2015 Paris - Roubaix, 12th April 1.UWT, 253.5 Km

[lemon cheese cake]

Re:

Van Avermaet is the rider who came last. Very dangerous move... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hf11p05gJA

The only eay you could have identified him is his riding style his number. The only eay thry could have disqualified the riders who jumped the crossing is a frame by frame images to look at the numbers. That wouldnt work as the Helicam was to far away. Riders could be identified by jerseys: Arnaud Demare stand up:

Plus Wiggins was in the picture. By then the barriers were closing.

 

[Flamin]

Re: Re:

I also don't get the blaming on the organization part. The organization got it covered with a very clear rule.

No, there's not a very clear rule about neutralization, so yes the organization is partly to blame. The behaviour of the BMC guy for example was inexcusable but could have easily been prevented by actually having clear rules.

 

[rhubroma]

Re: Re:

It's their job? Really? It's Paris F-ucking Roubaix, a national monument.

And your comment is ridiculous. They are paid to march on, not withstanding the fatigue and adrenaline.

Make sure the trains aren't a problem, state and organisation, please. Amatuers. How about if a football match was interrupted for this reason?

Get over yourself. Cycling is just a sport, it claims enough of the public space as it is. Cyclists can wait and stopping for a closing barrier should be simple, even with an adrenalin rush; they're not (all) morons, are they? Truth is that the rules are not enforces, so none of them has respect for them.

Oh, and please show me a football stadium build across railway tracks.

Well mate you have totally missed the point and it is wrapped up in one word: decorum.

It simply isn't decorous that an event aired in something like 129 countries worldwide, which is besides a national monument, should be treated as if it were some clandestine and underground point A to point B race among opposing factions.

Cycling claims enough of the public space as it is? Well then let's not have cycling races at all, if it were such a collective inconvenience.

In Europe the football teams get police! escorted to the stadiums (at times, even their uncontrollable fans - who then perhaps destroy some historical site, like we witnessed among the Dutch tifosi at Rome recently). I have personally been subjected to a major traffic jam, just so that the football team could get to their hotel from the airport (again under police escort), without that nuisance of having to be, well, among the normal working class slobs trying to get by and who undoubtedly had much more important things to do like earn a living. Other than cycling occupying public space.

In fact, if we are thinking metaphorically, cycling in Europe has always been viewed as the "working class" sport, for which deep down things like having to overcome whatever extraordinary inconvenience or difficulty just comes with the job. And certainly cyclists would never be pampered like their noble colleagues in the football stadiums. After all cyclists are "hard men," unlike the premadonnas on the turf. On the other hand, among the big administrators of the sport, team owners and riders, there has been a much a do about making cycling more "respectable" and "respected" - you know, World Tour megalomania and all - while big money demands professionalism.

Ah, right, professionalism. Let's see, the biggest one day race in the world, one that can make all the fatigue and suffering transformed into ecstasy and apotheosis for the rider that dominates it, let alone provide justification for an entire career. . . And between the national train organization and the race administration, they can't even guarantee rider incolumity, which is to say the complete disregard of the one for the other and vice versa, when they should be in straight communication.

To the issue over decorum discussed so far, we must therefore add respect.

I don't know if you have ever raced before, but when the riders are launched at 50+ k per hour, simply out of respect for their effort (in this case occupation too), not to mention safety, you cannot give them a just few seconds to halt and respect the rules. Again if taking up public space is the big issue, then we shouldn't have cycling events at all, but this is merely absurd.

Lastly I read today (and the footage verifies this) that in France, the railroad bars are lowered with just a few seconds to spare before the high speed train arrives and they don't even cover the entire crossing, as in other countries. Perhaps France should (and not only for Paris Roubaix) thus consider fortuitously extending the time elapse and lengthening the bars to create a complete barrier. Then, why didn't the organization anticipate the train being there and stop the course accordingly? After the fact, why wasn't the entire race neutralized and restarted maintaining the previous time gaps for all?

There are so many reasons why cycling and the riders, for the enth time, were treated as if the sport and the event were just another road outing, instead of the global venue it was, and this is what I meant about imagine if football and its athletes received a similar deal? It was not meant to be taken literally.

