Crashes, what can be done?

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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…
 
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.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
Sep 15, 2018
5
5
2,545
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
 
Reactions: jmdirt
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Yeah, unfortunately doing nothing is probably all a rider can do unless they are actually being attacked by a fan which I don’t think has happened before (even when Hinault decided to throw hands the farmers weren’t trying to attack them from what I remember).
 
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.
I’m not sure about requests to participate, but deGhent claimed to be “one of the 16 who downloaded the packet.”
 
Riders need a clear cohesive voice through a proper union that communicates issues logically in advance.
CPA is an absolute joke in the way they communicate, their language and these weird tweets is just flat out amateurish.

We never hear CPA or riders or teams putting in a complaint when the roadbook is out, instead there always pop up a lot of vague requests on the day of stages itself. Listen to Pogacars interview yesterday, this is lasts years TdF winner and he can't give a clear answer if cyclists put in together a complaint, instead just vague comments that he heard that "some requested an 8km GC time rule". Same story last year when they refused the rainy Giro stage, multiple GT winner Nibali shows up in the morning of the race unknowing of any events or requests that had happened. I'm not blaming individuals, these are just examples how horrendous the communication is and how badly intransparent these requests are being brought forward.
ASO and UCI can be selfish money interested vultures but take the emotional "safety safety safety" perspective aside: If I'm organizing an event and all the circumstances of the event are known to all the stakeholders clearly in advance and I get no feedback for weeks but suddenly on the day of the event I get a lot of requests regarding changes to be made - requests that clearly could've been voiced weeks ago - I'd also tell them to piss off.

And that's the thing, after this Tour you can be almost certain that teams or riders won't put a cohesive statement demanding things like a Prologue or a 10km rule or whatever. Instead everyone will go into hibernation until the next issue arises - or the next rule gets introduced that no one bothered to read in advance.
 
I’m not sure about requests to participate, but deGhent claimed to be “one of the 16 who downloaded the packet.”
De Gendt complained about the timing of the email and the fact that this was the only communication. He seemed to be implying that Gilbert didn’t mention it to them in any other way from what I remember. Clearly the communication is very disfunctional.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
@Unterlenkerfahrend

If i organise a picnic month in advance and on the day of the event hail storms happen. Or if i organise a balloon ride and on the day of the event wind is to strong. I need to adapt on the day of the event to keep the event safe. If there would be someone above me and would deny the request to move picnic indoors or would force the balloon to take off. And after some accident would happen. Legally this should be settled in a way responsibility is theirs and hence i guess i am not an organiser of the event in the first place.

Cycling is no different in this regard.
 
@Unterlenkerfahrend

If i organise a picnic month in advance and on the day of the event hail storms happen. Or if i organise a balloon ride and on the day of the event wind is to strong. I need to adapt on the day of the event to keep the event safe. If there would be someone above me and would deny the request to move picnic indoors or would force the balloon to take off. And after some accident would happen. Legally this should be settled in a way responsibility is theirs and hence i guess i am not an organiser of the event in the first place.

Cycling is no different in this regard.
First of all, the final on the day was actually dry and there was no rain. Secondly, if I anticipate or worry about rain, there's nothing stopping me to voice these worries in advance so changes can be made in advance. Nothing is stopping the riders to approach the UCI with a suggestion like "Listen, stage 3 of this year's tour is really technical. If there's clearly dry weather forecast we're happy to race it as it is but if there's a slight chance of rain we request the following changes: ...". And in the case that the UCI or ASO deny any approaches in advance there's still the relatively easy solution of addressing the press and making your voices public.

But such things never happen and we only get hectic scrambling on the day itself.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
@Unterlenkerfahrend

Then you basically are claiming cyclists shouldn't have a say on the race day?

Anyway above i said:

Cycling is no different in this regard.
Actually it is different in this regard. ASO or UCI do get to say if the picnic will move indoor or not or the balloon will take off in the bad weather or not. They get to say but are not responsible for the outcome. Responsibility is still on the riders alone. And when riders voiced their concerns and suggested reasonable safety measures on stage 3. That was simply denied and the responsibility didn't shift whatsoever. This obviously needs work.
 
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
Other than using a percentage, I agree. - I don't really think the length of the stage factors into when the sprint trains start working.
If the finish is the same, they will start at the same distance from the finish, irrespective of whether race distance is 150K or 220K.

I think the best way to go about it, is to give the organiser leeway to move the point of "GC time", to where it makes sense on the route, anywhere inside the last 10K.

Some stages it's 3K - others it's 10K - depending on route characteristics.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
Getting ASO or UCI to take more responsibility for their decisions. Especially if they go against reasonable rider suggestions on a race day. After we should talk more if there is really nothing to be done regarding safety.

Riders to do their part, to not supertuck. Fans on the road to get sued or to stop perceiving them as criminals and educate them more on the subject. Like for example prohibition didn't help with alcohol issues. Education greatly reduced drink and driving culture.

Normal people would follow directions if 5 minutes at the beginning of each stage on the GT races would be educational video on how to behave on a GT race. I am sure that most people just don't know as nobody made an effort to explain. It's easier to call people stupid.
 
As for sprinting stages.

Once a sprint is initiated rider gets disqualified if it changes the sprinting line and by doing that endangers others.

In general the whole Peloton has no place at finishes of the sprinting stages. It's like saying sprinters should be there at the top of the mountains. It just makes no sense. If you are not sprinting or helping your team leader/sprinter you have no place being there.

Bottom line there is much that could be done with relative ease and hence i don't really understand people saying on how not much can be done.
 
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 disagree it's not because there is no interest.

It's not like they live in a reality, where their jobs are threatened if they organise - actually their right to organised is guaranteed by law - and further their own employers support them organising.

So when they cant seem to form an effective union, it has to be because they simply don't care enough - it's the only real obstacle.

Sure, they care when a stage goes down with a lot of crashes - then they can do a 10 minute token sit in the next day - but other than that, there seems to be too little interest to organise in a cohesive way.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
As for sprinting stages.

Once a sprint is initiated rider gets disqualified if it changes the sprinting line and by doing that endangers others.

In general the whole Peloton has no place at finishes of the sprinting stages. It's like saying sprinters should be there at the top of the mountains. It just makes no sense. If you are not sprinting or helping your team leader/sprinter you have no place being there.

Bottom line there is much that could be done with relative ease and hence i don't really understand people saying on how not much can be done.
How on earth are you going to enforce that, and why would you even want to? So last year, they could have said that Van Aert (who was known as a sprinter/TT'er) should have voluntarily gotten dropped in the mountains because he had no place there. With your proposition, riders are no longer allowed to place an attack late in the final, to outsmart the sprinter teams, because apparently only sprinters/teams have the right to be there? What if a GC rider actually wants to sprint for boni seconds, or actually thinks he has a shot to win the stage with a late attack?

If you simply neutralize the GC at x km from the finish, you take away the incentive for GC riders and teams to get to the front beyond that point. The only reason they are there for sprinting finishes, is not to lose time behind a gap, or get caught in a crash. By neutralizing the final few kms, you effectively get the result you are aiming for, without taking away any liberties. If you have a GC guy who wants to attack or sprint for boni's, or lead out a sprinter in his team, he still can.
 
How on earth are you going to enforce that, and why would you even want to? So last year, they could have said that Van Aert (who was known as a sprinter/TT'er) should have voluntarily gotten dropped in the mountains because he had no place there. With your proposition, riders are no longer allowed to place an attack late in the final, to outsmart the sprinter teams, because apparently only sprinters/teams have the right to be there? What if a GC rider actually wants to sprint for boni seconds, or actually thinks he has a shot to win the stage with a late attack?

If you simply neutralize the GC at x km from the finish, you take away the incentive for GC riders and teams to get to the front beyond that point. The only reason they are there for sprinting finishes, is not to lose time behind a gap, or get caught in a crash. By neutralizing the final few kms, you effectively get the result you are aiming for, without taking away any liberties. If you have a GC guy who wants to attack or sprint for boni's, or lead out a sprinter in his team, he still can.
You basically answered the question in your first paragraph yourself in the second paragraph. Sure, whoever still wants to sprint can sprint just fine. It's not like it is illegal. It's just that for the most of Peloton there is no real initiative in doing that.

And that is a good thing. Peopel claiming otherwise likely don't even know what they are claiming.

Did you watch the Eurosport coverage ? If not then your opinion holds little weight.
Why on earth did you get the impression i didn't? Did you watch it? I have a strong impression that most of the people being angry yesterday have no clue what Eurosport commentators where saying as they didn't watch it.

Do all of us a favour and do that first. Watch yesterday coverage from the very beginning. They went about it for at least an hour.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY