Crashes, what can be done?

[RedheadDane]

Speaking of crashing, has McNulty been found yet?

Yes

At least, he's listed as having finished yesterday. Otherwise, I think he would be an OTL by now.

 

[jmdirt]

Speaking of crashing, has McNulty been found yet?

CRASH! < that's a link to a photo.

 

[CyclistAbi]

@RedheadDane

I assume that at least we agree on one more point. When reading your reasoning. That is ASO and UCI finger pointing basically comes down to them admitting somebody is liable?

 

[RedheadDane]

I assume that at least we agree on one more point. When reading your reasoning. That is ASO and UCI finger pointing basically comes down to them admitting somebody is liable?

I sure hope UCI isn't pointing fingers about liability in this particular case.
Of course ASO is liable about the route itself, but - as King Boonen pointed out a while back - riders had had plenty of time to point that out, and make suggestions such as taking the time at 5 Ks to go (in case of bad weather?) For all we know, when UCI refused to do so, it wasn't because they don't care about rider safety - I'm sure they care about rider safety - but simply for practical reasons; that's it's simply too difficult to get the time-keeping equipment out to a different location on such short notice.
At the not-quite-Tignes stage two years ago time was taken at the top of Col de I'Iseran, not because that's where the riders were stopped, but simply because that's where they had time-keeping equipment.

 

[Bolder]

CRASH! < that's a link to a photo.

Whew! I was worried he'd be forced to shelter in place for the night. I've ridden that descent a few times and that section with the tight lacets is very hard, because it comes after a long, high speed section of swooping turns where you can relax a bit.

 

[RedheadDane]

Whew! I was worried he'd be forced to shelter in place for the night. I've ridden that descent a few times and that section with the tight lacets is very hard, because it comes after a long, high speed section of swooping turns where you can relax a bit.

I'm sure even if he'd been badly enough hurt in that crash that he'd have needed to abbandon the race, they'd have allowed him to get to the hospital - or just back to the hotel - immediately. They wouldn't have made him sleep out there in the bushes!

 

[CyclistAbi]

I sure hope UCI isn't pointing fingers about liability in this particular case.
Of course ASO is liable about the route itself, but - as King Boonen pointed out a while back - riders had had plenty of time to point that out, and make suggestions such as taking the time at 5 Ks to go (in case of bad weather?) For all we know, when UCI refused to do so, it wasn't because they don't care about rider safety - I'm sure they care about rider safety - but simply for practical reasons; that's it's simply too difficult to get the time-keeping equipment out to a different location on such short notice.
At the not-quite-Tignes stage two years ago time was taken at the top of Col de I'Iseran, not because that's where the riders were stopped, but simply because that's where they had time-keeping equipment.

Sorry but this is just a lot of beating around the bush again. No point in doing that again.

 

[CyclistAbi]

I wouldn't even wait for the next Tour. ASO, as a race organiser, should commit to zero crash GT. And if they will do a poor job at Vuelta, then it is time to take legal actions. By hand picking a few safety incidents, where they are liable. By some rider association representing affected riders or by some law firm specialised in such cases. That is if there is not enough trust in between riders and some riders association. It's not even important to start winning such cases from the start. ATM it is important to set things in motion.

 

[RedheadDane]

I wouldn't even wait for the next Tour. ASO, as a race organiser, should commit to zero crash GT. And if they will do a poor job at Vuelta, then it is time to take legal actions. By hand picking a few safety incidents, where they are liable. By some rider association representing affected riders or by some law firm specialised in such cases. That is if there is not enough trust in between riders and some riders association. It's not even important to start winning such cases from the start. ATM it is important to set things in motion.

There is no such thing as a zero crash GT. There is no such thing as a zero crash race!
As pointed out up-thread; the vast majority of crashes are because of touch of wheel, coming into a corner too quick, stuff like that.

