Crashes, what can be done?

[Keldergoat]

Has there ever been a survey / data set regarding crashes per kilometre in WCs versus 'regular' races? I would argue that the point on allowing/forbidding team radio / ear plugs can be made quite easily by comparing these two, bearing mind the slightly different circumstances (NAT teams, circuits where many riders dropout and longer distances that could cause fatigue).

 

[Berniece]

Unfortunately I think that to protect all the dangerous things (road signals, walls, poles, etc.). that are placed at the side of the road for each of the 150/200 km of a race is quite impossible.

For this reason I think that we must try to search for other solutions, as:

- develop jerseys with protections for shoulders and chest. Is it difficult? We are in 2024 I am sure that something better than actual situation can be found.

- really think to modify the bikes: maybe this last generation of bikes is too fast and difficult to drive in descent or very fast situation and reacts too rigidly when one hit a pothole ?
bigger and grooved tires ?
different norms for frames rigidity and aerodynamic shape ?

- abolish team radio, that is source of distraction. Only a neutral race radio that can instead be a source of safety because can give alerts for dangers coming and sometimes and not continuously also neutral race situations (gap etc.) but without shouting in the ear from team managers

This are only some insights, I am curious to read your opinion.

You don't have to put signals on the side of the road for each corner. Only for those corners that are dangerous. In this case, Itzulia is a WT race, there's a standard to uphold too.

- develop jersey with protection, sure why not, if it works properly.

- bike modification I'm personally not a fan of, because that would stifle innovation for new materials, designs, etc to get better bikes.

- I'm personally a fan of the team radio, because I don't like it when riders aren't aware of the race situation. Like at the WC. I prefer everyone to have all the information, although I do agree that it would be nice to have a neutrals race radio that would overwrite current output from directors. A bit like in an airplane, if the captain wants to say something, your movie pauses and you can only hear the captain.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

According to Sporza Vingegaard discussed this specific descent with SafeCycling. The organizers just never responded and listened to SafeCycling. Reason to lose your WT status imo.

Nobody knew who this company - who have a vested interest as they sell safety barriers to pro races - was until Benji posted about them yesterday. Suddenly not listening to them is worth losing your WT status over.

For all we know them contacting Itzulia could have just been a cold call sales opportunity. There were no obstacles on the road itself and the road was plenty wide enough and in good weather. The riders didn't push it hard enough on the climb to reduce the péloton size, and then took too many risks on the descent. They have agency. They can make their own decisions. Some of them maybe don't like to, because then they can't blame someone else if they do something wrong, but they can.

The Itzulia organisers were placed on probation regarding their WT status a decade ago around the irresponsible decision to put traffic cones on top of metal bollards in a sprint run-in in Bilbao. These were marking car parking spaces and they had neglected to take into account that once the cars were removed, these would stick out into the available space to the riders until it was too late for a better solution. The injuries that resulted from that were the organisers' fault because they were directly the result of organiser irresponsibility. They passed that probation. This example was just a racing incident that unfortunately happened at an inopportune time and location.

 

[Tour de Berghem]

- I'm personally a fan of the team radio, because I don't like it when riders aren't aware of the race situation.

The neutral radio can also inform about gaps and race situation but without saying the rider what he have to do, we can preserve in the same time race informations and let riders a bit more free to ride according to their mind and not team manager mind

 

[RedheadDane]

Nobody knew who this company - who have a vested interest as they sell safety barriers to pro races - was until Benji posted about them yesterday. Suddenly not listening to them is worth losing your WT status over.

It seems they might be the people behind those flashing turn-indicators.

However, as I and others have already pointed out; surely the race organisers had the responsibility to cushion that concrete ditch somehow.

 

[Berniece]

Nobody knew who this company - who have a vested interest as they sell safety barriers to pro races - was until Benji posted about them yesterday. Suddenly not listening to them is worth losing your WT status over.

For all we know them contacting Itzulia could have just been a cold call sales opportunity. There were no obstacles on the road itself and the road was plenty wide enough and in good weather. The riders didn't push it hard enough on the climb to reduce the péloton size, and then took too many risks on the descent. They have agency. They can make their own decisions. Some of them maybe don't like to, because then they can't blame someone else if they do something wrong, but they can.

