Crashes, what can be done?

[fbjim]

The thing is it's happened in the past. We've seen the big boy teams neutralize stages on their own initiative if they decide the conditions are too dangerous. It happened last year, even!

So no, I don't buy that the riders all fighting hard for position is inevitable. The problem is that the race favorite teams should be taking control of the peloton, but instead they're all trying to get to the front, hoping that they can push the pace and twist the knife if a crash splits the bunch.

 

[jmdirt]

The thing is it's happened in the past. We've seen the big boy teams neutralize stages on their own initiative if they decide the conditions are too dangerous. It happened last year, even!

So no, I don't buy that the riders all fighting hard for position is inevitable. The problem is that the race favorite teams should be taking control of the peloton, but instead they're all trying to get to the front, hoping that they can push the pace and twist the knife if a crash splits the bunch.

I don't even know that there needs to be a full on 'neutralization', just slowing from 30 to 25 might be enough. Ride six guys wide instead of eight for a while at a reduced speed. I know that it would suck to do that and, then get hung out in a crosswind section because you were willing to sit back to make it safer, so there needs to be some 'gentleman's' understanding. A soft neutralization?

 

[DanielSong39]

I have no problems with a 'soft neutralization' as long as they don't throw a hissy fit if someone who is 1 hour down decides to go on a solo breakaway to steal a stage win.

 

[jmdirt]

Gentleman Racer!

 

[RedheadDane]

I have no problems with a 'soft neutralization' as long as they don't throw a hissy fit if someone who is 1 hour down decides to go on a solo breakaway to steal a stage win.

Seems like sometimes a 'soft neutralization' is exactly done by GC teams allowing riders who are far down on the GC to get up ahead, thus taking away the motivation other riders might have to ride for the stage.

Of course, sometimes it's the 'soft neutralization' which allows riders to go up the road and go for the stage.

 

[yaco]

Punishment under law includes a deterrent aspect. Can you imagine the anarchy if there were no consequences to our actions?


FYI, not sure about Europe or America but "fans" in Australia can be charged AUD 5,500 for running onto cricket or football pitches at major events and that is for causing no physical injury to anyone. If this woman was fined 1500 Euros she got off very lightly for her stupidity and lack of duty of care that caused injury and mayhem.

Pitch Invasion Penalties At NSW Sporting Venues - Astor Legal

I can argue that Australia is out of step when it comes to fines for misdeameanours such as parking offences, speeding offences etc - The fining system is out of proportion to the average monthly wages - A 1500 Euro is a decent whack - Anyway hope she is not scared from attending future cycling events.

 

[CyclistAbi]

Because the superior party (no need for quotation marks, UCI is superior) overruled them.
You still haven't explained what exactly it is ASO should have done once the decision was made by the UCI to not neutralise the stage as suggested, and accepted by ASO.
Had a stage-long meeting with the verdict possibly only coming after the stage was done?
Just taking the times at 5 Ks to go anyway?

But anyway, yes. You're right! Of course it's not just individuals who should be held responsible for crashes. I just don't see the need to blame the organisation who'd actually accepted the suggestion made by the riders, but was overruled.

In general that sounds reasonable and as for your additional questions.

ASO shouldn't have backed out. Implement the agreed upon safety masseurs to prevent predictable injuries and damages. Or cancel the event. UCI can sue if they feel ASO did something wrong. As they backed out, fine, but they need to take the responsibility for it.

As for the UCI. It doesn't really matter in a country, as France, if their internal rules say something like in a case of cardboard incident stone the person on site. It' just not relevant and more importantly it is against the local laws. Nor ASO or UCI is above that. UCI has no power in clearing ASO, as a sport event organiser, from liability for their actions. If ASO feels UCI did them wrong they can sue UCI.

Anyway enough about this for now from my side. Lets wait and see in the future if they learned something from it. As if ASO will again back out of some agreed upon safety measurements that will result in predictable injuries and damages. The time will come when somebody will decide to held them accountable. On why this hasn't happened yet? In general the sentiment in peloton is situation is bad and it is getting worse and nothing can be done about it. Likely the problems is the fear of retaliation and it is easier to not say anything and don't face the public opinion and go thorough the hassle of a law suit. General opinion is currently in favour of nothing can be done. It's not preventable. Only that woman or cyclists themselves are to blame. Always and in all cases. No need to look into it as you won't find anything. Like sure.

