Crashes, what can be done?

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Lots of finger pointing going on in the press, which is typical. I can't argue for how much responsibility any particular element of an event such as the TDF should hold but logically in order for something the size of the TDF to work and remain as accessible to the public as it is (which is a miracle in itself) everyone must take some responsibility for safety. Maybe a 'code of conduct' needs to be written up that everyone can agree to? For example, there is already the ability to change stages based on poor conditions relating to the safety of the riders. So why couldn't that apply to a stage such as yesterday if the majority of riders felt that the parcour combined with number of riders and early stage made for 'poor conditions' they could have a say about what might help and for the organizers to listen? It doesn't have to be blanket changes like the 10km line for GC riders (which I think is silly btw) but why not allow for some flexibility at times if strong arguments can be made?
 
People keep mentioning F1/ motor racing; when there is a multiple car pile up, they don't usually carry on racing; they'll either bring out a Red flag to stop the race - or there will be a double yellow/full course caution behind the safety car.
However, in cycling this very rarely happens - despite bodies/bikes all over the road like a battlefield. This is something I'd like to see change - they need to be more pro-active on this. Either stop the race, or carry on at a reduced speed to allow the race to re-organise, safely.
They could, but with road closures and a timetable to keep to it gets tricky. Most motor racing is on a circuit, purpose built or other-wise, that is completely shut for the duration of the event. Is it every time a rider crashes? a certain number of riders crashing? Riders in particular positions on the road that crash or positions in the GC? Really comparisons to motor racing will never work, because they're very different events.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
I think taking GC at 3km/5km to go if the peloton is together is a sensible suggestion. I don't like the idea of everyone sitting up completely and rolling in minutes down though. but getting the GC guys less involved on the sprint stages might help.
Even at 1km to go we had Kwiato and Carapaz 2nd and 3rd wheel - there needs to be some incentive for these guys to get out of the way... :)
 
This isn't really the point is it? The current rules force them to congest the roads at some of the most dangerous parts of a flat stage because they have to be there to benefit from the rule. The idea is to remove them from these parts of the race so that 1) there is more space and 2) crashes that may happen do not have a huge effect on the overall GC classification.
Exactly.

The problem with the current 3K rule is, that it only applies to crashes and technical issues.

That means the GC boys still want to be on the front, for the run-in to the finish, because they fear gaps being created - and them losing time.

If those gaps no longer mattered, for the final part of a bunch sprint stage, there would be far fewer teams - and riders - fighting over the same real estate, thus making it less dangerous for everyone.

And I'd argue the results would be pretty much the same, both for sprinters and GC riders, so from a sporting perspective it doesn't compromise the race in any way.
 
Yes sprinters do it all the time, I think GC riders should as well on sprint stages. They are only in the front so not to lose time, which the sprinters dont care about. Ineos don't want to sprint and go 60kmh in the last few kilometers with all the risks, but they are forced to.
 
The riders love to blame everybody: the route, the UCI, the organisers but they take very little blame themselves.

They ride like absolute nuts and then they complain when there are huge crashes.

Compare how the peloton behaves with how it behaved 15 years ago.
 
Reactions: roundabout
Yes sprinters do it all the time, I think GC riders should as well on sprint stages. They are only in the front so not to lose time, which the sprinters dont care about. Ineos don't want to sprint and go 60kmh in the last few kilometers with all the risks, but they are forced to.
Most of the peloton does that on mountain stages ;)
I should clarify - I don't like the idea of GC guys rolling in minutes down to be given s.t. (outside of current 3km rule with crashes/issues etc).
Both the examples above riders are rightly given the time they cross the line.
 
I should clarify - I don't like the idea of GC guys rolling in minutes down to be given s.t. (outside of current 3km rule with crashes/issues etc).
Both the examples above riders are rightly given the time they cross the line.
Why?

I mean, why is it significant, that GC riders fight to stay in front, in the last 10K of a bunch sprint stage?

When we KNOW it creates dangers, due to too many riders wanting the same real estate - and it has zero actual sporting significance for those riding GC - why are we forcing them to do it?
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
It'll be impossible to remove crashes completely and I don't think sprinters going down at the very end is most people's biggest issue, although I don't think anyone wants riders to get injured. Ewan went down through loss of control/touch of wheels/whatever that had nothing to do with the route and that's always going to be a risk. Unless they decide to ban people they can determine caused a crash, whether it's judged an accident or not, riders will push the limits to try and win.

