Crashes, what can be done?

[QueenStagiaire]

Like, barriers? As in, not actually worn by the competitors (which is what Abi has been constantly going on about)?

No, worn by competitors like in alpine skiing, although those would need a lot of testing to figure out the deployment algorithms, it‘s possible

 

[RedheadDane]

No, worn by competitors like in alpine skiing, although those would need a lot of testing to figure out the deployment algorithms, it‘s possible

Is it? I guess having an airbag incorporated into an already somewhat bulky skiing kit is easier than a body-tight cycling kit.

Meanwhile, it appears Movistar gives their riders eye-checks, and I guess riders being able to see is gonna help.

 

[kingjr]

Is it? I guess having an airbag incorporated into an already somewhat bulky skiing kit is easier than a body-tight cycling kit.

Meanwhile, it appears Movistar gives their riders eye-checks, and I guess riders being able to see is gonna help.

Yes, though "exceptions can be granted by the National Ski Association in the event that the airbag does not fit an athlete, such that the airbag restricts movement in an unsafe manner".

Last I heard, FIS received 40 requests for such exemptions. Sorry if this has already been addressed here.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

The other problem is that Alpine skiing, being point-to-point downhill, is comparable to cycling only in high speed descents. The rest of the time cycling is much more like Cross-Country skiing, an endurance sport over multiple types of terrain (my opinions regarding FIS' treatment of the sport notwithstanding). The cross-country skiers do not have the airbags and, like cycling, tech is mostly with the aim of making things lighter and faster, and the airbag technology is just not there to make it worthwhile in cross-country because the deficit from restriction of movement, bulk, aerodynamic disadvantage and overheating is just far too much to overcome the relatively meagre benefit it offers.

The problem is that, though a pack sport in at least some disciplines, by and large crashes in XC skiing are less consequential in terms of injury, and though there are downhill sections, these are far less fast or technically challenging than those in Alpine skiing, because in Alpine skiing that's the specific intention of the sport. Cycling may benefit from a device like that of Alpine skiing, but it would only be useful for that one part of the course.

I don't know if maybe there could be some kind of airbag built in to the inside of a jacket that soigneurs could stand by the road and hand to riders before dangerous descents, after all riders have collected gilets, warm weather gear from soigneurs, teammates and the car for years, stuffed newspaper down their jerseys and so on to stay warm and it would only be similar to this. However it would almost certainly have to be restricted to stages with big enough mountains that the pack is thinned out enough for people to safely don, would have to be optional because some will simply miss the soigneur or it'll be too late by the time they get the jacket (or, like Wilco Kelderman or Jai Hindley in the 2020 Stelvio stage, they might just struggle to put the garment on), and that is only going to be of use in the one specific set of high risk circumstances. Plus you know riders are going to be trying to don it on the move and create a new hazard of their own.

 

[Divergence]

Let me start be saying I have never raced a pro road race. I have raced some amateur races with OK competition and what I experienced is that the bigger riders who are not good on the uphills are the ones who are going crazy fast on the downhills and taking all the risks. I guess this role is taken by the domestiques in pro races and they really try to go fast where they can. Add to this the sprinters and the leadout riders and we are getting to the crux of the matter. So, I guess, maybe smaller teams and no bunch sprints is the solution for pro racing.

Before the sprint inclined audience here starts disagreeing let me add this.
Track cycling is for sprinting.
MTB is for taking risks on downhills.

In conclusion, I would have no problem having road racing be raced on hills and climbs. I do not care that someone is a good descender. Sure, it might look good on TV but look at what happened to Gino. Going fast on climbs and suffering on climbs in what I like to do and what I like to watch and, frankly, mountain top finish stages are the most watched in grad tours anyway.

 

[jmdirt]

I read twice now that bottle retention could eliminate 10-30 crashes per year (one siad 10-20 the other 20-30). This is a great place to start IMO, small steps. Mandating that cages meet a certain retention force wouldn't change the bike enough that any racer could tell.

