• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. 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 37 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
It's a problem that would be easily solved if the UCI and race organisers would stop putting corners in the last few hundreds metres of a race with shitty barriers. That's who we should be blaming here. They created a potentially dangerous situation & for what?

& tomorrow is even worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmdirt and SHAD0W93
Sprinter moves slightly to shut the door/take out the momentum of a charging opponent -> skill
Sprinter deviates wildly leading opponents to make evasive manouver -> disqualification

The differences between these two behaviours are subjective and best judged by a skilled jury. Today I agree that Philipsen was well within the former. WvA choose a poor line for that finish and Philipsen used good tactical skills to render his opportunities slim to none.
 
I get it i am mostly talking to trolls. My mistake being the initial assumption majority actually gives a damn about this aspect of sport. Improving safety. Reality being majority would rather see more drawing pins to be used than to actually improve safety. I will adjust my stance on this subject accordingly.
Yep you're right, I've just been trolling this entire time. Nobody ever noticed because I disguised it with 10.000 word posts about my passion for the sport.
 
well they probably made the right call. The don't change your lane rule is there to stop what we saw at the criterium - blatantly changing your line and forcing rivals into the barriers. Its not there to start dq'ing or relegating people who've deviated slightly but haven't endangered anyone nor impeded anyone.

It's mostly the actions of van Aert that prevented the crash. If he would continue to sprint the crash would occur and Philipsen would be blamed for it. As this is how it currently works. What van Aert did is on how it must work in the future. Commissioners doing their part.
 
Then again you two are not actually someone i should take too seriously? That is your opinion in regards to safety in pro peloton. I mean you have opinions and i will give you that. But are you two actually claiming you give a damn about improving safety in pro peloton? In what way exactly?

By, you know, pointing out that some sort of airbag, or madras on that descend in Tour de Suisse could actually have literally saved someone's life.

You... are aware what happened in Tour de Suisse, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmdirt and SHAD0W93
Sorry but in this thread yes. Just look at your last answer with the glasses.

Low effort s***post.
Well, if you don't come in with a very obvious agenda, then you don't get posted at sarcastically about that agenda. This thread has become a crusade for you, and your biases show. Some people might not be able to read when I'm not being 100% serious and poking fun at myself with hyperbole and exaggeration and when I'm genuinely angry or annoyed about something (hey Toby), but sometimes you just have to lean into it.

 
  • Like
Reactions: SHAD0W93
By, you know, pointing out that some sort of airbag, or madras on that descend in Tour de Suisse could actually have literally saved someone's life.

You... are aware what happened in Tour de Suisse, right?

Sorry but i won't drag Gino into this. In regards to Gino i can just say we all failed. It's on us. We could have done more. Turning his death into some agenda. I won't do that. Like all that talk from people in charge. Some tacky PR boilerplate. Disgusting. If something actually gets done only then in my opinion you get the right to mention Gino.
 
First thanks for expressing your opinion. And indeed lets keep the discussion about commissioners this time. Not any individual rider.

So if your stance is commissioners did their job. Then next time van Aert should just continue to sprint, as that resulting to crash will automatically put Philipsen at fault?

Note that this is actually how it is now. And i deeply disagree with this.



Then again you two are not actually someone i should take too seriously? That is your opinion in regards to safety in pro peloton. I mean you have opinions and i will give you that. But are you two actually claiming you give a damn about improving safety in pro peloton? In what way exactly?
First of all, your concern is preventing collarbone injuries. It has been from the start. Every single post is to prevent the collarbone from getting hurt and now about Roglic’s crash. Your theories and ideas have been debunked by many, many posters towards the airbags to prevent collarbone injuries.

Second, the “collarbone hate” you receive is due to us stating there are more serious injuries. The fact I said the airbag could have potentially saved someone’s life if it was able to be safely deployed and you’re acting like this says a lot about you. What happened, is worse then a collarbone injury.

Third, I’ve actually voiced ways the airbag could work safely in the peloton. I voiced how it could work and technology from books or video games and how it can be incorporated. I voiced how all of this will take time. I also voiced why currently it isn’t safe to be in the pro scene and why only the recreationals use it. I’ve also stated that organizers should fix the barriers and find safer finishes with less turns and downhill at the end. That’s my standpoint on making cycling safer and if you can’t see that, you’re irritated about the past between us which in ways is warranted.

Fourth, I get it. You’re upset Roglic crashed out and what could have been. You want to know something, I’m one of Mark Cavendish’s biggest (if not the biggest) fan on here and I’m upset about his crash in 2014 at the Tour shouldering Gerrans. Why, because it not only derailed his 2014 season but I think ruined his 2015 season due to the sprints he contested at the beginning of the Tour were him starting his sprint for 250-300 m out and Greipel was eating him up alive. But just like Roglic it was Cavendish’s fault and I don’t bring it up every chance I can when crashes occur.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmdirt
@Libertine Seguros

That doesn't prove the mentioned reply wasn't a low effort s***post. You for example could instead express your opinion in regards to discussion in question.

