Crashes, what can be done?

[Broccolidwarf]

I see you are just wasting my time. Sorry but i have better things to do. Lets finish it here for now:

Page 14 - Tour de France - Tour de France 2021, Stage 4: Redon - Fougères, 150.4 km

Page 14 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

forum.cyclingnews.com

Yeah, so many lies, so little time

 

[CyclistAbi]

Please note that if people like you call me a liar and being dishonest then i know i am on the right track. Thank you for that. We all need some occasional reassurance.

 

[Leinster]

Riders, and teams, don't do themselves any favours by raising these things at the last minute. I'm pretty sure the rules allow them to raise issues with the route before the morning of the race and even if they don't, they can comment and make sure representatives know a long way in advance. The finishes have been known for a long time now. I've not listened to the interview but I think this is what Philipe Gilbert has complained about as a CPA rep.

It’s definitely a 2-way street. Remember Trentin complaining about riders not reading their CPA emails in February;

Trentin hits back at rider criticism of UCI ‘super-tuck’ ban

‘No one can say they weren’t informed so maybe spend less time on TikTok and be proactive when it comes to making cycling safer’

www.cyclingnews.com

That was probably the timeline that complaints about Monday’s stage ought to have been raised. The issues look obvious to us now, a day after all the crashes, but some proactive precautions might have made a difference; “don’t descend into the town, approach from a different road”, “don’t put that right hand bend in the finish straight,” or even simple cooperative things like “if it’s raining in 4 months time, neutralize time gaps at 5/8/10km, depending on intensity.”

 

[King Boonen]

I read the whole reply not just the first sentence. The part where you said you didn't really looked into it is what bothered me and made me to reply. That is you basically assumed riders didn't do anything or did that too late. My point was that is simply not true. Riders did their thing appropriately and at the right time. ASO agreed, UCI refused.

@Broccolidwarf

You can suggest whatever you want but stage 3 was dangerous and over the top. Multiple riders confirmed that.

You clearly didn’t so I’ll repeat. Read the first sentence I wrote.

 

[MartinGT]

It was either Kelly or Smith today said that a route with wider roads in the first 4 or 5 stages of a grand tour would be better. To me that makes sense.

 

[CyclistAbi]

You clearly didn’t so I’ll repeat. Read the first sentence I wrote.

Sorry but no can do. I have put effort in both my replies to you and you feel entitled for asking me to put more effort in it. Why do you feel that?

It is you that has issue with it hence you shoudl do the work. Articulate what is it you are claiming or asking. I am not responding to one liners that don't say anything meaningful, for the third time. How can i respond to gibberish?

 

[King Boonen]

It’s definitely a 2-way street. Remember Trentin complaining about riders not reading their CPA emails in February;

Trentin hits back at rider criticism of UCI ‘super-tuck’ ban

‘No one can say they weren’t informed so maybe spend less time on TikTok and be proactive when it comes to making cycling safer’

www.cyclingnews.com

That was probably the timeline that complaints about Monday’s stage ought to have been raised. The issues look obvious to us now, a day after all the crashes, but some proactive precautions might have made a difference; “don’t descend into the town, approach from a different road”, “don’t put that right hand bend in the finish straight,” or even simple cooperative things like “if it’s raining in 4 months time, neutralize time gaps at 5/8/10km, depending on intensity.”

Yes, that’s exactly my problem with the teams/riders here. Leaving things to the last minute makes it much harder for adjustments to be made and also makes their arguments weaker. If they had addressed this stage when the route was released it would put much more pressure on the UCI.

Yeah, I remember that. Clearly what they have in place at the moment isn‘t working and they need to do something about it. I’ll not defend the UCI ignoring their requests, but they need to put themselves in a position where it’s much harder to ignore them.

 

[RedheadDane]

You clearly didn’t so I’ll repeat. Read the first sentence I wrote.

Or even better; read the second sentence.

It’s definitely a 2-way street. Remember Trentin complaining about riders not reading their CPA emails in February;

Who was it who'd actually wanted to participate in that meeting back in the fall? But had his request denied.
There was this whole thing about "Oh, it was only Gilbert and Trentin, of the riders, who particated in that meeting. Riders don't really care!" But then it turned out, at least one more rider had actually wanted to participate.

 

[King Boonen]

Sorry but no can do. I have put effort in both my replies to you and you feel entitled for asking me to put more effort in it. Why do you feel that?

It is you that has issue with it hence you shoudl do the work. Articulate what is it you are claiming or asking. I am not responding to one liners that don't say anything meaningful, for the third time. How can i respond to gibberish?

You implied I thought the riders did nothing, you then outright said that was what you thought. Literally the first sentence in the post you quoted acknowledges that the riders did something but I thought this was too late considering they’ve had months to raise issues with stage design. Your assumptions were wrong because you either didn‘t bother reading what I wrote or jumped into the middle of a discussion without familiarising yourself with the context of the posts.

If you think only raising issues with course design the literal morning of the race is appropriate then theres really no point continuing any discussion.

 

[King Boonen]

Or even better; read the second sentence.



Who was it who'd actually wanted to participate in that meeting back in the fall? But had his request denied.
There was this whole thing about "Oh, it was only Gilbert and Trentin, of the riders, who particated in that meeting. Riders don't really care!" But then it turned out, at least one more rider had actually wanted to participate.

That was going to be my second request. And then the next sentence and so on…


was it Geschke? There are clearly issues with the way they operate as a group and this needs addressing. All teams will no doubt have been analysing stages so someone on the staff should have raised this.

 

[BlueRoads]

I think the "strike" today and the differently worded comments show that there is no unity of the riders. They have different opinions about this and need to have a real organization.
I suppose they need assemblies, best digitally, where they all take part and vote.
But one of the problems will be that the big gun's words will have more weight among the riders, while in a general voting process the majority may consist of domestiques and people who are not fighting for the big wins and they may not always have the same interests (-> supertuck).
If on the other hand you have riders representing them some will always feel they are not represented well, especially when those riders are older ones who may be generally respected but have basically had their career while younger ones are eager to do everything that's necessary to win...
It's really difficult. But all in all I think one cannot really say "the riders", because that suggests a unity that isn't there.

 

[the delgados]

Apologies if I'm being redundant. I just read the original post and will keep it brief to avoid what I'm sure has already been said.
F1 has imposed safety measures that do not compare to cycling. I'm sure this has been mentioned, but off the top of my head, the only safety feature I can think of is removing the barriers that stick out on the road on the closing metres of a sprint stage.
It's hard to enclose a 200+ km course to prevent someone from standing on the road to get a selfie. You'd think there would be some element of self policing going on to prevent that from happening.
Other than that, you've got a bunch of super charged athletes whose sole intention is to win a race. Schit is gonna happen.

 

[SafeBet]

That was going to be my second request. And then the next sentence and so on…


was it Geschke? There are clearly issues with the way they operate as a group and this needs addressing. All teams will no doubt have been analysing stages so someone on the staff should have raised this.

It was Kiel Reijnen.

 

[King Boonen]

Riders doesn’t mean they have to agree and have a single voice. While it would be preferable if they organised and at least raised things the majority found concerning, literally no riders raised issues with the course design until the morning of the race. There’s no way none of them were aware of that finish. Even if nothing had come from it, it would add a lot of weight to future arguments that it had be raised and dismissed.

 

[King Boonen]

It was Kiel Reijnen.

Then I have no idea why I thought it was Geschke!

 

[RedheadDane]

It's hard to enclose a 200+ km course to prevent someone from standing on the road to get a selfie. You'd think there would be some element of self policing going on to prevent that from happening.

I just think it's stupid that riders are punished for whacking people who do stupid *** like that. Of course, with the incident on stage 1, nothing could've been done, but I think in many other cases...
Look! I'm not saying riders should go all "Rumble in the Jungle" on idiot spectators - like Lopez in the Giro a few years ago - but a little punch might make people think twice.

 

[CyclistAbi]

You implied I thought the riders did nothing, you then outright said that was what you thought. Literally the first sentence in the post you quoted acknowledges that the riders did something but I thought this was too late considering they’ve had months to raise issues with stage design. Your assumptions were wrong because you either didn‘t bother reading what I wrote or jumped into the middle of a discussion without familiarising yourself with the context of the posts.

If you think only raising issues with course design the literal morning of the race is appropriate then theres really no point continuing any discussion.

Thank you. Now i can get some more context for my reply. We were basically months apart in the debate and not minutes or days.

You are saying riders should do this months in advance. Can they? Do they have such power? If months back they would say this stage is too dangerous would they be heard? I don't know that is why i am asking. Do they have any influence at all?

Anyway, if months back they would all agree and then some bad weather condition would make holes in the narrow road. Is it still a done deal and they still have to do it under the terms they agreed months back? Or can conditions still get decided on the race day?

My point is you were talking about one end of the story and i was talking about the other one. But it is still the same story. And i personally have no issues if riders get a say months back. Do you have issues with riders having a say on the race day? After assessing the conditions?

 

[King Boonen]

Yeah, we’re done. Half of what you’re asking has already been discussed and the rest is irrelevant. Enjoy your evening.

 

[King Boonen]

I just think it's stupid that riders are punished for whacking people who do stupid *** like that. Of course, with the incident on stage 1, nothing could've been done, but I think in many other cases...
Look! I'm not saying riders should go all "Rumble in the Jungle" on idiot spectators - like Lopez in the Giro a few years ago - but a little punch might make people think twice.

its A tough one, because you can’t encourage the doing something after a crash. Doing something to avoid a crash for themselves or someone else might be easier to defend though…

 

[BlueRoads]

Riders doesn’t mean they have to agree and have a single voice. While it would be preferable if they organised and at least raised things the majority found concerning, literally no riders raised issues with the course design until the morning of the race. There’s no way none of them were aware of that finish. Even if nothing had come from it, it would add a lot of weight to future arguments that it had be raised and dismissed.

And I don't disagree with you here, I just wanted to say that they obviously have real problems to organize themselves in an effective way (and that that is not just due to people not having the time or interest to do so). So it's not ASO/ UCI / riders; the riders are not forming a front.

I also think they should have raised that issue earlier if they cared but I would imagine it's easier from the outside than when you are in a certain "scene". I suppose some don't want to do dangerous things, but they are afraid to speak out, because they don't want to be seen as weak - then on the morning or the day before they hear some remarks around them and realize "oh, there are other ones who see it like me". I mean, that's what it's usually like, then someone dares to utter dissent a little louder, and then the protest starts to get bigger, people are talking to each other, getting excited, and then some go and put out a statement or something because they now feel that basically everybody feels like that, only so far nobody has dared to say it and the time's running out... but then some others who were okay with the situation have not been asked and they are like "hey, I'm part of this group, but I never said something like that, why are they speaking in my name", but they don't want to betray the team/ their friends/ collegues/ the representatives, so they are a bit grumpy and make some small remarks behind the scenes, but don't dare to say something clear and loud themselves...
There's usually a social dynamic in these things, which isn't helpful here.

 

[druthers]

This is probably one of those statments made by someone who is a relativly recent follower of the sport who thinks they can "fix" cycling but turns out to have missed something obvious: But, if you replace the 3km rule with something like the below, how do people think that would play out?


“In stages awarding the maximum number of green jersey points, the GC time will be taken when the front of the race has entered the last 7%* of the total distance and there has been no break, echelon or escapee for 60 seconds.”


It seems to me that what should happen is that the racing jeopardy of losing time and the physical jeopardy of losing skin should be separated as much as possible, and that the best way to do that without killing the significance of the days racing is to give the gc teams a chance to prove their power, but then sit up because they know that the gc times are safe.

*i chose 7% because i like the number, if theres a beter way to say "the finale of the race" then substitute that instead

 

[CyclistAbi]

Yeah, we’re done. Half of what you’re asking has already been discussed and the rest is irrelevant. Enjoy your evening.

Lets just remember it's you who quoted me. It wasn't the other way around. If you feel it is beneath you to discuss something with me then just stick with that altogether.

Said that i sincerely doubt you claim riders shouldn't have a say on the race day. If you are claiming that then that is your opinion but i don't agree with it. If you are not claiming that then we basically agree and all the fuzz was about nothing.

 

[RedheadDane]

its A tough one, because you can’t encourage the doing something after a crash. Doing something to avoid a crash for themselves or someone else might be easier to defend though…

Yeah... I suppose that's the issue.

Rider crashing, and then going ballistic on spectator who might have caused the crash: Bad!
Rider physically getting spectator off the road to prevent crash: Good? Sometimes...

Of course; it would be quite bad if a rider pushes a spectator, and then causes a crash.

 

[King Boonen]

And I don't disagree with you here, I just wanted to say that they obviously have real problems to organize themselves in an effective way (and that that is not just due to people not having the time or interest to do so). So it's not ASO/ UCI / riders; the riders are not forming a front.

I also think they should have raised that issue earlier if they cared but I would imagine it's easier from the outside than when you are in a certain "scene". I suppose some don't want to do dangerous things, but they are afraid to speak out, because they don't want to be seen as weak - then on the morning or the day before they hear some remarks around them and realize "oh, there are other ones who see it like me". I mean, that's what it's usually like, then someone dares to utter dissent a little louder, and then the protest starts to get bigger, people are talking to each other, getting excited, and then some go and put out a statement or something because they now feel that basically everybody feels like that, only so far nobody has dared to say it and the time's running out... but then some others who were okay with the situation have not been asked and they are like "hey, I'm part of this group, but I never said something like that, why are they speaking in my name", but they don't want to betray the team/ their friends/ collegues/ the representatives, so they are a bit grumpy and make some small remarks behind the scenes, but don't dare to say something clear and loud themselves...
There's usually a social dynamic in these things, which isn't helpful here.

As an example. Every WT team will have assessed this course as soon as they could get hold of it. Several will have sent people to parts of it and all will have notes on where to attack, where to watch out for certain riders etc. It would be fairly easy to ask teams to submit a report detailing any safety concerns they may have with the route as presented. The stage we are discussing here was supposedly unsafe regardless of weather, so that’s not relevant, and as such should have been brought to the attention of the UCI and organisers sooner.

This would mean that you don’t need to agree between all riders or even all teams. The UCI and race organisers could take these reports and act if they felt it appropriate. Theres a few benefits to doing it this way. You give everyone time to react and discuss things raised if needed. You don’t need all teams or riders to agree, they submit separate reports. There is a paper trail should issues arise on stages the organisers/UCI refused to alter.

I don’t know if this is the best, or the only way. But if I can come up with this in a evening while watching football, the people actually involved should be able to come up something.

 

[King Boonen]

Lets just remember it's you who quoted me. It wasn't the other way around. If you feel it is beneath you to discuss something with me then just stick with that altogether.

Don’t lie. Our first interaction in this thread is here where you quoted my post:

https://forum.cyclingnews.com/threads/crashes-what-can-be-done.36147/post-2585468