A Tough Situation for the Giro

[Moose McKnuckles]

Let's ask this a different way. Is there a road, other than perhaps Bolivia's El Camino del Muerte, that would be too dangerous to race? Is there a point at which we draw the line and say, hey, this road adds little benefit to the sport.

I don't see what the Crostis descent adds. Nobody's going to go crazy down it. People are going to be crawling down this descent. Other than the possibility of a major crash, what is it about this descent that deserves interest?

 

[hrotha]

Why is there a high-speed, highly technical descent with hairpin turns at the end of a 175km, relatively meaningless stage, when riders are getting nervous, taking risks to get into position for the sprint run-in, and they're getting tired and losing focus? It's a recipe for disaster, and yes, Weylandt's death is absolutely the worst-case scenario, but is it really a surprise when a bad accident occurs on a descent like that?

Of course it's a dangerous sport, but why the need to make it more dangerous than it has to be?

Having those climbs (and descents) ensures the peloton breaks up, making subsequent stages safer by virtue of most riders not being within reach of the maglia rosa. It's ironic, but it's how it is.

Better signaling would be important. Pablo Lastras for example has said there were barely any signs along the route. Ski nets are good, but most danger doesn't come from riders falling off cliffs or ravines, but from crashing face first into the road or a wall (as seen with Weylandt, Casartelli, Sanroma or Kivilev). Not much you can do about the road itself, and protecting the walls would be very expensive but perhaps doable in particularly dangerous spots (mind you, those might not include the place where Weylandt crashed).

 

[flicker]

Why is there a high-speed, highly technical descent with hairpin turns at the end of a 175km, relatively meaningless stage, when riders are getting nervous, taking risks to get into position for the sprint run-in, and they're getting tired and losing focus? It's a recipe for disaster, and yes, Weylandt's death is absolutely the worst-case scenario, but is it really a surprise when a bad accident occurs on a descent like that?

Of course it's a dangerous sport, but why the need to make it more dangerous than it has to be?

In cycling and motoring danger and risks are part of the European traditions. Danger in Italian cycling and races in Belguim like the 3 days de panne where for instance you have riders jumping curbs and riding on sidewalks and at 40 mph right next to pedestrians. In the USA I have never seen it, but in the European races all the time. Danger in European cycling tradition, live with it. I see the same thing in the European Rally car races, cars airborne at 70 MPH right next to unprotected spectators.

 

[Mellow Velo]

The TDF 2009. Descent off the Tourmalet. Jens Voigt crashes, face hits the road and he is out cold. Many feared the worst, but luckily the news was good.
Did we have an outcry demanding that The Tourmalet be dropped from future Tours?
No, because by a slim margin, tragedy was avoided, as it often is, in pro racing.

Today's descent was typical of dozens tackled throughout the European year.

At the moment, logic is not to the fore, emotion is.

 

[VeloCity]

In cycling and motoring danger and risks are part of the European traditions. Danger in Italian cycling and races in Belguim like the 3 days de panne where for instance you have riders jumping curbs and riding on sidewalks and at 40 mph right next to pedestrians. In the USA I have never seen it, but in the European races all the time. Danger in European cycling tradition, live with it. I see the same thing in the European Rally car races, cars airborne at 70 MPH right next to unprotected spectators.

Why make riders wear helmets? That's not very traditional. Why the crowd barriers for sprint finishes? That's not very traditional. Why race radios and rider earpieces? That's not very traditional. Why the rules for motorbikes and cars?

All of those things were instituted to improve rider safety. I don't see why requiring race organizers to meet some level of "technical" safety when designing race routes should be all that different. Of course it's not going to end crashes and of course it's not going to ensure that riders won't be killed, but what's the problem with doing everything possible to try to prevent that from happening in the future?

When a professional cyclist like Contador, who's done and seen it all, expresses fear about the descents as he did before this Giro, you know there's a problem.

 

[The Sheep]

The TDF 2009. Descent off the Tourmalet. Jens Voigt crashes, face hits the road and he is out cold. Many feared the worst, but luckily the news was good.
Did we have an outcry demanding that The Tourmalet be dropped from future Tours?
No, because by a slim margin, tragedy was avoided, as it often is, in pro racing.