In this safety obsessed culture we live in, it isn't surprising that most here are more scandalized by the riders' reckless behavior, rather than by what didn't work behind the scenes. My viewpoint is just the opposite, however.

It's easy to talk about riders irresponsibility, the rules, etc., however, I'd like to see how many of you launched at 50+ k per hour at Paris Roubaix with just a few seconds to spare at the train tracks crossing would have behaved any differently. Be sincere.

It would have simply been much better consequently to not have to put that responsibility exclusively upon the riders' shoulders, which has to do both with the sport's decorum and the respect that the various organizations involved should show the athletes through anticipation, consideration and taking action. At this point, and only at this point, do the riders have no excuse. By contrast the carnevalesque and amateurish spectacle we witnessed on Sunday (involving, let's not forget, Degenkolb, Kristoff, Wiggins, etc.), was simply unacceptable for an event of its stature and the athletes involved. Otherwise don't put on such events, which, yes, occupy the public domain.

 

[Jagartrott]

I agree that organisation should be much more professional. And as I said before, the statement of the jury was quite ridiculous in my opinion. Because of this (organisation and jury don't seem to care), riders feel that they can get away with it. I understand that some did not see it and/or were unable to stop. But there are others that passed the booms after they had closed. The incident in RVV U23 also highlights that racing goes first for the riders. It suggests an attitude that is wrong and that should be corrected by much better precautions (e.g. two policemen at every crossing, early warning, delay trains like in RVV) and clear rules that are also enforced (e.g. time gaps will always be kept the same so that riders know they don't have to take the risk of crossing, disqualification of riders still disobeying the rules).

 

[rhubroma]

Re:

I agree that organisation should be much more professional. And as I said before, the statement of the jury was quite ridiculous in my opinion. Because of this (organisation and jury don't seem to care), riders feel that they can get away with it. I understand that some did not see it and/or were unable to stop. But there are others that passed the booms after they had closed. The incident in RVV U23 also highlights that racing goes first for the riders. It suggests an attitude that is wrong and that should be corrected by much better precautions (e.g. two policemen at every crossing, early warning, delay trains like in RVV) and clear rules that are also enforced (e.g. time gaps will always be kept the same so that riders know they don't have to take the risk of crossing, disqualification of riders still disobeying the rules).

Well, fine, the riders as the booms were coming down should have stopped, including Kristoff, Degenkolb and Wigins of course. However, the organization should also consider the reality. Cycling requires incredible will and effort. And it should know how this effects riders' perceptions of danger and their judgments, when the race is full on and the group launched at 50+ k per hour. Now given that these are also huge events for the sport, which despite what has been inferred, is quite popular with the public in Europe as the roadside crowds attest; then for the safety of the riders at Paris Roubaix why wasn't the race organization in contact with the national train service to (if it were unimaginable that the train should stop and let the race pass by first) be informed of the whereabouts of the train to a.) have the booms lowered well before the race reached the crossing (and not while the bunch was practically on top of it) and b) coordinate the logical neutralization the race? To then after the train passed resume as before?

Because the way things did pan out all the responsibility was left upon the riders shoulders, which only narrowly evaded a fatal catastrophe. If they expect the riders to be impeccable, then at least create the conditions in which they don't have to be put in such a precarious position. In the end a little better coordination would have made the protocols and rules much easier to place into effect and abide by.

But again being merely scandalized by the riders' recklessness and lack of respecting a rule, is to have no idea what it means to be in such race conditions and to be merely deluded into thinking that in such circumstances the riders would simply use good judgment and civility. Not gonna happen and this should have been taken into account when considering precautionary measures in races in which the peloton might run into an encounter with a high velocity train on the course.

 

[PeterB]

OK, so we have several parties involved with sometimes contradicting interests and perspectives:
1. riders
2. race organizer
3. UCI
4. public, including railway company

It may be assumed, that riders generally obey rules and instructions imposed by UCI and race organizer. However, some rules traditionally tend to be bent by the riders, which let's assume happens if they think it is not that big deal to do something not entirely according to the rules, if potential benefits outweight the risk (let's disregard outright cheaters). This would explain why they crossed the rails ("I looked, saw the train, and it was still safe to pass, so I did" (Degenkolb)).

