• 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 36 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
So what did you mean by the comments that I quoted above? Or do you now wish to withdraw them. Because they still stand as an accusation against someone, and the idea that stage designers don't have much power over the design of a stage seems an audacious argument to put forward.

Can you please rephrase this into more understandable question?

I feel that you already asked this exact question and my previous answer was already verbose enough to answer it. Hence best if we both first understand what the question is.
 
You said:
So in short currently crashes at the end of sprint stages are there by design. If the crash didn't occur, to make the selection, then the system failed.
It is very difficult to interpret that as anything other than you claiming that somebody (some level within the organisation of the sport, presumably involved in course design, rather than an individual someone) specifically wants crashes to happen, and that crashes at the end of sprint stages are essential for competitive cycling.

Is that what you believe?
Is a sprint without a crash considered to be a failure by some people, and if so by whom?
What is this system that failed in the absence of a crash?
To whose benefit is this system maintained and tolerated?
 
@Armchair cyclist

I see. First of all what i meant with that statement is to be a mere description of the current format. As is. And as one can observe on numerous occasions by simply watching it unfold on TV. Feel free to dispute it if you believe the observation is not an accurate description of current state of affairs. And we can take it from there.

As for your interpretation of it or better an additional question. Blame distribution. It's an interesting question indeed. That is whenever you want to change something. You will always need to deal with some level of opposition. Terms like conservatives or naysayers are usually used. Are they to blame? It i guess depends. Was there just no real effort or pressure applied to improve things? Or was this ongoing and was simply blocked by somebody?

I would find it hard to believe a governing body like UCI is not aware of this ongoing problem. That is frequency of crashes by GC cyclists at the end of sprint stages. So the question is are they doing something about it? To reduce the frequency. Is there any pressure from cyclists, people watching cycling, cycling syndicates ... Ultimately the blame is distributed among all this parties. Some obviously take bigger share as they have bigger power and hence responsibility. All in all at some point they need to take responsibility for it. If the problem persist and things don't improve. Just like in all other sports. Cycling is not an exception here. Regardless if they did or did not do it barefoot 100 years back.

Hope this answers your question.
 
Last edited:
I can only charitably conclude that what you meant by "by design" is " by virtue of a lack of change since a time when there were not so many riders involved in a sprint line", and that when you say that there are people resistant to change who would have an attitude that "If the crash didn't occur...then the system failed", what you mean is that the possibility of a crash is accepted as inherent risk.

I appreciate that English is not your first language, and I greatly admire the efforts of those who contribute here other than in their native tongue, but in this case I hope that your linguistic ability has let you down, and means that you have not commuicated what you intended. The alternative is that you have made a pretty appalling accusation.
 
May 3, 2023
2
3
15
Visit site
After being struck by a car while cycling and being forcefully thrown 20 feet into a curb, my immediate thought wasn't about wishing for an airbag to protect my collarbone. Instead, I expressed gratitude for wearing a helmet, as it prevented me from suffering severe head trauma and potentially ending up in a vegetative state.
 
After being struck by a car while cycling and being forcefully thrown 20 feet into a curb, my immediate thought wasn't about wishing for an airbag to protect my collarbone. Instead, I expressed gratitude for wearing a helmet, as it prevented me from suffering severe head trauma and potentially ending up in a vegetative state.
Same and very similar to what I posted awhile ago :grimacing:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cookster15
I can only charitably conclude that what you meant by "by design" is " by virtue of a lack of change since a time when there were not so many riders involved in a sprint line", and that when you say that there are people resistant to change who would have an attitude that "If the crash didn't occur...then the system failed", what you mean is that the possibility of a crash is accepted as inherent risk.

I appreciate that English is not your first language, and I greatly admire the efforts of those who contribute here other than in their native tongue, but in this case I hope that your linguistic ability has let you down, and means that you have not commuicated what you intended. The alternative is that you have made a pretty appalling accusation.

You could be a poet.
 
So Thomas used Covi as an airbag on stage 11. And Rogla hit the tarmac without any additional protection involved. Due to crashes happening at the same time and on the same section. One got away more or less without a scratch and the other one got some cuts in the hip area.

I am sure that the one using the airbag would trade places without much hesitation involved.

P.S. And both used helmets. Imagine that.
 
So Thomas used Covi as an airbag on stage 11. And Rogla hit the tarmac without any additional protection involved. Due to crashes happening at the same time and on the same section. One got away more or less without a scratch and the other one got some cuts in the hip area.

I am sure that the one using the airbag would trade places without much hesitation involved.

P.S. And both used helmets. Imagine that.
Yes, since landing on bones or a bike is such an airbag. Maybe you should approach Jumbo and Roglic about your airbag idea.
 
@Armchair cyclist

I won't respond to your questions twice. My answers were verbose enough in the first attempt. I already told you that. If you have problems with understanding, as you mentioned language barrier. Just say so and be more specific about the part causing you issues with understanding.

So in short if you want to discuss this further quote the section you are refuting and make your claims. We can take it from there.
 
Last edited:
If you are willing to neither make yourself clear, nor allow others to try to clarify for you, I really can't see much point in trying to get meaningful contribution out of you.

So I will take you at your word, that you think that course organisers are psychotics who design finishes with the express intention of causing crashes ("crashes... are there by design"), because they believe that sporting competition cannot be acheived otherwise ("If the crash didn't occur, to make the selection, then the system failed"). And I shall treat any other comment I see from you in these pages as emerging from the same mindset, and give them the respect that that mindset deserves.
 
So at stage 3 finale of the TDF 2023, Philipsen deviated from his sprinting line, pushing van Aert into the barriers and by doing that ruining his sprint. At this point van Aert acted appropriately, by giving up and pressing on the brakes, to prevent a crash from occurring and to after report the incident. To get Philipsen relegated. So far so good. Commissioners decided against relegation and in my opinion failed to do their job.

P.S. Indirectly causing future incidents such as Groenewegen-Jakobsen and Roglič-Wright.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lequack
One of these, is not like the other.

It's exactly the same. Both crashes could be avoided if brakes and resulting to relegation would occur. Just like van Aert demonstrated today. This is on how it should be done.

And this is what commissioners need to start doing. Supporting it. Until then they are in their part responsible for causing crashes in bunch sprint stages.

Now that this part was discussed feel free to move to Philipsen-van Aert incident. By for starters expressing if in your opinion the commissioners made the right decision or not. In the light of them doing their job.
 
@RedheadDane

Lets move on to discussing Philipsen-van Aert incident and the role commissioners played. Did they do their job appropriately or failed at it?

So you accept that Wright didn't cause that Roglic crash? Good.

Commisaires did their job.

BTW, I'm a bit concerned by the fact that a rider dying didn't cause you to revive this thread, but a rider not being relegated for not causing a rider to not crash did... I feel like you don't quite have your priorities straight.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jmdirt and SHAD0W93