Crashes, what can be done?

[Libertine Seguros]

Did you actually ready the whole article? They literally say:



Not all the blame can be put at the riders.

It's more about firing back at what CyclistAbi has accused everybody who doesn't agree with their contention that the UCI bears sole responsibility and airbags are the solution to all woes of.

Also I would include "speed of the péloton" in "rider behaviour" more widely, personally, I'm assuming they're meaning things like not looking where they're going, swerving, poor sprint discipline and either reckless or poor bike handling in corners as "rider behaviour". Typically my perception is that a thing like speed of the péloton does not in and of itself cause a crash, but it does exacerbate the impact that that crash has, by meaning the likelihood of injuries is increased, either by the severity of injuries being worse, or the number of riders involved is higher because reaction times are lower, thus increasing the likelihood of somebody emerging injured from the incident.

 

[Berniece]

Also I would include "speed of the péloton" in "rider behaviour" more widely, personally, I'm assuming they're meaning things like not looking where they're going, swerving, poor sprint discipline and either reckless or poor bike handling in corners as "rider behaviour". Typically my perception is that a thing like speed of the péloton does not in and of itself cause a crash, but it does exacerbate the impact that that crash has, by meaning the likelihood of injuries is increased, either by the severity of injuries being worse, or the number of riders involved is higher because reaction times are lower, thus increasing the likelihood of somebody emerging injured from the incident.

We've had this discussion already, and we disagree on that point. I mean we both agree that the speed of the peloton is an issue, but we see different solutions. As I recall you expect the riders to take responsibility when going too fast, and should be smart enough to go slower out of themselves. I don't believe that works, and feel it's the job of UCI/organisers to properly notify them of areas where high speed is dangerous. Maybe even make the road in such a way that dangerous areas are excluded.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

We've had this discussion already, and we disagree on that point. I mean we both agree that the speed of the peloton is an issue, but we see different solutions. As I recall you expect the riders to take responsibility when going too fast, and should be smart enough to go slower out of themselves. I don't believe that works, and feel it's the job of UCI/organisers to properly notify them of areas where high speed is dangerous. Maybe even make the road in such a way that dangerous areas are excluded.

I feel we disagreed primarily because I felt the way you looked at the problem credited the riders with too little intelligence. Maybe I have too high expectations, but my feeling was that if you don't know that the Basque Country has twisty mountain roads in it which you can't handle by slinging yourself into corners like you're on a billiard table-smooth highway, then you have no business racing in the Basque Country, and that while there are things that the organisers should do better, riders can't just expect to be able to go 100% at all times and expect organisers to carry the can for any accidents, because racing takes place on roads that have to accommodate regular traffic the other 364 days of the year and many of the worst crashes happen on totally innocuous stretches (take the crash where Wout van Aert got injured - a perfectly clear, wide open road on a flat stretch).

CyclistAbi has been advocating for some hypothetical, impossible-to-realise cycling where the riders don't have to think about their actions, they can just sling themselves around at full pelt at all times, and the organisers have the obligation to ensure that they can do that without the possibility of crashing or getting hurt, and that's just not possible.

My stance is not about laying the blame solely at the riders' feet - because things like the Jakobsen/Groenewegen crash in Poland or the Euskadi pile-up were caused by rider actions, but the outcomes were made worse by organiser negligence - but that the most practical and easiest solution to the spate of crashes is to regulate rider actions because that's the most effective action that does not require time, effort or expenditure to implement, only a bit of introspection.

 

[Taxus4a]

To put something at the bikes that make them go much slower. With this ultraaero bikes they fly and a crash is more likely.

 

[EliseeReclus]

UCI confirm trial ban of team radio at 2024 summer races and yellow card punishment plans in 2025

341 crashes logged on UCI database as SafeR begins to study weekly cases

www.cyclingnews.com

So finally in the year 2024 they started to log and to analyse crashes, on a weekly basis, to make reports and to recommend improvements. Imagine that. UCI. And as soon as they started doing that now it's already down to 50:50. Being a rider fault or not. Beforehand it was obviously 100% on you know who, the fans told us. Teams now really busting their balls to do something.