Factors that support such riders' behaviour are:
- inconsistent enforcing of the rules: sometimes riders get disqualified, sometimes get some minor penalty, sometimes breaking of rules is overlooked and forgiven
- unclarity or perceived unfairness of the rule: I assume that rules expect that riders stop at the crossing, and that this is considered as part of the race, i.e. no relieving measure such as neutralization is assumed by the rules. Hence it is easier to break the rule, if one feels it is unfair
- objective inability of riders to assess the situation: due to fixation of riders on their target it is highly likely that their minds are simply unwilling to accept this type of disturbance. I am sure they would never cross in front of the train like this on any normal-day ride

Additional contributing factors:
- difficulty for the organizer to just stop the peloton on a short distance
- assumed unwillingness of the railway company to delay its trains (if they were willing to cooperate and simply stop the train to let the peloton pass, the problem would be solved)

Against the above background and assumptions, the following could help to solve the problem:
1. Strict and consistent enforcement of rules, so that riders know for sure what effect their behaviour will have
2. Clarification of rules and specification, under which circumstances the gap would be netralised
3. Clear communication of the risk in the roadbook, and within the teams
4. More resources devoted by organizers to supervise the crossings - e.g. keep being updated on possible conflicts, issuing early warnings by race radio, confirming potential consequent measures in advance by race radio, so that riders would not feel need to take unnecessary risks, policemen slowing the peloton more in advance in front of the crossing in order to avoid potential collisions of those who do not notice the obstacle

It is easy to say that riders behaved irresponsibly (which they did) without trying to understand why they did so and what could be done to prevent their need to behave so. As I look at my suggestions above, it is up to all of UCI, race organizer as well as teams to contribute with something, but most important role is race organizer's in my opinion.

 

[rhubroma]

Re:

OK, so we have several parties involved with sometimes contradicting interests and perspectives:
1. riders
2. race organizer
3. UCI
4. public, including railway company

It may be assumed, that riders generally obey rules and instructions imposed by UCI and race organizer. However, some rules traditionally tend to be bent by the riders, which let's assume happens if they think it is not that big deal to do something not entirely according to the rules, if potential benefits outweight the risk (let's disregard outright cheaters). This would explain why they crossed the rails ("I looked, saw the train, and it was still safe to pass, so I did" (Degenkolb)).

Factors that support such riders' behaviour are:
- inconsistent enforcing of the rules: sometimes riders get disqualified, sometimes get some minor penalty, sometimes breaking of rules is overlooked and forgiven
- unclarity or perceived unfairness of the rule: I assume that rules expect that riders stop at the crossing, and that this is considered as part of the race, i.e. no relieving measure such as neutralization is assumed by the rules. Hence it is easier to break the rule, if one feels it is unfair
- objective inability of riders to assess the situation: due to fixation of riders on their target it is highly likely that their minds are simply unwilling to accept this type of disturbance. I am sure they would never cross in front of the train like this on any normal-day ride

Additional contributing factors:
- difficulty for the organizer to just stop the peloton on a short distance
- assumed unwillingness of the railway company to delay its trains (if they were willing to cooperate and simply stop the train to let the peloton pass, the problem would be solved)

Against the above background and assumptions, the following could help to solve the problem:
1. Strict and consistent enforcement of rules, so that riders know for sure what effect their behaviour will have
2. Clarification of rules and specification, under which circumstances the gap would be netralised
3. Clear communication of the risk in the roadbook, and within the teams
4. More resources devoted by organizers to supervise the crossings - e.g. keep being updated on possible conflicts, issuing early warnings by race radio, confirming potential consequent measures in advance by race radio, so that riders would not feel need to take unnecessary risks, policemen slowing the peloton more in advance in front of the crossing in order to avoid potential collisions of those who do not notice the obstacle

It is easy to say that riders behaved irresponsibly (which they did) without trying to understand why they did so and what could be done to prevent their need to behave so. As I look at my suggestions above, it is up to all of UCI, race organizer as well as teams to contribute with something, but most important role is race organizer's in my opinion.

