• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Crashes, what can be done?

Page 64 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
You obviously believe deeply in the effectiveness and practicality of these devices. I assume that you value your own safety and collarbone more than you do those of professional riders who are strangers to you.

Assuming both of those comments are true, please explain why we would take your proposal seriously until we have seen evidence that you have bought and are using the product.

Because if not, it appears that you are expecting them to live by a standard to which you are not willing to hold yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmdirt and SHAD0W93
@SHAD0W93

I mean Küng basically said he is prepared to wear one if stats will look good. Some riders in pro peloton are hence now ready to actively participate in improving safety in pro peloton, on where it comes to preventing injuries and beyond, by introducing protective apparel. So i don't see on how bringing that up is me bringing up some old debate that was already decided to not work.

As for feeling belittled and things like that. Should one praise you then in your claims on how it would be dangerous to wear such apparel? Have you in any way prove it's dangerous? Dangerous only in pro road cycling but not in plethora of other sports? If you will follow the FIS story more closely you will find yourself in it. That is initially a lot of people claimed it's dangerous to wear one, now it became mandatory. Disc brakes were said to be dangerous too, don't you remember that, like yesterday? Now everybody uses them, so sorry for not praising your opinion. It's not about belittling it's a rather normal thing, disruptive changes. They often require for people to change their mind and we all know how that works in real life. Currently you are just a victim of that, progress, still at one point you will likely wear one.

@hrotha

It took FIS a couple of years too and over there a much more pro-active approach was taken. So two years is basically nothing.

@veganrob

For sure, like at the very beginning. At PR or Flanders that is a non issue. So we can start there.
 
I have already explained to you more than once that the schedule for UCI rule changes will not permit anything not already announced for the 2025 season. Is there any reason for you to continue to flog this dead horse?

In reality this is on what is currently going on, contrary to your explanation. Interested parties are having meetings on where they are discussing things like earpiece ban. UCI is currently rather reluctant to ban it and as i guess the result and frustration involved, to do nothing, some go all the way to say UCI president is more into self promoting then improving safety in the peloton. So you see a lot of ego involved, proposed solutions rather weak in terms of expected outcome and not much items to be added to the list as a result. I don't post such links in this thread as it would be more like spamming. That is much ado about nothing, so i feel that only maintaining the list is much better approach. To highlight on what actually gets implemented. As for your claim on how they are not permitted to add items to the list ... I don't even know what to say to that. It's just surreal to believe that.
 
My post addressed six questions to you: although you quoted it, you answered not one of them. That really is not the way to move a debate forward.

Instead, you seek to draw an equivalence with disc brakes, while suggesting that these airbags should be mandatory in just a few months. Remind us of how the UCI had to fight against reticence on the part of teams and the peloton and force them into compliance on the matter of disc brakes by legislation.

I feel that disc brakes analogy is an appropriate one, to address your questions. One thing i might agree is this was indeed more of a manufacturer push on where with protective apparel it's more on the governing body. But as you can see in the FIS example i gave, that is exactly what FIS did. And hence so it will involve UCI on when it comes to cycling.

You obviously believe deeply in the effectiveness and practicality of these devices. I assume that you value your own safety and collarbone more than you do those of professional riders who are strangers to you.

Assuming both of those comments are true, please explain why we would take your proposal seriously until we have seen evidence that you have bought and are using the product.

Because if not, it appears that you are expecting them to live by a standard to which you are not willing to hold yourself.

When you say professional riders note that you can't say all of them any more. Küng hinted that if it saves him the hassle of the injury, most of the times, he is rather interested.
 
@SHAD0W93

I mean Küng basically said he is prepared to wear one if stats will look good. Some riders in pro peloton are hence now ready to actively participate in improving safety in pro peloton, on where it comes to preventing injuries and beyond, by introducing protective apparel. So i don't see on how bringing that up is me bringing up some old debate that was already decided to not work.

As for feeling belittled and things like that. Should one praise you then in your claims on how it would be dangerous to wear such apparel? Have you in any way prove it's dangerous? Dangerous only in pro road cycling but not in plethora of other sports? If you will follow the FIS story more closely you will find yourself in it. That is initially a lot of people claimed it's dangerous to wear one, now it became mandatory. Disc brakes were said to be dangerous too, don't you remember that, like yesterday? Now everybody uses them, so sorry for not praising your opinion. It's not about belittling it's a rather normal thing, disruptive changes. They often require for people to change their mind and we all know how that works in real life. Currently you are just a victim of that, progress, still at one point you will likely wear one.

@hrotha

It took FIS a couple of years too and over there a much more pro-active approach was taken. So two years is basically nothing.

@veganrob

For sure, like at the very beginning. At PR or Flanders that is a non issue. So we can start there.
You brought up the airbag well before bringing up what Kung stated in regards to Merckx’s crash and that an airbag around his neck/chest could have prevented his broken hip. Then when others started talking about it we went down this rabbit hole.

@James M

We already discussed it in this thread and the solution is known. If we would be there already and Eddy would wear apparel with built in air bag technology, then when crashing his hip would hit an air filled barrier instead of a rail track. That likely would have saved his hip. Anyway, when Pogi will be 80, he will likely wear it, so there is that.

As for suggesting Rogla should be banned from the peloton, for other three to get a chance, forget it.

No, no praise has to be given, but you consistently ignore what others post and cherry pick what you want to reply to. You always belittled others when they voiced their concern was the head and neck and to prevent deaths while you’ve been voicing about protecting the collarbone.

None of the airbags you posted have any data on them, but the concern was the head and neck which those offered no prosecution. The best cycling airbag on the market: https://www.designboom.com/technology/worlds-safest-bike-helmet-airbag-collar-hovding-09-19-2019/

“According to research, a cyclist wearing an airbag system like the Hövding collar can experience significantly reduced head injury risk compared to a traditional bicycle helmet, with some studies claiming it can provide up to eight times better protection, potentially lowering the risk of serious head injuries from 90% to 2% at a speed of 16 miles per hour.

Protects the neck and head but not the collarbone or lower. This airbag might have prevent what occurred with Mader and Furrer, which for Mader I was vocal about an airbag potentially helping. If whoever (Evenepoel/Vingegaard) it was hit the tree in the VaC crash an airbag would have helped as well. Just like I think this airbag might have helped with Weylandt‘ crash.

Again, the airbags for motorcycling and skiiing are not only bigger than the road cycling equivalent, but cover more of the body. I’ve already showed you how much more they weigh. That isn’t even talking about the decreased range of motion and increased heat. When the technology is there, I’m sure an airbag will be in cycling and there will be less pushback compared to the helmet or disc brakes. I’ve already stated that I would wear one but I’m a recreational cyclist, who the product is made for.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jmdirt
@SHAD0W93

Interesting.

First of all i said it on multiple occasions, that once you have such technology made available and cyclist is wearing it, after that extending it to any hot spot located on the area covered by the "dress" with an additional air pocket, that becomes a rather straightforward task. So here i must insist it's you, on who has issues with the points you raised. Collarbone. For some reason you would like to omit the collarbone and left it unprotected. You are acting rather irrational here aren't you? But OK i have a feeling on why and lets not nitpick. If we are really arguing now on which bone to protect, mere details.

Second thing to say here is i hear you and accepted. You hinted already you are in general not against it any more, now you went further and started posting hard data on effectiveness of such apparel and the numbers, well the numbers are rather blunt, aren't they? It works. Welcome to the club and lets make it happen then.

As for Eddy and his hip, here i was rather clear that likely Pogi, when 80, will be able to benefit from the good work we are doing now. For Eddy unfortunately we were too late but i am sure that he will be back on the bike before the Tour starts.

New reality:

UCI preliminary list (December 2024):
  • yellow card system

FIS preliminary list (December 2024):
  • Airbags are mandatory for Downhill and Super-G athletes as of 2024/25

CN forum preliminary list (December 2024):
  • Airbags in general are now considered to be a viable way further
 
The day some rider use airbags, it will be the day i will stop watch cycling.

The way this work is you fight it, then the pro peloton starts using it, then you use it. In general it's not about free will.

Fandom is known to threaten the pro peloton, if you will wear helmet you are not a real man any more, if you will ride with disc brakes i will stop watching cycling ... The reality being the Tour starts and you put on a helmet, check the battery for being able to switch gears and check the oil level for brakes and off you go. The only difference in future being, when you crash, likely to come home to your family walking, compared to now on where it's almost mandatory for the family to come to a hospital for a visit.
 
@SHAD0W93

Interesting.

First of all i said it on multiple occasions, that once you have such technology made available and cyclist is wearing it, after that extending it to any hot spot located on the area covered by the "dress" with an additional air pocket, that becomes a rather straightforward task. So here i must insist it's you, on who has issues with the points you raised. Collarbone. For some reason you would like to omit the collarbone and left it unprotected. You are acting rather irrational here aren't you? But OK i have a feeling on why and lets not nitpick. If we are really arguing now on which bone to protect, mere details.

Second thing to say here is i hear you and accepted. You hinted already you are in general not against it any more, now you went further and started posting hard data on effectiveness of such apparel and the numbers, well the numbers are rather blunt, aren't they? It works. Welcome to the club and lets make it happen then.

As for Eddy and his hip, here i was rather clear that likely Pogi, when 80, will be able to benefit from the good work we are doing now. For Eddy unfortunately we were too late but i am sure that he will be back on the bike before the Tour starts.

New reality:

UCI preliminary list (December 2024):
  • yellow card system

FIS preliminary list (December 2024):
  • Airbags are mandatory for Downhill and Super-G athletes as of 2024/25

CN forum preliminary list (December 2024):
  • Airbags in general are now considered to be a viable way further
Sure, absolutely you were bringing up “pockets and a “dress” and not harping on the products you first posted.

I’ve never been against airbags, just that the head and neck are vitally more important than the collarbone. Not only do I know how important they are to someone’s health but I deal with patients with those fractures and the head and neck life and healing process is worse. Nor am I the one to that initially raised airbags to specifically protect the collarbone, especially after Roglic’s crash in the Tour. I’ve voiced ways that the technology can be implemented but that we’re not there technologically yet.

Mortality related to a collarbone fracture;
“ Clavicle fractures can be a sign of severe injury and can be linked to increased mortality, particularly in older patients:
Mortality in elderly patients
A study found that patients over 65 with clavicle fractures had a mortality rate of 23%, nearly double the 12% mortality rate for elderly patients without clavicle fractures.
Mortality in severely injured patients
A study found that 21.4% of multitrauma patients with a clavicle fracture died during trauma care or admission.
Mortality in patients with multiple rib fractures
A study found that the overall mortality rate for patients with thoracic trauma and a clavicle fracture was 3.7%.
Mortality in patients with medial clavicle fractures
A study found that a high proportion of patients with medial clavicle fractures die within three years of the injury.”

Compared to a broken neck:
“A broken neck, or cervical fracture, can be fatal, especially in the elderly:
Mortality rates
The 1-year mortality rate for a cervical fracture is around 31.1% for patients without a spinal cord injury (SCI) and 36.5% for patients with an SCI. The mortality rate for cervical spine fractures is higher in the elderly, and is especially high for patients with comorbidities, dementia, or FDHS.”

Compared to a head fracture:
“The mortality rate for head injuries is high, with the severity of the injury being a major factor in determining the outcome:
Moderate head injury
7–10% of people with moderate head injuries will die or remain in a permanent vegetative state.
Severe head injury
Around 33% of people with severe head injuries do not survive.
In-hospital mortality
In one study, the overall in-hospital mortality rate for patients with severe traumatic brain injury was 44.1%.
Overall mortality
The overall mortality rate for patients with head injuries is 18.2%, which is three times higher than the mortality rate for people without head injuries.
The type of skull fracture can also affect the outcome:
Fissure
13.6% of cases with a fissure skull fracture are fatal, while 55.5% are non-fatal.
Comminuted
49.3% of cases with a comminuted skull fracture are fatal, while 16.6% are non-fatal.”


What’s more important to you to try and decrease further? A collarbone, head, or neck fracture?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmdirt
I feel that disc brakes analogy is an appropriate one, to address your questions. One thing i might agree is this was indeed more of a manufacturer push on where with protective apparel it's more on the governing body. But as you can see in the FIS example i gave, that is exactly what FIS did. And hence so it will involve UCI on when it comes to cycling.



When you say professional riders note that you can't say all of them any more. Küng hinted that if it saves him the hassle of the injury, most of the times, he is rather interested.
I do not see how the issue of disk brakes provides a relevant parallel in relation to any of my questions.

I was not talking about the opinions of professional cyclists, I was referring to the comparative value that you put on your own personal safety versus theirs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmdirt and SHAD0W93
I do not see how the issue of disk brakes provides a relevant parallel in relation to any of my questions.

I was not talking about the opinions of professional cyclists, I was referring to the comparative value that you put on your own personal safety versus theirs.

Your questions, as far as i understood them, went into the direction of implementation of some measure, difficulties involved. So instead of debating such things in terms of arguing this was never done before, that is in my opinion counterproductive. We can always learn from history, as it usually already has most of the answers. Hence helmets, disc brakes ... It's sensible to assume questions and answers involved in introducing more protective apparel into pro peloton will in general be similar. I feel that introduction of helmet or disc brakes, for that to answer your questions in general. The difficulties involved and the expected outcome hence to be similar.

I was not talking about the opinions of professional cyclists, I was referring to the comparative value that you put on your own personal safety versus theirs.

Me arguing that introduction of more protective apparel in pro peloton, that puts my own personal safety before theirs? People arguing for or against earpiece hence for them it can be said the same?

Which is why I didn't say that. Please do not misquote me.

So then the initial concerns and remarks should be resolved now, the existence of such list hence to be valid. Once the measure to be implemented, to be added to the list. Nothing really preventing UCI and other interested parties to fill the list up.
 
Last edited:
I’ve never been against airbags, just that the head and neck are vitally more important than the collarbone.

Great and i don't really see an issue here. Maybe head and neck will be tackled first but i must say that realistically i expect for the whole shoulder area to get to there first. And on head there is a helmet already, doing a good job. From the video you posted i assume similar approach might be used for the knee. That is on activation for inflated sleeve to cover the knee, bottom of the bibs hence likely to inflate downwards. So nothing covering the knee before activation and hence full joint mobility preserved. It hurts me when i read on how some young cyclist busted a kneecap or shattered his knee, due to the impact. This things just don't ever heal back to 100% and hence a little bit of air, when crashing, should do wonders.

I’ve voiced ways that the technology can be implemented but that we’re not there technologically yet.

It's time, we are there.

What’s more important to you to try and decrease further? A collarbone, head, or neck fracture?

I will take any, so lets do it. For example Eddy would need some air on the hip, we were too late. The more the better, head luckily already has a helmet. Otherwise indeed it would be a carnage, modern pro peloton and the head trauma.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SHAD0W93
It's a dangerous sport with guns. It's frankly irresponsible on the organisers' part.

It's like saying lets take away helmets too. It was the exact same thing before introduction, now it's the other way around. You would get mocked if you would propose a ban on helmets. All in all it's a process and if you are riding your bike wearing a helmet then in your lifetime i am rather sure you will upgrade that at some point with more protective apparel. It's inevitable. The only constant in life is change and i am rather sure that development of cycling will go into the direction of providing more protective apparel, then less.
 
@Libertine Seguros

I don't know to be honest, if joking in such way is appropriate. But feel free to make an ass from yourself.
Do you, or do you not, think biathletes should wear bulletproof vests?

If not, why not?

Or do you feel IBU's implementation of extensive range regulations, and subsequent actions taken around firearm safety, are sufficient in mitigating the risk posed, and that prioritising the enforcement of correct and safe behaviours on the parts of athletes vis-à-vis handling of firearms to minimise the risk of irresponsible or unsafe handling of weapons was the correct course of action?
 
@Libertine Seguros

If you would say something like biathletes often shoot each other in the collarbone, ergo do you believe they should wear protecting plates. Regardless of the fact this is totally made up fiction and not the actual state of things i might have played along. But you didn't do that, did you. Deaths. Here i feel that one can up to a point joke about his own views of death, joking about deaths in general, trivializing it, that is in my opinion taking it a step too far. Don't you think?

As for your question in general. Yes. If in mentioned sport athletes would actually often shoot each other in the collarbone, or would even die because of getting shot, then why would you be against them wearing bulletproof vests? We actually sort of have this already and it's called an army. In modern armies soldiers wear bulletproof vests and helmets and similar, governance over there already did their job.
 