I do feel like one thing that's missing when it comes to crashes (maybe only particularly dangerous ones or involving multiple riders) is some kind of neutral/independent report into what caused the crash so that it can actually be figured out what can be done to rectify it. Otherwise we end up with lots of pontificating and hobby horse suggestions that sometimes aren't really that relevant. It feels slightly like this thread (and indeed the discourse more generally) is caught in a loop of throwing blame at riders, organisers and the UCI when really we have no idea how to attribute fault for what's going on in a race or crash. In this instance we seem to have competing ideas around whether it was the riders racing in a way that is not especially safe, the tree roots in combination with riders riding on the hoods, unsafe course design and I'm sure some other ideas. It would be helpful if there something that balanced these different explanations so that some output and changes can be made subsequently.

It's almost like some of us here were making genuine suggestions about how to improve safety rather than not caring about rider safety because they didn't agree with you eh?

 

[EliseeReclus]

I think I was framing the OP from the point of view of a DS or team owner - how would I think if I had so much at stake on something that a moment of bad luck could completely ruin. I would definitely be trying to problem solve the risk. In any given peloton, there are always a few who are quite accident prone and always a few who just have peerless skills in avoiding the unavoidable. Maybe the answer is in that? Can you train a Geraint Thomas into a Peter Sagan, in terms of handling, awareness etc?

I think it's not necessarily a question of whether you can train a Geraint Thomas into a Peter Sagan - I think there's always an extent to which a rider can improve in their bike handling, positioning etc, but this may take a long time and I think teams will always back themselves to be able to train a rider and protect a rider who is deficient in these aspects and use them as a GC rider. I think the question is more how can you mitigate a lack of skill in these areas? Or, how much can you mitigate?

I think this is probably the case with Roglic and his crash at this tour, he found himself at the wrong place at the wrong time in a way that others have a tendency not to. Ostensibly Denz, Haller and Van Poppel are a decent flat land group of riders to guide him through a lead in to a sprint stage run in, but there was still a failure somewhere. To what extent Bora or Roglic could have done more is a hard question to answer as inevitably adding in more rouleurs will hamstring a rider in the high mountains.

 

[The Hegelian]

It worked quite well before 2020, so why wouldn't it work after?
Or did it change?

Fair point, I can't remember exactly when it was brought in. What I do remember is how crazy, dangerous and hectic the finales used to be when GC and sprinter teams would be on full gas together....and how pointless and unnecessary it was.....and how many contenders would be out with a broken collarbone day 3.....and how a simple re-jig has been in everyone's interests, and hasn't detracted from the quality of the sport at all.

So, we have a good precedent for clear thinking addressing the issue. Maybe the question is: are there any other areas like this?

 

[The Hegelian]

I think it's not necessarily a question of whether you can train a Geraint Thomas into a Peter Sagan - I think there's always an extent to which a rider can improve in their bike handling, positioning etc, but this may take a long time and I think teams will always back themselves to be able to train a rider and protect a rider who is deficient in these aspects and use them as a GC rider. I think the question is more how can you mitigate a lack of skill in these areas? Or, how much can you mitigate?

I think this is probably the case with Roglic and his crash at this tour, he found himself at the wrong place at the wrong time in a way that others have a tendency not to. Ostensibly Denz, Haller and Van Poppel are a decent flat land group of riders to guide him through a lead in to a sprint stage run in, but there was still a failure somewhere. To what extent Bora or Roglic could have done more is a hard question to answer as inevitably adding in more rouleurs will hamstring a rider in the high mountains.

Yeah, it is a fine balancing act. With someone with Roglic's history, you probably would sacrifice a climber or two for more rouleurs. Evans won in 2011 with this approach, with a similarly crash ridden past.

I wonder if the deficiency is more about awareness rather than bike handling?

 

[EliseeReclus]

So, we have a good precedent for clear thinking addressing the issue. Maybe the question is: are there any other areas like this?

It's not strictly related to preventing crashes, but I think some kind of concussion protocol is necessary - where riders can be checked and then motor-paced back into the group or given an average time of the group they were in at the finish should this not be possible. I think if they are really serious about it they should consider allowing teams to substitute riders who fail neutral concussion checks so that teams are on board with them and aren't trying to keep riders away from them.

