Time Trial / Time Trialling / TT

Hi collective testers. A friend of mine who races in Sheffield is after a rear disc wheel, and wanted me to ask on here in case anybody has anything. I've posted a Wanted ad in hope, but thought I'd come here and just ask for some advice instead.

He's after 11spd, clincher, ideally carbon (or at least reasonably lightweight as he does some SPOCOs, as well as flat stuff) and has about £700 to play with. He's upgrading from a Fulcrum Red Wind 50mm I think, and wants as much aero gain as possible.

Having done a bit of research myself I've suggested the Aerocoach Aeox, but is there anything else I should recommend? Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks, Al.

V718 under threat: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-42801721

"Highways England said there had been six accidents involving cyclists in the past five years, including one fatal collision."

It says it is seeking the ban "in the interests of road safety".

during the same five-year period there had been "271 car accidents with four fatalities".

Errm...

Per journey or per kilometre travelled it may be statistically significant.

But it's still a bollocks reason and essentially Government sanctioned victim blaming and treating the symptom not the underlying problem.

I haven't found where objections need to be made, there's probably a link over on TTF but I'm too scared to go look.

there's probably a link over on TTF but I'm too scared to go look.

You're right to worry, the "zOMG! No more Veeee!" thread is at 12 pages and rising fast.

But if they slowed the traffic, the course wouldn’t be popular with the TT fraternity.

Better a course with slower traffic than no course at all for TTers AND for those feeble humans that keep crashing their cars.

I bought a bike from this man's widow recently.

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/cyclist-killed-10-mile-time-trial-named-72-year-old-founder-local-club-335992

She was saying how hard it would be to sell their tandem. Terribly sad

I haven't found where objections need to be made, there's probably a link over on TTF but I'm too scared to go look.

The consultation period for Highways England’s proposed ban on cycles from the A63 ends on February 19. Objections can be made to Director, Operations Directorate (Yorkshire & North East), Highways England, 3rd Floor South, Lateral, 8 City Walk, Leeds LS11 9AT with reference ‘The A63 Trunk Road (North Cave interchange to Daltry Street interchange)(Prohibition of cyclists order)’.
Read more at http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/comment/comment-banning-cyclists-a63-road-terrible-move-366801#2GF5y7CU8UXpUieS.99

That is sad.

Snail mail? Out.
I only complain if I'm certain of a PB delivery time.

Yes; I expect there'll be an online consultation somewhere, but I'm not reading that thread on TTF to find it

Go on, you know you want to.. haha I don't blame you!

There was a (short) period a few years ago when I used to follow the TTF pretty regularly and read loads of threads. But the standard of writing (and of thinking underpinning the writing) is mostly so dire that it is hard going. And the people who constantly post jokes are just wasting internet capacity. Shame, as there is the odd pearl of real wisdom on there!

Yeah, I've flounced TTF. Real shithole.

Is that why you're making a dirty protest? ie. riding a road bike :)

Yeah, getting in to competitive events with my vaguely passable LTS and then coming dead last on a road bike.

Unless you expect a top-3, it's always a race against yourself so ride whatever you want. I still race the road bike in TTs. Not this year though.

Shame, as there is the odd pearl of real wisdom on there!

There is, but the signal to noise ratio is appallingly bad. It mostly seems to consistent of flame wars and chest beating. Thanks but no thanks.

"Come for the thinly veiled bigotry!

Stay for the, er... non-PC jokes thread?"

The ignore function is good though, for obvious reasons

https://www.cyclingtimetrials.org.uk/articles/view/283

Dear rider

Highways England has put forward a proposal for a Traffic Restriction Order (TRO) to ban cyclists from the A63 near Hull. The stretch of the A63 which would be affected includes the entire course used for the ultra-fast 10 course, the V718 and all its derivatives. If the TRO is put in place, that would mean the V718 would cease to exist as a course and no more events could be held on it.

The Statement of Reasons given in support of the proposed TRO is:

Concerns have been raised for the safety of cyclists using the A63 Trunk Road between North Cave Interchange and Daltry Street Interchange. Cyclists are travelling on a carriageway that carries average speeds of 65 mph for traffic, at a rate of over 2500 vehicles per hour. In the last 5 years there have been six accidents involving cyclists, including a fatality in 2013. should we state that the cyclist rode into the back of a stationary caravan - not necessarily stating the obvious? It could be seen as a sensible objection perhaps?

In the interests of road safety, Highways England Company Ltd is proposing to ban cyclists on this stretch of road, including the associated slip roads.

CTT does not accept that on the days and at the times that time trials are held on this stretch of road that the figures quoted by Highways England accurately represent the correct position. CTT does not believe that the V718 course represents a danger to cyclists or that time trials held on this course are not safe. The six accidents referred to are not all accidents in CTT events. That is the total number of accidents involving cyclists over the last six years, which is not statistically significant. That should be compared against a recorded number of 297 accidents over the same period on this stretch of road involving motor vehicles. Accordingly, CTT intends to object to the proposed TRO in the strongest possible terms.

If you wish to object to the proposed TRO, please could you put your objection in WRITING (Highways England has not supplied an email address for objections to be sent to, so objections cannot be made by email) and POST it to The Office of the Director, Operations Directorate (Yorkshire & North East), Highways England, 3rd Floor South, Lateral, 8 City Walk, Leeds, LS11 9AT. The objection should quote the reference 'The A63 Trunk Road (North Cave Interchange to Daltry Street Interchange) (Prohibition of Cyclists Order)'.

Objections MUST be received to the above address not later than Monday 19 February 2018.

Any objection must be based on the proposed ban on cyclists using the A63. An objection based on the fact that it is a fast time trialling course would not have any merit and would very likely be disregarded.

If you do wish to lodge an objection, you may wish to begin this as follows:

I write to object to the above proposed TRO. Please respond confirming you have received this objection and respond to the issues I have raised below. Additionally, please inform me of the outcome of this consultation and of any future amendments to this proposal.

The grounds of my objections are:

Then please give details of your objections. Suggested objections are listed below, although if you wish to object please add whatever objections you have of your own.

Six accidents involving cyclists in a period of five years is very low. Why is it proposed to impose a total ban on cyclists? As compared to significantly more accidents involving motor vehicles over the same period (nearly 300) why is it considered that a ban on cyclists is proportionate?

I do not consider that the quoted statistics of six accidents involving cyclists over a five year period are statistically significant. How do the statistics quoted compare against collision statistics for other similar type A roads? Is a similar type proposal (for a TRO) to be made in respect of those other A roads?

Bicycles pose the lowest risk of all vehicles types on the highway, due to their lower speeds and mass. Please could you explain why such a low figure can be treated by Highways England as justification to ban bicycles on this stretch of road?

I do not consider that a ban on cyclists on this stretch of road is a proportionate response bearing in mind the statistics quoted. What alternative measures have been considered?

Highways England has an obligation to respond to ALL objections received and must respond using the same means by which you contacted them (ie. by letter). As such, please ensure that when making your objection you give details of your name and address.

Again, objections must be received by Highways England by 19 February. If you wish to object and to help to save this course, please could you lodge your objection with Highways England by that date? The more objections received, the more Highways England has to take notice of what is said. As such, please don’t rely on others objecting. Every single objection is needed.

Thank you.

CTT Board of directors

I am not hugely fussed about the V but I do think that the TRO if successful could set a very dangerous precident, allowing councils to ban cycling from any road they want rather than focussing on danger reduction (ie cars).

First they came for the V718 and I said nothing...

We'll the F25? was lost a few years back.

I don't think it's a bad thing banning cycling on the A63.