into a house on a TT bike it was the house's fault. Perhaps when Egal Bernal crashed into a stationary bus, he did so because it spontaneously appeared in front of him.

Or perhaps, just perhaps, there is a link between all these casualties and the indisputable fact that TT bikes are simply dangerous. Answers on a postcard...

Finally an admission that it is your opinion only.

Egal Bernal crashed into a stationary bus.  Is that down to the fact that the bike is inherently dangerous or is it down to the fact that he wasn't looking where he was going?  Who can say. 

I presume you feel the widely circulated video of the cyclist who crashed into the back of the stationary car of a learner driver was down to the design of the road bike the rider was on?  I mean the natural position on a road bike positions your head to look around 6 feet in front of the front wheel if your head is in a neutral position.  As a rider on a road bike I have to actively look up, same as I need to do on my TT Bike.

Chris Froome's accident happened at the time he took his hands off the aero bar to blow his nose and he was hit with a cross wind.  Was that down to the fact that he was on a TT Bike or was it down to the fact that he was using deep section wheels?  Who can say. 

I have been in triathlons and seen individuals using deep section wheels on standard road bikes and be caught by a gust of wind and end up in the ditch.  Do you think that deep section wheels should also be banned?

I watched another dam cam video last night plus rufford ford.

I think various car models should be banned plus caravans. One caravan came detached and smashed into a vehicle coming the other way.

Garage at Large wrote:

Well no, I don't have any actual physical evidence to prove incontrovertibly that all these time trial bike deaths were linked to the bikes themselves, due to the fact I wasn't there.

And due to the fact that it's obviously ridiculous.

Quote:

Perhaps all these various TT bikes casulties were simply unlucky beyond statistical chance. Perhaps when Chris Froome crashed into a house on a TT bike it was the house's fault. Perhaps when Egal Bernal crashed into a stationary bus, he did so because it spontaneously appeared in front of him.

Well if we're talking about Froome and Bernal should we not also be talking about all the other crashes Pro cyclists have? How much do you think they'll stand out if we list all the others? I guess when that driver plowed through half the DSM team a few seasons back it's proof the road bikes are too dangerous to be allowed, right?

Garage at Large wrote:

I've provided evidence-based facts to you to comprehensively answer your question, I cannot do any more.

Since you have not done that at all, then you really could do more.

Quote:

If I told you that it was more dangerous to cross a motorway than to walk across a cul-de-sac you'd say I had no evidence (despite the six or eight lanes of fast moving traffic),  that I was "victim-blaming" people who choose to walk across motorways, and that it was the motorists' fault if there was a collision.

Again, what does the choice of road have to do with the safety of the bike? How are you too dense to realise this?

If I told you walking was more dangerous than hopping, and justified it by saying "Well try walking across a 6 lane motorway and see how that goes" would that actually be a convincing argument to you?

Garage at Large wrote:

There are many others, but these five points above by themselves illustrate important disparities between TT bikes and their more sensible road bike cousins.

Points 1, 2, 3 and 5 have absolutely nothing to do with the accident reports you have provided as 'proof' of your assertions that TT bikes are dangerous. Points 4 and 5 also have nothing to do with TT bikes specifically, they apply equally to road bikes doing the same thing.

Garbage writ Large wrote:

Well, given that there were 140 cycling fatalities in total over an entire year, and yet 2 time trial bike fatalities in a matter of days of each other, where time trial bikes account for fewer than 1% of cycling trips, simply dividing the two numbers already gives a disproportionate number of deaths on TT bikes over the entire year statistically insignificant result.

Garage at Large wrote:

 

I don't normally reply to your comments as I find your language offensive, but on this occasion - as you've asked politely - I'll make an exception.

Proportionately, for the miles they cover, you have a far higher chance of being severely injured or killed while riding a TT bike than a standard road bike. TT bikes are ridden on fewer than 1% of all cycling outings (technically they aren't journeys as they don't have a defined destination or purpose), yet account for a disproportionate number of fatalities.

Take this story from Road.cc just a few months ago - two cyclists were killed in time trials just days apart. I say enough is enough.

no mention in that article what type of bike they are using, you seem to be swerving all over this thread unsure whether you are argung against time trials, or time trial bikes. For safety you should try to hold your line.

Please try either

• Time trials are dangerous because...
• Riding on dual carriageways is dangerous because...
• Time trial bikes are dangerous because...
• misuse of time trial bikes is dangerous because...

