Crashes, what can be done?

Page 25 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I feel that you have some vision of medieval armor in your head. But even with that variant it could i guess be done. That is to preserve full mobility of i am guessing a shoulder joint. As you assume shoulder wouldn't be able to move after?


@Libertine Seguros

And don't you feel that the shoulder is close enough to be considered as a part of the same area?

@Bonimenier

Who knows. Maybe cyclists would learn to use such apparel to break the fall differently. Compared to what they are doing now. When they know the apparel isn't offering them any advantage.
Try googling 'NFL collarbone injury', and then look at the amount of padding those guys wear.

Seeing as you keep calling for apparel manufacturers to create something but have no ideas of your own, how about admitting that maybe - just maybe - this is something that apparel manufacturers, riders, organisers and sport governing bodies have already considered, but without being able to find a solution that doesn't also badly compromise the riders? The thing is, riders need the flexibility and dexterity to help them avoid crashes in the first place. It's no good preventing collarbone injuries in x % of crashes if you then cause the number of crashes to go up and neutralise that benefit.
 
Reactions: RedheadDane
I was going to make a joke about installing brake lights, but... maybe that could actually help? Just beneath the saddle, a small red LED.

Also a Waze-like gps based device/app that informs riders of upcoming road furniture, or dangerous situations, that can be updated on the fly.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
CyclistAlbi's position seems to be based on the premise of a design that nobody has ever come up with utilising a material that no-one has ever invented.

As such, it can't be said to be a bad idea, any more than the Nimbus 2000 is a bad idea. But while it cannot be any more than an idea, there seems little point in discussing it.

Until it is trialled in the Hogsmeade - Godric's Hollow Classic.
 
In other racing sports, when there are crashes, they can usually work out what/who caused it, and action is taken. Whether that is a DSQ, time penalty or event/race penalties. It seems only crashes at the finish of a race are looked at.
What happened after the crash in LBL?? Who caused it? Does anybody know? Or is it a case of "crashes are a part of cycling, and nothing can be done"?
However, I do think more should be done to crack down on reckless riding; you can't all be at the front of the race, and forcing your way through should be a 'no no'.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
Watching the Tour of Hellas this week, some of the incidents there were down to poor marshalling or poor moto piloting- Aaron Gate nearly went into pedestrians crossing the road on Stage 1 as the lead Moto stopped when confused. In stage 3 a moto going too slow (IMO) contributed to pile-up a few hundred metres before the line. The big crash on stage 4 was more down to rider error but the way riders went into the barriers was very reminiscent of the Tour de Pologne crash involving Jakobsen and Groenewegen.
 
Watching the Tour of Hellas this week, some of the incidents there were down to poor marshalling or poor moto piloting- Aaron Gate nearly went into pedestrians crossing the road on Stage 1 as the lead Moto stopped when confused. In stage 3 a moto going too slow (IMO) contributed to pile-up a few hundred metres before the line. The big crash on stage 4 was more down to rider error but the way riders went into the barriers was very reminiscent of the Tour de Pologne crash involving Jakobsen and Groenewegen.
The Hellas finish was far more dangerous than the Jakobsen/Groenewegen finish - The Hellas finish was techinical, downhill and off camber - It was a disaster waiting to happen, whereas the TOP finish was straight and downhill - And there had never been any major incidents in the TOP finish in the past.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
The Hellas finish was far more dangerous than the Jakobsen/Groenewegen finish - The Hellas finish was techinical, downhill and off camber - It was a disaster waiting to happen, whereas the TOP finish was straight and downhill - And there had never been any major incidents in the TOP finish in the past.
I don't agree. A crash was waiting to happen in the Tour of Hellas, but disaster was waiting to happen in Poland. Speed in that finish in Poland in combination with the barriers could only end up in disaster sooner or later. Speed in Hellas was way lower.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
I don't agree. A crash was waiting to happen in the Tour of Hellas, but disaster was waiting to happen in Poland. Speed in that finish in Poland in combination with the barriers could only end up in disaster sooner or later. Speed in Hellas was way lower.
The stage finish in Hellas was far more dangerous because of its layout - I wonder how it was approved.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
lol, in what universe is De Lie at fault here?
Once again, you're reading a post of mine as blaming Belgians when the point was that the most obvious way in which a crash like this could have been prevented (you know, in the spirit of the topic title) was the organisers moving the finish by 50 metres, but sure, I'll elaborate (even if I said most of this in the other thread):

De Lie is arguably at fault for going into a gap where there's not much lateral motion required from either McLay or Welsford for a crash to occur.
The organisers are definitely at fault for having the finish in a curve, which amongst other things increases the risk/amount of lateral motion in a sprint.
Welsford is definitely at fault for not only deviating to the right but also sticking out his elbow when he can see he's pushing De Lie into McLay by doing so. Deserved relegation.

So, at most, De Lie is at fault for the crash to a comparatively minor extent. However, he does put himself into a position where the risk of such a crash was pretty high, which I felt was reckless. That's not blaming him for the crash actually happening, though, you're doing the exact thing you've accused me of doing in the past by twisting my words.
 
Once again, you're reading a post of mine as blaming Belgians when the point was that the most obvious way in which a crash like this could have been prevented (you know, in the spirit of the topic title) was the organisers moving the finish by 50 metres, but sure, I'll elaborate (even if I said most of this in the other thread):

De Lie is arguably at fault for going into a gap where there's not much lateral motion required from either McLay or Welsford for a crash to occur.
The organisers are definitely at fault for having the finish in a curve, which amongst other things increases the risk/amount of lateral motion in a sprint.
Welsford is definitely at fault for not only deviating to the right but also sticking out his elbow when he can see he's pushing De Lie into McLay by doing so. Deserved relegation.

So, at most, De Lie is at fault for the crash to a comparatively minor extent. However, he does put himself into a position where the risk of such a crash was pretty high, which I felt was reckless. That's not blaming him for the crash actually happening, though, you're doing the exact thing you've accused me of doing in the past by twisting my words.
Why do you bring up the fact that he is Belgian? A gap opens up in front of him, it is big enough to move through. If a sprinter isn't allowed or even supposed to go for that opportunity, then you should simply forbid sprints alltogether.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Why do you bring up the fact that he is Belgian? A gap opens up in front of him, it is big enough to move through. If a sprinter isn't allowed or even supposed to go for that opportunity, then you should simply forbid sprints alltogether.
I certainly don't think it was wise to try to go through that gap. I don't think it was smart what Jakobsen did either. Or Sagan for that matter when he squeezed past Van Aert after which the Belgian apparently called him a *** monkey.
 
I certainly don't think it was wise to try to go through that gap. I don't think it was smart what Jakobsen did either. Or Sagan for that matter when he squeezed past Van Aert after which the Belgian apparently called him a *** monkey.
The Jakobsen crash was a result of Groenewegen's deviation off the line in which there was enough room - It's always more dangerous when you try to go between two riders as in the case of De Lie - There's always a chance one of the two riders could drift off line - At the end of the day, sprinters are crazy and at times will take unnecessary risks.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
I certainly don't think it was wise to try to go through that gap. I don't think it was smart what Jakobsen did either. Or Sagan for that matter when he squeezed past Van Aert after which the Belgian apparently called him a *** monkey.
Rubbish. Complete rubbish. I sincererly hope you either didn't see the sprint from heli-view, or that you are making a lame joke. There is not a sprinter on this earth that would not move through that gap. And if there were, he could probably start looking for another team/job.

De Lie is right NEXT to Welsford when he starts to push him into McLay. Look at the images or the footage again please.

 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Rubbish. Complete rubbish. I sincererly hope you either didn't see the sprint from heli-view, or that you are making a lame joke. There is not a sprinter on this earth that would not move through that gap. And if there were, he could probably start looking for another team/job.

De Lie is right NEXT to Welsford when he starts to push him into McLay. Look at the images or the footage again please.

Why do you need to try to ridicule me? At some point after this picture, it was evident for De Lie that there was not enough space. I just said it wasn't particularly wise to push his luck when the door was closed. I'm not saying he should be like Bennati in his old days, everything isn't black or white. But when the probability for a successful manoeuvre becomes to small, there's no real point in continuing to aim for such a gap. He doesn't gain anything by claiming his right when lying on the ground with broken bones.
 
Why do you need to try to ridicule me? At some point after this picture, it was evident for De Lie that there was not enough space. I just said it wasn't particularly wise to push his luck when the door was closed. I'm not saying he should be like Bennati in his old days, everything isn't black or white. But when the probability for a successful manoeuvre becomes to small, there's no real point in continuing to aim for such a gap. He doesn't gain anything by claiming his right when lying on the ground with broken bones.
I'm ridiculing your statement, because it is ridiculous. I'm not ridiculing you as a person.

Already in this picture De Lie is overtaking Welsford. Already at this moment he his 80% next to Welsford. This is victim blaming 101. At no point after this picture was Welsford riding away from De Lie. Hence the space WAS there for De Lie and he was already in it. Welsford was not in front of De Lie so any sort of "closing the space" meant 100% pushing De Lie because the space was not Welsford's anymore to close.
 
Last edited:
I'm ridiculing your statement, because it is ridiculous. I'm not ridiculing you as a person.

Already in this picture De Lie is overtaking Welsford. Already at this moment he his 80% next to Welsford. This is victim blaming 101. At no point after this picture was Welsford riding away from De Lie. Hence the space WAS there for De Lie and he was already in it. Welsford was not in front of De Lie so any sort of "closing the space" meant 100% pushing De Lie because the space was not Welsford's anymore to close.
My statement is certainly not ridiculous. And if it wasn't one of your Belgians, you wouldn't even care what had happened. But now it is, and instead of it being a controversial incident with no clear assignment of guilt, it's 100% assault by Welsford and De Lie would 100% be fired by his team if he had backed off. Which he apparently couldn't because Welsford barged into him from a completely perpendicular direction with no chance whatsoever of De Lie having seen him before it happened.
 
My statement is certainly not ridiculous. And if it wasn't one of your Belgians, you wouldn't even care what had happened. But now it is, and instead of it being a controversial incident with no clear assignment of guilt, it's 100% assault by Welsford and De Lie would 100% be fired by his team if he had backed off. Which he apparently couldn't because Welsford barged into him from a completely perpendicular direction with no chance whatsoever of De Lie having seen him before it happened.
Right, because Jakobsen is also a Belgian. And i didn't care what happened there either, right? Stop talking out of your ass. Even if your ridiculous insinuation were true, it doesn't change what happened in this instance. De Lie is already next to Welsford when the latter starts drifting. End of story.

 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY