Crashes, what can be done?

[Samu Cuenca]

But for the future they - and other organisations - might consider tripple checking race routes and put up some sort of barriers in locations that might cause issue.

In places where it makes sense, yes, but not at every point where a rider could potentially try to ride outside the actual road.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

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.

 

[RedheadDane]

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.

 

[Netserk]

Riders will always make mistakes that are their fault. Organisers should not be blamed for that inevitability.

Maciejuk's crash was solely his fault, he bears all responsibility for it.

 

[Bonimenier]

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.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

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.

 

[Volderke]

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.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

As soon as someone says that they want to make an example of someone, they are saying that they are abandoning any normal principle of justice and application of rules. Anyone who ever says it should be summarily removed from authority (just to make an example of them, you understand).

 

[RedheadDane]

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.

 

[tobydawq]

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.

You really hate that race...

 

[Libertine Seguros]

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.

 

[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.

 

[tobydawq]

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.

 

[Lequack]

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?

 

[RedheadDane]

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!

 

[CyclistAbi]

@RedheadDane

That are sensible questions.

 

[CyclistAbi]

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.

 

[saunaking]

Bumping this thread to say that the root cause of a lot of these late crashes is the fact that there are 2 separate races with different riders going on at the same time on the same road.

No GC contender today had any interest in gaining time on their competitors in the last hour of todays stage.

Would 2 finish lines be that bad? More than 3km. 3 km seems arbitrary - its way too late because the racing is getting tense around 10k to go.

If it was at 10k to go - take GC times here - so no need for GC guys to ride at the front in case of splits in the group.

Then the GC rider will truly drop off and roll in, not worry about losing 8" in some stupid late split.

10k gives the sprint teams lots of time to arrange the trains. 3 km is way too late for that. You need to be in position already at the 3k mark making the racing intense.

With a GC finish time far from the stage finish, then the stage players can battle it out amongst themselves and the GC guys can stay safe

 

[CyclistAbi]

At some point indeed likely GC riders won't have that much initiative to be there. And for specialists to take over. Result likely being in between 25% to 50% crashes reduction in such situations. But first the whole safety culture in pro peloton will need to mature. Currently it's in my opinion not possible to introduce such changes. Or better to introduce any changes. Beyond some that don't bring much results.

 

[IndianCyclist]

The main reasons why there are more crashes in sprint finishes than mountain/hilly finishes is the speed and the number of riders in the finale. Another reason being the need to get to a favorable position by use of elbows/head butts. The 3 k rule is not effective as it only allows for the partial separation of riders after the sprinters team have got organized and but before the GC teams are out of the picture and only in the case of mechanical or crash. It is clear that GC neutralization will be the most effective as it is completely removing those riders out of the picture which amount to 40% of the peloton. The place that this must happen is 10k to go before the sprint teams gets organized. Implement the same in the races and the data will tell if it is effective of not. For sure the situation is unlikely to get worse than before and it will save the GC riders from terrible consequences.

 

[BR2]

It would be the wrong conclusion to think the 3km rule needs to be extended.

If we look at the crashes from yesterday specifically, a dog ran onto the street, a wheel slipped in a wet, likely oily curve, a rider didn't look where he was going, a crash occurred among sprinters in the reduced peloton.
- And yet none of the GC riders were really badly hurt.

I agree the peloton is too big. It doesn't have to be. But actually arriving at the real finish line in the same time as everyone is a basic part of a GT. I am already annoyed about the 3km rule, but okay. A 10km rule is just a no go for me.

Rather come up with routes that likely won't be decided by a few seconds, so that GC riders don't panic if they are about to lose 3 seconds.

Also punish riders for wrong or reckless riding - a punishment for simple "wrong" behaviour in the bunch would not have to be harsh, just a sign that this is not deemed okay and natural.

 

[wheresmybrakes]

Why not simplify it. In certain GT's, no sprint stages. In other GT's, no mountain stages. In 1 GT throw the lot in. That way, everyone is happy. Sprinters don't have to climb mountains, mountaineers don't have to get caught up in sprint trains. If you're a daredevil, go for the one with everything in it. (This is a joke by the way)

 

[SafeBet]

Would 2 finish lines be that bad? More than 3km. 3 km seems arbitrary - its way too late because the racing is getting tense around 10k to go.

If it was at 10k to go - take GC times here - so no need for GC guys to ride at the front in case of splits in the group.

I've always been against the neutralisation but I'm starting to think the organizers could be a little flexible when weather AND road conditions are deemed unsafe for a 170 rider peloton approaching the stage finale at full speed.

The 10 km suggestion seems somewhat sensible. There's some work to do obviously since if you take time exactly at the 10 km banner Zoccarato doesn't win the stage despite having the best time (and in other scenarios a rider who was dropped earlier doesn't have a chance to get ST as the bunch even if he manages to get back before the finish). I don't know, it's not easy. Perhaps it wouldn't change a thing, but I'd be open to try different solutions.

 

[Netserk]

No GC contender today had any interest in gaining time on their competitors in the last hour of todays stage.

If that was true, why was QS pulling the group when the pink jersey and Rogla was caught up in a crash?

If the GC contenders from QS, Jumbo, Ineos, UAE and Bahrain stayed together behind the sprinters, there would be far fewer crashes, and they would affect the GC less.

But that would be an unstable equilibrium. We clearly see that some contenders have in fact an interest in gaining time on their competitors, so they would always defect in that situation. And once some try to stay ahead of the crashes while battling for position with the sprinters, all the other contenders must as well.

 

[Netserk]

I've always been against the neutralisation but I'm starting to think the organizers could be a little flexible when weather AND road conditions are deemed unsafe for a 170 rider peloton approaching the stage finale at full speed.

You also need the equipment in place to be flexible. That was possible with the Bari circuit in 2014.

The 10 km suggestion seems somewhat sensible. There's some work to do obviously since if you take time exactly at the 10 km banner Zoccarato doesn't win the stage despite having the best time (and in other scenarios a rider who was dropped earlier doesn't have a chance to get ST as the bunch even if he manages to get back before the finish). I don't know, it's not easy. Perhaps it wouldn't change a thing, but I'd be open to try different solutions.

A different finish line for GC makes no sense. Extending the 3 km rule to 10 could work though.