Crashes, what can be done?

[Izzyeviel]

It's an endurance sport, though. If you race at Le Mans like it's Touring Cars with a 30 minute paint-swapping battle and foot firm to the floor throughout, you'll break the car before you get to the end.

I actually think that with the increase in technology and speeds, we might be better served making races longer to make them safer, because if riders need to take more care to manage their efforts rather than going 100% all out to drill it all the time, they'll use things like these descents as recovery time, because recovery time will be more important, and so they'd race those sections less aggressively organically.

Well at Le Mans now, reliability is no longer a thing. they drive like they stole it from the first corner to the last. Its insane & its glorious & you all should watch it. (It's live on eurosport next week)

But yes, I suspect you're onto something. It reminds me of pack racing on American ovals. You have a lot of cars driven by drivers with similar ability & the same horsepower.. they're all bunched up, some idiot gets it wrong, we have a big one & someone goes to victory lane, someone goes to hospital.

Its like that in pro-cycling. Everyone, even the kids can do a 300k 7 hour race easily. Which means at the end of the race when it starts getting faster & more hectic, theres more riders in a big bunch. Which upon reaching a treacherous part of the course results in disaster. The days of long races are gone, so that leaves us with 'how do we make the last 100k harder?'

 

[Savant12]

"That's bike racing, no?" - Roglic impression.

Sometimes in a race, sh*t happens and in this race it seems to be fresh tarmac made slick by rain that cause this incident; nothing to do with how the riders were riding.

 

[Unchained]

Nina Dobrev reveals 'surgery was a success' after serious e-bike crash

Nina Dobrev looked as if she was on the road to recovery when she revealed that her surgery to repair damage from a devastating bike crash was a 'success.'

www.dailymail.co.uk

Dangerous all over!!

 

[CyclistAbi]

Stage 5 of the Dauphiné is a good example on where protocols in regards to barriers, road surface ... would likely not detect anything peculiar and additional safety measures would hence not take place. Considering it happened through and through the peloton and in at least two separate incidents, this hence can't be riders fault in terms of dangerous riding or fighting for positions at the front of the peloton. One does have to ask a question, on what happens on that section of the rode in regards to the regular traffic, is it that dangerous?

All in all unavoidable crash(es) occurred. What failed and needs to improve in the future is a "fail-safe measures" were missing. In this case in terms of better apparel, this area was neglected in the past and this needs to change ASAP. I am sure that the number of injuries involved would be dramatically less for each decade invested in improvements in this area. Currently it's 0, beyond helmet.

Additional measures that could be explored and implemented in the future are "safety car". That is in front of the peloton there would be a dedicated vehicle that measures the elements and alerts the riders of potential danger. In this case for example riders would get a warning displayed on their computer, lets say in terms of a scale from 1 to 10. On stage 5 hence the number would increase to lets say a number in between 8 and 10 (slippery surface) and riders would be able to adjust their riding if they would see it fit. That is as this is racing one couldn't simply mandate to the riders to ride that section at some maximum allowed speed. The choice would still need to be made by rider(s).

Now this is not some sci-fi. All big automotive and IT companies are heavily invested in this area, autonomous driving, hence i am sure that most of them would be prepared to provide such vehicle in terms of some sponsorship deal with UCI or if UCI would try to dodge the responsibility again, an organiser such as ASO or RCS. And i am with Plugge on this one, that is F1 and cycling are not that different. In both sports safety can be improved if parties involved do actually give a damn about improving it. In F1 they do in cycling not so much ATM.

 

[CyclistAbi]

Just read about Buchmann at Tour de Suisse , another collarbone and hip. This is getting stupid.

 

[QueenStagiaire]

Just read about Buchmann at Tour de Suisse , another collarbone and hip. This is getting stupid.

Clearly we need hip airbags.

 

[11-34]

My proposal would be to "nerf" the wheels on the bikes. The rolling resistance of the worst wheel on bicyclerollingresistance is 25W vs 6W of the best. Thats fairly significant already. Now make the rolling resistance even worse, by requiring some profiles in the tires or some such. Then disallow aero "deep dish" wheels for more watt loss. Also, if you have ridden them, you know, they certainly don't make your ride safer.

Nerfing the wheels by 50W or more should appreciably slow down the average speed of the race, which in turn will make the average crash happen at slower speed, which should statistically result in less bone breakage. All these changes won't take away from viewer enjoyment IMO.

 

[CyclistAbi]

So now it's Nairo with a broken hand.

P.S. Has UCI already issued a statement, on whose fault it was?

 

[RedheadDane]

So now it's Nairo with a broken hand.

P.S. Has UCI already issued a statement, on whose fault it was?

You seem to think all broken bones are serious injuries that need some sort of investigation. Sometimes, people just... break bones.