 

[Bolder]

I'm sure even if he'd been badly enough hurt in that crash that he'd have needed to abbandon the race, they'd have allowed him to get to the hospital - or just back to the hotel - immediately. They wouldn't have made him sleep out there in the bushes!

I was joking! He just disappeared into the bushes with barely a second glance from the peloton. The UCI might have needed to send out a search team...or maybe Lachlan Morton. He probably has an extra sleeping bag...

 

[perico]

Remove all speed bumps. /s

 

[RedheadDane]

I was joking! He just disappeared into the bushes with barely a second glance from the peloton. The UCI might have needed to send out a search team...or maybe Lachlan Morton. He probably has an extra sleeping bag...

I was also joking.

 

[CyclistAbi]

One GT race after:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1428363216875245571

Selfies.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1428048151949238284

Bunch sprint related crashes.

I feel it is safe to say that in pro peloton safety is currently a bad joke and nobody takes it serious or does anything relevant to improve it. And the so called measures they are selling as safety related measures are ridiculous.

 

[RedheadDane]

Unfortunately, it would be utopia to expect no crashes. Especially a crash like yesterday, where it was really just a touch of wheels. Though, Mads Würtz did say they were riding like idiots.

Danish commentators actually decided during the stage today that they should make a point of as many times as possible between now, and the Grand Depart to tell people not to do stuff like that guy in the picture.

 

[CyclistAbi]

They need to remove initiative for GC guys and their teams to be there in bunch sprints at the end of the stages. Cycling won't lose anything by doing that. On contrary it will likely gain much. More interesting GTs regarding bunch sprint action and overall GC battle. And obviously less crashes.

As for the fans. I still believe education (on Eurosport) makes stupid people just people. It's obvious that man had zero education. Otherwise he would wear sport shoes. For being able to safely jump away after making the selfie. No way would he manage to do that with current apparel.

 

[the delgados]

It's obvious that man had zero education. Otherwise he would wear sport shoes. For being able to safely jump away after making the selfie. No way would he manage to do that with current apparel.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly! It doesn't matter if we're talking about a grocery store line-up or a Grand Tour bike race -- Ban men in sandals! (p.s. The movement to ban men wearing sandals is growing. Shoot me a PM if you'd like to donate money to the cause.)

 

[RedheadDane]

They need to remove initiative for GC guys and their teams to be there in bunch sprints at the end of the stages.

How? Neutralise every damn - potential - sprint stage? It's just not practical... much better to focus on the things that can be done, especially when they - like the moto-incidents - are likely to cause far worse injuries than crashes like the one two days ago.

I want to prevent major crashes as much as the next person, and if the people involved in a race decides that a finish needs to be neutralised, or completely scrapped, for safety reasons, then I'm all for it. However, I don't want them to focus so much on minor - practically unpreventable - crashes that they lose focus on the issues that can actually be fixed. I'm not saying to focus on the incidents that cause the worst injuries, because sometimes a simple crash, and an unfortunate landing, can prove fatal, though it's possible some padding on that concrete culvert might have prevented tragedy, we just don't know...

 

[Oldermanish]

I think a lot of the crashes are like Mcnulty's or touch of wheels. Riders looking behind to see where their teammates are and losing tracking of what's on the front and sides. I doubt much could be done to prevent these type of crashes as this is clearly rider issue. The 2nd crash in stage 1 caused by rider touching wheels was just as bad as the first one but the spectator one is preventable and receives the max attention. Yet the max number of crashes is due to riders doing stuff as in this tdf. You can put the max effort in preventing spectator related crashes but it is not going to reduce crashes significantly. Data on crashes would be helpful to analyse the cause and potential solutions(UCI's job).

I'd agree but then at today's flattish Stage 6 the road went from 5-lane freeway width to a single cow path with ditches on the side. No one died but that sort of transition with 180+ riders is asking for carnage. On the other hand, same stage; one rider crashed himself twice in 10km. He still finished but that was all creatively solo crashishness.

