The UCI’s SafeR group, tasked with improving safety in road racing, has sent a survey to professional male and female riders as it explores a range of equipment interventions intended to slow the peloton and protect riders.
The 2025 SafeR Equipment Survey invites professionals to share their opinions on key equipment changes aimed at improving road cycling safety. The survey focuses on four areas: gearing, handlebar width, wheels/tyres, and protective clothing. It requests both quantitative (multiple-choice) and qualitative (open-ended) feedback.
As first reported by Escape Collective in December, the UCI is considering these interventions to reduce speeds in the peloton. Fast-forward to today, and the voluntary survey is designed to give riders input on various equipment-related solutions, which SafeR has since confirmed are under analysis.
The rider survey aims to gather feedback on safety-related equipment regulations. It is, though, unclear precisely how the feedback will be used. Multiple riders have confirmed to Escape Collective that they have received the survey, which was sent on the eve of a UCI and World Federations of Sporting Goods Industry co-hosted seminar taking place at UCI HQ in Aigle on Tuesday, the 4th of February and continuing into Wednesday.
The WFSGI’s Head of International Sports and Cycling, Michelle Smyth, in a phone call with Escape, described the first day of the seminar as “productive” but said the WFSGI was unaware of the rider survey before it was sent. She confirmed the industry is not represented on the SafeR commission and said, “the framing of some questions could have been better to ensure a more balanced survey.”
Smyth also said of the survey: “We know that it comes from a desire by all stakeholders to improve race safety,” and spoke of looking forward to future collaboration with the UCI and SafeR “to support the delivery of valuable and constructive feedback from riders.”
While it is encouraging to see the UCI engage with riders on these matters and potential new regulations, sections of the survey appear flawed, with potentially leading questions. Many of the questions and multiple-choice answers are framed as various versions of “yes, this will help.”
The survey seeks subjective, opinion-based answers from riders without assessing their knowledge or experience level on each topic, despite addressing interventions that should be evaluated using objective data. The most prominent example is the question regarding the benefits of tyre inserts—a topic on which even tyre and rim manufacturers cannot agree. Adam Hansen, president of the Cyclistes Professionnels Associés (CPA), said the survey included questions brought to the CPA by riders and designed to assess if others shared similar concerns and sentiments in the peloton.
What’s in the survey?
Each topic follows a similar structure: riders answer multiple-choice questions and can optionally provide additional input in open-text fields. Questions assess control, comfort, and potential benefits or concerns associated with each regulation. For example, the survey seeks feedback on whether narrower handlebars pose a safety risk and whether regulating rim heights could improve stability in crosswinds.
While not mandatory, riders could provide additional “specific input” on each potential intervention in open-text response fields.
One of the central themes of the survey, and the subject of the first questions, concerns whether gear restrictions should be imposed to reduce top speeds. The options presented range from mandatory gear ratios to no limits at all. The survey also explores the safety implications of handlebar width, rim height, tyre inserts, and protective clothing such as abrasion-resistant fabrics and wearable airbags.
Polling the stakeholders
The survey, which sent to pro cyclists but not distributed more broadly, is intended to bring perspective from inside the peloton to matters that directly impact those being surveyed. But those same individuals are also being asked to answer questions well outside their professional wheelhouses, and, when contaced by Escape, other stakeholders raised some red flags.
Take tyre inserts, asked about in question 17. It is understood that the UCI is investigating whether it should require tyre inserts on all tubeless setups, having previously considered an outright ban on tubeless straight-side (a.k.a. hookless) wheel and tyre systems.
One industry insider with a leading position at a well-known tyre manufacturer pushed back on this idea, telling us that “there is no standard(s) on tyre inserts” and citing the potential for multiple issues, including tyre chaffing to inhibiting proper tyre seating and alterations to air volume potentially impacting tyre pressures as reasons their company cannot endorse their use. The source concluded that “organisations like ETRTO and ISO establish standards to ensure tyres and rims are compatible, reliable, and the only contact points with the ground—deviating from these standards with new and untested rules risks compromising safety.”
The survey also asks about the potential benefits of abrasion-resistant clothing, with response options limited to “less road rash,” “faster recovery times,” or “none.” Arguably, a “don’t know” option should have been included, as it is unfair to ask riders—whose job is to race bikes, not research fabric technology—to make an informed judgment on such a topic.
Another industry insider with a managerial position at a leading clothing manufacturer told Escape Collective that abrasion-resistant clothing isn’t actually all that effective in “significant crashes”, as “road rash that comes from the shear forces across the skin can come from abrasion on the fabrics as well as from the ground. And the main problems from crashes are still orthopaedic and neurological.”
The same industry source summarised the abrasion-resistant clothing suggestions as “the clothing equivalent of gear restrictions” and theorised any protective clothing will need an “inflexion point like helmets: the protection provided needs to be real, but can’t be too hot or too heavy or too uncomfortable.”
A significant section of the survey addresses wearable airbag systems, asking participants whether such technology could improve safety during a crash and inviting comments on concerns such as comfort and reliability. However, the survey did not provide an example of how such a system might look or function.
CPA president Hansen welcomed the survey, citing the new sprint rules, which followed a similar process last year and confirmed the CPA was involved in drafting questions. When asked if the questions were leading, Hansen said again that the questions stemmed from those raised to the CPA by riders and explained, “English is not everyone’s first language”, so the questions had to be clear. Hansen also refuted the suggestion that any decisions had already been made on proposed new regulations.
However, several riders Escape Collective spoke to thought the survey was “silly” and that the UCI was “wasting their time.”
The UCI assured participants that all responses would remain confidential and would be used for internal purposes only. The response deadline is set for Monday, 10 February 2025.
Did we do a good job with this story?