• 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 41 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
What I take from this crash (major causes + possible solutions):

1. Landa went in that curve full of (homeroads) confidence, but he rode too hard for a whole peloton wide over the road to be able to go through that curve at that speed.
--> Landa cannot be blamed for going that curve at his speed, but he is supposed to shepherd Evenepoel and it's clear it didn't work well. A bit more caution with such a big peloton in downhills is never a bad thing.

2. There was padding in the curve, but like in many cases, the padding is NOT there were you expect people to go out of the curve (which is at the very end = the zone with the ditch and rocks)!
--> Organisers should be more aware of how racing works and where riders are most likely to crash.

3. I think it's a kind of freak curve, in the way that it's off-chamber + some bumps / roots. If the parcours doesn't go there often, it's likely such corners aren't detected as possibly risky.
--> organisers should always have good riders (amateurs / semi-pros) riding the whole thing at speed so those can point out dangers that you won't see or feel when doing the parcours in a car or riding slowly.
 
The explanation of Mikel Bizkarra on Twitter is interesting. He refers to the roots of the trees causing minor bumps on the road. If we're going to exclude all roads that contain these 'obstacles', I wish the organizers of any road race in contental Europe good luck in finding a route that is secure enough to have a peloton racing over it.
It’s not the roads, it’s the unprotected rocks and concrete ditch that were the issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
Not sure you can call it 'no unnecessary risk' when you miss a corner in a high speed decent.

But this crash is mostly down to riders racing like maniacs in a location where they really shouldn't have.
There are a lot of ways to miss a corner that involve neither taking unnecessary risks to maintain speed nor someone directly causing you to crash. A momentary lapse in focus, following a bad line by the rider in front of you, bike issues, and so on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SHAD0W93 and noob
Set in the backdrop of the discussions about the chicane at the Trouée d'Arenberg, the previous crashes we've had in the last week and a half and the complete mess that we've seen elsewise in the race, it's easy to see tempers get inflamed, but ultimately this is a racing incident, and there are various factors adding culpability on both sides.

It's clear from the debates that raged about the chicane at Roubaix that for a lot of riders, they would like to be able to go full send if they so wish at any time without having to think about risk other than their own power/tactics etc., but passing the responsibility on to the organisers for managing risk to the point where that would be possible is simply unmanageable in an outdoor sport. This was a relatively nondescript corner which admittedly had some obstacles off-road on the outside, but the actual corner itself was not remarkable compared to hundreds of others in this part of the world, it was on a decently wide two-way road and the Itzulia routinely descends worse.

At the same time, the péloton was far larger than it usually would be on those worse descents in this race, because usually this race is more selective. This was then exacerbated by the péloton going slower on the climb side of this ascent (and it being one of those lopsided climbs from the coastal mountains to the higher Alavan plateau) meaning the pace was higher on the descent, meaning that if somebody did make a mistake, more riders would be at risk, and would be going faster at the same time.

The rapid and aggressive apportioning of blame is a product of the accumulation of incidents in the last few weeks and an emotive response to just how big the accident was and the apparent severity of the injuries that resulted. But the péloton can't lay the blame entirely at the foot of the race organisers every time and absolve themselves of any responsibility for their own bike handling skills - however, the race organisers can't use rider error as an excuse not to learn lessons either.
 
Set in the backdrop of the discussions about the chicane at the Trouée d'Arenberg, the previous crashes we've had in the last week and a half and the complete mess that we've seen elsewise in the race, it's easy to see tempers get inflamed, but ultimately this is a racing incident, and there are various factors adding culpability on both sides.

It's clear from the debates that raged about the chicane at Roubaix that for a lot of riders, they would like to be able to go full send if they so wish at any time without having to think about risk other than their own power/tactics etc., but passing the responsibility on to the organisers for managing risk to the point where that would be possible is simply unmanageable in an outdoor sport. This was a relatively nondescript corner which admittedly had some obstacles off-road on the outside, but the actual corner itself was not remarkable compared to hundreds of others in this part of the world, it was on a decently wide two-way road and the Itzulia routinely descends worse.

At the same time, the péloton was far larger than it usually would be on those worse descents in this race, because usually this race is more selective. This was then exacerbated by the péloton going slower on the climb side of this ascent (and it being one of those lopsided climbs from the coastal mountains to the higher Alavan plateau) meaning the pace was higher on the descent, meaning that if somebody did make a mistake, more riders would be at risk, and would be going faster at the same time.

The rapid and aggressive apportioning of blame is a product of the accumulation of incidents in the last few weeks and an emotive response to just how big the accident was and the apparent severity of the injuries that resulted. But the péloton can't lay the blame entirely at the foot of the race organisers every time and absolve themselves of any responsibility for their own bike handling skills - however, the race organisers can't use rider error as an excuse not to learn lessons either.
Yes, and in addition: improvement of equipment increases the speed, so riders have to be more careful just to maintain the same levels of risks.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: SHAD0W93 and noob
Guégan lifting the lid on the levels of cafeine usage in the peloton is actually a pretty important insight both inside and outside the context of this crash. The logic of the omertà dictates that he may come to regret bringing it up, but even without that it's a good reminder of how riders and teams are also responsible for safety issues...
 