The Itzulia organisers were placed on probation regarding their WT status a decade ago around the irresponsible decision to put traffic cones on top of metal bollards in a sprint run-in in Bilbao. These were marking car parking spaces and they had neglected to take into account that once the cars were removed, these would stick out into the available space to the riders until it was too late for a better solution. The injuries that resulted from that were the organisers' fault because they were directly the result of organiser irresponsibility. They passed that probation. This example was just a racing incident that unfortunately happened at an inopportune time and location.

Nobody knew this company? Apparently Flanders Classics do. Quite a big organizer in the cycling world. As on organizer you have the obligation to create a save environment. You can't expect this from the riders themselves, because they will push themselves to the edge, and thus go over it. This is basic human behaviour.

 

[Netserk]

Nobody knew this company? Apparently Flanders Classics do. Quite a big organizer in the cycling world. As on organizer you have the obligation to create a save environment. You can't expect this from the riders themselves, because they will push themselves to the edge, and thus go over it. This is basic human behaviour.

Why do you think riders rarely rode off cliffs and died back when they descended mountain passes on gravel roads?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Right, because putting people in a competitive environment doesn't make them push for the edge. Literally every other sport didn't show this already... It's not like people push themselves to the edge, or cheat, or do dangerous stuff just to win?

Why even put safety nets anywhere? The riders should just watch their own speed

Matteo Jorgenson literally claimed anybody that criticised the 'chicane' solution at Paris-Roubaix as wanting to see riders get injured or die because if they go 100% there is a risk there.

The idea that riders could just take fewer risks if they were uncomfortable with the risks they were being asked to take never occurred to him.

The criticism apparently also extended to people who agreed with the general principle of slowing riders down before the Trouée but did not feel that the 'chicane' solution would successfully do this, by installing an artificial pinch point so close to a key moment in the race that it would make the fight to be at the front at the chicane just as crucial and simply move the crashes further down the road rather than prevent them.

It seems that there is a subset among the riders that want to be able to think about the sport like it's PCM and not have to worry about anything other than effort management and tactics, and everything else is the race organisers' responsibility, but they have to react to other riders, to weather, to road conditions, too. The teams keep proposing - over and over again - a business model that diverts resource away from race organisers by putting more money in their own pocket, but at the same time they're making ever increasing demands on the resources of race organisers because they are unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions. Riders are also free to do recon or to consult people with the local knowledge - such as, say, Pello Bilbao whose opinions seem to be being dismissed because he acknowledges the riders contributed to the incident - if they want to.

 

[Taxus4a]

Once cycling was close to be killed bye doping and knew react. It had been better, but reacted.
Now is no far to be killed by crash and have to react. Why no more protection in corner like this,? they falled againts rocks.

I think more things have to change to reduce speed, and of course no chicanes. If non pros go the weekend or in strava quicker than pros It doesnt matter, but pro bikes has to comeback to 2000 era. Some advantages even for teams for money, now a wheel hit is a lot of money .

Maybe we have t open a thread for this issue.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Because they pushed themselves too far? Which is why organizers decided to not use those roads anymore. Which is my complete point. Riders will always push themselves too far if they think they can. Thus save them from themselves by using warning signals (as an example).

You missed the word "rarely".

Riders didn't ride off cliffs often in those days. Because they didn't take risks because they knew the dangers of getting it wrong.

They also do use many of those roads to this day. They're just not gravel roads anymore.

 

[Berniece]

Eh, what...

The reason they rarely crashed into ravines and died was because they pushed themselves too far?

You missed the word "rarely".

Riders didn't ride off cliffs often in those days. Because they didn't take risks because they knew the dangers of getting it wrong.

They also do use many of those roads to this day. They're just not gravel roads anymore.

My bad, I missed the word rarely.

Indeed the risks were much higher because the environment was more dangerous. So we currently have an environment were the riders feel quite safe in, which pushes them to take more risks, because the chance of it going very wrong, is lower. I'm saying to alert the riders that we are moving into a more dangerous territory, just like a gravel road is very dangerous which they then noticed themselves.

 

[Netserk]

My bad, I missed the word rarely.