Yeah, it is a fine balancing act. With someone with Roglic's history, you probably would sacrifice a climber or two for more rouleurs. Evans won in 2011 with this approach, with a similarly crash ridden past.

I wonder if the deficiency is more about awareness rather than bike handling?

I think that's likely the case, a combination of picking the wrong wheel or side of the peloton, lack of concentration or innate ability to follow the right wheel, it can be learned but it's not easy!

 

[CyclistAbi]

I have avoided this thread for quite some time, but for some reason clicked on it this morning.

It seems that 'air bag' garments are being discussed (I jokingly floated that last year). In road motorcycle racing (ie: Moto GP, WSB...) every racer wears them. Everyday JMs can now purchase a variety of vests, jackets, and suits with airbags. Motocross (AMA, MXGP...) racer don't use them because they are restrictive and hot. They are expensive, vest starting around $500, and suits around $2,500 (some are single use, other up to five deployments). Racers still break bones, but then again they are going way faster.

I had the opportunity to try an Alpinestars Tech Air Off Road (rally, desert...) $1,000, and it was considerably heavier than my summer jacket, and a little heavier than my spring/fall jacket. It had low air flow, and this was the tech air version.

Keep in mind, not only do these systems require the air bag itself, they require an inflation canister, and an electronic control system (with batteries).

I can't imagine a racer who eats like a supermodel to keep their weight dangerously low adding a heavy air bag system, that also reduces air flow.


IMO, not happening soon...

I can understand on why you are still dismissive, but some things to respond to in regards to your post.

Cost. In my opinion it's not true that a vest costing in between $500 and $2,500 is a real issue. I feel that the teams will use even more expensive ones, by desire. It's like safety apparel costing 1% of the bike, that is not in any way expensive. If the bike costs 50k and the vest 500. Especially compared to other solutions, through a 200km+ stage, on where any other safety measure taken quickly becomes more expensive then the whole peloton collection of such apparel.

As for weight and heat. Last time i checked motorbike vests weight in between a kilo or two. Obviously the ones intended for pro peloton would weight much less. So weight in my opinion is a non issue. Heat could be a problem, still nothing engineering can't overcome, especially when starting to target pro peloton instead of MotoGP. Introductions of such technology, first irritations, can be pushed early in the spring or late in the fall, some race, so heat really being a non issue here.

IMO, happening soon...

 

[CyclistAbi]

Wrote the OP in 2020. I think things have improved quite a bit. The 3km GC stage finish rule has worked great. Maybe little tweaks like that are as good as we can do - remove those unnecessary pressure points. As a lot of people have argued, danger is inherent to the sport. I agree.

The sport is brilliant because it is always a dance between risk and reward. Pro cyclists win by suffering more, that's part of the dna of the sport. They are willing to suffer, willing to risk. And we are willing to watch because it is captivating.

Part of that willingness has to be an acceptance that we're invested in something that can lead to horrific or even tragic accidents. Maybe the answer is that we should appreciate the courage of the riders more. Maybe their madness also.

I think I was framing the OP from the point of view of a DS or team owner - how would I think if I had so much at stake on something that a moment of bad luck could completely ruin. I would definitely be trying to problem solve the risk. In any given peloton, there are always a few who are quite accident prone and always a few who just have peerless skills in avoiding the unavoidable. Maybe the answer is in that? Can you train a Geraint Thomas into a Peter Sagan, in terms of handling, awareness etc?

I agree that things are finally moving in the right direction, although slowly. Nonetheless progress can be observed, compared to on how things were before, when nothing must be done, was the mainstream dogma.

 

[CyclistAbi]

but what if everyone had neck airbags?????

Yeah, or air balls.

 

[CyclistAbi]

Wait, so are you telling me that... the UCI has investigated and found that policing rider behaviour is key to reducing accidents?

But I thought you were telling us it was churlish and wrong to blame the riders, because it was all the UCI's fault and the solution was to wrap the riders up in cotton wool and sci-fi packaging that would protect the collarbone from a direct hit?