Today's descent was typical of dozens tackled throughout the European year.

At the moment, logic is not to the fore, emotion is.

Voights crash was caused by the bike breaking though

 

[Mellow Velo]

Voights crash was caused by the bike breaking though

Today, it was a pedal getting caught up.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Having those climbs (and descents) ensures the peloton breaks up, making subsequent stages safer by virtue of most riders not being within reach of the maglia rosa. It's ironic, but it's how it is.

Better signaling would be important. Pablo Lastras for example has said there were barely any signs along the route. Ski nets are good, but most danger doesn't come from riders falling off cliffs or ravines, but from crashing face first into the road or a wall (as seen with Weylandt, Casartelli, Sanroma or Kivilev). Not much you can do about the road itself, and protecting the walls would be very expensive but perhaps doable in particularly dangerous spots (mind you, those might not include the place where Weylandt crashed).

I think any spot where you can be thrown 20m straight down should be considered a dangerous spot. The netting everywhere may be nigh on impossible, but at least at corners should be doable.

MV is right - here emotion is riding high, and races have tackled descents far more dangerous than today's in worse conditions. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be vigilant. Certainly I believe signposting of the route could be improved and a major help. Obviously we have the race handbooks giving out information on the route - but if the organisers are capable of putting up banners and signs at each km to go surely they are capable of putting up some signs warning when you've 100m and 50m to go to a corner, and with a graphic indication of how severe the corner is.

 

[flicker]

Why make riders wear helmets? That's not very traditional. Why the crowd barriers for sprint finishes? That's not very traditional. Why race radios and rider earpieces? That's not very traditional. Why the rules for motorbikes and cars?

All of those things were instituted to improve rider safety. I don't see why requiring race organizers to meet some level of "technical" safety when designing race routes should be all that different. Of course it's not going to end crashes and of course it's not going to ensure that riders won't be killed, but what's the problem with doing everything possible to try to prevent that from happening in the future?

When a professional cyclist like Contador, who's done and seen it all, expresses fear about the descents as he did before this Giro, you know there's a problem.

I agree. Safety is key. We must also realize that there is risk and it is a part of the sport. However, the idea of safety nets on mountain passes is absurd.
Helmets, why were they not used before? Because of the vanity of the riders, and then promoters wanted to see the faces of the rider's. Look again,
how much protection did" hairnet" helmets(like Merckx used in the hour record) give? Vanity and style is about as much protection as Merckx, style helmets gave.
Anyway, I agree, stages need to be more safer.
Now get this, I rode a grandfondo, and on some of the treacherous corners there were marshalls dressed in skull and crossbones body suits with dayglo warning flags. Also sins warning about dangerous corners. Good for wise old men, however would a 26year old in full adreneline mode pay heed, probably not.

 

[VeloCity]

The TDF 2009. Descent off the Tourmalet. Jens Voigt crashes, face hits the road and he is out cold. Many feared the worst, but luckily the news was good.
Did we have an outcry demanding that The Tourmalet be dropped from future Tours?
No, because by a slim margin, tragedy was avoided, as it often is, in pro racing.

Today's descent was typical of dozens tackled throughout the European year.

At the moment, logic is not to the fore, emotion is.

Riders descending the Tourmalet first had to climb it, which means that they are well-spaced on the way down. The Tourmalet is also not a highly technical descent coming at the end of a stage where sprinters teams are jostling to get their guys into position.

It's not the fact that there are high-speed descents in bike racing, and accidents can happen anywhere, it's the type of roads and at what point in a stage that they occur that needlessly increases the risk of horrible accidents occurring.