@Izzyeviel

What i actually find odd is reading about current culture in regards to safety in pro peloton. In my opinion is somewhere in the age of discussing doping before it was acknowledged doping is an issue.
 
@Libertine Seguros

That doesn't prove the mentioned reply wasn't a low effort s***post. You for example could instead express your opinion in regards to discussion in question.
I did. My opinion was that, given your previous posting history and opinions espoused about blame for certain incidents in the past (raising the Wright/Roglič incident was just the cherry on top given its more or less total irrelevance to the issue at hand today), your opinion towards this relatively minor incident was clouded by your bias towards Jumbo and Roglič, and I expressed this with an attempt at humour.

Look, I get it, it isn't fun when your favourite rider keeps getting injured and isn't a very good bike handler. I supported Igor Antón for years. But sometimes you just gotta accept that your favourite rider keeps getting injured because he or she isn't a very good bike handler.
 
@Libertine Seguros

I see. So what you are saying is you are more caught up with the person discussing something then the actual discussion and meaning behind it. Fair point but you must agree that this can't be all that productive? That is from some pro peloton safety related point of view.

P.S. As for Roglič i don't know if you noticed but he doesn't crash that much anymore. So that can't be it. Move on.
 
@SHAD0W93

So why exactly did you made a wall of text discussing airbags and Roglič. Why didn't you instead just express your opinion on commissioners decision in regards to relegation? The subject of current discussion? It just makes no sense to me.
Because you brought it up, like you’ve been doing it since the crash. Which is crazy since I think you edited your post to add that P.S., but I could be wrong.

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.
Then I expanded off @RedheadDane post for the TdS actually stating the airbag would have been good there.
 
@Libertine Seguros

I see. So what you are saying is you are more caught up with the person discussing something then the actual discussion and meaning behind it. Fair point but you must agree that this can't be all that productive? That is from some pro peloton safety related point of view.

P.S. As for Roglič i don't know if you noticed but he doesn't crash that much anymore. So that can't be it. Move on.
P.S. I don’t know if you noticed but he also doesn’t swing across the road and crash into someone’s elbow. We have moved on, you haven’t.
 
I have no idea who's culture you're referring to, but it is pretty obvious that the majority of this forum want the UCI to do more for rider safety especially with regards to barriers and finishes,

And this isn't a discussion about that? Officials and their role in doing that? And they did it today? They have send a clear message that they take safety seriously? And what if van Aert would push on? Then obviously it would be Phillipsen who is the bad guy?

You see there seems to be some sort of discrepancy going on. Like saying we are all against doping. But then again the EPO shot was rather smallish. So who really cares. In the end it just doesn't add up. My claim hence is currently nobody takes safety seriously. And this will change in the future.
 
Sorry but i won't drag Gino into this. In regards to Gino i can just say we all failed. It's on us. We could have done more. Turning his death into some agenda. I won't do that. Like all that talk from people in charge. Some tacky PR boilerplate. Disgusting. If something actually gets done only then in my opinion you get the right to mention Gino.

You won't discuss safety when it clearly failed?
 
@Libertine Seguros

I see. So what you are saying is you are more caught up with the person discussing something then the actual discussion and meaning behind it. Fair point but you must agree that this can't be all that productive? That is from some pro peloton safety related point of view.

P.S. As for Roglič i don't know if you noticed but he doesn't crash that much anymore. So that can't be it. Move on.
Look, when long-term posters whose predilections, likes and dislikes are known post, that posting history and those known predilections, likes and dislikes impact how the posts are seen. For example, I tried to be very objective about the Sagan DQ in Vittel a few years ago, but people naturally take my posting history and the fact I have some strong opinions about Peter Sagan into account when they viewed those posts and interpreted them as being influenced by those opinions even though I'd tried (how successfully is open to interpretation) to step back and view things more objectively, and that's only natural.
 
@SHAD0W93
@RedheadDane

OK then some of you changed your minds in regards to airbags. Due to Gino death. Good. But as said i won't discuss this in such way.

Airbags should be used where they might be useful, not to prevent broken collarbones.

And Mäder's death caused a lot of discussion about safety, obviously, because it's natural for people to want to prevent something like that to happen again.
 
They took their time & debated it. They decided not to relegate him. They followed the rules & procedure.

If we had it your way, at least several riders would've been relegated including Wout.

So if that is the case should that rules & procedure change in the future or to stay as it is now?

So basically should van Aert push on knowing Philipsen will be at fault causing the crash? Or should it be more like it was today. Back off if you are pushed into barriers, to prevent the crash, and rather result to relegation? That is what should the culture inside pro peloton be in the future. The former or the latter?