Finally and while the pace was flying there was the choice the Alpecin douchemeister made when running out of road as it narrowed: head-butt the rider next to him in the arm so they both crashed. I'm looking to the referees throwing that wanker out of the race.

When that all happens it's surely hard to define the separation of stupid riding and stupid race courses.

 

[CyclistAbi]

@RedheadDane

Personally i don't really care on how. Some solutions are obvious and have been talked about for a while now. And for sure smart people could think of some others too. Depending on what the desired outcome should be.

All in all as long as at the end of the bunch sprint stages we get to see the best sprinters doing their job and for the GC contenders crash occurrence to drop significantly on such stages. That is OK by me.

P.S. As for doing something about other types of preventable crashes. For sure why not.

 

[noob]

My commentators (not English) says the problem is the DS with their race radios wanting everyone on front, so it just ends up being impossible no matter how large the road is. One simply cannot have both sprinters and gc and both their trains in the front, it's just impossible. So according to them the crashes happens when everyone is trying to get to the front.

To my noob eyes/ears that sounds about accurate and so it's about changing mindsets to fit the space that's actually there.

 

[RedheadDane]

Unfortunately, on (potential) crosswind stages, both GC teams and sprinter teams will have a very good reason to want to be at/near the front. GC team; not wanting to lose time in the GC. Sprinter teams; not wanting to lose the chance of sprinting for the win. Sure, they could encourage GC teams to just stay at the back; after all, if all GC riders lose time, it kinda evens itself out, but this is sport! They're competing, and a part of being a good GC rider is the ability to be, if not downright good, then at least able to stay up there in all kinds of terrains.
Bernal is such a good GC rider in part because he - despite not exactly looking the part - is damn good at riding in the crosswinds. Whereas a rider like Yates - both of them, actually - have some issues with that sort of racing.

At the end of the day I just think that GC rider crashes out - either just of competition, or the race entirely - because of getting caught up in/behind a crash on a sprint stage is a tiny, tiny issue compared to other issues. As we have unfortunately seen, serious crashes can happen in the sprint itself, with no risk of time-loss for GC riders, because it's - obviously - within the last 3 Ks. I'd say focus on those crashes first, both by implementing standards for barriers (being done!), and by sanctioning riders who veer needlessly off their line, even if no disaster occurs.

 

[CyclistAbi]

In my opinion winning the national lottery doesn't exactly prove if you are good at gambling or not. If hence there will be a reduction of GC crashes in bunch sprint stages in the future. I don't feel that says much about some rider overall abilities all that much.

As for things like keeping the crosswind option open. For sure i am OK with that. I said i don't care all that much about on how. As long as all parties involved do stay rather happy and the GC crashes occurrences drop significantly on such stages that is OK with me. Saying the current situation is the best one and nothing can be done to improve it. In the end that is just sloppy isn't it?

 

[roundabout]

yes, let's remove more elements of skill out of cycling and turn it even more into a pure W/kg contest

 

[RedheadDane]

Again; I'm more focused on reducing the People (Almost) Dying crashes! No GC riders involved in that crash in Poland last year. Well... who gives a ***? Fabio Jakobsen still almost died!
Or what about crashes that occur in situations that are in no way related to any racing? When Antoine Demoitie crashed during the 2016 Ghent-Wevelgem he was far behind any sort of race action, good thing too, because then at least it wasn't filmed...

 

[CyclistAbi]

@roundabout

If a bunch sprint stage decided GC outcome then in 99% of the time something is wrong with such GT race.

@RedheadDane

I don't have issues with that and i support such efforts.

@all

Basically yes. This is one of the problems involed. Some of you actually defend the current situation and are relaying on crashes on bunch sprint stages to make GT racing "more interesting". And feel that you would get less if somebody would take that away from you.

Are you really all that sure about that? Is a GT race really "more interesting" for you to watch after such things happen? For me personally it's *** after.