 

[Parrulo]

helmets barriers and radios don't influence the parcours/outcome of a race (well radios do but that is besides the point)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6ukTXr0CjA

this kind of descent is far worse then the crostis descent.it has good tarmac that will make the riders think they are safe and go all out, which makes a crash a lot more likely then going carefully downhill like they will do on the crostis. and no1 complained

besides the point of the descend of the crostis is to go to the zoncolan. and this thats a valid enough point

 

[benpounder]

A freak accident can happen anywhere and to anyone. But it doesn't mean that it doesn't put things into perspective. Personally I think more ski netting is definitely the way to go. Downhill skiing has seen deaths and terrible injuries many a time; the sport contains an element of risk. We shouldn't start a kneejerk reaction of stopping any difficult or challenging descent; descending is part of the sport and has been since the beginning. However, more (and better) netting at potentially dangerous spots (in some cases possibly for much of the descent) is a more feasible and palatable solution than simply making descents easier or slower. Perhaps more indicators on the road or beside it, like the metre markers ahead of corners in motor racing, to say where corners are coming, may be an additional help.

Some climbs are one-way streets, and can't be descended. Angliru, Alpe d'Huez, and Tre Cime di Lavaredo spring to mind as examples. Others are passes that you can go up and down. Maybe we shouldn't be descending the Zoncolan, or similarly narrow or steep roads. But we got down the Mortirolo just fine in the rain last year. Most descents will be okay with just some catch fencing and better signposting of the road ahead.

Cycling is mostly unique in the world of sports. Virtually every other sport is held in fixed locations - cycling routes always change. Your example of skiing is good, but only up to a point. Unlike cycling, all the major pistes have permanent fixtures upon which safety fencing can be attached - But, there only several dozen hills in the current FIS rotation. To put that in perspective, the upcoming Quiznos tour will likely have more climbs than the state of Colorado has permanently protected ski race hills. Temporary netting is even more problematic (I know - I worked on race crew for both FIS World Alpine Championships in Vail) you need a point of fixtures usually far above the ground. In 1989 it took us over two weeks to set up.

Mind you, I am not against using safety netting in some locations (and impact bags/hay bails), but every time we set up a ski course, especially for FIS races, we would put protection in every imaginable crash location.

It is just not feasible to set up safety netting on all possible points of course departure. Just imagine trying to protect the south side of Col du Galibier. Aside from the logistics (man hours, material, road closures), I cant imagine what the requisite kilometers of cable, thousands of acres of netting, and thousands of towers and stanchions would do to the visuals. And that is just one on many descents on a normal TdF, in only one GT, in only one year.

 

[ladyvader]

Universal Sports is not re-airing the stage from today. Instead they are doing a special about the crash and interviewing people. Seems very well done so far.

 

[benpounder]

...ki nets are good, but most danger doesn't come from riders falling off cliffs or ravines, but from crashing face first into the road or a wall (as seen with Weylandt, Casartelli, Sanroma or Kivilev).

Initial reports indicate he went over the edge, landing headfirst on the pavement 20m below. If true, netting would have worked, but from the photos I have seen, netting would never have been placed there.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Mind you, I am not against using safety netting in some locations (and impact bags/hale bails), but every time we set up a ski course, especially for FIS races, we would put protection in every imaginable crash location.

It is just not feasible to set up safety netting on all possible points of course departure. Just imagine trying to protect the south side of Col du Galibier. Aside from the logistics (man hours, material, road closures), I cant imagine what the requisite kilometers of cable, thousands of acres of netting, and thousands of towers and stanchions would do to the visuals. And that is just one on many descents on a normal TdF, in only one GT, in only one year.

Obviously putting up netting to the level used in FIS is completely impractical and unworkable - because of the factors you outline. However, certain descents are part and parcel of the world of cycling and certainly I could envision some semi-permanent netting on some of the best known (eg Mortirolo-Edolo or the Tourmalet). Certainly some fixtures. The visuals may be damaged somewhat, which is a valid criticism, but then people complained at the visuals being ruined by unsightly chicanes and high catch fencing at Grand Prix circuits. But then again, as with the ski runs, GP circuits are usually permanent fixtures. Even the temporary ones are circuit races so only a relatively small area needs to be dealt with.

Besides, the Monte Crostis ascent and descent has been eyed up by the Giro for some time. RCS has helped fund the improvements to the paving of the ascent and descent (only the top section remains unpaved, and the dangerous-looking image we have is right near the top, not really much of a descent going on). You'd think that while doing so, and when undertaking similar projects in future, improving the road and improving the road conditions to make the pass safer by putting in these fixtures and cables that mean the netting can be quickly and safely erected could be integrated into part of the renovation.