 

[AmRacer]

I read twice now that bottle retention could eliminate 10-30 crashes per year (one siad 10-20 the other 20-30). This is a great place to start IMO, small steps. Mandating that cages meet a certain retention force wouldn't change the bike enough that any racer could tell.

G. Thomas will retire after this season? That would sort the bottle issue. 😇

 

[proffate]

I read twice now that bottle retention could eliminate 10-30 crashes per year (one siad 10-20 the other 20-30). This is a great place to start IMO, small steps. Mandating that cages meet a certain retention force wouldn't change the bike enough that any racer could tell.

where does this info come from? I would think that loose bottles are more often a result of rider dropping or missing the cage and less often due to the cage being insufficient. Randomly losing bottles would be a huge competitive disadvantage, and cages that work aren't that hard to find, so I'd be surprised if this needs to be regulated.

My opinion on high speed crashes is that we just need smaller fields. The Olympics RR only had 60ish serious competitors and it was a fine sporting spectacle. Changes the sporting aspect a bit, but probably in a good way. 12 teams of 5 riders each sounds ideal to me. Grand tours might need to get a little bit easier?

 

[Berniece]

The other problem is that Alpine skiing, being point-to-point downhill, is comparable to cycling only in high speed descents. The rest of the time cycling is much more like Cross-Country skiing, an endurance sport over multiple types of terrain (my opinions regarding FIS' treatment of the sport notwithstanding). The cross-country skiers do not have the airbags and, like cycling, tech is mostly with the aim of making things lighter and faster, and the airbag technology is just not there to make it worthwhile in cross-country because the deficit from restriction of movement, bulk, aerodynamic disadvantage and overheating is just far too much to overcome the relatively meagre benefit it offers.

Completely different speed, environment of the race and amount of athletes together during large parts of the race. I understand downhill skiing isn’t comparable but neither is cross country.

 

[Sandisfan]

Completely different speed, environment of the race and amount of athletes together during large parts of the race. I understand downhill skiing isn’t comparable but neither is cross country.

The cross country though was a good thought exercise and the closest to Road Racing in skiing.

 

[Cookster15]

My opinion on high speed crashes is that we just need smaller fields.

But isn’t peloton safety being discussed because crashes are becoming more frequent on descents? That means more frequent compared to when we still had big fields approaching 200 riders.

In the terrible crash which claimed Vingegaard there were only a handful of riders on that section of that descent. A smaller field would not have prevented that.

 

[Divergence]

But isn’t peloton safety being discussed because crashes are becoming more frequent on descents? That means more frequent compared to when we still had big fields approaching 200 riders.

In the terrible crash which claimed Vingegaard there were only a handful of riders on that section of that descent. A smaller field would not have prevented that.

The difference is that nowadays everyone thinks he can/should be at the front. And this is good (there is no such nonsense as Merckx or Hinault or Armstrong not letting people go in the break or mandating position in the peloton), but it has its consequences. One of them being more risk taking. Couple this with better equipment (apart from disk brakes which can cause even more false confidence) and we get a lot of crashes.

 

[proffate]

But isn’t peloton safety being discussed because crashes are becoming more frequent on descents? That means more frequent compared to when we still had big fields approaching 200 riders.

In the terrible crash which claimed Vingegaard there were only a handful of riders on that section of that descent. A smaller field would not have prevented that.

Are they actually becoming more frequent, or are we just more aware of them and choosing to care more, causing us to subjectively feel that they are more frequent?

The Vingegaard crash definitely was a case of too many riders squeezing into a small space, with piloting mistakes made by the leaders rippling through the rest of the pack. Could be addressed by using a bigger/straighter road, or reducing the density of riders. Pick your poison. But my thinking is more focused on Wout's crash, as I don't think the gear restriction line of thinking is relevant to Vingegaard style crashes.

 

[pmp010]

I feel like cycling is in the dark ages on this. Every one keeps saying 'this can't keep going on like this' but it always does.

My sense is that one of the core issues is the riders are basically exploited labour - they're treated like pack fodder so that the show can keep going on.

There's always going to be a certain amount of danger/risk, and I would not like to see the sport change too much/be watered down.

But I'm really sick of riders dying or nearly dying or getting seriously injured so regularly. There's something seriously wrong when F1 is so much safer.....

Penny for your thoughts.

Well done! Very informative blog.

 

[Wyndbrook]

But isn’t peloton safety being discussed because crashes are becoming more frequent on descents? That means more frequent compared to when we still had big fields approaching 200 riders.

In the terrible crash which claimed Vingegaard there were only a handful of riders on that section of that descent. A smaller field would not have prevented that.

Not the crash, but the consequences of the Vingegaard et al crash could have been less severe if a thorough pre race risk accessment had been conducted highlighting the danger of the concrete hole and thorough safety precautions being taken.

 

[Pozzovivo]

I would like to apologize in advance for sharing such a lengthy statement, but I believe these points are important to consider. Rather than focusing solely on new safety equipment, airbag technologies, gear restrictions, or minor route adjustments, I suggest we address a more fundamental factor that leads to crashes: the sheer size of the peloton.

Main Proposal: Reduce the Number of Riders

In my view, reducing the number of participants in each race can significantly lower the risk of crashes and injuries. It is understandable that teams, riders, and sponsors may not favor this approach, but I believe it is something the UCI should seriously consider. By having fewer cyclists in the race, everyone stands to benefit from a safer and more strategically interesting competition.

Why This Makes Sense

1. Logical Factors
   • Limited Space: Roads are only so wide, so a large peloton inevitably ends up fighting for limited positions at the front.
   • Front Positioning: Being at the front is advantageous, leading many riders to battle for those same few spots.
   • Consequences of Being Behind: The more riders there are ahead, the higher the “penalty” of not being near the front, increasing the pressure to move up.
   • Outcome: This fierce fight for position often results in high-speed crashes involving large groups of riders.
2. Statistical Reality
   • Fewer riders on the road means fewer people at risk. If a crash happens in a smaller peloton, the chain reaction is less severe, reducing the potential number of injuries.
3. Race Dynamics
   • Smaller fields encourage more open and unpredictable racing, with fewer teams able to dominate.
   • Breakaways may succeed more often, and fewer large-scale, high-speed bunch sprints mean fewer multi-rider crashes.

Proposed Changes

• Decrease the number of riders per team (for instance, from 8 to 6).
• Reduce the number of teams admitted to each race (e.g., from 22 to 18).
• In an event like the Tour de France, this would bring the total from 176 riders down to around 108. With fewer cyclists, mass crashes would likely become a rarity.
• In other races I would like to see a 100 rider max limit. The rest are honestly not contributing so much to things other than closing down races - making them less dynamic.
  

Lets maintain Spirit of Cycling

Of course, we do not want the number of riders to become too low, as that might completely transform the sport. However, a modest reduction—such as 6 riders per team—could strike a balance between maintaining the essence of cycling and greatly improving safety.

I hope this perspective is taken into account, as it could potentially make professional cycling safer for everyone involved without drastically altering the core spirit of the sport.

 

[AmRacer]

I would like to apologize in advance for sharing such a lengthy statement, but I believe these points are important to consider. Rather than focusing solely on new safety equipment, airbag technologies, gear restrictions, or minor route adjustments, I suggest we address a more fundamental factor that leads to crashes: the sheer size of the peloton.

Main Proposal: Reduce the Number of Riders

In my view, reducing the number of participants in each race can significantly lower the risk of crashes and injuries. It is understandable that teams, riders, and sponsors may not favor this approach, but I believe it is something the UCI should seriously consider. By having fewer cyclists in the race, everyone stands to benefit from a safer and more strategically interesting competition.

Why This Makes Sense

1. Logical Factors
   • Limited Space: Roads are only so wide, so a large peloton inevitably ends up fighting for limited positions at the front.
   • Front Positioning: Being at the front is advantageous, leading many riders to battle for those same few spots.
   • Consequences of Being Behind: The more riders there are ahead, the higher the “penalty” of not being near the front, increasing the pressure to move up.
   • Outcome: This fierce fight for position often results in high-speed crashes involving large groups of riders.
2. Statistical Reality
   • Fewer riders on the road means fewer people at risk. If a crash happens in a smaller peloton, the chain reaction is less severe, reducing the potential number of injuries.
3. Race Dynamics
   • Smaller fields encourage more open and unpredictable racing, with fewer teams able to dominate.
   • Breakaways may succeed more often, and fewer large-scale, high-speed bunch sprints mean fewer multi-rider crashes.