Guégan lifting the lid on the levels of cafeine usage in the peloton is actually a pretty important insight both inside and outside the context of this crash. The logic of the omertà dictates that he may come to regret bringing it up, but even without that it's a good reminder of how riders and teams are also responsible for safety issues...
Is caffeine use in modern sport under a kind of omertá? It's open knowledge that it's a very highly used legal PED, and we know that in football it's like 400mg before matches.
 
No way I can wade through 20 pages of thread to check if this has already been noted but those barriers were a nice idea, just poorly placed. Who is it that decides precisely where the barriers go? Although some riders were able to save it and a barrier would have been counterproductive for them. Secondly if it's dangerous enough for a barrier then I'm assuming the road book calls it out, so it's on the riders to slow down. Third, this is another example of why big names should ride certain stages with some minor body armor (hip pads, shoulder pads, perhaps).

And lastly, GD what a terrible day for the rest of the year. Guess Pog is gonna rampage uncontested.
 
Bilbao just said that he slowed down a bit and kept distance before the corner, because he sensed what was going to happen. The road wasn't great, but main problem was the peloton going too fast. The only possible solution he sees is to race less aggressively.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9Q-EOh2YJI
If Bilbao said that he could've also added: less stupidly. I haven't seen any race highlights or video record but early season races always tend to be sketchy. That is, until the top of the GC is taken out by a crash and then maybe there is some mutual discussion among DS's about where to play and where to chill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stonerider and noob
I'm my opinion, the two crashes in the last two weeks were caused by this obsession with 'needing to be a the front to be out of trouble'. It was never the case 10/15 years ago. Last week's crash was because everyone wanted to be near the front before a climb 80km to go in a semi classic, like seriously if you are a few positions out of position before climb 80km out, it isn't a big deal. But commentators and riders constantly talk about 'having to be at the front'. Heck, in TA, Vingegaard was wasting so much energy riding literally in 2nd wheel before sprints. It's unnecessary and has been over overexagerated way to much by sports directors and commontators, and the two crashes in question are a result of this IMO.
 
I'm my opinion, the two crashes in the last two weeks were caused by this obsession with 'needing to be a the front to be out of trouble'. It was never the case 10/15 years ago. Last week's crash was because everyone wanted to be near the front before a climb 80km in a semi classic, like seriously if you are a few positions out of position before climb 80km out, it isn't a big deal. But commentators and riders constantly talk about 'having to be at the front'. Heck, in TA, Vingegaard was wasting so much energy riding literally in 2nd wheel before sprints. It's unnecessary and has been over overexagerated way to much by sports directors and commontators, and the two crashes in question are a result of this IMO.
My old commentator have said the same since 2020. He hates race radios for this reason.

It makes all sense in the world that radios gonna make riders less focused! Anyone saying anything else doens't know how the brain works imo.
 
In one of the tweets posted above, Madouas says that radios "make you more nervous, but above all they let you know where the danger lies, which helps you avoid crashes (e.g. gravel on bends)."
It's interesting! It means they are more nervous because of the radios and need the radios to help them to keep the attention because it was destroyed by the radio in the first place :wineglass:

If race radio were quiet about anything but risks then yes I would agree. But human brain's ain't made for that anymore than they're made for the internet.
 
I posted this on the Basque Tour thread, but I think here's a better place for it..

I'm my opinion, the two crashes in the last two weeks were caused by this obsession with 'needing to be a the front to be out of trouble'. It was never the case 10/15 years ago. Last week's crash was because everyone wanted to be near the front before a climb 80km to go in a semi classic, like seriously if you are a few positions out of position before climb 80km out, it isn't a big deal. But commentators and riders constantly talk about 'having to be at the front'. Heck, in TA, Vingegaard was wasting so much energy riding literally in 2nd wheel before sprints. It's unnecessary and has been over overexagerated way to much by sports directors and commontators, and the two crashes in question are a result of this IMO.
 
Wow, I started reading some of the comments there but had to stop —they are far more ridiculous than here. I suppose there are people who only drive (never mind bike) on urban streets and freeways are aren’t familiar with roadscapes in mountainous or hilly rural terrain. Otherwise they wouldn’t be making suggestions like put padding in every single corner of a descent.
 
I posted this on the Basque Tour thread, but I think here's a better place for it..

I'm my opinion, the two crashes in the last two weeks were caused by this obsession with 'needing to be a the front to be out of trouble'. It was never the case 10/15 years ago. Last week's crash was because everyone wanted to be near the front before a climb 80km to go in a semi classic, like seriously if you are a few positions out of position before climb 80km out, it isn't a big deal. But commentators and riders constantly talk about 'having to be at the front'. Heck, in TA, Vingegaard was wasting so much energy riding literally in 2nd wheel before sprints. It's unnecessary and has been over overexagerated way too much by sports directors and commontators, and the two crashes in question are a result of this IMO.
That tendency is also very apparent when we get feeds from inside a team car, and we hear the DS saying (or yelling) “you’ve got to be in the front going into this next turn.”