This was pretty much my point. The organization needs to do way more to safeguard the riders' incolumity. It simply is not possible that a race of the stature of Paris Roubaix is handled in such a dilettantesque fashion.

It is simply incredible that a race approaching a railroad crossing at that speed should have the booms come down as it passes over the tracks. It is simply reckless that Paris Roubaix, with the national exposure it gives France worldwide, should have the state train service completely out of contact with the race organization and legitimate authorities as the race is happening and as there are high speed trains effectively "out on the course."

Imagine what would have happened if there had actually been a catastrophe? Would people be saying? Well, it's the riders' own fault for not respecting the rules? Certainly personal responsibility for the outcome of one's own actions is a cornerstone of civil coexistence. However at which point can riders, who are expected to perform at the highest level in the interests of the sponsors, the organization and the public spectacle, expect that while they are doing this (with the consequent radical state of mind this produces) others will live up to their responsibility to at least eliminate them having to make such ridiculous choices at full cry? I'd say much mor than they got on Sunday. One requirement of high level cycling is to be able suspend or conquer one's fear at times just to survive on the road, which naturally sacrifices precaution and creates a veritable "on the edge" situation between security and crashing. Either stop the train ahead of time, or stop the riders first, but don't stop neither and hope for the best, which is a recipe for disaster. In fact disaster was only narrowly evaded.

 

[Dedelou]

Always a lot of talk after the horse left the barn but really Paris Roubaix and other races in France have been crossign railroads tracks for a long long time and thanks heaven so far nobody was ever hurt. The organizations have the absolute obligation to make sure the riders are safe and "rules on a piece of paper is no safety device.. Placing police or a commissaries posted at the crossing ahead to the riders is one of them. Hell don't they put a cops in front of some traffic furnitures to prevent accidents? a cop or a commissaire has the authority to stop the riders.. the organization the power to compensate for time lost. Stoping the train has economic consequences i am sure and probably would have to affect "any chance of crossing" at thousands of events, running cycling or others and i can't imagine SNCF making a deal that would cover them for one event and not the others. so it comes down to the organization.. The one who ultimately are responsible and the ones who makes money from "organizing" the event

 

[rhubroma]

Re:

Always a lot of talk after the horse left the barn but really Paris Roubaix and other races in France have been crossign railroads tracks for a long long time and thanks heaven so far nobody was ever hurt. The organizations have the absolute obligation to make sure the riders are safe and "rules on a piece of paper is no safety device.. Placing police or a commissaries posted at the crossing ahead to the riders is one of them. Hell don't they put a cops in front of some traffic furnitures to prevent accidents? a cop or a commissaire has the authority to stop the riders.. the organization the power to compensate for time lost. Stoping the train has economic consequences i am sure and probably would have to affect "any chance of crossing" at thousands of events, running cycling or others and i can't imagine SNCF making a deal that would cover them for one event and not the others. so it comes down to the organization.. The one who ultimately are responsible and the ones who makes money from "organizing" the event

Well Sunday's race demonstrated how lucky France is that a race has not yet collided with a train, though a statistic reported in la Gazzetta dello Sport today states that 29 cyclists died this way in France in 2014.

The first lesson to be learned is that the booms need to go down several minutes, not seconds, before a high velocity train passes a crossing and, secondly, that they need to be long enough to become a barricade and not the disjointed mess they are.

It might also be advisable to set up manual commands during a race that can lower the booms as needed, for which the organization is in contact with the train traffic control.

All the responsibility simply cannot be placed upon the riders' shoulders, given the effect race conditions and the riders' sheer mental and physical commitments have on the decision making process. In fact their response would probably be the same again under similar circumstances. Now either the organization accepts that reality and acts accordingly, or races truly become a game of chance beyond the actual risks involved by just participating.