It's almost like... the people who were saying that rider behaviour is a key component in the number of crashes and policing this would be more helpful - and cheaper - than R&D into bulky airbag solutions weren't inhuman, uncaring a-holes intent on putting their heads in the sand about the real problems, but actually they had a handle on what would be an easier, more practical and effective means of taking action?

Sure. Spin it as you like but that is not what the article said. So first of all, we more or less all agreed that rigorous enforcement of rules, at the end of the sprint stages, that is a must. In 2024 edition of the Tour they actually started applying this.

As for the rest of the crashes, what the article says is now, on when they have done a week worth of analysis, due to having means to do it, a newly established database logging crashes, there are actually already down to a claiming 50 percent of the crashes are due to riders fault. I am sure that in two weeks time of analysis it will already be down to 40% ...

Anyway, not really important. In year 2024 they are now finally analysing credible data, doing reports based on such analysis and recommending improvements. Instead of talking from their asses and doing nothing.

 

[RedheadDane]

IMO, happening soon...

I would advice you against holding your breath.

 

[CyclistAbi]

It's almost like some of us here were making genuine suggestions about how to improve safety rather than not caring about rider safety because they didn't agree with you eh?

Well, yeah, this is on how a normal debate goes. You don't tend to argue with opinions you agree with. So if we didn't exchange arguments much in this thread, at least i don't remember ATM. Then obviously we are on the same page. For example i argued strongly, on such measures to be taken. To gather the data and to analyse it and for that to be used for applying new measures. So likely you did the same or agreed with it. And honestly i can't take much credit for that, this is not some novel invention or approach, this is on just on how things are done in real world.

It's amazing that it took UCI till 2024.

Now here i will take some credit, just as for example Plugge can, being a loudmouth about it. Here i don't agree with you, on how UCI would have just as well done it, without that. They would have done nothing if not pressured into it. Just like when it comes mandating more safety apparel in pro peloton, main strategy applied for injury prevention. Without being pressured in it they will never do that. And yet they will.

 

[CyclistAbi]

I would advice you against holding your breath.

Slowly, we have time. At least we moved up from nothing can be done, predominant dogma of the past century.

That era is now officially over.

 

[CyclistAbi]

Guys, honestly, i felt it will take longer. Looks like initiative was always there. They all just needed a little push, well, truth to be said, some needed more of a kick in theirs truly. Just like Rogla, when hitting the deck.

That feeling.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Slowly, we have time. At least we moved up from nothing can be done, predominant dogma of the past century.

That era is now officially over.

Nobody ever said nothing can be done.

They just didn't happen to agree with the conclusions you were drawing or that the solutions you had set your heart on were:

a) the most pressing solution to implement;
b) the solution to the most pressing problem;
c) an effective solution to the problems currently faced that could be reasonably implemented in the present or near future.

But sure, paint it like everybody who doesn't think airbags to protect collarbones from a direct blow continue to want crashes to disrupt races.

 

[Valv.Piti]

I think he's quite mad that Roglic crashed again. It is what it is.

 

[Bolder]

Slowly, we have time. At least we moved up from nothing can be done, predominant dogma of the past century.

That era is now officially over.

It was not that long ago that helmets were optional.

 

[CyclistAbi]

@Libertine Seguros

Of course that was being said, like all the time, it was an ongoing meme.

As for agreeing or disagreeing, in the end UCI now implemented a lot of things discussed in this thread. Imagine that. I am sure that after they further catch up, realizing injury prevention is just as important and needed, just like we did in this thread, for things to progress further. Regarding mandating introduction of injury prevention apparel.

@Valv.Piti

Of course i was, no words can really describe that. Already targeting new races, though.

@Bolder

Helmets are a good example on where people from the previous century got their *** together, we are indeed still catching up and lets hope we can be brilliant too, people from the current century. In a lot of areas it does seems to suggest we are going backwards. All in all i am sure that our century will have something to show, on where it comes to injury prevention apparel introduced in the pro peloton. Likely nothing sci-fi, or anything like that. Current, or better, now already a rather old tech being introduced into this beautiful sport. That seem a rather realistic outcome. We'll see.

 

[Unchained]

Nobody ever said nothing can be done.