When being hit from behind, it makes no difference what type of bike the rider was using, braking and steering is irrelevant when the impact comes unseen from behind. Even in the most extreme aero position any driver who can not see a cyclist should not be on the roads.

In the aero position braking is delayed (although does it take longer to move hands than to move a foot from the go pedal to the stop pedal on a car?) and steering is difficult. But no one should be in this position for junctions or in areas where pedestrians are likely.

Arguing that time trial bikes ra edangerous becuase they are fatser is nonsense, because the cyclists are not likely to be exceeding the speed limit on the roads they are using.

Garage at Large wrote:

Secondly, as I'm sure you're aware, time trial bikes are disproportionately used... in time trials! Therefore, time trial rules disproportionately affect adverse outcomes for cyclists using time trial bikes,

ah, so time trial BIKES are dangerous because "correlation"

Garage at Large wrote:

Finally, on your contention that "no one should be in this (aero) position for junctions or in areas where pedestrians are likely.", you'll of course be aware that there are no highway code rules to stop cyclists from adopting that position. Perhaps you might agree that there should be more regulation in this area?

Now that we're out of the EU I see you've decided to take up the mantle of 'faceless bureaucrat dreaming up endless red tape to protect people from the risks of being able to make their own decisions'.

So that's good.

#TakeBackOurBureaucracy

Garage at Large wrote:

I don't normally reply to your comments as I find your language offensive, but on this occasion - as you've asked politely - I'll make an exception.

You get what you give. If you weren't here for the sole purpose of being as offensive as possible then you'd get better language in return. Since you are though, stop fucking moaning.

Quote:

Take this story from Road.cc just a few months ago - two cyclists were killed in time trials just days apart. I say enough is enough.

What did either of those accidents have to do with the relative safety of TT bikes? Is it TT bikes you're arguing against or TTs themselves? Please pick one irrational bugbear and stick with it instead of chopping and changing however it suits you.

Even then, they were both driven into by negligent drivers who weren't looking at the road and who got mere slaps on the wrist in return. If you want to make a positive change for road safety that is it - campaign for harsher treatment of dangerous and deadly drivers. Roll back this bizarre bubble our society has created where you remove any expectation of safe conduct and the responsibilty towards other humans that exists in every other part of our personal and professional lives as soon as you step into a metal box.

GMBasix wrote:

My opinion is that - to save lives - cars should only be ridden on closed roads or heavily controlled environments. Watch with incredulity as the same people who claim they're all about road safety make mealy-mouthed excuses as to why they are road-legal instead of banned.

Next time someone gets seriously injured or whacked by one, don't delete my comment pointing out the fact that motor vehicles are more dangerous than any other type of vehicle, and in my opinion shouldn't be road-legal on normal open roads.

Garbage writ Large wrote:

imagine if there was a new class of car introduced to the road where you couldn't see properly out of the windows, where the brake pedal was operated on the passenger side of the vehicle, and where the steering wheel didn't work properly.

Sounds like an awful lot of cars on the road today, judging by how they're driven.

Garage at Large wrote:

That's nice, has nothing to with TT bikes though does it?

Your comments fail to begin to justify why it is the TT bike that is at fault, not the actions of motorists hitting them.

You have confused allusion to association (no actual stats) with causation (no actual study of collision reports).

Your points list is laughably speculative, without merit, and don't even begin to consider in the equation the role of the motorist, whose one job is not to hit the cyclist in front of them.

That noise you hear is not your appreciative audience calling for your encore, it's people laughing at your attempts to troll the board.

GMBasix wrote:

Your comments fail to begin to justify why it is the TT bike that is at fault, not the actions of motorists hitting them.

You have confused allusion to association (no actual stats) with causation (no actual study of collision reports).

Your points list is laughably speculative, without merit, and don't even begin to consider in the equation the role of the motorist, whose one job is not to hit the cyclist in front of them.

That noise you hear is not your appreciative audience calling for your encore, it's people laughing at your attempts to troll the board.

Indeed it's like he failed to realise that a driver on a Dual Carriageway has an entire lane that they could use that the cyclist wouldn't be in. 

Or at the very least should have given the cyclist 1.5m of clearance as they were passing which would mitigate any movement from buffeting that he is suggesting.

And that brakes really don't help when something runs into the back of you.