 

[RedheadDane]

ASO shouldn't have backed out. Implement the agreed upon safety masseurs to prevent predictable injuries and damages. Or cancel the event. UCI can sue if they feel ASO did something wrong. As they backed out, fine, but they need to take the responsibility for it.

Cancel a 21-day event because of possible safety issue on parts of one stage? LoL!

As for the UCI. It doesn't really matter in a country, as France, if their internal rules say something like in a case of cardboard incident stone the person on site. It' just not relevant and more importantly it is against the local laws. Nor ASO or UCI is above that. UCI has no power in clearing ASO, as a sport event organiser, from liability for their actions. If ASO feels UCI did them wrong they can sue UCI.

Right, let's imagine ASO decides to sue UCI.
Or, you know, some of the riders decide to sue the responsible party (UCI!)
Do you really think the case would be brought up in front of the French courts, or... wouldn't they rather be brought up in an institution like... CAS?

But, anyway. Why is it so important for you to insist that ASO are responsible, when it's been established that UCI made the final decision.

 

[jmdirt]

@RedheadDane

Tell me why would you even assume event organiser isn't responsible for the event safety and for that to be regulated by local laws? Why are we even discussing this? Do you know any lawyer you trust and you can just ask? To save us the time on discussing this endlessly.

@jmdirt

In my opinion you don't win a debate or prove something when you start calling other people names. In my honest opinion that just makes you look bad. And it's called using your brain. Or what do you expect for the debate to be linear and tailored to your own taste? Would that even be called a debate?

@King Boonen

I have no problem with your proposition. But tell me first does that PDF prove my claims are bogus? Then please inform me on which grounds as i have no problems with that.

When did I call you a name?

 

[CyclistAbi]

@jmdirt

You just started saying i am twisting all the time. Hard to have a discussion when the opposite site results to that. But note that i don't blame you. We where in the middle of some discussion where things where still pretty much twisted. You likely saw me in the middle and believed i am twisting when actually what i was doing was straightening things out as they where already twisted.

Anyway good thing you asked. As on today's stage there was a person with an umbrella and the darnedest thing happened. Just when a cyclist was approaching wind threw that umbrella in the middle of the rode and one cyclist had to avoid it not to crash. It could have been the peloton. This happened only days after we have rubbed some salt under that woman nails and she had to wash bicycles ... Point being making that woman an example had exactly 0 effect in preventing such safety related incidents in the peloton. It was all to no avail.

We must think of better ways on how to address the fan issue in regards to lowering the amount of safety related issues. I would start with educating as educating stupid people makes them just people. I guess.

 

[jmdirt]

@jmdirt

You just started saying i am twisting all the time. Hard to have a discussion when the opposite site results to that. But note that i don't blame you. We where in the middle of some discussion where things where still pretty much twisted. You likely saw me in the middle and believed i am twisting when actually what i was doing was straightening things out as they where already twisted.

Anyway good thing you asked. As on today's stage there was a person with an umbrella and the darnedest thing happened. Just when a cyclist was approaching wind threw that umbrella in the middle of the rode and one cyclist had to avoid it not to crash. It could have been the peloton. This happened only days after we have rubbed some salt under that woman nails and she had to wash bicycles ... Point being making that woman an example had exactly 0 effect in preventing such safety related incidents in the peloton. It was all to no avail.

We must think of better ways on how to address the fan issue in regards to lowering the amount of safety related issues. I would start with educating as educating stupid people makes them just people. I guess.

That's not name calling. If I pointed out that you have brown eyes is that name calling?

 

[CyclistAbi]

That's not name calling. If I pointed out that you have brown eyes is that name calling?

Is that all you have to say? That was exactly the point i was trying to make.

 

[CyclistAbi]

Cancel a 21-day event because of possible safety issue on parts of one stage? LoL!