They just didn't happen to agree with the conclusions you were drawing or that the solutions you had set your heart on were:

a) the most pressing solution to implement;
b) the solution to the most pressing problem;
c) an effective solution to the problems currently faced that could be reasonably implemented in the present or near future.

But sure, paint it like everybody who doesn't think airbags to protect collarbones from a direct blow continue to want crashes to disrupt races.

Your statement that " nobody ever said nothing can be done " is incorrect. I said that nothing can be done. Even if they raced tricycles or had a huge protective hoop on the bike that kept riders half a meter away from each other, they would still crash.
Look no further than individual time trials w 1 minute+ start intervals.. They still crash.
It's completely natural, completely logical, completely inevitable. F1, all skiing and skating, GP1, NASCAR, Rally, Dakar, Baja the list is endless. When you are pushing human physical limits crashes are just part of it. People are seriously injured playing water polo.
Cycling is only slightly ahead of water polo because pro bike racing uniform is the equivalent of Spanks, a tight fitting compression underwear!! Until riders are wearing leathers and real helmets injuries are going to be widespread. You don't wear a surfing rash guard and yoga pants w a pad and expect any protection..
Bike racing uniforms are unsafe by design. Go to an engineering school and give students the question.. You are going to race bicycles down curvy wet mountain roads at 80+ kph what would a logical uniform look like.. Lycra shorts and a polystyrene minimal helmet w a cheesy chin strap would not be suggested by even the stupidest student!!
Today's sprint has head, shoulder and body contact by half dozen riders in last @300 meters, you can't get that out of the sport.

SPANX Online Shop | ABOUT YOU

Bestelle SPANX Artikel schnell und günstig. Die neueste SPANX Kollektion auf ABOUT YOU ✓ Kostenloser Versand* & Rückversand ✓ 100 Tage Rückgaberecht ✓ Kauf auf Rechnung

www.aboutyou.at

 

[Libertine Seguros]

@Libertine Seguros

Of course that was being said, like all the time, it was an ongoing meme.

As for agreeing or disagreeing, in the end UCI now implemented a lot of things discussed in this thread. Imagine that. I am sure that after they further catch up, realizing injury prevention is just as important and needed, just like we did in this thread, for things to progress further. Regarding mandating introduction of injury prevention apparel.

You're claiming credit for the UCI reviewing things, finding something that backed up the case of the people that disagreed with you, and implementing something suggested by somebody else directly in contradiction to your own preferred solution?

 

[jmdirt]

Yeah, it is a fine balancing act. With someone with Roglic's history, you probably would sacrifice a climber or two for more rouleurs. Evans won in 2011 with this approach, with a similarly crash ridden past.

I wonder if the deficiency is more about awareness rather than bike handling?

I listened to (a small) part of a podcast on traffic safety, and one of the people who studies crashes said that 'there is no such thing as bad drivers, just bad thinkers' (he is also a driving instructor for adults who have never had a drivers license). Many people are unable to take in and process all of the things going on when they are driving.

So just to put hypothetical numbers to it: rider A can take in and process 8 pieces of information, while rider B can only take in and process 5. Rider B will likely crash more.

 

[The Hegelian]

I listened to (a small) part of a podcast on traffic safety, and one of the people who studies crashes said that 'there is no such thing as bad drivers, just bad thinkers' (he is also a driving instructor for adults who have never had a drivers license). Many people are unable to take in and process all of the things going on when they are driving.

So just to put hypothetical numbers to it: rider A can take in and process 8 pieces of information, while rider B can only take in and process 5. Rider B will likely crash more.

This makes a lot of sense. I was riding bikes in traffic before I could drive a car, so I have always driven like a cyclist - a lot of awareness, the assumption that you are usually invisible, the expectation that someone probably will turn in front of you/fail to stop etc. It's saved countless potential accidents.

In a peloton it may be less complicated than how much information the brain can process. i.e. could it be less about processing inputs and more about maintaining a consistent sense of awareness.

An analogy: when you're walking in a busy city, everyone walks in a kind of flow. Then there is someone who is texting - they step out of that flow, by failing to maintain that basic level of simple awareness. And it's super obvious to everyone else, and a bit annoying.