 

[VO2 Max]

Plenty of sense lately on the thread; five minutes after you've survived the Arenberg trench, coming up fast on the break, in one of the most open Paris-Roubaix for years is not a time to be calmly stopping expecting the organisers to suddenly become consistent in applying the rules. Especially if you can see you've got time to get across. You go, you don't wait to be reinstated later. Longer holds on the barriers just make it worse I think because it gives more complacency that there's probably still time. Organiser should know where the trains are and neutralise the race in plenty of time.

 

[DFA123]

Plenty of sense lately on the thread; five minutes after you've survived the Arenberg trench, coming up fast on the break, in one of the most open Paris-Roubaix for years is not a time to be calmly stopping expecting the organisers to suddenly become consistent in applying the rules. Especially if you can see you've got time to get across. You go, you don't wait to be reinstated later. Longer holds on the barriers just make it worse I think because it gives more complacency that there's probably still time. Organiser should know where the trains are and neutralise the race in plenty of time.

Of course the organisers should have done more to control and manage the situation, and hopeful they will make sure a similar incident won't happen in the future. However, that shouldn't absolve the riders of all responsibility. All riders know the rules regarding level crossings. All the level crossings are clearly marked in the roadbook, and so the riders should be well aware of the potential danger, and they all have radios so the DS could easily communicate that there is a crossing 1km ahead for example and to approach with caution.

Regardless of the poor organisation, several riders pushed around other stopped riders and went around closed barriers - that was clearly going against one of the most important rules in the book, and the riders involved should have been removed from the race. If not, then more riders will try to do the same in the future.

 

[rhubroma]

Plenty of sense lately on the thread; five minutes after you've survived the Arenberg trench, coming up fast on the break, in one of the most open Paris-Roubaix for years is not a time to be calmly stopping expecting the organisers to suddenly become consistent in applying the rules. Especially if you can see you've got time to get across. You go, you don't wait to be reinstated later. Longer holds on the barriers just make it worse I think because it gives more complacency that there's probably still time. Organiser should know where the trains are and neutralise the race in plenty of time.

Of course the organisers should have done more to control and manage the situation, and hopeful they will make sure a similar incident won't happen in the future. However, that shouldn't absolve the riders of all responsibility. All riders know the rules regarding level crossings. All the level crossings are clearly marked in the roadbook, and so the riders should be well aware of the potential danger, and they all have radios so the DS could easily communicate that there is a crossing 1km ahead for example and to approach with caution.

Regardless of the poor organisation, several riders pushed around other stopped riders and went around closed barriers - that was clearly going against one of the most important rules in the book, and the riders involved should have been removed from the race. If not, then more riders will try to do the same in the future.

The riders will not have to be absolved if the organization does its job first. Nobody is saying that the riders should not abide by the book. However the book needs to be followed up by appropriate prevenatory measures.

Having the race at full cry when a train is about to arrive and have done nothing about it previously, does not satisfy that criterion.

The organization should have been informed about the impending arrival and neutralized the race accordingly, but this didn't happen. Yet the show must go on.

 

[DFA123]

Plenty of sense lately on the thread; five minutes after you've survived the Arenberg trench, coming up fast on the break, in one of the most open Paris-Roubaix for years is not a time to be calmly stopping expecting the organisers to suddenly become consistent in applying the rules. Especially if you can see you've got time to get across. You go, you don't wait to be reinstated later. Longer holds on the barriers just make it worse I think because it gives more complacency that there's probably still time. Organiser should know where the trains are and neutralise the race in plenty of time.

Of course the organisers should have done more to control and manage the situation, and hopeful they will make sure a similar incident won't happen in the future. However, that shouldn't absolve the riders of all responsibility. All riders know the rules regarding level crossings. All the level crossings are clearly marked in the roadbook, and so the riders should be well aware of the potential danger, and they all have radios so the DS could easily communicate that there is a crossing 1km ahead for example and to approach with caution.

Regardless of the poor organisation, several riders pushed around other stopped riders and went around closed barriers - that was clearly going against one of the most important rules in the book, and the riders involved should have been removed from the race. If not, then more riders will try to do the same in the future.

The riders will not have to be absolved if the organization does its job first. Nobody is saying that the riders should not abide by the book. However the book needs to be followed up by appropriate prevenatory measures.

