Crashes, what can be done?

[roundabout]

Road surface issues or problems of that kind are usually noted in the roadbook route instructions.

teams are also perfectly capable of recon of their own on a route.

Maybe teams get their own roadbook, but there is nothing about any issues with road surface/dangerous descents in the roadbook on the race website.

Link to the roadbook here

Error

asociacionoce-my.sharepoint.com

 

[Ricco']

Regarding informing the spectator about the state of a fallen rider, MotoGP has some kind of telemetry that quickly puts on screen which rider has crashed.

Couldn't that also be put on screen? Seriously, we are well in the middle of the 21st century with IA taking over and we still can't have an integrated solution with all the riders tagged and with precise GPS location.

Also, all riders have radios with them, so they can feedback back to headquarters if they are alright, so that can information can be put on screen. Like "Crash, bib no. 139 - Rider OK!"

I honestly wouldn't mind if team radio was banned and instead replaced by a race control (like in motorsports), that would constantly be feedbacking information to the riders, that could also report back to them. Let the tactics and the multiple scenarios be discussed on the hotel or when receiving bidons.

 

[awavey]

Maybe teams get their own roadbook, but there is nothing about any issues with road surface/dangerous descents in the roadbook on the race website.

Link to the roadbook here

Error

asociacionoce-my.sharepoint.com

That's where the word "usually" comes in

 

[search]

Maybe teams get their own roadbook, but there is nothing about any issues with road surface/dangerous descents in the roadbook on the race website.

Link to the roadbook here

Error

asociacionoce-my.sharepoint.com

often this kind of stuff is in the daily communiques. This one for Catalunya for example has almost 10 pages of it in the end

COMUNICAT – Google Drive

drive.google.com

No idea if this is the case for Itzulia as well, though.

 

[Extinction]

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.

That was an off-camber curve, however, which means if you take it too wide inertia and gravity make it impossible to correct the trajectory. It is the most insidious type of curve, because seemingly straightforward. Moreover, at the point at which an unfortanate rider hurls off course, there is a concrete culvert and some boulders (none of which were taken into consideration as added dangers, given that nothing was done to create some sort of buffer zone). Even after the break arrived there and a rider had difficulty in negotiating that curve, nothing was done to warn the peloton of the impending danger. So I can't understand why you insist the organization had no responsability in the unraveling of events?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

That was an off-camber curve, however, which means if you take it too wide inertia and gravity make it impossible to correct the trajectory. It is the most insidious type of curve, because seemingly straightforward. Moreover, at the point at which an unfortanate rider hurls off course, there is a concrete culvert and some boulders (none of which were taken into consideration as added dangers, given that nothing was done to create some sort of buffer zone). Even after the break arrived there and a rider had difficulty in negotiating that curve, nothing was done to warn the peloton of the impending danger. So I can't understand why you insist the organization had no responsability in the unraveling of events?

I didn't insist they had no responsibility for the outcome, just that they had no responsibility for the crash occurring. Not e.g. using hay bales or pads to protect from the culvert and boulders is on the organisers. Not designing a parcours that was selective enough such that everybody still has something to protect is on the organisers. Riders going too fast for the roads and making mistakes or not giving themselves enough reaction time to be able to respond to situations developing in front of them is on the riders. Riders soft-pedalling the climb so that the bunch coming down the descent that they're taking too fast is larger than anticipated is on the riders.

 

[roundabout]

That's where the word "usually" comes in

Yes, and without explicit requirements for roadbooks it will be a crapshoot whether the roadbook means that it's a safe descent or the organizers did not really bother to look in detail without checking out the routes in person.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Local knowledge and recon rides are indeed important, but it's the area of the organizer. They drew out the route. It's easier if the organizer checks these things and warns the riders on the road, than that every team separately needs to do a recon of every possible route and warn their riders.

Also how could riders in the front know that Bilbao was staying a bit back to take precautions? Should they all look back more? Or for each route they must first determine who knows the are well, and then make sure to keep your eyes on them? Those are all ridiculous things of course, when it's just easier that the people that drew out the route, who went over the road, could just check if it's dangerous, and then notify the teams, riders, etc of this.