The biggest problem most people seem to have with crashes on these types of stages is affects the GC race, because GC riders are forced to mix it at the front of the peloton with the sprint trains, or risk losing time by getting stuck behind a crash, gaps happening at the finish etc. The 3km rule is supposed to help here, and it does, but it only applies if there is a crash, so the GC riders still have to be there in the mix. This means that crashes are more likely. Taking GC times earlier means that GC riders, and their domestiques, can drift back and let the sprinters and their trains get on with it. There will still be crashes, but they would have a much smaller impact on the race overall and hopefully they'd be reduced as there would be more space on the road. I don't think it'd have much of an effect on the overall racing. People who want to go for yellow can still go for yellow. The break may actually work together more to hit that 10km mark as far ahead of the peloton as they can and you can still give bonus seconds on the sprint line to separate the winner and determine jersey wearers. I honestly think that the impact would be overwhelmingly positive.

I suppose the other option is to keep cutting team sizes. 5-6 riders per team is going to cut the number of riders on the road significantly.
I can’t support shrinking teams. It wasn’t all that long ago that we had 10 rider teams.

Make the three km rule universal on all classified sprint stages. GC times taken at 3-5 km or whatever and shut it down.
 
Organizers have to take into account that riders are human beings and that there will be such errors.
Not every crash can be avoided. It's about reducing the number. Give less opportunities for such small mistakes to become game-changing.
ø

I actually agree. And there HAVE been parts of the route planning that look questionable. It's just that, if you look at the reactions to what the UCI president has said, people seem to be extremely one-sided and subjective. The number of crashes is always a function of the course and the way it is ridden.
 
Reactions: BlueRoads
In fact I would be very surprised if a stage like yesterday didn't have a lot more media exposure than your typical TdF sprint stage.
Of course, but saying crashes changes the economic dynamics of the sport, is a far cry from that.

I would be greatly surprised, if any broadcaster factored "crashes" into their economic model, when deciding if it is worth it to broadcast the Tour.

Same goes for sponsors of teams and races.
 
The riders love to blame everybody: the route, the UCI, the organisers but they take very little blame themselves.

They ride like absolute nuts and then they complain when there are huge crashes.

Compare how the peloton behaves with how it behaved 15 years ago.
I love these responses. If I was a pro cyclist, I would simply ride safely and not crash.
View: https://twitter.com/faustocoppi60/status/1409839746482950144

Same again, it's everywhere. Such insight, wow.
 
Of course, but saying crashes changes the economic dynamics of the sport, is a far cry from that.

I would be greatly surprised, if any broadcaster factored "crashes" into their economic model, when deciding if it is worth it to broadcast the Tour.

Same goes for sponsors of teams and races.
It also doesn't factor in people not watching later stages because riders they wanted to see aren't in the race anymore. I don't know what impact this has, but I would guess in certin demographics it could be quite large.
 
They knew it was dangerous and asked for the neutralization. After being ignored by ASO they should have arranged between each other to let the sprinters do their thing and just chill on the last 8-10km. Instead they decided to ride like crazy.

If they can organize each other to do this "strike" today, they can organize each other to not be in front when it's not necessary. GC teams "needing" to be at the front is what increases the risk, so just don't be there. And if you lose a few seconds to the sprinter teams... who cares?
 
They knew it was dangerous and asked for the neutralization. After being ignored by ASO they should have arranged between each other to let the sprinters do their thing and just chill on the last 8-10km. Instead they decided to ride like crazy.

If they can organize each other to do this "strike" today, they can organize each other to not be in front when it's not necessary. GC teams "needing" to be at the front is what increases the risk, so just don't be there. And if you lose a few seconds to the sprinter teams... who cares?
Asking people not to try and exploit an advantage within the rules is probably a tough sell.

They raised the issue on the morning of the race. I think they should have done what was asked, but you can see the irritation that might arise when a route that has been known about for the better part of a year and has likely been examined to the nth degree is only complained about as a race is meant to start. I think the riders have a responsibility to organise themselves better and communicate these things with some advanced warning. It's harder to ignore complaints ahead of time, especially as it might be viewed that some people are complaining for cynical reasons (see the recent issues in the Giro for example).
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Armchair cyclist Professional Road Racing 46
Similar threads
Groenewegen crash ban

ASK THE COMMUNITY