So what does history say about such vests:

Bulletproof_vest_by_Jan_Szczepanik_%281901%29c.jpg


In 1881, the Tombstone, Arizona physician George E. Goodfellow noticed that Charlie Storms, who was shot twice by faro dealer Luke Short, had one bullet stopped by a silk handkerchief in his breast pocket that prevented that bullet from penetrating.[8][9] In 1887, he wrote an article titled "Impenetrability of Silk to Bullets" for the Southern California Practitioner documenting the first known instance of bulletproof fabric.[10] He experimented with silk vests resembling gambesons that used 18 to 30 layers of silk to protect the wearers from penetration.[11]

Kazimierz Żegleń used Goodfellow's findings to develop a silk bulletproof vest at the end of the 19th century, which could stop the relatively slow rounds from black powder handguns.[12] The vests cost US$800 each in 1914, equivalent to $24,000 in 2023.[12]

A similar vest made by Polish inventor Jan Szczepanik in 1901 saved the life of Alfonso XIII of Spain when he was shot by an attacker. By 1900, US gangsters were wearing $800 silk vests to protect themselves.[13]


So more than a hundred years back sceptics tuned believers on demonstration and initial steep price was not a problem in regards to adoption. Not only it proved to work it prevented a lot of serious injuries and deaths in the past century and most of the pros now wear one. So yeah.
 
@Libertine Seguros

If you would say something like biathletes often shoot each other in the collarbone, ergo do you believe they should wear protecting plates. Regardless of the fact this is totally made up fiction and not the actual state of things i might have played along. But you didn't do that, did you. Deaths. Here i feel that one can up to a point joke about his own views of death, joking about deaths in general, trivializing it, that is in my opinion taking it a step too far. Don't you think?

As for your question in general. Yes. If in mentioned sport athletes would actually often shoot each other in the collarbone, or would even die because of getting shot, then why would you be against them wearing bulletproof vests? We actually sort of have this already and it's called an army. In modern armies soldiers wear bulletproof vests and helmets and similar, governance over there already did their job.
You have frequently conflated the safety of the general public on bikes with the highly specialised milieu of the pro péloton in order to support your point, while undertaking an extremely bad faith discussion and deliberately mischaracterising or cherry-picking the points made against you. Conflating general public use of guns with the highly specialised niche of biathlon was therefore used to demonstrate how that looks from another side.

I used a reductio ad absurdum response regarding another sport where a practical and cost-free rules-and-behaviours solution has been implemented rather than a potentially expensive apparel-based one. Many of us believe that the biggest thing that can be done, at least in the short-term, about crashes in cycling is to moderate rider and organiser behaviour, and that this is not only a far more pressing, but also a far more practical concern to address than airbags, as has been addressed to you over and over and over and over again, but you refuse to engage on alternative solutions in favour of banging the drum further about airbags, and continue to characterise anybody who disagrees with your position as ghoulish and violent people who want to see injuries and deaths and have blood on their hands every time a rider gets hurt, no matter who or what was actually at fault. Many of us think that one of the best ways to reduce the risk of injuries in the sport would be to reduce the number of incidents that occur. But you have absolute tunnel vision towards protective airbags protecting the collarbone to the point it has become your white whale and detracts from those good points that you have to make on the subject.

I'd also point out that some of us remember that your initial forays into this thread were not raising concern about injuries and death risk among casual or professional cyclists, but instead about ensuring GC riders didn't lose time, because your favourite rider was a bad bike handler, so being told how uncaring we are by somebody who upthread didn't care who got hurt as long as Primož Roglič didn't lose time kinda rubs people up the wrong way, y'know.

I think you're too smart not to have recognised what I was doing with those posts and to take them at face value, but you're so committed to the bit now that you have to quadruple down on it.

Your follow-up post about the demonstration of bulletproof vests and their subsequent adoption just raises one more question... why don't biathletes wear them, then? I mean, they work, and you have the evidence to back that up.
 
Last edited:
You have frequently conflated the safety of the general public on bikes with the highly specialised milieu of the pro péloton in order to support your point, while undertaking an extremely bad faith discussion and deliberately mischaracterising or cherry-picking the points made against you. Conflating general public use of guns with the highly specialised niche of biathlon was therefore used to demonstrate how that looks from another side.