 

[AmRacer]

You seem to think all broken bones are serious injuries that need some sort of investigation. Sometimes, people just... break bones.

Maybe @CyclistAbi was sarcastic.

 

[CyclistAbi]

You seem to think all broken bones are serious injuries that need some sort of investigation. Sometimes, people just... break bones.

I see. Well, no, that is not enough. As a cycling fan you obviously can have such opinion and based on my perception, you are not alone in perceiving riders safety in such way, neglecting it or finding it unimportant. Riders, race organizers and governing bodies. For them obviously such stance on riders safety is not acceptable any more. That is currently riders are the ones that started demanding progress and took responsibility in regards to improving riders safety into their own hands. The pressure from riders will force organizers and especially governing bodies to take riders safety seriously. With time i feel that people in power will either take this responsibility or won't get elected to such positions any more. The role of fans will likely be, riders will piss them off and that will serve as additional leverage to apply pressure. I don't believe fans in general will start to apply more pressure by themself. If that would to happen it already would, in the past 100 years or so.

 

[CyclistAbi]

Maybe @CyclistAbi was sarcastic.

Current state of things and addressing them, in regards to riders safety in pro peloton, that is on such low level, that one can't be sarcastic about it any more. It's like we used to have jokes about politicians, now, on the other hand, they do such good job themself that it's impossible to beat them at their own game. Generations of comedians out of their jobs as a result, or i guess they all went into politics.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Maybe @CyclistAbi was sarcastic.

A few months ago, on a group ride, one of my friends stopped suddenly at the end of a section due to uncertainty as to which direction to go at a fork in the road. We were going slowly as it was an uphill drag. I was following too close to react in time, touched wheels and I fell off. Instinctively I put my arm out to break my fall. I was not hurt, but it's precisely how many innocuous incidents happen in the pro péloton (which obviously can impact a lot more riders as they travel as a pack, and also will be occurring at a much higher speed than a hobbyist like myself, increasing the force of the blow and thereby the likelihood of injury), and it's also how many collarbones break, because it's a point of weakness when using an arm to break a fall.

In CyclistAbi's world, had that happened in a race, any injuries I sustained would have been due to sheer reprehensible negligence by the race organisers and the UCI in not providing me with an airbag to protect against a direct blow to the collarbone (even though the direct blow was to my forearm and elbow, not the collarbone), providing catch netting or fencing on this totally innocuous stretch of road, or signposting that my friend was about to slow suddenly.

 

[CyclistAbi]

@Libertine Seguros

Should amateur/pro cyclists remove the helmet then too? And if not, as i assume that will be your answer, should pro cyclists and their teams take the initiative and start bringing more protective apparel in the peloton themself? As in your opinion the responsibility is solely on cyclists, then surely its up to cyclists and their teams to make such move and to better protect themself and prevent unnecessary injuries. And when all this starts happening do you reckon for UCI to back them or try to ban such apparel?

Plus a bonus question. Will you change your mind, once the data becomes clear, that is number of collarbone injuries can be substantially reduced in pro peloton with better apparel. Will you use such apparel, considering your bike handling skills might be even worse compared to Rogla. Pun intended.

 

[Nick2413]

should pro cyclists and their teams take the initiative and start bringing more protective apparel in the peloton themself? As in your opinion the responsibility is solely on cyclists, then surely its up to cyclists and their teams to make such move and to better protect themself and prevent unnecessary injuries.

You’re assuming these things are all imperatives. They may be for you, but that doesn’t mean they are for everyone.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

@Libertine Seguros

Should amateur/pro cyclists remove the helmet then too? And if not, as i assume that will be your answer, should pro cyclists and their teams take the initiative and start bringing more protective apparel in the peloton themself? As in your opinion the responsibility is solely on cyclists, then surely its up to cyclists and their teams to make such move and to better protect themself and prevent unnecessary injuries. And when all this starts happening do you reckon for UCI to back them or try to ban such apparel?

Plus a bonus question. Will you change your mind, once the data becomes clear, that is number of collarbone injuries can be substantially reduced in pro peloton with better apparel. Will you use such apparel, considering your bike handling skills might be even worse compared to Rogla. Pun intended.

It's not that in my opinion the responsibility is solely on the cyclists.

It's that you are chasing an impossible dream of a completely injury-free cycling, while simultaneously dismissing - repeatedly - one of the main causes of crashes, which is entirely innocent and innocuous mistakes made by the péloton that no amount of action by the UCI could ever prevent. Most of those crashes are relatively minor compared to sprint pile-ups or things like the Itzulia crash, but injuries still occur. You seem to want to keep riding as hectic and reckless as it is now, but reduce consequence for such riding. I think reducing the number of violent crashes caused by rider recklessness is a better way to combat injuries in the sport.

I would anticipate the UCI will back such apparel once it exists and is practical for use in the péloton. They're not the callous monsters out for blood and the snapping of bones that you perceive them to be, sabotaging the teams and riders' hopes and dreams of safety at every turn. Unfortunately for you, actually the teams and kit manufacturers appear to be more interested in designing apparel around going faster, thus increasing the risk of injury in the case of an accident.

To improve safety in the sport, improved apparel would cost money, time and investment. Changes to rules around course design would require time to negotiate and implement. Changes to barriering and safety equipment would cost time, money and investment. Changes to reckless rider behaviour would cost absolutely nothing bar some egos taking a bit of a dent.

 

[RedheadDane]

I see. Well, no, that is not enough. As a cycling fan you obviously can have such opinion and based on my perception, you are not alone in perceiving riders safety in such way, neglecting it or finding it unimportant.

You want broken bones to be completely eliminated from the world of cycling, even though they - obviously - haven't been eliminated from life in general?
Please don't think that because I don't think broken bones are of the utmost important, means that I don't care about rider safety, I just think the focus should be on more serious injuries.

Should amateur/pro cyclists remove the helmet then too? And if not, as i assume that will be your answer, should pro cyclists and their teams take the initiative and start bringing more protective apparel in the peloton themself?

The thing is... a helmet protects a rather important body part...

 

[Oldermanish]

You want broken bones to be completely eliminated from the world of cycling, even though they - obviously - haven't been eliminated from life in general?
Please don't think that because I don't think broken bones are of the utmost important, means that I don't care about rider safety, I just think the focus should be on more serious injuries.



The thing is... a helmet protects a rather important body part...

Probably the one thing that allows a crash survivor to consider the tactics that got him the gauze-wrap phase of his riding kit.
I've raced against guys in crits that wore some light moto-cross protection for knees and hands. Those measures made them only more aggressive, reckless and completely stupid in their disregard for other riders.

They also don't prevent broken bones unless you're wearing full chest and shoulder protection; then you're off the back, overheated and likely out of the risk zone of injury except passing out from heat stroke.

 

[Froome]

@CyclistAbi the majority of the crashes is responsability of the riders, not UCI.

Kelderman had a stupid crash today in a climb because of Del toro, certainly not UCI fault.

 

[CyclistAbi]

@Libertine Seguros

I never argued that all injuries can be prevented, drastic reduction of injuries on the other hand can be expected with introduction of such technology in pro peloton. I don't feel that the money is problem here, due to manufacturers of such apparel making *** loads of money, once such apparel hits pro peloton and the numbers of its effectiveness get out. On top of that teams are becoming rather rich lately. So money can't really be an excuse any more. UCI doesn't have to do all that much either, what they need to do is to say on this date and on this race usage of such technology will be mandatory or you won't be able to participate.

@RedheadDane

Riders are getting seriously injured, like all the time.

@Froome

It's not important, to me, on whose fault it was. What is important is for injuries to occur less often. Here of course cycling governing bodies are responsible in making that happen, not riders.

Mezgec after today's crash, on where he got up and lead-out Groenewegen for the win. Bottom line safety apparel does work. There is no reason to not introduce more safety oriented apparel in pro peloton in the future. Air bag technology works in other sports and there is no reason it wouldn't reduce number of injuries in pro peloton and among amateur cyclists alike.

And for the people that blame riders and say nothing can be done.

Tour de France to be proving ground for changes to UCI 3km rule, time gap calculations

'Yellow card' system to be imposed as part of SafeR safety project, restrictions on earpieces up for discussion

www.cyclingnews.com

Some sort of yellow card will be introduced, basically from littering to bunch sprints. Riders will be blamed for everything and as such will get punished for it. Now lets see it the number of crashes and injuries will be reduced in pro peloton. If yes, then great, if no, then how to put this mildly, then GTFO.

 

[CyclistAbi]

UCI was the last stronghold when it came to doping. Once they gave in now "blood bag" is a golden standard, when it comes to doping prevention. Before that it wasn't taken seriously, nothing could be done.

UCI is the last stronghold when it comes to not improving rider safety. Once they will give in "air bag" will become a golden standard, when it comes to injuries prevention.

From history point of view i guess we have to determine on what finally drove them to it, to change their mind. I assume that will need to be repeated again, when it comes to rider safety.

Was it really Oprah?

 

[QueenStagiaire]

UCI is the last stronghold when it comes to not improving rider safety. Once they will give in "air bag" will become a golden standard, when it comes to injuries prevention.

Oh, if this is the case, then everybody in cycling is in this stronghold of not improving rider safety. Or can you name anybody who has seriously pitched the idea of air bags to the UCI?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

@Libertine Seguros

I never argued that all injuries can be prevented, drastic reduction of injuries on the other hand can be expected with introduction of such technology in pro peloton. I don't feel that the money is problem here, due to manufacturers of such apparel making *** loads of money, once such apparel hits pro peloton and the numbers of its effectiveness get out. On top of that teams are becoming rather rich lately. So money can't really be an excuse any more. UCI doesn't have to do all that much either, what they need to do is to say on this date and on this race usage of such technology will be mandatory or you won't be able to participate.

