considering we see riders relegated on a regular basis, that the rules are pretty fine. implement safe finishes & don't have barriers sticking out.
Airbags should be used where they might be useful, not to prevent broken collarbones.
considering we see riders relegated on a regular basis, that the rules are pretty fine. implement safe finishes & don't have barriers sticking out.
No, my position has always been the same. You’ve just been ignoring it because I said collarbones aren’t the main concern and that the way the airbags work currently, wouldn’t operate at the pro level like they’re supposed to.@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.
If less broken collarbones are only the side effect. That works for me too.
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.
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.
I'm not sure why, but you constantly state it as a fact that Philipsen would've been at fault had a crash happened. And why are you certain he would have been relegated in the case of a crash and just has not been relegated because van Aert avoided a crash? I think that's at least debatable.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?
I see. So you two really didn't change your minds. You will. First time you will crash wearing an airbag.
I’ve already posted that I would have liked an airbag when I got hit by the car but my first worry wasn’t a broken collarbone, it was brain damage followed by a broken spine or femur. And that having an airbag is a good idea with the way people drive in Las Vegas and that I have a baby now.I see. So you two really didn't change your minds. You will. First time you will crash wearing an airbag.
@Izzyeviel
Thanks for being constructive and on topic. We can discuss this further next time. When a rider in van Aerts position decides it's worth the try. To push on and to try to win.
I have no intention of ever wearing an airbag.
And the reason I haven't changed my mind about wearable airbags is because the idea remains silly.
I'm not sure why, but you constantly state it as a fact that Philipsen would've been at fault had a crash happened.
'Does someone have to crash to be declassified?' asks Mark Cavendish's team manager Vinokourov; Girmay's boss Bourlart agrees
Girmay told reporters at the post-stage doping control that "nothing happened", though his team boss Bourlart took a different tack, saying that dozens of riders could have fallen had his star not braked to avoid a collision with Philipsen or the barriers.
Today's finish at the TdF tells me nothing can be or should be done as far designing the finish. I will always blame riders from now on.
"What I blame the UCI for is prevention – we are waiting again for someone to risk their life to punish a rider. I don't think that's normal.
This is rather normal reaction if you ask me. It was the same with helmets and disc brakes. And look at the situation now.
You find it silly just in pro road peloton? Or in other sports that already introduced such technology too?
Anyway. The best thing is for UCI to mandate such technology in lets say Paris-Roubaix 2026.
As seen in the past in Groenewegen-Jakobsen and Roglič-Wright incidents.
Just stop posting mate nobody wants to hear about your stupid airbag idea for the billionth time.@SHAD0W93
So you are in favor of airbags and you would wear one it's just currently you don't believe they could work in pro road peloton. Being an expert in this field that vest didn't convince you. I feel it's reasonable reaction to be cautious. We are only humans.
Anyway. The best thing is for UCI to mandate such technology in lets say Paris-Roubaix 2026. UCI needs to step up like for example FIS did for skiers. And that whole list of questions you have. You won't have to worry about them as much after as apparel manufacturers will take care of it. In the end they are paid for it. Personally i will track statistics for collarbones injuries. Hopefully they will drop substantially! Note that the hip, spine, shoulder, chest ... injuries. I am OK with that sort of injuries to get reduced substantially too. I have no problem with it. In the end it comes down to an additional air pocket and connection to already available system. You just have to start somewhere.
Nah, I needed that airbag today. I didn’t take 10 hrs to do a Spartan beast to hear about the crashJust stop posting mate nobody wants to hear about your stupid airbag idea for the billionth time.
How about banning jerseys tied to a rope hooking riders bars?!![]()