If you as a sport event organiser agreed but after backed out of implementing agreed upon safety measures. Then yes. Cancel the event or take the responsibility if that resulted in predicted injuries and damages due to safety measures not being implemented.

As ASO is unlikely to do this anytime soon. Cancel event. Basically as nobody is ever making them take the responsibility. IMHO after the safety related fiasco on stage 1 and 3 riders themselves should at minimum refuse to ride one stage. That minute stop they took on stage 4 was a joke and had no effect whatsoever. Authorities indeed likely LOLed. I have a feeling that eventually this will happen. Nobody is taking safety serious and something will happen at some point that will make them do it. Currently they are treated more or less as livestock. When it comes to their safety and they know it.

Right, let's imagine ASO decides to sue UCI.
Or, you know, some of the riders decide to sue the responsible party (UCI!)

In the case we are discussing both have slim chances to succeed. Riders can sue the race organisers, hence ASO. ASO in this case has no real case suing UCI. As why would ASO sue UCI for ASO not doing their job?

Do you really think the case would be brought up in front of the French courts, or... wouldn't they rather be brought up in an institution like... CAS?

Why wouldn't it be? This is a rather normal thing. Event participant to sue event organiser regarding safety related incidents and for damages. As for arbitration court. This is something ASO and UCI could use if they would have different opinion on for example contract content. And would let such court decide the contents of the contract for them and both would after respect it.

But, anyway. Why is it so important for you to insist that ASO are responsible, when it's been established that UCI made the final decision.

Because ASO is responsible.

 

[CyclistAbi]

@all

I am out for now. We would only go in circles. If you agree fine if not i won't lose sleep over it.

 

[jmdirt]

Let me be very clear as to not 'go in circles': ultimately it is the racers' responsibility to protect themselves and their peers. That might mean meeting, protesting, boycotting, riding slower, having on the road 'agreements', etc.

Yes, we all want promoters and governing bodies to put on the safest races possible.
-should the challenges of the road be eliminated from road cycling?
-should all races be on perfect, smooth, wide roads? Just GTs? Just flat stages?
-should host towns be expected to resurface the road in order to be a host town? Widen it too?
--it could get tough to tie together a route around France without long transfers
-no more Paris-Roubaix? No more Strade-Bianche?
-one day races are OK on unsafe roads, but not stage races/GTs?
-no more difficult descents?
-no racing in the rain?
-no racing in strong winds?

Yes, we want 'crowd control/enforcement'.

EDIT: Reduce the number of motos.

 

[RedheadDane]

@CyclistAbi

Sure... sure... ASO "didn't do their job"... BECAUSE. UCI. PREVENTED. THEM. FROM. DOING. SO!

UCI does have the power to overrule decisions made by race organisers.
Or do you think decisions made by the UCI are merely suggestions? Things race organisers can accept or ignore as they see fit?

Right. I know it's not crash-related, but remember a few years ago when there was this whole situation in the Giro with Simon Clarke giving Ritchie Porte a wheel, despite them being on different teams?
RCS actually thought it was a pretty cool show of sportsmanship, and didn't do anything. Then UCI overruled that and docked them both two minutes. Should RCS just have given them the time back, since race organisers can apparently just ignore decisions made by the UCI.

 

[the delgados]

Let me be very clear as to not 'go in circles': ultimately it is the racers' responsibility to protect themselves and their peers. That might mean meeting, protesting, boycotting, riding slower, having on the road 'agreements', etc.

Yes, we all want promoters and governing bodies to put on the safest races possible.
-should the challenges of the road be eliminated from road cycling?
-should all races be on perfect, smooth, wide roads? Just GTs? Just flat stages?
-should host towns be expected to resurface the road in order to be a host town? Widen it too?
--it could get tough to tie together a route around France without long transfers
-no more Paris-Roubaix? No more Strade-Bianche?
-one day races are OK on unsafe roads, but not stage races/GTs?
-no more difficult descents?
-no racing in the rain?
-no racing in strong winds?

Yes, we want 'crowd control/enforcement'.