OK, let's go through this point by point:

1) I am suggesting we reduce injuries by reducing the number of crashes. You are suggesting we reduce injuries by introducing technology which is both costly and in its infancy right now, with its efficacy not yet known. You're accusing me - repeatedly - of saying "nothing can be done" when all I'm saying is that, in my opinion, you are looking in the wrong places, by insisting the riders don't have any culpability and laying the blame for accidents solely at the hands of the UCI.

2) Yes, manufacturers of apparel make money, but the problem is a lot of their R&D is about making riders faster because if you make gear that is slightly safer in the event of a 1/100 chance incident, but is slower in the event of 100/100 races, you know that the majority of teams and riders are going to be willing to take that risk, right?

3) "once such apparel hits pro peloton and the numbers of its effectiveness get out" depends on the apparel being both affordable and effective. At the moment, both of these things are gigantic question marks, but you have become so married to the idea that you are guaranteeing its success before it is even implemented. Again: protecting the collarbone from a direct blow will in many people's opinion have a negligible effect - because direct blows are only responsible for a negligible percentage of collarbone injuries.

4) teams are becoming rather rich lately, but you know what they're doing? They're spending more money on riders. Why are they doing that? Because the riders' agents know that the teams have more money to spend. So the amount they can give to R&D is probably not that different, and you know where that R&D money is going to be spent? On trying to make the riders faster, not safer. Teams and riders will ignore risk and push the narrative that any accidents are the fault of the UCI and the race organisers, a narrative which you're swallowing like a good little disciple.

Besides, as many studies comparing tackling in American Football and Rugby show, quite often the feeling of increased safety that the helmet and padding in the former provides, results in players throwing themselves around taking more risks and with less respect for their own safety than players in the latter, because they feel like there are fewer consequences to taking those risks. I'm not advocating that we make races more dangerous in order to force riders to respect the road a bit more - but riders and DSes recognising and respecting that you can't go 100% full gas all the time on a technical descent in a péloton of 140 elite riders in the way you would on a six lane straight highway would do more to improve safety in the bunch than wearing an inflatable bib short to protect from a direct blow to the collarbone. Sorry.

 

[RedheadDane]

Riders are getting seriously injured, like all the time.

Yes, and you chooses to focus on... broken collarbones, now having expanded to... broken wrists.
There was a, I'm guessing joking, post about airbags for hips being needed - was it you, @QueenStagiaire? - and honestly, if it was possible to do so without restricting movement, then that would make far more sense than protecting collarbones. Broken hips - and femurs - have been career-ending. Broken collarbones? Well, unless it happens right at the end of the season, they're usually not even season ending.

Mezgec after today's crash, on where he got up and lead-out Groenewegen for the win. Bottom line safety apparel does work.

You keep ignoring the fact that helmets literally protects riders' heads.

 

[CyclistAbi]

So it looks like things are slowly moving in the right direction, something is being done. UCI (governing body) accepting initiatives from parties such as SafeR (teams) and they are experimenting at this Tour edition, currently mainly focusing on bunch sprints. Two areas on where i detected changes:

Whenever appropriate by extending the length, above the 3km rule, and by doing that reducing initiative for GC riders to be there.

Today they relegated Philipsen, stage 6. What happened is Philipsen deviated from the line and pushed van Aert into the barriers. Instead of risking it and pushing through, van Aert used brakes, to avoid the crash and Philipsen was relegated after the race.

@Libertine Seguros

We could debate this further but all in i feel the time has come, to start introducing more injury prevention oriented apparel in the pro peloton. So it's important to reduce the number of crashes and based on all the discussion we had i feel that now we understand that injures prevention is just as important.

@RedheadDane

Obviously an inflated air pocket can and should prevent a hip injury too, once the system is there this hot spots can easily be covered. Obviously, most importantly, collarbone and shoulder to be covered ASAP.

@all

Most in this debate agreed on the importance of barriers. Well, air bag, that is a portable barrier. A barrier in between the rider and the obstacle the rider hits, when crashing. So we actually can have 200km+ of barriers. Some on the more exposed sections, such as dangerous road sections on descends, and the portable barriers in terms of injury prevention apparel, compared to standard barrier being very cost effective and much more effective.

P.S. And hopefully UCI takes Vismas confiscated "control center" vehicle and turns it into a safety car. It's time for pro peloton to get a safety car, on where through data analysis riders can get information on things like road surface grip on some section and in real time. It's still up to them then, the riders, on how to tackle it.