• 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 40 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
@RedheadDane

Yesterday i would agree. Today i have seen riders asking questions like who are the people responsible for safety in pro peloton? Nobody seemed to know. Riders putting their partial interests aside and speaking out. Achieving things.

After all we have seen a sprint stage on where GC riders with no real initiative to contest the sprint, due to poor safety, where separated from actual contesters. Now people are claiming it didn't work. And the earth is still flat.

Somebody has actually put some air in the bags and secured the exposed sections with such barriers at the Tour. Things that felt are light years away. All that already happened.

So. Improvements in apparel are in my opinion closer that one might think. As this is what will actually prevent the injury from happening most of the times. Protective apparel. Maybe next season already. We'll see.
 
I'm willing to bet that protective collarbone apparel will not be added to the péloton next season.

There was nothing wrong with stage 2, we've seen races like Gent-Wevelgem 2015 or stage 11 of the 2010 Giro where they had to deal with worse for longer. If stage 1 isn't a complete mess, the riders just suck it up and ride stage 2. But after the complete farce of the TTT, the riders weren't happy and, as usual, the organisers rolled over and played dead. There was nothing stopping them doing something like in stage 1 of the 2020 Tour, and neutralising things until they got to the final few kilometres where the weather was less bad. Then it'd have been infinitely better: the part of the course that was actually dangerous would have been ridden safely, and the part of the course that wasn't would have been raced. Instead they raced the part that was dangerous and then sat up and scratched their butts on the part that was safe.

If you want to make flat stages safe for GC contenders, since in reality that was your original crusade in this thread (seeing as apparently we don't care if sprinters get injured?), then the onus is on the organisers to arrange safer finishes. And stop riders from divebombing corners like absolute morons, because that's not the organisers' fault. If we're pinning that kind of thing on the organisers, then why not just make them set 'liaison' stages where the GC doesn't matter, like in Paris-Dakar, and the GC riders can have a nice cyclotourist stroll like they did on the finishing circuit on Sunday, the sprinters can turn on the jets in the last few kilometres, and you don't have to worry your sweet little head about Primož Roglič falling over.

Or hell, just do the whole thing on Zwift to get rid of that pesky danger factor, that seems to be the way the péloton is leaning.
 
Somebody has actually put some air in the bags and secured the exposed sections with such barriers at the Tour. Things that felt are light years away. All that already happened.

And all that's being done to prevent serious injury. If it prevents a few collarbones from being broken, that's a nice added bonus, but nobody considers preventing collarbones from being broken the number one priority.

Sure, I get that a broken collarbone is probably quite painful, and it's annoying to be out for around 6 weeks, but on the grand scale of things, they're not that serious an injury.
 

I won't link the picture directly but it shows again, that current cycling apparel, regarding protection, is the worst piece of crap ever made in human history. Would be better if the colors would be sprayed on. Then at least the lacquer could offer some minimal protection against road rash.
 
I only skipped through today's stage, but I was rather worried by the very large cuboid block on De Bod's side/back. Obviously more than just the radio: I guess some kind of data monitoring. I see similar (but smaller) on rugby jerseys, which also make me nervous on the players' behalf. Going over on one's side and back in not unheard of (see Plapp today for evidence): how much worse could that be when such a bulky piece of hardware is at the side of the rider's jersey?
(Yes, this is about minimising injury rather than avoiding crashes, but this thread went down that diversion a long time ago)
 
Last edited:
  • Wow
Reactions: Sandisfan
So theres an article on the main site discussing how the mouthguards they use in Rugby could help cyclists. Apparently they have now have technology in them which tells you if the player has suffered a concussion or not & hence why they might be useful for cycling.

I don't know much about this sort of thing, but in theory it sounds good, it however doesn't seem very useful for cyclists. How are you meant to eat & drink with those things in your mouth?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
So theres an article on the main site discussing how the mouthguards they use in Rugby could help cyclists. Apparently they have now have technology in them which tells you if the player has suffered a concussion or not & hence why they might be useful for cycling.

I don't know much about this sort of thing, but in theory it sounds good, it however doesn't seem very useful for cyclists. How are you meant to eat & drink with those things in your mouth?
Does it check concussion based on impact?
 
Does it check concussion based on impact?
"The smart mouthguards will work in real time to send alerts of high forces to the independent matchday doctor. This will, for the first time, enable players who have experienced a high acceleration event, but not shown symptoms or been seen by broadcast cameras, to be taken off and assessed."


With so many useless tech that cycling industry tries to put forward, no reason to not have this kind of technology implemented on helmets.
 
"The smart mouthguards will work in real time to send alerts of high forces to the independent matchday doctor. This will, for the first time, enable players who have experienced a high acceleration event, but not shown symptoms or been seen by broadcast cameras, to be taken off and assessed."


With so many useless tech that cycling industry tries to put forward, no reason to not have this kind of technology implemented on helmets.
Cool tech, but for a cycling race of 5-7 hours... Seems a long time to keep a mouthguard in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
Cool tech, but for a cycling race of 5-7 hours... Seems a long time to keep a mouthguard in.
No need for mouthguards as there is already tech on the market designed for bicycle helmets.


Of course it wouldn't be a good option if it sends an alert for all kinds of crashes, but from the information provided in that article, it is only activated in crashes that generates forces high enough that are susceptible of causing brain injuries.
 
So theres an article on the main site discussing how the mouthguards they use in Rugby could help cyclists. Apparently they have now have technology in them which tells you if the player has suffered a concussion or not & hence why they might be useful for cycling.

I don't know much about this sort of thing, but in theory it sounds good, it however doesn't seem very useful for cyclists. How are you meant to eat & drink with those things in your mouth?

Could be. One detail i see here is rugby is a contact sport on where cycling is not. When a cyclist crashes usually a doctor is there to asses. So as a gadget to tell the severity and based on that to maybe put some protocol in place, that might make sense for cycling. Beyond that the impact likely to be low in terms of preventing the damages.

So yeah, why not. At this point i would support just about anything that seems to make at least some sesne, contrary to doing nothing.
 
How can the UCI and the riders union or whatever they call themselves justify TTs the way they are being ridden today?
Look at the close ups of the riders, NO WAY they can see where they are going.
They must just be getting instructions on the radio and looking up every few seconds to see - like a open water swimmer.

I'd love to get a rider's eye view of a TT - 75% of the footage would be the fork and front wheel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cookster15
I disagree really, it's just morbid and insensitive. It's not really a matter of free expression.

There must have been something tricky in that section because Burgaudeau also went off-roading in the exact same spot out of the break.
They just took the corner way too fast and everyone dominoes it looks like. It was hardly abnormal or something about the road. These are also guys with a reputation for pushing the pace on the downhills. Hell some guys are celebrated for using their descending skills as an advantage.

Personally I hate descent finishes in general because they invite crashes or worse, but then everyone celebrates it until their preferred rider ends up on the wrong end of it.

EDIT: Didnt mean to quote Brullnux
 
  • Like
Reactions: saunaking
Will the UCI FINALLY take rider safety seriously? What else would it take? How hard can it be to drive the route and mark obviously dangerous obstacles or traffic furniture?
But these weren’t obstacles in the road, they were solid objects immediately off the side. They should have had some barrier or padding at that arc of the turn, but riders still could have hit the concrete ditch, trees, and big boulders. How many alpine descents have boulders, jagged rocks, and 200 meter drop offs just off the apex of the corner?
 

TRENDING THREADS