 

[VeloCity]

Today, it was a pedal getting caught up.

Re: Voigt, a bike breaking is just bad luck. But a rider catching a pedal is usually a sign of being tired and losing focus. That's a great place to situate a high-speed descent with hairpin turns and sprinters teams jostling for position for the run-in.

All I'm saying is that too often organizers needlessly increase the risks that riders have to take. Rider safety should come first and commercial interests second, but I don't think that's always - if ever - the case, and hopefully if anything good can come from Weylandt's death, it's that race organizers are forced to scale back a little bit.

And don't forget, this was almost the second death in the past three years at the Giro (Horillo's awful crash in the '09 Giro). Shouldn't that be a bit of a warning to the organizers that perhaps they're making it just a bit too tough?

Racing has evolved - it's faster, it's more aggressive, and it's riskier than ever - and organizers need to adapt to that by modifying routes to reflect those changes. Wider roads for sprints, straighter run-ins, roads with fewer obstacles, descents with wide turns and smooth roads, etc.

Just some basic safety measures for f**ks sake, is that too much for riders to expect?

 

[hrotha]

Initial reports indicate he went over the edge, landing headfirst on the pavement 20m below. If true, netting would have worked, but from the photos I have seen, netting would never have been placed there.

So he didn't crash on the road directly ahead of him, but below him, on the other side of a hairpin curve?

I'm asking because if I'm understanding your post correctly, the mental image is horrific.

 

[CatsNK]

Universal Sports is not re-airing the stage from today. Instead they are doing a special about the crash and interviewing people. Seems very well done so far.

Thanks for this update. I was wondering what they'd put on tonight.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

So he didn't crash on the road directly ahead of him, but below him, on the other side of a hairpin curve?

I'm asking because if I'm understanding your post correctly, the mental image is horrific.

Sounds like what happened to Pereiro in '08, but far more violent.

 

[benpounder]

...and certainly I could envision some semi-permanent netting on some of the best known (eg Mortirolo-Edolo or the Tourmalet). Certainly some fixtures.

Not to contend your point, but the problem with putting up permanent protection in the highly used descents is somewhat mollified by the fact that they are highly used. The riders know not just where to slow down, but to what speed, and what line to ride.

 

[Mellow Velo]

This is second hand, so I can't confirm, but believe it is part of AZ's press conference:

Zomegnan has left the decision to the riders on what to do tomorrow.
There was to be a stage dedicated to the eight riders killed by a single car in Lamezia and he will be remembered there.

He seems to have fallen on an easy part of the descent because a momentary loss of concentration, checking what was happening behind him.

In truth, I had almost forgotten this terrible incident, from early December.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11922726

 

[benpounder]

So he didn't crash on the road directly ahead of him, but below him, on the other side of a hairpin curve?

The photo on La Gassetta shows the road as being relatively straight where he went over. The hairpin was at least another 100m down the road.

[my edit]
As I said up thread, we need to know what really happened before haggling about what to do. I am mistaken in my initial assumptions. Turns out that Manuel Cardoso saw the wreck:
"(Weylandt) then looked behind to see if he would be better to wait for other dropped riders (some 20). While looking behind, he hit with his left pedal or the left side of his handlebars on a small wall and was catapulted to the other side of the road when he hit again something. It must have been terrible."

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

According to the eye-whitnesses he looked back, and then hit the wall with his pedal and lost balance.. he just landed in the worst possible way (probably full speed on the side of his head)

 

[Barrus]

The photo on La Gassetta shows the road as being relatively straight where he went over. The hairpin was at least another 100m down the road.

That's exactly what I thought, he didn't really fall anywhere with a hairpin or anything, there did not seem any possibility for such a fall at that point.

 

[Boardslide]

actually to respect his memory as a bike RACER, racing is the best thing they could do

As tomorrow is a sprint stage and he was a sprinter perhaps it would be better to honour him with a 2 minute silence and then race hard allowing the sprint to be properly contested with whichever team wins giving up the winnings rather than lamely giving the stage to someone or slowly rolling in over the line. A sprint seems much more appropriate.