That reinforces the fact that at the end of the day, the riders determine how hard a stage is going to be ridden. Ideally they would form a union with legally binding collective bargaining rights --just like pretty much every other professional sport on the planet -- but until then it seems the riders have managed to gain a lot of ground in terms of safety.
Note that at least two examples of incentives cited above could be used to put more money in the pocket of the riders who deserve it, but I guess that's a topic of discussion for another day.
As a spectator who likes watching the drama of treacherous descents and hair-raising sprint finales, I would be disappointed if further safety measures were introduced into the sport.
That's not to say I want to see a crash. Far from it. I get way more excitement watching them do seemingly impossible things without crashing. I used to race at a fairly high level and am still amazed to see the things that these guys do that I still cannot imagine.

 

[King Boonen]

For those who many wish to have an informed discussion:

https://www.uci.org/docs/default-source/rules-and-regulations/part-ii-road/2-roa-regulations-e.pdf

Just in case people missed this…

 

[the delgados]

Just in case people missed this…

Unless I'm getting paid to do so, I'm not going to spend time reading hundreds of pages of UCI rules and regulations.
We're on a cycling message board where pretty much anything goes, and hopefully people share thoughts and ideas in good faith. I like nothing more than a healthy debate in good faith with some digs thrown in along the way. I'm a big boy and can take it on the chin if I said something stupid. It's all good.
But until everyone here is expected to refer to every section and sub-section of UCI regulations, maybe you can help by referring to relevant aspects of the UCI code without expecting everyone else to know them. Perhaps you have a step up on us, and if so, that's awesome. Please tell us what we don't know.

 

[King Boonen]

Unless I'm getting paid to do so, I'm not going to spend time reading hundreds of pages of UCI rules and regulations.
We're on a cycling message board where pretty much anything goes, and hopefully people share thoughts and ideas in good faith. I like nothing more than a healthy debate in good faith with some digs thrown in along the way. I'm a big boy and can take it on the chin if I said something stupid. It's all good.
But until everyone here is expected to refer to every section and sub-section of UCI regulations, maybe you can help by referring to relevant aspects of the UCI code without expecting everyone else to know them. Perhaps you have a step up on us, and if so, that's awesome. Please tell us what we don't know.

there are two pages that relate to the protocol for extreme weather and rider safety. If you can’t be bothered to educate yourself about something you’re discussing (and I have no idea if it’s relevant to what you’ve said but it is relevant to what others have been posting) why would someone else want to do it?

 

[RedheadDane]

there are two pages that relate to the protocol for extreme weather and rider safety. If you can’t be bothered to educate yourself about something you’re discussing (and I have no idea if it’s relevant to what you’ve said but it is relevant to what others have been posting) why would someone else want to do it?

Unfortunately it's PDF, so... can't open it.
Anyway, what I'd like to know is if there's anything about UCI being able to overrule decisions made by race organisers, yet still not being held responsible for any safety issues that might result in.
Or... I guess since it's matters related to rules and regulation in general, and not just for the Tour, UCI is always responsible when it comes to matters such as whether or not to take the time at a different point.

 

[King Boonen]

Unfortunately it's PDF, so... can't open it.
Anyway, what I'd like to know is if there's anything about UCI being able to overrule decisions made by race organisers, yet still not being held responsible for any safety issues that might result in.
Or... I guess since it's matters related to rules and regulation in general, and not just for the Tour, UCI is always responsible when it comes to matters such as whether or not to take the time at a different point.

You can’t open a PDF?

 

[RedheadDane]

You can’t open a PDF?

It just took forever to load... and honestly, I hadn't been bothered to making sure I had the right software installed since I dropped out of Uni.

 

[the delgados]

there are two pages that relate to the protocol for extreme weather and rider safety. If you can’t be bothered to educate yourself about something you’re discussing (and I have no idea if it’s relevant to what you’ve said but it is relevant to what others have been posting) why would someone else want to do it?

Ah, gotcha. Understood. No relevance to what I was saying.
Carry on. Nothing to see here, folks.

 

[CyclistAbi]

@RedheadDane

Just a small remark. In the case we discussed it could have been the pope himself and that still wouldn't make any difference. When it comes to liability of ASO as an organiser of the sport event.

P.S. Again if you want to double check that ask a friend that has some knowledge or background in law.