Proposed Changes

• Decrease the number of riders per team (for instance, from 8 to 6).
• Reduce the number of teams admitted to each race (e.g., from 22 to 18).
• In an event like the Tour de France, this would bring the total from 176 riders down to around 108. With fewer cyclists, mass crashes would likely become a rarity.
• In other races I would like to see a 100 rider max limit. The rest are honestly not contributing so much to things other than closing down races - making them less dynamic.
  
  
  
  
• Practical Analogy
  • Imagine driving on a country road at around 50 kph with just a few cars—it is relatively easy to stay safe.
  • Add say 5 more cars, all trying to overtake each other, and the chance of accidents increases.
  • By extension, if there are 50 cars on the same stretch of road, a mass collision becomes much more likely.

Lets maintain Spirit of Cycling

Of course, we do not want the number of riders to become too low, as that might completely transform the sport. However, a modest reduction—such as 6 riders per team—could strike a balance between maintaining the essence of cycling and greatly improving safety.

I hope this perspective is taken into account, as it could potentially make professional cycling safer for everyone involved without drastically altering the core spirit of the sport.

If there's only 6 riders per team, one get sick, another one "crash" and a third is just unlucky. Then there's the team captain with only 2 helpers. How's that going to work out?

 

[Berniece]

If there's only 6 riders per team, one get sick, another one "crash" and a third is just unlucky. Then there's the team captain with only 2 helpers. How's that going to work out?

Exactly how SOQ did it in the Giro of 2023?

 

[QueenStagiaire]

I doubt the riders would be very happy if we reduced the number of cyclists in each race. This would drastically reduce the number of pro cyclists because it would make no sense to keep the teams as big.

 

[Netserk]

I doubt the riders would be very happy if we reduced the number of cyclists in each race. This would drastically reduce the number of pro cyclists because it would make no sense to keep the teams as big.

The previous reduction has mostly resulted in reduced race days per rider rather than smaller teams.

 

[Pozzovivo]

I doubt the riders would be very happy if we reduced the number of cyclists in each race. This would drastically reduce the number of pro cyclists because it would make no sense to keep the teams as big.

Yes I mention that. UCI need to force this. That is the price to pay for safer and frankly much better cycling

 

[Pozzovivo]

If there's only 6 riders per team, one get sick, another one "crash" and a third is just unlucky. Then there's the team captain with only 2 helpers. How's that going to work out?

Crashes are going to be less likely but you are correct. Must be said, such bad fortune is very rare and happen in sport. Not a disaster for the sport but that one team in that one event. Let's be honest though, in Giro 2023 Sivakov, Ganna and TGH all abondened. And De plus and especially Arensman rode their own GC race in "support" of Thomas. Two pure support riders in swift and puccio for 2-3 leaders and they still had it locked down easy.

It may be an issue, but I would like to see fewer riders AND fewer teams in races.

 

[Pozzovivo]

I doubt the riders would be very happy if we reduced the number of cyclists in each race. This would drastically reduce the number of pro cyclists because it would make no sense to keep the teams as big.

Which is a good thing imo.

 

[Pozzovivo]

I doubt the riders would be very happy if we reduced the number of cyclists in each race. This would drastically reduce the number of pro cyclists because it would make no sense to keep the teams as big.

The elite riders that remain in the peloton would likely be very happy. These are the riders most people actually want to see. You think Vingegaard enjoys fighting for position against Elmar Reinders and the likes?

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

If there's only 6 riders per team, one get sick, another one "crash" and a third is just unlucky. Then there's the team captain with only 2 helpers. How's that going to work out?

Team Backstedt did OK in the Simac Tour.