OK, so what about Sobrero saying it wasn't anything out of the ordinary and could have happened on any road? This wasn't an unusually dangerous or unacceptable descent, especially not for this particular race which is in a part of the world where... well, just look at a topographical map. It was a two-way road in good weather conditions, the organisers had signposted to warn of the corner to come, and there were no obstacles on the road. It was just a stretch that is prone to becoming a bit bumpy. The issue was more the lack of safe run-off if an incident occurred at that particular corner.

You act as though it is far too onerous to ask riders to consult locals or undertake reconnaissance rides, but these have been part of the cyclist's arsenal as long as cycling has been a sport. Why is it suddenly no longer acceptable to expect teams to do research, at such a time when that research is easier to do than ever?

As I say, there is a certain section of the riders who want to reduce their agency to effort management and make it a pure physiological competition, but reacting to conditions on the road is part of the sport.

 

[roundabout]

I think the technical guides can be finalized as late as 30 days before the race start so sometimes it may just not be practicable to do recons.

Edit: and that's in addition to perhaps budgetary considerations

 

[Nick2413]

Does anyone know how much of the budget goes into safety features? The types of solutions being suggested would seemingly cost 6-7 figures per race when implemented in every potentially dangerous area. Is there remotely close to enough money for that in cycling?

 

[EliseeReclus]

Edit: and that's in addition to perhaps budgetary considerations

I do find this a slightly frustrating argument, it feels like lots of the discourse between teams, riders, organisers and the UCI is basically over who ends up paying for things and it seems like no party really wants to, despite some of them having the means to.

For instance, the cost of an extra member of staff or two to do a race recon of certain hazardous elements of big races is what, probably 50,000 euros per staff-member per year in salary depending on the country they're based in? When salaries for riders are getting up there in the millions for really big riders is this really an issue of budgeting or is it whether these people are employed and paid by the UCI, CPA, Trade Team or Race Organiser?

 

[Extinction]

I didn't insist they had no responsibility for the outcome, just that they had no responsibility for the crash occurring. Not e.g. using hay bales or pads to protect from the culvert and boulders is on the organisers. Not designing a parcours that was selective enough such that everybody still has something to protect is on the organisers. Riders going too fast for the roads and making mistakes or not giving themselves enough reaction time to be able to respond to situations developing in front of them is on the riders. Riders soft-pedalling the climb so that the bunch coming down the descent that they're taking too fast is larger than anticipated is on the riders.

I understand now. That's fair analysis and I agree with an exception. I still think, given a race is an unfolding dynamic, when a rider from the break displayed difficulty in negotiating the curve, something should have been done to prepare the peloton (approaching in much greater number) to beware (!), also because with the concrete culvert and those boulders it was evident that anyone who hits one of those at speed might not get up. This I expect of a professional race organization. At the same time, the way the riders are racing these days, some soul searching should be done on their part too. Too much performance of rider and machine, too much pressure. What's the point if entire seasons go up in smoke? Or someone dies? What sponsor will want to invest heavily in a sport in which the likelyhood of serious injury has increased exponentially? I don't know the solution, if there is one, but the future of the sport may depend on it.

 

[roundabout]

I do find this a slightly frustrating argument, it feels like lots of the discourse between teams, riders, organisers and the UCI is basically over who ends up paying for things and it seems like no party really wants to, despite some of them having the means to.

For instance, the cost of an extra member of staff or two to do a race recon of certain hazardous elements of big races is what, probably 50,000 euros per staff-member per year in salary depending on the country they're based in? When salaries for riders are getting up there in the millions for really big riders is this really an issue of budgeting or is it whether these people are employed and paid by the UCI, CPA, Trade Team or Race Organiser?

I think the organization are responsible for the safety of their routes per the rules and the routes are submitted to the UCI so that they can also have a look from their side.

Adding an extra (third?fourth?) layer from the teams seems perhaps unnecessary even if the possible costs may not be that high.

 

[saunaking]

why are GC contenders trying to win the race on a descent before the final climb? Cyclists need to change their attitude and approach to these races. 'You can't win the race at the first corner, but you can sure lose it.'