I used a reductio ad absurdum response regarding another sport where a practical and cost-free rules-and-behaviours solution has been implemented rather than a potentially expensive apparel-based one. Many of us believe that the biggest thing that can be done, at least in the short-term, about crashes in cycling is to moderate rider and organiser behaviour, and that this is not only a far more pressing, but also a far more practical concern to address than airbags, as has been addressed to you over and over and over and over again, but you refuse to engage on alternative solutions in favour of banging the drum further about airbags, and continue to characterise anybody who disagrees with your position as ghoulish and violent people who want to see injuries and deaths and have blood on their hands every time a rider gets hurt, no matter who or what was actually at fault. Many of us think that one of the best ways to reduce the risk of injuries in the sport would be to reduce the number of incidents that occur. But you have absolute tunnel vision towards protective airbags protecting the collarbone to the point it has become your white whale and detracts from those good points that you have to make on the subject.

I'd also point out that some of us remember that your initial forays into this thread were not raising concern about injuries and death risk among casual or professional cyclists, but instead about ensuring GC riders didn't lose time, because your favourite rider was a bad bike handler, so being told how uncaring we are by somebody who upthread didn't care who got hurt as long as Primož Roglič didn't lose time kinda rubs people up the wrong way, y'know.

I think you're too smart not to have recognised what I was doing with those posts and to take them at face value, but you're so committed to the bit now that you have to quadruple down on it.

Your follow-up post about the demonstration of bulletproof vests and their subsequent adoption just raises one more question... why don't biathletes wear them, then? I mean, they work, and you have the evidence to back that up.
If a crash is deemed to be caused by rider malice or wilful negligence everyone taken down gets a free hit.

That would sort things out fast
 
@Libertine Seguros

When we started this debate some said things like if airbags will be introduced in pro peloton then riders will bounce around like balls. Now they are proponents of introducing such technology in pro peloton. So blaming people for discussing it, from all angles involved, that is in my opinion counterproductive. It's normal to do it like we have done it. Discuss it.

As for saying it's absurd to introduce such technology in pro peloton as instead UCI and interested parties can introduce other measures. If you haven't noticed i even created a list, each measure implemented will be added to the list. Currently things like earpiece ban are discussed and AFAIK no agreement can be reached.

As for your example on how athletes in some sport shoot each other in the past to death and then governing bodies intervened and resolved the issue. This is pure fiction, nothing like that ever happened. If that would actually be the case, then for sure i would support introduction of bulletproof vests. I even provided arguments on how pros do exactly that, on where that actually is an occurring issue. Imagine if pros from that areas would start arguing against wearing bulletproof vests. Due to the heat?

Price is not a problem. History teaches us a vest can initially cost up to 25k and that won't prevent it's adoption. That is still only a fraction of a cost in comparison to some other measures implemented. It's reasonable to expect pro peloton oriented vests won't cost 25k. I expect for the initial price, oriented toward pro peloton, to be somewhere in the range of 3 to 5k. Negligible cost compared to the benefits. How much do you believe rehabilitation of a pro rider after sustaining an injury costs? Each time.

So cut with the BS and instead lets focus on arguments. Does airbag technology in your opinion work or it doesn't work? Will you wear it once it gets introduced in pro peloton, as this is not a question of if but when. Do you wear helmet? Do you remember on how it was, on introduction of helmet in the pro peloton? All sort of jackasses involved and look at pro peloton and beyond now.

Currently we are at the point on where some riders from the peloton expressed initial interest in wearing such apparel, for as long as i works. Furthermore intrapreneurs, universities and existing commercial grade equipment providers are being geared towards introduction of air bag tehnology into pro peloton. In my opinion rather soonish UCI will be confronted with this measure and then they will have to take an official stance on it. Here i feel it should be favourable for the air bag technology, as UCI president will realize if i say lets introduce air bag technology in pro peloton in a couple of years, then his position is safe for a couple of years and he automatically becomes pro safety oriented figure, for years. If instead they will continue the debates about things like earpiece ban, for years, then one can only imagine on who will take the blame for it, for doing nothing, each time a rider injures or dies.

We even had some progress here in this thread. Now there is more than one proponent of such technology involved. If lets say there would be four by the end of 2025, that is exponential growth. So tell me, will you continue to block this effort, until it gets introduced in pro peloton, or do you plan at some point to change your mind and to do more productive things with your time?

Lastly, Happy new year!