@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.