Simon Yates has his feet up, sipping some nice tea

 

[Berniece]

OK, so what about Sobrero saying it wasn't anything out of the ordinary and could have happened on any road? This wasn't an unusually dangerous or unacceptable descent, especially not for this particular race which is in a part of the world where... well, just look at a topographical map. It was a two-way road in good weather conditions, the organisers had signposted to warn of the corner to come, and there were no obstacles on the road. It was just a stretch that is prone to becoming a bit bumpy. The issue was more the lack of safe run-off if an incident occurred at that particular corner.

You act as though it is far too onerous to ask riders to consult locals or undertake reconnaissance rides, but these have been part of the cyclist's arsenal as long as cycling has been a sport. Why is it suddenly no longer acceptable to expect teams to do research, at such a time when that research is easier to do than ever?

As I say, there is a certain section of the riders who want to reduce their agency to effort management and make it a pure physiological competition, but reacting to conditions on the road is part of the sport.

What about other riders saying it was dangerous? Vervaeke said the corners itself wasn't dangerous, but the surroundings were.

I'm not saying a team can't do research. I'm saying the people organizing the race know the course the best, they are in the perfect position to share information with teams if something is dangerous, or put indicators, or safety mechanisms to not let happen what happened yesterday. Why does every team separately need to make all these checks if we could just trust the organizers? Let's create a new position in a team, another person to be paid, so that we can go over each rout every time OR let the organizer do it properly.

 

[ashhutch1997]

Maybe on flat, but the SL8 frame is almost 300 grams lighter than the Venge. When the gradients get more serious SL8 will destroy the Venge.

True, but I was more referring to speeds on decents. Also, you could do what I did, get an areo rim brake bike from 5+ years ago that's lighter and faster than today's bikes. Also, given how they've made the disc brake bikes lighter, the quality is much, much worse. Heck almost every crash has a bike snapped in half these days, you never used to see that!
These modern bikes are a scam and a rip off, I'm going on a rant here but that my opinion!

 

[ashhutch1997]

I'm sorry, given that Landa crashed out badly, the peleton and sports directors haven't learnt anything. It's time for the riders actions and instructions to be held accountable. Given a rider literally overshot the corner 2 minuets earlier, why weren't the sports directors warning the riders?
I think the Giro does a good job on dangerous decents, they will often have a motorbike infront of the riders with a red flag warning them to slow down, something like that could work to maybe prevent events like yesterday.
But ultimately, it was a racing incident, and crashes happen unfortunately and this one took out some of the world's top riders.
Ultimately, the riders are responsible for their riding and ARE accountable as well as sports directors.

 

[Izzyeviel]

What about other riders saying it was dangerous? Vervaeke said the corners itself wasn't dangerous, but the surroundings were.

I'm not saying a team can't do research. I'm saying the people organizing the race know the course the best, they are in the perfect position to share information with teams if something is dangerous, or put indicators, or safety mechanisms to not let happen what happened yesterday. Why does every team separately need to make all these checks if we could just trust the organizers? Let's create a new position in a team, another person to be paid, so that we can go over each rout every time OR let the organizer do it properly.

most corners & their surrounding's are dangerous when you're travelling over 40mph on a descent. You either put barriers up on the corners, or try to use some sort of signalling system and hope the riders react accordingly.

 

[Stasat]

True, but I was more referring to speeds on decents. Also, you could do what I did, get an areo rim brake bike from 5+ years ago that's lighter and faster than today's bikes. Also, given how they've made the disc brake bikes lighter, the quality is much, much worse. Heck almost every crash has a bike snapped in half these days, you never used to see that!
These modern bikes are a scam and a rip off, I'm going on a rant here but that my opinion!

I think the broken bikes are from moving the position of the brake, it's gone from the strongest part of the fork to the very bottom so under heavy breaking when you hit something it's much more likely to flex & break. There's also an argument that handling under heavy braking at speed is compromised by the fork flexing/vibrating due to the brake position IMO.

 

[Berniece]

most corners & their surrounding's are dangerous when you're travelling over 40mph on a descent. You either put barriers up on the corners, or try to use some sort of signalling system and hope the riders react accordingly.

Indeed, that's what I also think you should do. You can't do this for every corner of course, but it should be feasible to do this for very dangerous corners. If there are too many on your route, chose a different route.

