Crashes, what can be done?

[Cookster15]

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.

My gut feel is 108 is too few.

Of course, we do not want the number of riders to become too low, as that might completely transform the sport.

I do think the size of fields is a contributor. However, the proposed reduction by nearly 40% is too drastic. I think this would affect the sport of professional road racing in a very negative way and possibly diminish sponsor appeal.

Do we have statistics of the increasing incidence of crashes showing a clear correlation between the size of the peloton and incidence of crashes?

A compromise that might maintain the dynamics of the sport but make a material contribution to safety:

• Maintain the number of riders per team at 8. This addresses the point of @AmRacer.
• Reduce the number of teams admitted to each race from 22 to 20.

This results in a maximum peloton size of 160 or a reduction in maximum peloton size of 9%.

 

[Pozzovivo]

My gut feel is 108 is too few.



I do think the size of fields is a contributor. However, the proposed reduction by nearly 40% is too drastic. I think this would affect the sport of professional road racing in a very negative way and possibly diminish sponsor appeal.

Do we have statistics of the increasing incidence of crashes showing a clear correlation between the size of the peloton and incidence of crashes?

A compromise that might maintain the dynamics of the spot but make a material contribution to safety:

• Maintain the number of riders per team at 8. This addresses the point of @AmRacer.
• Reduce the number of teams admitted to each race from 22 to 20.

This results in a maximum peloton size of 160 or a reduction in maximum peloton size of 9%.

Why would it be negative for the sport - it would distill the product, it would make racing safer and more dynamic? Why would it be negative for sponsors? Neither seem to logically follow.

160 is way way too much. You simply won't see a big enough desired effect. There are threshold effects for this I believe. Above 120 ish is simply too many riders to fight for the limited space if the parcour is easy.

I don't have the numerical evidence yet, but it is just obviously correct. Statistically it is guaranteed, and logically it completely makes sense, also standard economic theory has very clear prediction of this. More riders --> more cost to be in the back and more to gain to be in front --> more crowding behavior in the front. Must be true.

I'm working on gathering data for it actually. I've previously done this for the 3km crash rule. It tedious work because you have to watch all races in full and try to find medical reports (which are sometimes published from races, and sometimes not).

Just ask anyone what they fear more, a small or big group fighting for position? Every rider know this. Even in non-pro racing we talked about this.

It's just not in the lesser riders and teams interest to say so because they will lose jobs and more likely for most - do the same at a lower tier of the sport. WT racing should be for stars - now they dilute the product enormously.

 

[Cookster15]

I don't have the numerical evidence yet, but it is just obviously correct.

Never assume. Lets see the data when you have it. Thanks for the effort by the way.

 

[Pozzovivo]

Never assume. Lets see the data when you have it. Thanks for the effort by the way.

Surely you agree that the number of injured riders would decrease if the number of riders decreased. The lesser impact of big crashes would drive the effect alone even if incidents remained the same. I think in these types of investigations logic kinda triumph data - because data will be noisy and have a bunch of confounding variables. We still would need to ASSUME a bunch of things when we analyze the data and try to draw an inference from it.

Anyway, question for you - what kind of races should i focus on when dong this?

I started with WT stage races as the number of participants decrease over time in them. Evidence is clear that crashes are less when fewer riders are there but this could be explained by more fatigue as the race go on. Also - back-end of races are typically more mountainous (but this speaks to my point of smaller groups = less crashing) and less crash prone and no stages are the same from year to year - race to race.

Note: The races need to be big to get accurate medical reports

 

[Cookster15]

Surely you agree that the number of injured riders would decrease if the number of riders decreased.

Logically yes. But lets see the data. Don't assume. There are other variables. And I am sure the UCI would look at data before making any decisions.

 

[Cookster15]

what kind of races should i focus on when dong this?

Grand tours.

 

[Unchained]

Grand tours.

If you want less crashes or different crashes add time bonus sprints all over, give away 10,15 seconds, 5 or 6 times in the race including finish order..you will explode the race on purpose, bunch will be smaller and more manageable, less dangerous because it's smaller..
It works in crits!! And track racing!!

 

[Unchained]

Logically yes. But lets see the data. Don't assume. There are other variables. And I am sure the UCI would look at data before making any decisions.

UCI is a goon squad.. People who brought important issues like being too good an under 23 racer..color, material and length of socks, color of Pogacar's or Ben O'Connor's kit..saying that UCI thinks long and hard before acting, officially changing a rule is not based in reality.. Look no further than the latest straw man about celebration.. Got lots of anonymous or write in complaints from riders, directors, insurance companies or race directors about guys a few bikes deep being happy teammate won? No..just being busy for the sake of being busy. The Unified Cycling clowns should address death.. Why riders died racing and training.. Why a guy in a race was laying near or lifeless and was discovered by accident instead of design.. The only thing more discouraging than cycling crashes is knowing that the UCI is working on a solution..

 

[Cookster15]

UCI is a goon squad.. People who brought important issues like being too good an under 23 racer..color, material and length of socks, color of Pogacar's or Ben O'Connor's kit..saying that UCI thinks long and hard before acting, officially changing a rule is not based in reality.. Look no further than the latest straw man about celebration.. Got lots of anonymous or write in complaints from riders, directors, insurance companies or race directors about guys a few bikes deep being happy teammate won? No..just being busy for the sake of being busy. The Unified Cycling clowns should address death.. Why riders died racing and training.. Why a guy in a race was laying near or lifeless and was discovered by accident instead of design.. The only thing more discouraging than cycling crashes is knowing that the UCI is working on a solution..

Sadly I cannot disagree.

 

[hrotha]

Surely you agree that the number of injured riders would decrease if the number of riders decreased. The lesser impact of big crashes would drive the effect alone even if incidents remained the same. I think in these types of investigations logic kinda triumph data - because data will be noisy and have a bunch of confounding variables.

The problem with this approach is that it leads to the inevitable conclusion that zero riders also means zero injuries.

Personally I think we should rather think of it as, would a reduction in the number of riders lead to a disproportionate reduction in the number of injuries? If you get 10 serious injuries in a 200-rider peloton but 5 serious injuries in a 100-rider peloton, you didn't really improve things by reducing the peloton in half. If you get 10 serious injuries in a 200-rider peloton but 2 serious injuries in a 100-rider peloton, however, you might be on to something. But you do need data for the latter.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

There was a reduction in peloton sizes a few years ago: GT teams from 9 to 8, other WT events from 8 to 7. Was there an accompanying reduction in incidents? (genuine question: vague perception is no, but does anyone have the actual data?)

 

[Pozzovivo]

The problem with this approach is that it leads to the inevitable conclusion that zero riders also means zero injuries.

That reductio ad absurdum is a completely useless comment, to make this a proper discussion we could be a little less disingengious? Maintaining cycling as a sport but with fewer crashes and serious injuries is obviously the objective I’m arguing for—not abolishing the sport entirely.

My main point is that reducing the number of riders will result in a disproportionately lower number of crashes and, consequently, disp. fewer injuries. If you read my initial argument, you’ll see that’s precisely what I’m suggesting. The statistical reasoning I added merely illustrates the obvious conclusion that fewer overall participants naturally leads to fewer total injuries.

To speak to the disproportinate point. First, large pelotons create a contagion effect when crashes occur *this contagion is greater the bigger the fields, which seems self-evident. Given the logical and statistical factors at play, a smaller field fighting for limited road space should inevitably reduce the frequency and severity of crashes. When crashes occur less space is left to manouver out of the way when the fields are big. But that is not the main argument which is of course that the incetive structure in smaller fields are much more condusive to safer riding than in big fields. People respond to incentives. High price of being deep in the field in big groups - lower price when field is smaller - means less fight to be in that constantly limited space at the front.

However, even if we assume there was no disproportionate effect on crash rates, it would still be worth exploring this idea. If the sport remains essentially the same—for instance, by having only 15 teams at the Tour de France, each with 8 riders—would that truly diminish the spectacle? It’s difficult to argue against fewer people getting injured purely for entertainment purposes.

Moreover, it’s hard to imagine anyone designing a brand-new sport called “cycling” today and deciding to place so many athletes on the road at once. Formula 1, for example, doesn’t start a race with 200 cars because of the obvious chaos that would ensue. You could cite thousands of similar examples. In reality, the top 100 riders in the Tour contribute the overwhelming majority of the entertainment value. The rest merely increase the risk without adding much to the overall spectacle.

 

[Pozzovivo]

There was a reduction in peloton sizes a few years ago: GT teams from 9 to 8, other WT events from 8 to 7. Was there an accompanying reduction in incidents? (genuine question: vague perception is no, but does anyone have the actual data?)

I am currently working on gathering data for analysis, but it has proven to be quite challenging. Reliable race reports are difficult to obtain, and watching entire events is extremely time-consuming. Nevertheless, I’m doing my best to refine the data collection process—focusing, for example, on the last 50 km of a stage and monitoring the number of crashes, injuries, and subsequent abandonments.

The larger issue, however, is that the context surrounding each race is constantly shifting, which makes any eventual findings open to a wide range of interpretations and assumptions. As someone who analyzes health data for a living, I have rarely encountered a dataset with this much potential noise.

In fact, there may be 10 to 20 relevant confounding variables that change significantly from race to race. For instance, no two courses (parkours) are the same; the composition of the peloton differs in terms of rider age, experience, and how many sprinters are present; speeds vary (partly due to more aerodynamic equipment); and structural factors, such as financial pressures, are never identical. Even having younger riders in the peloton, as is common now, appears to increase risk according to my preliminary data. All these elements, and many more, must be considered in the analysis.

 

[Peyroteo94]

There was a reduction in peloton sizes a few years ago: GT teams from 9 to 8, other WT events from 8 to 7. Was there an accompanying reduction in incidents? (genuine question: vague perception is no, but does anyone have the actual data?)

I don't have data but I disagree with you. It was a fantastic measure to avoid massive crashes and if we analyze all first weeks of GT in the last 10 years, we will probably see less DNS or DNF. Do you know what year they changed the number of cyclists per team?

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Do you know what year they changed the number of cyclists per team?

2017 was the last time they had 9 man teams in the TDF, so presumably all the reductions were at the beginning of 2018.

 

[RedheadDane]

It was a fantastic measure to avoid massive crashes and if we analyze all first weeks of GT in the last 10 years, we will probably see less DNS or DNF.

Even if "we" - and by that I obviously mean someone other than me - were to analyse the number of DNFs and DNSs before and after the change, we'd also need to take into consideration other factors like... the type of stage - in particular the finish - or the weather, or... covid...

 

[Peyroteo94]

Even if "we" - and by that I obviously mean someone other than me - were to analyse the number of DNFs and DNSs before and after the change, we'd also need to take into consideration other factors like... the type of stage - in particular the finish - or the weather, or... covid...

You are right but no one can deny it is easier to "surf" in a 175 men peloton compared to a 200 men peloton. This is just common sense.

 

[Unchained]

There was a reduction in peloton sizes a few years ago: GT teams from 9 to 8, other WT events from 8 to 7. Was there an accompanying reduction in incidents? (genuine question: vague perception is no, but does anyone have the actual data?)

I don't know the answer and also don't know if number of crashes, riders involved, injury results and DNF status because of accidents is kept by race organization or officiated crews. In my experience things have changed subtly in my non scientific observation.. Previously, for whatever reason, I don't know why, bicycles, wheels were often unusable after even minor crashes. Wheels still get potato chipped but it looks like many riders after crashing can get up and proceed, chase. In much of my early experience, if you crashed almost always meant you abandoned. Even if you could continue, bike couldn't and had to wait for support, often neutral support..

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

There was a reduction in peloton sizes a few years ago: GT teams from 9 to 8, other WT events from 8 to 7. Was there an accompanying reduction in incidents? (genuine question: vague perception is no, but does anyone have the actual data?)

TJvG is not convinced:
https://cyclinguptodate.com/cycling...-the-gears-wouldnt-make-a-difference?twit=558

 

[veganrob]

That reductio ad absurdum is a completely useless comment, to make this a proper discussion we could be a little less disingengious? Maintaining cycling as a sport but with fewer crashes and serious injuries is obviously the objective I’m arguing for—not abolishing the sport entirely.

My main point is that reducing the number of riders will result in a disproportionately lower number of crashes and, consequently, disp. fewer injuries. If you read my initial argument, you’ll see that’s precisely what I’m suggesting. The statistical reasoning I added merely illustrates the obvious conclusion that fewer overall participants naturally leads to fewer total injuries.

To speak to the disproportinate point. First, large pelotons create a contagion effect when crashes occur *this contagion is greater the bigger the fields, which seems self-evident. Given the logical and statistical factors at play, a smaller field fighting for limited road space should inevitably reduce the frequency and severity of crashes. When crashes occur less space is left to manouver out of the way when the fields are big. But that is not the main argument which is of course that the incetive structure in smaller fields are much more condusive to safer riding than in big fields. People respond to incentives. High price of being deep in the field in big groups - lower price when field is smaller - means less fight to be in that constantly limited space at the front.

However, even if we assume there was no disproportionate effect on crash rates, it would still be worth exploring this idea. If the sport remains essentially the same—for instance, by having only 15 teams at the Tour de France, each with 8 riders—would that truly diminish the spectacle? It’s difficult to argue against fewer people getting injured purely for entertainment purposes.

Moreover, it’s hard to imagine anyone designing a brand-new sport called “cycling” today and deciding to place so many athletes on the road at once. Formula 1, for example, doesn’t start a race with 200 cars because of the obvious chaos that would ensue. You could cite thousands of similar examples. In reality, the top 100 riders in the Tour contribute the overwhelming majority of the entertainment value. The rest merely increase the risk without adding much to the overall spectacle.

I agree with your argument. We don't know if reducing the size of the peloton will have a similar proportionate reduction in major injuries unless it is attempted. But that is not the issue. We are attempting to reduce the number of injuries per race day. Right? So if there is a magic number to the size of the peloton it would be nice to see. Like you suggest.

 

[Pozzovivo]

I agree with your argument. We don't know if reducing the size of the peloton will have a similar proportionate reduction in major injuries unless it is attempted. But that is not the issue. We are attempting to reduce the number of injuries per race day. Right? So if there is a magic number to the size of the peloton it would be nice to see. Like you suggest.

Right. The severity of the injuries, when they occur, will probably be similar to what we see today. However, the number of severe injuries that occur per race day will go down disproportinally as races involve less crashing. I'm pretty confident there is a "magic number" in the sense that there will be an exponential reduction as we drop below 100 riders in peloton.

From the data I have gathered - and the common sense that most observers will agree on - a reduced bunch sprint (approx 80 or less riders) the last 20 km have a MUCH smaller chance of creating crashes injuries and abondons than big bunch sprints (120 + riders). For example, the reduced bunch sprints in catalunya, basque country, romandie are very safe compared to giro/tour bunch sprints. There are of course many moving pieces (confounders) in this one example but the smaller groups drive the effect as I see it.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Right. The severity of the injuries, when they occur, will probably be similar to what we see today. However, the number of severe injuries that occur per race day will go down disproportinally as races involve less crashing. I'm pretty confident there is a "magic number" in the sense that there will be an exponential reduction as we drop below 100 riders in peloton.

From the data I have gathered - and the common sense that most observers will agree on - a reduced bunch sprint (approx 80 or less riders) the last 20 km have a MUCH smaller chance of creating crashes injuries and abondons than big bunch sprints (120 + riders). For example, the reduced bunch sprints in catalunya, basque country, romandie are very safe compared to giro/tour bunch sprints. There are of course many moving pieces (confounders) in this one example but the smaller groups drive the effect as I see it.

While the riders will probably scream blue murder about it, I think we actually need longer races, because if riders have to manage their efforts more, there will be periods of recovery where the bunch isn't going full gas. Based on the current trends in the sport, races are getting shorter, more explosive, and the bunch is rising in speed to the point where they can go full gas everywhere. Take the big pile-up in the Itzulia last year, the course wasn't as selective as usual, and the bunch soft-pedalled the penultimate climb, meaning a much larger group was together at that point than ought to have been the case. The riders then went hell for leather on the descent to chase the breakaway down, took too many risks and created a crash, the effects of which were worsened by poor action (or inaction) on the part of the organisers.

In a harder or longer race, riders will need to use the descents for recovery more, so you likely won't see as many crazy risks taken on those parts of the race. If the race had been more selective, the group would have been smaller so that even had the crash still occurred, the impact of the accident would likely have been less. The riders like to say that hard courses increase fatigue and that causes accidents, but I'm not convinced that riders going harder and faster on easier courses isn't creating just as many, and that the lack of selectivity means that those crashes are affecting more riders and occurring at higher pace than they otherwise would.

 

[Peyroteo94]

While the riders will probably scream blue murder about it, I think we actually need longer races, because if riders have to manage their efforts more, there will be periods of recovery where the bunch isn't going full gas. Based on the current trends in the sport, races are getting shorter, more explosive, and the bunch is rising in speed to the point where they can go full gas everywhere. Take the big pile-up in the Itzulia last year, the course wasn't as selective as usual, and the bunch soft-pedalled the penultimate climb, meaning a much larger group was together at that point than ought to have been the case. The riders then went hell for leather on the descent to chase the breakaway down, took too many risks and created a crash, the effects of which were worsened by poor action (or inaction) on the part of the organisers.

In a harder or longer race, riders will need to use the descents for recovery more, so you likely won't see as many crazy risks taken on those parts of the race. If the race had been more selective, the group would have been smaller so that even had the crash still occurred, the impact of the accident would likely have been less. The riders like to say that hard courses increase fatigue and that causes accidents, but I'm not convinced that riders going harder and faster on easier courses isn't creating just as many, and that the lack of selectivity means that those crashes are affecting more riders and occurring at higher pace than they otherwise would.

Do you see less crashes in monuments? I don't to be honest. Crashes is all about race design and unwritten rules.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Do you see less crashes in monuments? I don't to be honest. Crashes is all about race design and unwritten rules.

I do however tend to see fewer people affected by crashes in monuments, at least once the action begins, because the péloton tends to be smaller and, with the 250km+ duration of most of them, the bunch doesn't tend to go as fast in the early going so the extent of the injuries caused by those crashes when the bunch is still gruppo compatto tends to be smaller.

There's always the chance of something like the Maciejuk crash, but that is the poster child for a crash that is caused by the riders' actions and that the organisers couldn't really do anything about.

 

[ingsve]

Reducing the number of riders in races would kill the sport. Teams would fold, riders would have their careers cut short and opportunities in the sport would dwindle.

There has always been crashes in cycling. It's not a big enough deal to make any drastic changes.