Indeed the risks were much higher because the environment was more dangerous. So we currently have an environment were the riders feel quite safe in, which pushes them to take more risks, because the chance of it going very wrong, is lower. I'm saying to alert the riders that we are moving into a more dangerous territory, just like a gravel road is very dangerous which they then noticed themselves.

Do you think they needed big signs back then to remind them of the danger?

 

[tobydawq]

Do you think they needed big signs back then to remind them of the danger?

This picture is from the 1911 Tour.

 

[Berniece]

Do you think they needed big signs back then to remind them of the danger?

No, because like I already said. Since you're on a gravel road, it's by default more dangerous, which makes them not take as many risks.

Currently, most downhill sections aren't necessarily dangerous. Which is why they'll push hard downhill too, because in most cases it's fine. This area wasn't fine. The road itself was dangerous due to tree roots lifting the road up, as well as the rocks and concrete gutter. In those cases you should put a signal to notify the riders that this is a dangerous area and they should watch there speed.

 

[Berniece]

Matteo Jorgenson literally claimed anybody that criticised the 'chicane' solution at Paris-Roubaix as wanting to see riders get injured or die because if they go 100% there is a risk there.

The idea that riders could just take fewer risks if they were uncomfortable with the risks they were being asked to take never occurred to him.

The criticism apparently also extended to people who agreed with the general principle of slowing riders down before the Trouée but did not feel that the 'chicane' solution would successfully do this, by installing an artificial pinch point so close to a key moment in the race that it would make the fight to be at the front at the chicane just as crucial and simply move the crashes further down the road rather than prevent them.

It seems that there is a subset among the riders that want to be able to think about the sport like it's PCM and not have to worry about anything other than effort management and tactics, and everything else is the race organisers' responsibility, but they have to react to other riders, to weather, to road conditions, too. The teams keep proposing - over and over again - a business model that diverts resource away from race organisers by putting more money in their own pocket, but at the same time they're making ever increasing demands on the resources of race organisers because they are unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions. Riders are also free to do recon or to consult people with the local knowledge - such as, say, Pello Bilbao whose opinions seem to be being dismissed because he acknowledges the riders contributed to the incident - if they want to.

I agree that you can't put all the blame on the organizers. It might be a joined effort, but for the organizer it's easier to do because they can take the emotions out of it, while a rider in action can't. Not saying that a rider can't be to blame, just saying that more effort can be made to make riders aware of dangerous situations, and then the riders can take proper action while racing.

 

[Billie]

It's good to see that the riders are starting to realise that their behaviour is the main problem. Let's hope we start to see this change in mindset converted in their behaviour on the road.

It's them who take the risks but it's also on them to control how much risk they take. The bikes are A LOT faster than 10 years ago. They have to adapt and take this into account.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

My bad, I missed the word rarely.

Indeed the risks were much higher because the environment was more dangerous. So we currently have an environment were the riders feel quite safe in, which pushes them to take more risks, because the chance of it going very wrong, is lower. I'm saying to alert the riders that we are moving into a more dangerous territory, just like a gravel road is very dangerous which they then noticed themselves.

So it's race organisers' fault that riders are getting complacent and causing accidents?

Look, where the organisers' negligence or fault causes an incident, like the cones on poles several years ago, then we can blame them. When the organisers' negligence is not responsible for an incident, but exacerbates it, like the Groenewegen/Jakobsen crash in Poland, then we can hold them into account for their bit.

Here, the extent of the organisers' culpability is not doing something like stuffing that culvert with hay bales.

In your example above about the gravel road being more dangerous by default, you credit the riders with enough intelligence to understand risk and make their own decisions about how much risk they are willing to take. Why do you then feel that they no longer have the capacity to understand risk and make their own decisions when the road is paved?

 

[Berniece]

So it's race organisers' fault that riders are getting complacent and causing accidents?

In your example above about the gravel road being more dangerous by default, you credit the riders with enough intelligence to understand risk and make their own decisions about how much risk they are willing to take. Why do you then feel that they no longer have the capacity to understand risk and make their own decisions when the road is paved?

That's not what I'm saying at all.

Because in most cases when the road is paved, it isn't as dangerous as it was now. Most roads don't have tree roots underneath pushing the road up. When this is the case you put a sign there that it's a dangerous area.