 

[Netserk]

For instance if there's a race that has multiple crashes from what is deemed as dangerous course design - the UCI can demote the race's status or put it on a warning that it has to improve their safety.

If a particularly dangerous stretch of road has caused crashes it can be taken out of the race, have mandated safety measures to amend the course or have the stretch neutralised if it needs to be used.

What would it take to demote Paris-Roubaix?

 

[RedheadDane]

Here's a question:
While race organisers can't be expected to prevent every crash, how much of a responsibility to they have in mitigating the effect of eventual crashes?

Take the crash in the Basque country - again; that darn unprotected concrete ditch! - sure, it seems more and more than the riders did indeed have a major part of the blame for the actual crash. However, shouldn't the organisers have been able to see that there was a great risk of a crash happening, and, well... cushioned that ditch?

 

[Berniece]

What would it take to demote Paris-Roubaix?

So boring to just ask silly questions to derail any way of having a proper discussion

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Indeed, that's what I also think you should do. You can't do this for every corner of course, but it should be feasible to do this for very dangerous corners. If there are too many on your route, chose a different route.

But even the quote from Vervaeke you used up there suggested that the corner wasn't dangerous - it was the surroundings. In terms of, should the organisers have done something like put hay bales in to avoid riders colliding with the concrete culvert and the boulders? Then absolutely, we agree. What we disagree on is the total abrogation of responsibility from the riders because they can't be expected to assess or manage risk such that the organisers have to put an alert out that riding around corners too fast might carry an element of danger because the riders can't be expected to figure that out for themselves.

So boring to just ask silly questions to derail any way of having a proper discussion

It's called reductio ad absurdum. Paris-Roubaix is a race in which potentially dangerous course sections are not just tacitly accepted but fêted. The idea of taking cobbled sectors out of Paris-Roubaix would be - rightly - met with absolute howls of derision, but many of these are as dangerous as the corner on the Olaeta descent yesterday that sparked this discussion. We've seen a lot of riders get injured crashing on the cobbles, and no race gives better instruction of when a hazardous stretch is coming up than Paris-Roubaix, because they're literally what the race is known for and celebrated for.

 

[Nick2413]

It seems many of the people who are passionate about safety think there is an easy fix and the only reason we haven’t done it is because everyone is stuck in their ways. While there may indeed be some excessive reluctance to any form of change, it’s very short sighted to think anyone can fix safety in this sport with a magic wand.

Some of the suggested solutions are downright unrealistic, such as barricading and cushioning every potentially dangerous part of a route (where do you draw the line? Cycling doesn’t happen on F1 courses that can be padded in their entirety, and there’s nowhere near enough money in the sport to do so), or would completely destroy the quality of the racing (moto paced descents, speed limits, removing key sections of races, which ironically just creates more dangerous congestion). Then you have the calls for airbags and so on… maybe some day but we’re not there yet.

When you wade through it all, there’s very little that can be done to make any major difference at all. Changing rider and DS behavior is maybe the most promising concept. However, it has the same potential effect on reducing the quality of racing, is hard to “enforce,” and human nature shows riders will simply ride hard to follow whoever does decide to take risks, resulting in the current situation.

While many including myself don’t have too big of a problem with the current situation, society doesn’t seem to be in a position to accept that in today’s era, so we probably need to get ahead of this before the social media mob starts to do things like getting races canceled and effectively ruins the sport entirely. Plus, even if you ignore safety, it would still be nice to get more top riders to their key races.

Just spitballing but here is a crazy idea I may get hated for.

I personally don’t care what speed the sport is conducted at as long as everyone has a level playing field. I wouldn’t be opposed to trialing something like a minimum CDA or bike regulations that drop the average speed by 5kph or so. As long as everybody is affected equally, it shouldn’t change the quality or nature of racing in a major way. Riders who want to take risks could still do so, skill and talent could still play a huge role in descents and everywhere else, it would just drop the average speed the sport is conducted at, which seems irrelevant to me.

Obviously not all crashes happen at high speed, but a large portion of the worst ones have at least something to do with speed.

Maybe the physics wouldn’t work out right or it wouldn’t sell enough bikes to make the sport profitable, but I don’t think it would make the sport any less demanding or skill based. With it becoming a reality that some people actually want neutralized descents and worse, this could help avert those issues as well.