Crashes, what can be done?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Since we're discussing it. Apparently at least some riders are trying to come up with solutions as well.

Some interesting points. I don't know if he reads the forum, ;) but this is literally a point i have raised many times:

Van Emden said:
3-kilometre rule

"The 3-kilometre rule [whereby if there's a crash in the last three kilomtres of a stage, all riders get the finish time of the group they were in when the crash occurred] should always apply on flat stages. The time is taken three kilometres from the finish so that classification riders and their teammates do not have to sprint [against stage contenders] right before the finish line."
This is exactly what i wrote after the TdP crash two weeks ago.

I've been in favor of completely doing away with timedifferences for the final 3k in sprintstages, for some time. That way you can keep GC riders out of the sprint chaos. It's a good thing for the GC riders, since they don't have to risk injuries due to crashes at high speed, in a situation that is completely out of their comfortzone. In turn it offers more space for the sprinters and sprinttrains. Today this wouldn't have made a difference obviously, but a crash like this could also take out a GC rider (and it has many times in the past). It's safer for all parties involved.
Unfortunately, as you can see in the TdP topic, some people want to see "real racing" and crashing at 80km/h apparently is part of that.
 
Some interesting points. I don't know if he reads the forum, ;) but this is literally a point i have raised many times:



This is exactly what i wrote after the TdP crash two weeks ago.



Unfortunately, as you can see in the TdP topic, some people want to see "real racing" and crashing at 80km/h apparently is part of that.
I have no idea if he does or not either. I had thought there was a discussion on the 3KM rule here. I'm remember a discussion from some race last year (maybe the Tour?). I agree with you. I've even thought moving that back to 5km might not be the worst idea in the world. There are very few GC riders who should be up there for a sprint. There aren't many Valverde's who are actively participating in a field sprint or many Alaphilippe's who are actively part of a sprinter's leadout train.
 
Allow fewer riders on the start line.

there was a time not too long ago when you might have 120-140 riders starting the TDF.

It’s only in serving greed that they increased that number to near 200.

and you could still have 20 teams of six or seven riders.

that would also diminish trains, making it more exciting.

it would also mean u would have the GC leaders spread amongst the teams more as teams could not have three team leaders in a team of six or seven.

it would solve many issues and many complaints about present day cycling.
 
  • Imagine a world where not every flat stage is brought back for a bunch sprint (and the resulting elevated risk), where a lack of information makes it harder for teams to effortlessly manage the breakaway.
  • Imagine a world without riders taking a hand off the handle bar in the middle of the pack to activate a device, making them slower to physically react to events.
  • Imagine a world where a rider's focus isn't constantly diverted into a voice in their head, making them slower to mentally react to events.
  • Imagine a world without riders from rival teams constantly being told by their bosses to "make sure they are at the front"
  • Imagine a world where radio is only used by organisers and only for safety information, and DS's involvement in the race effectively ends at kilometre 1.
A man can dream.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Armchair cyclist Professional Road Racing 46
Similar threads
Groenewegen crash ban

ASK THE COMMUNITY