Just like most roads don't have obstacles in the middle of the road, but when this is the case we put a person with a flag and a whistle there to make the riders aware of it.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

That's not what I'm saying at all.

Because in most cases when the road is paved, it isn't as dangerous as it was now. Most roads don't have tree roots underneath pushing the road up. When this is the case you put a sign there that it's a dangerous area.

Just like most roads don't have obstacles in the middle of the road, but when this is the case we put a person with a flag and a whistle there to make the riders aware of it.

If you look at the replay you will see a yellow barrier with sharp corner signage in the corner which looks organiser-installed.

 

[Berniece]

@Libertine Seguros I can't quote your message since it's just quoted messages. So I'll tag you here.

That yellow barrier says it's a corner. Says nothing about slowing down because the road, the tarmac, is dangerous. So as a rider you see that yellow sign, you think alright I have to slow a bit down because the corner is quite sharp. And then suddenly your wheel moves underneath you because of bumps.

That barrier doesn't indicate or is interpreted as the tarmac is dangerous.

 

[Bolder]

the 'ideal' prep won't be there, that's for sure. Remember when some (including me) said Remco should just go to the Tour last year, arguing that Remco's excuse of not having the ideal prep is maybe something he will never get, so he should better go?

I said many times Remco should have done the Tour in 2023. But, he never listens to me!

It's good to see that the riders are starting to realise that their behaviour is the main problem. Let's hope we start to see this change in mindset converted in their behaviour on the road.

It's them who take the risks but it's also on them to control how much risk they take. The bikes are A LOT faster than 10 years ago. They have to adapt and take this into account.

Agreed, there has to be some collective responsibility, but my view is that the organizers should have padded those obstacles, at the very least.

I don't see how you enforce limiting risk-taking, though -- there's always going to be a Mohoric or Pidcock who lets it all hang out. I guess you could put a speed limit on certain road sections, but that's kinda counter to the spirit of bike racing.

As for tech, my carbon/disc bike on 28 mm tires lets me descend probably 33 percent faster than my old steel/rim brake bike on 23s, and certainly lets me go deeper into the corners. And that's just on dry tarmac. I definitely feel a lot safer, so if I hit a tree root heave I'm going to be going a lot faster and probably get hurt worse...

 

[Libertine Seguros]

@Libertine Seguros I can't quote your message since it's just quoted messages. So I'll tag you here.

That yellow barrier says it's a corner. Says nothing about slowing down because the road, the tarmac, is dangerous. So as a rider you see that yellow sign, you think alright I have to slow a bit down because the corner is quite sharp. And then suddenly your wheel moves underneath you because of bumps.

That barrier doesn't indicate or is interpreted as the tarmac is dangerous.

But if they heed the warning sign the riders should be going slower and be better equipped to deal with the risks they face, no? Road users exercise their ability to manage risk every time they use roads.

Or are you advocating for a large and complex language of signs warning of road conditions that riders can look at as they travel? If so... don't roads already have those?

 

[RedheadDane]

Or are you advocating for a large and complex language of signs warning of road conditions that riders can look at as they travel? If so... don't roads already have those?

I suppose a lot of road signage is targetted for cars.
For someone in a car, the road surface being slightly uneven because of roots might not be that big a problem...

 

[Berniece]

But if they heed the warning sign the riders should be going slower and be better equipped to deal with the risks they face, no? Road users exercise their ability to manage risk every time they use roads.

Or are you advocating for a large and complex language of signs warning of road conditions that riders can look at as they travel? If so... don't roads already have those?

I'm advocating for using a different sign at that location, because the currently used sign is interpreted as a sharp corner. Which the riders interpret correctly, but if the road is also not up to standards of normal roads, you aren't made aware of this.

We already have multiple different types of signs for riders, so maybe there's already one that says the road itself is dangerous.

 

[Bolder]

I'm advocating for using a different sign at that location, because the currently used sign is interpreted as a sharp corner. Which the riders interpret correctly, but if the road is also not up to standards of normal roads, you aren't made aware of this.

We already have multiple different types of signs for riders, so maybe there's already one that says the road itself is dangerous.

A big, temporary bright orange sign with "dangerous curve " and/or "uneven surface" posted 200 meters ahead would be an improvement!