Having the race at full cry when a train is about to arrive and have done nothing about it previously, does not satisfy that criterion.

The problem is that, while the organisation can and should be made better at Paris-Roubaix, due to the size and influence of the race, it can't be at every race.

Continental and amateur races cross train tracks all the time, but lack the numbers and influence to either slow down a race sufficiently in advance or to alter the train schedules. Yet those races can be just as important to the riders involved as PR is to the professionals, so the same excuses re. getting caught up in the race apply.

The rule is applicable throughout cycling and the riders should pay more attention to the roadbook and prepare for the hazard of a level crossing like they would do for other hazards/important parts in the race. Of course they won't now because they know they won't get disqualified. Which is an awful precedent to set.

I agree that it's not entirely the fault of the riders, but to absolve them of all responsibility - when there is a specific rule in place - is equally ridiculous.

 

[rhubroma]

Plenty of sense lately on the thread; five minutes after you've survived the Arenberg trench, coming up fast on the break, in one of the most open Paris-Roubaix for years is not a time to be calmly stopping expecting the organisers to suddenly become consistent in applying the rules. Especially if you can see you've got time to get across. You go, you don't wait to be reinstated later. Longer holds on the barriers just make it worse I think because it gives more complacency that there's probably still time. Organiser should know where the trains are and neutralise the race in plenty of time.

Of course the organisers should have done more to control and manage the situation, and hopeful they will make sure a similar incident won't happen in the future. However, that shouldn't absolve the riders of all responsibility. All riders know the rules regarding level crossings. All the level crossings are clearly marked in the roadbook, and so the riders should be well aware of the potential danger, and they all have radios so the DS could easily communicate that there is a crossing 1km ahead for example and to approach with caution.

Regardless of the poor organisation, several riders pushed around other stopped riders and went around closed barriers - that was clearly going against one of the most important rules in the book, and the riders involved should have been removed from the race. If not, then more riders will try to do the same in the future.

The riders will not have to be absolved if the organization does its job first. Nobody is saying that the riders should not abide by the book. However the book needs to be followed up by appropriate prevenatory measures.

Having the race at full cry when a train is about to arrive and have done nothing about it previously, does not satisfy that criterion

The problem is that, while the organisation can and should be made better at Paris-Roubaix, due to the size and influence of the race, it can't be at every race.

Continental and amateur races cross train tracks all the time, but lack the numbers and influence to either slow down a race sufficiently in advance or to alter the train schedules. Yet those races can be just as important to the riders involved as PR is to the professionals, so the same excuses re. getting caught up in the race apply.

The rule is applicable throughout cycling and the riders should pay more attention to the roadbook and prepare for the hazard of a level crossing like they would do for other hazards/important parts in the race. Of course they won't now because they know they won't get disqualified. Which is an awful precedent to set.

Granted but the riders should at least have certainty that if they pull up, halt and desist, then the organization will neutralize the race and return everybody to their just position afterword. But not even this happened at, and I repeat, Paris Roubaix. I think it has to do with the culture, on both ends, which needs fixing.

The amatuers will follow suit if the right example is set at the top.

 

[rhubroma]

@ DFA123 expecting the riders to behave differently under those circumstances is merely wishful thinking.

The problem is that there are also many more trains, and at high speed, then their have been before. Though cycling seems to ignore this fact.

It's about time they started to take this into consideration. And I guarantee you if the amatuers see the pros pulling up as the booms go down and the race is neutralized accordingly, then 99% of the problem will be solved.

 

[IndianCyclist]

[quote="DFA123"

The problem is that, while the organisation can and should be made better at Paris-Roubaix, due to the size and influence of the race, it can't be at every race.

Continental and amateur races cross train tracks all the time, but lack the numbers and influence to either slow down a race sufficiently in advance or to alter the train schedules. Yet those races can be just as important to the riders involved as PR is to the professionals, so the same excuses re. getting caught up in the race apply.

The rule is applicable throughout cycling and the riders should pay more attention to the roadbook and prepare for the hazard of a level crossing like they would do for other hazards/important parts in the race. Of course they won't now because they know they won't get disqualified. Which is an awful precedent to set.

