Call it what you want, we all know they are racing, be it each other or time, they are still going as fast as they possibly can and are at times dangerous. If they are on the road racing or a time trial then as a bear min they should be insured on case they are involved in an accident
You want to think yourself lucky you don't live in South London Bob. The roads are closed there for 2 days for the Ride 100 every year and then another half day to collect all the cones. Oh and much the same for the London marathon. The thing with the A63 is, they only use it on a weekend when traffic to and from Hull is at its lightest and as GLP says, if motorists, well warned that a cycle event is taking place cant use the road properly its their problem and not the cyclists who by law are allowed to use that stretch of road.
If a car hits a cyclist from behind, he better hope he has insurance..., especially on a dual carriageway...
The time trialists, like many, many other cyclists are insured. They have to be in case an incompetent car driver wipes them out.
Not sure if your talking about the car it bike having insurance there, but obviously car have to legally have it and in instances of cyclists "competing on public roads whilst still open to the public, it should be a legal requirement for them also
1 fatality and 5 accidents in 10 years suggests otherwise. I'd hazard a guess and say the 5 accidents were more than likely caused by careless motorists. I drive up and down the country for meetings and frankly the standard of driving in this country is appalling. Some people with a driving licence shouldn't be allowed a hand cart licence, let alone one for a motorised vehicle.
Meaningless comparing the deaths of cyclists and motorists unless you compare the numbers of cycles and motor vehicles that use the road in a year. That one death would be a higher percentage of cyclists than the number of deaths involving motor vehicles.
For organised events, it's liable to be a condition, but I don't know of anyone with reasonable kit that doesn't have insurance. It covers legal fees when some driver just 'didn't see you'.
I bet it's still a worse number for crashes and fatalities for motorists on the A63. Given everyone's perception of how dangerous cyclists are and how agitated they are that they 'dare' to use the same tarmac - it's a miracle there aren't many more.
It is hard enough in the New Forest to concentrate looking at the scenery and the horses and ponies etc wandering around without having to keep an eye open for hordes of cyclists.
The bloke who died hit a stationary vehicle, the death was down to riding flat out without looking where he was going, it was nothing to do with an incompetent driver.
An organised event that has permission from the powers that be and all the correct measures in place is something different. An annoyance to locals but it is what it is. ****s who use an open public Road as a racetrack are something else entirely.
So chalk one up for that side. He paid a high price for his error. Sadly, cyclists can pay a similar price when a car driver makes an error.
Of course it will be worse number, given many more vehicles use it. Whether that is a higher percentage is a different matter.
