Crashes, what can be done?

[proffate]

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.

This take really makes no sense. There will always be points in a race where a team or rider wants to be near the front, cobbled classics in particular. The DDV crash was a result of one team trying to take advantage of a pinch point. Take the pinch points out of the race and you're left with Zwift.

I really have no idea how the itzulia crash fits into your thesis because no one was fighting for position. Some riders overcooked the corner and others made it round just fine. The only reason it was a big deal was the collective salary of those who went down. The actual injuries were very minor at the end of it. Roglic quit the race with nothing worse than a few scratches. I mean c'mon. Would a domestique be allowed to walk off the job like that?

In actuality, the fight to be at the front can make a race safer, because a strung out peloton zooming along at 55km/h is safer than a bunched up group overlapping wheels at 40km/h. I have no facts to prove assertion that but it's been my observation.

 

[Rob5091]

i think Bilbao's comments about the riders themselves who create the problems is worth thinking about. "Junior style" racing with turbo charged teams might be great for TV viewer numbers, but it obviously increases the risks.
I can n't help but to compare the race on at the same time in France with a more risky parcours but no crashes.

 

[saunaking]

This take really makes no sense. There will always be points in a race where a team or rider wants to be near the front, cobbled classics in particular. The DDV crash was a result of one team trying to take advantage of a pinch point. Take the pinch points out of the race and you're left with Zwift.

I really have no idea how the itzulia crash fits into your thesis because no one was fighting for position. Some riders overcooked the corner and others made it round just fine. The only reason it was a big deal was the collective salary of those who went down. The actual injuries were very minor at the end of it. Roglic quit the race with nothing worse than a few scratches. I mean c'mon. Would a domestique be allowed to walk off the job like that?

In actuality, the fight to be at the front can make a race safer, because a strung out peloton zooming along at 55km/h is safer than a bunched up group overlapping wheels at 40km/h. I have no facts to prove assertion that but it's been my observation.

Glad there are still sensible views on this. But you will get cancelled anyway.

It is a dangerous sport and as cruel as it sounds, *** happens.
Riders know this.
There will be another crash like this next week, next month or next year. Everybody knows this. Are cyclists gonna quit the sport with this
knowledge? Hey maybe someone will.
But the pros accept these risks.

The do-gooders will destroy the sport before they 'protect' anybody

 

[Oldermanish]

The problem then is that most of the DSes would then advise their riders... to get to the front so that they can choose their line into the now-perceived-as-dangerous corner and be in front of any potential pile-up. It's an unfortunate consequence of a pack sport, as the safest place is the front but because everybody knows that the most dangerous place to be is just behind the front where everybody is fighting for position and driving the speed up.

And even then, a rider makes a mistake and has an accident - or narrowly avoids one - that doesn't automatically mean "goddamn, major danger ahead - better alert DSes urgently" because a rider having an accident on their own could just as easily be a lapse of concentration, or just a poor line into the corner, carrying too much speed, etc. etc.. Markel Beloki is a neo-pro, they could perceive that he could just as easily have got over-eager in a break and made a mistake that the veterans of the bunch wouldn't.

My earlier Beloki reference was to Joseba Beloki's '03 crash that the broadcasters ran ad nauseum because and American rider went off road to avoid him and regain the field. Most American recounts of the situation were to praise the riding skills of the non-crasher.

Certainly minor shunts don't merit an alarm. That said; there are production directors monitoring every camera and having a UCI "safety guy" or some authority that can filter careless riding consequences from serious road hazards can warn of the risk. Not much good to tell the DS's their guy just crashed. They know that. Riders and fans alike wonder what could be done to prevent crashes and your point is that most occur from rider error in seemingly non-hazardous environment. This corner almost claimed the trailing rider in a small breakaway. It was a wildly dangerous outside corner and some authority could have made a peep, but there's no one home there. They now chart road furniture painstakingly and remove some in most races. Yellow and black chevron banners are posted for tight alpine corners. Those are relatively new and useful measures.

 

[Berniece]

It’s far too easy to put the blame on cyclists. Cyclists are the ones that actually need to race to win. That are put in a situation where they are paid a lot of money as long as they win. These are competitive people that will always push themselves further until it goes wrong. That's just normal human behaviour, because of the incentives connected to winning.

Therefor it's the task of the organizers, UCI, and other instances to make sure that the environment to compete in is safe. There is more than enough low hanging fruit that can be picked to improve the safety of riders, that wouldn't cost you crazy amounts of money. Yesterday's fall was a deliberate choice to ignore Safe Cycling, and put extra effort in the safety of cyclists. This could've been resolved by:

1. Indications that a dangerous corner is coming up by using LED lights
2. Maybe also put a safety barrier there

Nothing will happen after this because in cycling the people with the power to change anything are empty suits that only care about themselves, their position, and their power. More riders will get injured, and probably some will die, that's the sport apparently.

 

[Netserk]

It's far too easy to put the blame on the organisers.

Riders have agency. Own it.

 

[Berniece]

It's far too easy to put the blame on the organisers.

Riders have agency. Own it.

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

 

[Volderke]

I don't want to pinpoint this crash down to one thing (there is no easy reason and no easy solution), but the crash and Bilbao's interview got me thinking:

The big guys race less and less: they are (ironically) afraid of crashing and only come to a race to win / compete. They have learned how to train on a mountain for 3 weeks in order to be race-ready.

My issue with this: they race less, have less and less time getting used to bike handling / racing every season, and the races they ride, they always have to push / win / ride like hell in order to be first at the crucial point in the race because the fewer races they race, the more pressure to win what they have left to race.
It almost seems like they strive for the maximum number of UCI points per kilometer raced.

Just suppose they did prep races / smaller stage races as prep. Not to win. They wouldn't push in stages like this, a Burgos rider would duly win the day, and in the end, they would still end up in the top 3 / top 5 of GC. Same for e.g. WvA trying to win DDV. One has to ask why he (and other big gun riders) fully commit to winning that one. Just test the legs, attack wherever but not by taking all the risks, and what you try to do in DDV, do it in RVV. If you crash there, at least you crash in the biggest race of your season so that is worth it. It is never worth it taking risks for a freaking DDV or a stupid Itzulia stage.

 

[RedheadDane]

It's far too easy to put the blame on the organisers.

Riders have agency. Own it.

In this particular case, not doing anything to cushion that concrete ditch was 100% on the organisers.

 

[Tour de Berghem]

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.

 

[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.