I agree that it's not entirely the fault of the riders, but to absolve them of all responsibility - when there is a specific rule in place - is equally ridiculous.[/quote]
On training rides as well, riders & people cross tracks all the time because they just cant be bothered to wait. So why stop when there is a lot more at stake especially with Quintana's stage win in Giro. If the barriers were long enough to cover the road, you would have seen them go under the barriers or thru the sides.

 

[thequestionmark]

The location of the railway crossing is the Chemin de St. Amand à Wallers: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Chemi ... 614f?hl=fr

 

[VO2 Max]

Re:

The location of the railway crossing is the Chemin de St. Amand à Wallers: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Chemi ... 614f?hl=fr

That's the one, mid way through a sector and ~4km after coming out of the Tranchée.

Fact is, no-one's been penalised. The only racing difference between the last BAD rider to go through the barrier and the first GOOD rider to wait is that the GOOD rider had a few km of stress and work to chase back on while the BAD rider was chilling out in the front group. The BAD rider was right - the organisers weren't going to do sweet fanny adams so if it looks ok to you then you've got to go.

 

[rhubroma]

Paolini has pretty much confirmed my exact sentiments.

If France has a monument that is Paris-Roubaix and the Queen of the Classics, if the race and the riders who put on a show that is a global phenomenon (broadcast in 186 counties!) are to be valued, then once a year at least stop the freekin trains and give the riders there due precedence and respect. Problem solved.

Otherwise don't put on a centenary race that is called Paris-Roubaix at all. Really they don't deserve it.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/paolini ... n-incident

 

[thiscocks]

[quote="DFA123"


The rule is applicable throughout cycling and the riders should pay more attention to the roadbook and prepare for the hazard of a level crossing like they would do for other hazards/important parts in the race. Of course they won't now because they know they won't get disqualified. Which is an awful precedent to set.

^ Totally agree.

I Dont agree with Paolini. 'the train gets in the way' rubbish. Its the race that gets in the way of the train surely? Its not hard- barriers down: STOP or DIE. Admittedly it could be made easier by way of the neutral motorbikes having some sort of warning system and proactively telling the riders to stop. Any rider who passes the motorbike and goes through the crossing gets DSQ. Simple.

Also dont a agree with neutralising the race after issues like this. If you get held up, tough ***. Should they neutralise the race if there is a big crash also? Its a race.

 

[hrotha]

I can't help but notice that Paolini didn't say a single word about the responsibility of the riders in that kind of situation and last Sunday in particular. How convenient.

 

[Escarabajo]

Re:

I can't help but notice that Paolini didn't say a single word about the responsibility of the riders in that kind of situation and last Sunday in particular. How convenient.

+1.

I was deflated when I read what he said. LOL.

 

[rhubroma]

thiscocks, hothra, escarabajo, just out of curiosity, have you guys ever raced? Because if you have, you would know what it means to be totally committed and on the edge. Those riders are expected to give the public, the media, the sponsors a show; everybody's money worth to their own glory, but also at their own expense. And in cycling that price can be incredibly high.

I thus find your comments, as fans, extremely hypocritical. You want the riders to give the maximum display, which in Paris-Roubaix after Arenberg takes them to the limits of fatigue, suffering and lucidity, but rigidly hold them accountable for not obeying a rule when it diametrically opposes the whole raison d’etre of the activity in that precise moment. If you have raced than you should be aware that in such a state of mind, however scandalously, they aint gonna stop unless absolutely forced to, even at risking their lives when the train booms come down as we saw. Some years ago in Italy I was in a race when the exact same thing happened. The race was launched, the booms started coming down, and guys started sprinting to beat the booms.

