• 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 38 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
@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?
 
@Libertine Seguros

Sure but no need to obsess about it. If you would for example give half an effort in the initial answer, instead of the glasses, then there would be no problem in the first place.

Regardless of my previous views about something i feel it's a valid question. What should van Aert do then today? Push on? Did officials send the right message today or not?

I don't know on how bias from my side could be involved here. JV didn't take Roglič to the Tour and if they did van Aert would leave him alone in the bunch. It's not like i owe it to them this time. Rest assured there is no JV/van Aert bias involved this time.

The reason i brought this incident into discussion is as it's a textbook example on how it should be done. You get pushed into barriers and instead of pushing on you try to prevent the crash and after result to relegation. And officials to recognize and support it. It's in my opinion a perfect example of what we have discussed in the past already. That is on why i brought it up.
 
considering we see riders relegated on a regular basis, that the rules are pretty fine. implement safe finishes & don't have barriers sticking out.

OK. But if next time van Aert or some other rider decides to push on in a similar situation. Know that partially it could come down to today's decision. That is knowing if you will back off and prevent the crash to occur and after demand for relegation. Your chances being slim. If you instead push on. The other rider will be at fault and you are still in it for the win.
 
@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.
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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RedheadDane
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.
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'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.
 
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’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.

My opinion has stayed the same, airbags don’t work in their current state at the pro level but they can in the future. Let’s not forget that I’m the one who researched multiple airbags and explained how they operated and deployed while stating why they wouldn’t work in the pro scene. How there’s technologies in books and video games that could work like an airbag but we’re not technologically there yet to implement them. All you did was post a picture of the product and saying this will fix collarbone injuries. No research was performed by you, no explanations given on how it will work. Just stating everyone that questions the how’s is told they hate the idea and to forget about it for another time and to move on.

I forget who, but someone told you to back the product up monetarily, fix the issues that we had with the product, and/or produce the product because I think it was by 2027 you wanted every pro to have it. Well where is it? What have you come up with to discuss with us and we can see if it will be safe at the pro level?

How is the airbag going to not overheat the rider?
How is the airbag going to still allow rider mobility of their head, neck, and arms when not in use?
How is the airbag going to deploy safely in the pro peloton because it can’t be when the riders shoulders go past the handlebar or both hands leave the handlebars like the products I researched for you, otherwise they’d be going off all the time and cause more crashes.
How is it going to be deflated to provide emergency care if needed?
How is it going to stop the rider from skidding or bouncing further and potentially adding worse injury?
How is it going to protect the collarbone when the rider slams down into the ground at 40+ mph on their shoulder?
How is it going to stop the rider from partially or completely fracturing their cervical spine due to landing wrong on the airbag and their head and neck hit the ground the wrong way?
How is it going to protect the vital organs of the body if it’s focused on the shoulders? A cyclist passed away by a lacerated liver, the airbag you posted and I researched for you don’t protect the liver.
Will it be a one time use or redeployable?
How much will it cost?
How much will be able to be produced and the production timeframe?
And how is it going to protect the rider even more from experiencing a traumatic brain injury and cardiac arrest?
 
I have no intention of ever wearing an airbag.

This is rather normal reaction if you ask me. It was the same with helmets and disc brakes. And look at the situation now.

And the reason I haven't changed my mind about wearable airbags is because the idea remains silly.

You find it silly just in pro road peloton? Or in other sports that already introduced such technology too? I for example was against e-bikes at first but now i realize i was wrong. It happens. We are a bit wonky or silly at times. Nothing wrong with that.
 
@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.
 
I'm not sure why, but you constantly state it as a fact that Philipsen would've been at fault had a crash happened.

As seen in the past in Groenewegen-Jakobsen and Roglič-Wright incidents. Among many many others. Bottom line Philipsen would be blamed for the crash if van Aert would decide to push through and that resulting in a crash. Another example from today:


'Does someone have to crash to be declassified?' asks Mark Cavendish's team manager Vinokourov; Girmay's boss Bourlart agrees

Yes, currently that is the case. In the same article:

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.

It's only due to rider making a decision. To use brakes instead of causing a crash by pushing through. That avoids the crash in such situations. In such case and in the future commissioners need to start acknowledging the appeal and relegate the other rider.

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.

An answer for you from the same article:

"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.

In addition the article mentions the 3km rule. It was extended today by 600m. Here more will need to be done in the future. For example in the last couple of kilometers it makes no sense to see Vingegaard riding ahead of the peloton. It's like Cavendish would be grinding it out with the likes of Roglič, Pogačar, Vingegaard, Evenepoel on top of a MTF. It just makes no sense. GC riders should have no initiative to be there at the end of the sprint stages. Technically we have seen at ToS this year. It's just a matter of decision. Nothing else standing in the way. To make that happen. Beyond the usual BS. On how 100 years back GC riders for sure were crashing at the end of bunch sprint stages!
 
Last edited:
This is rather normal reaction if you ask me. It was the same with helmets and disc brakes. And look at the situation now.

I wear a helmet, because it protects a rather important part of me.
My bike doesn't actually have disc brakes.

You find it silly just in pro road peloton? Or in other sports that already introduced such technology too?

Well, this is about cycling, with what that entails of requirements towards mobility.
Riders didn't want to wear helmets at first, but then they were convinced that the slight discomfort of helmets is worth it. Also, helmets have become much better in the 20 years since helmets became mandatory. I doubt you'll ever convince a rider that wearing some bulky equipment - even if minutely so - is a fair tradeoff in order to protect... their collarbones.
Anyway. The best thing is for UCI to mandate such technology in lets say Paris-Roubaix 2026.

I'd say the best thing for UCI would be to not mandate such technology until it actually exists in a form that's functionable within the pro peloton.

As seen in the past in Groenewegen-Jakobsen and Roglič-Wright incidents.

In the Groenewegen-Jakobsen incident, the rider who caused the crash - by pushing another rider towards the barriers - was not only DQed, but suspended for 9 months.
In the Roglic-Wright incident, the rider who was responsible for the crash... crashed.
 
Yea, consistently bringing up the Roglič-Wright crash, where two riders bumped into each other and the guy who was responsible for it and just happens to be your favourite rider was the only one impacted, kind of exposes the agenda and undermines what relevant points you have. As I say, I'm sorry your favourite rider isn't a good bike handler, but I get it, I supported riders like that myself. Bringing up that crash like it is in any way important or relevant to the discussion at hand compared to countless other sprint run-in crashes that were far more significant and created far more collateral damage is why it's hard to not conclude that your personal biases are showing.

However, it therefore rings very false when you then act like other posters are uncaring for not backing up your points or feeling they would rather prioritise other goals like safer run-ins to reduce the number of accidents, and when you bring up the same points every time anything happens (particularly if Jumbo-Visma riders are disadvantaged in some way). Remember, before you got on your high horse about collarbone injuries and protective apparel and attacking everybody else for not caring enough about rider safety, your main agenda was to make sure GC riders (and by this you largely meant Primož Roglič) didn't lose time, while everybody else was trying to discuss ways to stop riders getting injured.