• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Crashes, what can be done?

Page 34 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
No, I just think it's concerning that the organiserers rarely are held responsible. Guess it's easier to punish individuals...
Yes, Maciejuk made a mistake, my post was just speculation about how the situation might have been different. Wouldn't even need to be big metal barriers; I'm sure the simple "poles and rope" solution could help.
That could also help with crowd control those places metal barriers aren't possible.

There's one guy to blame for this incident and one guy only.
 
That doesn't mean he needs to be punished to "make an example".
If an incident was clearly organisational, do you really think the organisation responsible would be punished?

Don't know. Without organisers there wouldn't be any races. They're not our enemies.

And regarding my earlier statement about guilt in this case, I just heard the Radiotour podcast and Brian Holm of course thinks the other riders should be more alert and better at handling their bikes because "in Flanders, you know things are flying around you all the time and it's chaos"...
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmdirt
I know you're watching everything everywhere all at once, but there are probaby also a lot of incidents that are never caught on camera in the races you believe to be well organised.

The riders are luckily quite good at calling out things that aren't okay.
Look, I just think that organisers should be held to a higher degree of responsibility than individuals, and my speculation regarding that Vlaanderen crash was simply about how a minor change could wastly have changed the outcome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
The riders are luckily quite good at calling out things that aren't okay.
Look, I just think that organisers should be held to a higher degree of responsibility than individuals, and my speculation regarding that Vlaanderen crash was simply about how a minor change could wastly have changed the outcome.

I agree that Maciejuk shouldn't receive further punishment, but neither should Flanders Classics as the mistake was made by the rider.
 
That doesn't mean he needs to be punished to "make an example".
If an incident was clearly organisational, do you really think the organisation responsible would be punished?
The Itzulia organisers were put on probation regarding their World Tour status after the Michael Matthews cones-on-parking-poles incident. So were the Tour de Pologne organisers after the Groenewegen-Jakobsen incident.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
In places where it makes sense, yes, but not at every point where a rider could potentially try to ride outside the actual road.

Exactly; where it makes sense.

The Itzulia organisers were put on probation regarding their World Tour status after the Michael Matthews cones-on-parking-poles incident. So were the Tour de Pologne organisers after the Groenewegen-Jakobsen incident.

Probation... LoL! Just proves my point that organisers are given much more leniency. Apparently for them it's "If something happens again, you will be punished."

Unfortunately, I think one of the better ways to punish organisers would be to ban live coverage, thus keeping the organisation from getting any TV revenue, which of course would be a problem for two reasons:

1: It would mean a decrease in live coverage.
2: Incidents would be easier to hide.
 
No, I just think it's concerning that the organiserers rarely are held responsible. Guess it's easier to punish individuals...
Yes, Maciejuk made a mistake, my post was just speculation about how the situation might have been different. Wouldn't even need to be big metal barriers; I'm sure the simple "poles and rope" solution could help.
That could also help with crowd control those places metal barriers aren't possible.
I believe simple poles and rope actually make it a quite a bit more dangerous in places like where the crash happened. Unfortunately crashes are inevitable in nervous races like RVV. Riders really need the room to dodge them if one occurs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
Exactly; where it makes sense.



Probation... LoL! Just proves my point that organisers are given much more leniency. Apparently for them it's "If something happens again, you will be punished."
If a rider gets a suspension, somebody else just rides in their place for that duration. If a race gets a suspension, then nobody gets to race, any other races by that organiser might be impacted by the loss of revenue from a higher profile race which serves as that organiser's main cash cow, teams that had been targeting said race get screwed in the UCI points race. It's much more impactful. Not to mention that the vast majority of the crashes we see are not the fault of the organiser. Hell, even in the two cases I highlighted, one of them - the Tour de Pologne one - was not the fault of the organiser that the crash occurred, because it was caused by the reckless violence of Groenewegen's move in the sprint. However, the organisers were rightly raked over the coals for exacerbating the effects of the crash and increasing the likelihood of an incident with a dangerous finale and inappropriate safety measures.

The threat of withdrawing status is an appropriate punishment for an organiser, because many of these races draw their TV money and sponsorships from their race's status. Sure, some races are more bulletproof than others, but do you think a full register of World Tour teams turn up to the Tour de Pologne if it isn't World Tour but instead a ProSeries race? Being worth fewer UCI points, this would then impact the field and therefore the profitability of the race and its ability to attract sponsors. Likewise Itzulia, which did struggle a bit for financing during the financial crisis; yes, there is a very strong cycling culture in the Basque region, but that didn't mean that the likes of the GP Llodio and the Subida a Urkiola survived the financial crisis when the bottom fell out of Spanish cycling sponsorship, and without the guaranteed field that came from WT status which protected Catalunya (in its May slot at the time) and San Sebastián the loss of a strong domestic péloton and the races not being worth enough points for big overseas teams to bother with meant those smaller races died off. País Vasco's heritage means it would survive better, but look at the fields of the Spanish stage races of February and early March like Ruta del Sol and Valencia compared to those of the May mini-season like Madrid and Asturias to see the impact that preparation races and the lead-in to that Spanish WT mini-season of Catalunya and Itzulia has.
 
What I find toe-curling with regards to Maceijuk, is that the UCI wants to fine him to set an example...

The UCI will NEVER fine itself to set an example, but they are quick to punish a rider. It's been clear to me that many more avoidable crashes are the responsability of the UCI and race organisers (and thus UCI as they should control safety), than there are by the riders themselves.

I'm not saying Maciejuk shouldn't get some kind of punishment, but the role of the UCI, declaring they want to make a stance, is simply hypocritical.

ps: one crash I think was avoidable in Roubaix, that could have saved Van Baarle's face, was Fred Wright's team chosing to ride on tubeless tires, without inserts, thus taking the known risk of an uncontrollable front flat, leading to a high-speed crash in Arenberg with the results we all know well. Just putting inserts in the tubeless tires, or riding on tubulars, could very well have avoided this crash.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
If a rider gets a suspension, somebody else just rides in their place for that duration. If a race gets a suspension, then nobody gets to race,

Pologne could have been demoted to ProSeries - or even cat.1 - and nobody would have noticed a difference. I see no reason why it couldn't have been an immediate thing. Or, at least make it one of those WT races that aren't mandatory for WT teams to ride.
Tour of Turkey got demoted for much less a reason.
 
Last edited:
  • Wow
Reactions: Sandisfan
Pologne could have been demoted to ProSeries - or even cat.1 - and nobody would have noticed a difference. I see no reason why it couldn't have been an immediate thing. Or, at least make it one of those WT races that aren't mandatory for WT teams to ride.
Tour of Turkey got demoted for much less a reason.
Sure people would notice the difference. To be honest it might even have been better for the race from a neutral point of view, teams like HRE-Mazowsze Serce Polski and Voster-ATS along with other central-eastern European teams like ATT Investments and Elkov-Kasper might have lower level riders but would target the race rather than it being a race largely for WT odds-and-sods, but we'd soon notice the difference in terms of calibre of rider, sponsor interest and international TV interest would be likely to fall away.

I'm not saying Tour de Pologne shouldn't have been demoted, I'm saying why I think it wasn't.

Anyway, they got their probation. My problem with it was more the situation around the probation being far more vague and too much refereeing of the outcome, not of the offence. If they produced another dangerous finish but the péloton navigated it without incident, they wouldn't be punished, and they had been allowed to use that same Katowice finish on multiple occasions before the Groenewegen-Jakobsen incident, because it hadn't had disastrous consequences before. That is my biggest problem with the way they manage these things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RedheadDane
Anyway, they got their probation. My problem with it was more the situation around the probation being far more vague and too much refereeing of the outcome, not of the offence. If they produced another dangerous finish but the péloton navigated it without incident, they wouldn't be punished, and they had been allowed to use that same Katowice finish on multiple occasions before the Groenewegen-Jakobsen incident, because it hadn't had disastrous consequences before. That is my biggest problem with the way they manage these things.

That's the worst part; I've seen/heard several cases of people saying that they told the organisers that finish could end in a disaster...

And a part of me still wonders if the lack of international TV coverage - you know, the thing that's supposedly mandatory for a WT race, but it seems there just needs to be coverage in five countries - is so it'll be easier for them to hide if there's another incident.
 
That's the worst part; I've seen/heard several cases of people saying that they told the organisers that finish could end in a disaster...

And a part of me still wonders if the lack of international TV coverage - you know, the thing that's supposedly mandatory for a WT race, but it seems there just needs to be coverage in five countries - is so it'll be easier for them to hide if there's another incident.

Lol.
 
On today's Pog crash:
"... Mauro Gianetti, team principal of the UAE, who explained how the crash occurred 85 kilometers from the finish and that it was caused by the double blowout of Honoré's (tubeless) tyres. "

Like mentioned in the Pogacar thread, tubeless tires are dangerous and it's been proven a lot this year, with most teams now switching to them because they can save a watt or two. Even a tubeless tires liner would help, but that again adds a few watts. The only way to protect the safety of riders is for UCI to step in and either say you need to use tubulars, or tubeless with liners. Teams won't do that voluntarily though, because of the slight watt advantage. But this is something the UCI can do to make pro cycling safer. But will they?
 
Definitely not the first time - and probably won't be the last time - a crash has been caused by bad road surface. So, here's what I don't understand:

From what I understand, they check the routes before the race. As in, some months before the race, not just a couple of days before. My question is; who should be responsible for fixing roads? Because, everyone would literally benefit from the roads being fixed!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
Likely for starters if the crash report would conclude that the surface area and depth of the hole in the road on the descend, that caused the crash, exceeded the maximum allowed values, then likely liability should get involved. For starters regulation could be limited to descends of higher inclination and hence higher speeds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan