Crashes, what can be done?

Page 14 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I think no matter how many steps back you take,giant leaps back or forward there is no real solution. Trust me there is plenty of carnage on the velodrome and there are no fans running in the way. The uniform of pro cycling is a colored top and shorts made out of thick panty hose( look it up!!) And somehow the cycling industry has a convinced,that the pavement,guard rails,rocks,trees ,cars and cattle all know the difference between falling off a bicycle at 40mph vs a motorcycle,skateboard or car..that same industry has no s strapping on $200 dollar polystyrene swim buoys on our skulls, convinced of protection...?
there are 2 or 3 obvious solutions to this years Tour crashes..completely closed, fenced off race course..like NASCAR or F1,football,basketball..and add a lead car that neutralizes the race each time it's judged too scary sketchy to continue..and my guess is that there will still always be crashes..
after seeing the efforts put in by these professional bike racing stallions in the rain..both up and down hill..I always want bike racing like this..Pogocar is putting on a show!!! This is a great race
 
Reactions: jmdirt
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).
 
@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.
ASO is the organiser when it comes specifically to the Tour, and other races they organise.
UCI is the organiser when it comes to the sport as a whole, including stuff like where to take the time. Which, except for extreme circumstances is the finish line.

Imagine this:
A chain of stores always do things in a certain way (X).
Due to safety circumstances in a specific store, employees suggest they do it slightly differently (Y).
Store Manager agrees, but still has to ask the General Manager.
General Manager disapproves.
Everyone continues doing X.
Someone gets hurt.
Who is responsible?

(UCI is the General Manager.)

According to you, in which situation would UCI be responsible?
Think of it from a logical point of view.
How logical is it that the UCI could make a decision, and then just shrug, going: "Eh... not our responsibility if something happens."?
It doesn't make any sense!
UCI needs to be held responsible for THEIR decisions.
 
Last edited:
@all

Note that there are more discussions in this thread. And we basically agree that for the most crashes ASO would likely not be liable. But that doesn't automatically come down to saying there are no cases where they are liable.

@RedheadDane

If you don't want to ask a friend lawyer then one more analogy from my side. But i won't discuss this further for now as it would be pointless. Lets just agree we don't agree.

Imagine something happens in a church in France that is against the law and hence makes them liable. They started claiming but the Vatican made us do it. Some would say the obvious. Obviously you are responsible not the Vatican. And the story would end here.

P.S. Some would say obviously it's Vatican fault and they are responsible. They made them do it. And some would come in a debate and say for people that want to have an informed discussion read the Bible.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
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).
While I believe that to be true, those kind of crashes don't happen as often everywhere. The denser the peloton is (and the faster it's going) while there's a continued battle for position, the more those crashes will happen. On a stage like last year's 2nd stage, the peloton was far more relaxed (until Èze at least) and position mattered far less.
 
Reactions: noob and jmdirt
Note that there are more discussions in this thread. And we basically agree that for the most crashes ASO would likely not be liable. But that doesn't automatically come down to saying there are no cases where they are liable.
I'm not saying ASO is never liable. I'm saying they're not liable for the times not being taken at 5 Ks to go on stage three, including whatever crashes that decision might have resulted in, because it was UCI who made the final decision.
You, on the other hand, seem to think UCI is never liable. After all; if you don't think they're liable for a decision made by UCI commisaires which overruled both riders - for the rider lose "group" that is the riders - and the ASO, when the heck are they liable?
 
Reactions: jmdirt
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.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
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!
 
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.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
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.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
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.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
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...
 
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.
 
Reactions: yaco
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.
 
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.)
 
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...
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Sandisfan
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Armchair cyclist Professional Road Racing 46
Similar threads
Groenewegen crash ban

ASK THE COMMUNITY