In your ideal world everybody plays by the book, whereas in the real world of cycling once the race heats up everybody acts according to "necessity," inertia, survival, call it whatever the hell you want. You cannot have another mindest if you intend to survive. In that state pulling up and stopping doesn’t even minimally enter a rider’s mind. He can’t afford for it to. The nature of a race makes it so. It changes what otherwise is probably a rational and lucid mind, into a ferocious warrior or else barely sane survivor. Then there is the flock of sheep mentality. Cycling is a classic example of this. You know the shepherd leads his flock and once one sheep has committed, they all commit. You got a wheel and the race enters into its critical phase, the bunch is strung out at ridiculous speeds, and you won't give that wheel up even if Giove himself commanded it. It's cycling. Take it or leave it, but please stop being so high-minded and intransigently fixated on "the rules." You have to consider the entire picture. You can’t expect the riders to behave correctly in that situation, simply because they won't behave correctly.

Paolini is consequently completely comprehensible. It doesn't even enter his mind that the riders should hold responsibility, because he knows how much they are all giving for the show and is well aware that if things were organized a bit differently the risk is eliminated (what everybody should want), while the riders in that state risk their skins. He has simply expressed perhaps what all those racers feel: “You want us to put on the show, take ourselves to the very limits of physical and mental exhaustion, fine, but this comes with a certain baggage. So do us a favor, keep the damn trains out of our range, at least in Paris-Roubaix, because as you saw the situation is rather delicate and we might get ourselves killed.”

It's easy for people to sit back in their armchairs and say this, that and the other thing. But Paolini knows that isn't worth a damn, his life yes though.

 

[hrotha]

Paolini wasn't writing in the heat of the moment though. No, I haven't raced, but racing is not the only activity that puts people in that kind of situation, and everybody else is still expected to follow the rules. That kind of privilege is never contemplated for the common people for some reason. I don't care for this kind of "racer's elitism" we see so often in this forum.

I'm not being hypocritical - I'm not demanding they give their all regardless of the consequences. I find it's a lot more hypocritical of these same racers to cry foul at the perceived lack of safety in the sport when they have to race in the cold or in the snow, or when banning race radios is discussed, only to happily sprint through a level crossing with a high-speed train approaching.

And let's be honest here: not much happens at Arenberg anymore.

 

[rhubroma]

Re:

Paolini wasn't writing in the heat of the moment though. No, I haven't raced, but racing is not the only activity that puts people in that kind of situation, and everybody else is still expected to follow the rules. That kind of privilege is never contemplated for the common people for some reason. I don't care for this kind of "racer's elitism" we see so often in this forum.

I'm not being hypocritical - I'm not demanding they give their all regardless of the consequences. I find it's a lot more hypocritical of these same racers to cry foul at the perceived lack of safety in the sport when they have to race in the cold or in the snow, or when banning race radios is discussed, only to happily sprint through a level crossing with a high-speed train approaching.

And let's be honest here: not much happens at Arenberg anymore.

I don't agree with any of this. First of all, for the reasons I mentioned above, cycling is not what you regard as simply one of many activities that places people in "that kind of situation." Go ride eyeballs out in single file in the gutter and wind (and rain at times) for miles and miles, holding on for dear life and praying that the speed drops down just a notch so you can catch your breath. While, at the same time, you know that if you can just get that little bit more energy out of yourself and remain attached, then you might get to the finish in a decent position, maybe for a top placing, maybe even win. There is nothing else that enters your mind, because you don't have the luxury otherwise. Maybe you get dropped, at which point then, yes, other things can enter mind. You regain lucidity, have a moving rest. But until you do, no. Everything else gets blocked out, is sacrificed to the greater objective: which is to remain in the race, in contention, viable. There really isn't anything comparable, when we realize that this is all taking place on public roads.

This was exactly the situation after Arenberg on Sunday and the drama we saw was thus a foregone conclusion.

What is most annoying about what you are saying is that you place a rule above the lives of the riders, even if that rule is meant to save them; while you yourself have admitted to never having raced. Well then, as a fan, at least have the humility to try and understand what that actually means for riders, in terms of the mental states it produces, the human and dramatic qualities, and come to terms with the fact that not every rule, no matter how well intentioned, is one that can be expected to be followed simply because its a rule.

Calvanist severity never really has been very successful, because it closes everything within the rules themselves and rather blockheadedly when it obviously doesn't function. But it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Just a bit of openminded flexibility.