Crashes, what can be done?

Page 82 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 20, 2017
13,084
24,451
28,180
Is there any actual source anywhere for these very confident statements? Given how they're presented as facts, I reckon there is?

It's all well and good discussing measures against crashes in pro cycling, as ideally we'd want as few as possible in any case, but I'd be interested to know how we know there are actually more of them now.
Number of crashes is also not the greatest metric, because dozens of small crashes can easily combine for fewer injuries than one massive crash. And if the peloton gets decimated early by one or multiple big crashes (think the 2021 Tour), then you are likely to see fewer small crashes in the remainder of the race. Number of injuries would be a better indicator, IMO. So if you really wanted to research this, then the medical bulletins of the Grand Tours since, say, the introduction of the ProTour in 2005 would be a good place to start.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmdirt and SHAD0W93
Oct 3, 2021
2,745
2,633
11,180
Is there any actual source anywhere for these very confident statements? Given how they're presented as facts, I reckon there is?

It's all well and good discussing measures against crashes in pro cycling, as ideally we'd want as few as possible in any case, but I'd be interested to know how we know there are actually more of them now.

I can still remember the Team Sky documentary from their 2011 TdF, so thats 15 years ago now, where theres a section of how you must just survive the first week of the Tour because literally theres a crash everyday that results in a rider, because theres alot of energy in the peloton, sprinters and their teams are jostling more for their wins, and often a favourite for the podium, going home and not making it to Paris. And theres like maybe a 30sec-1min compilation of crash after crash after crash, the DS calling out crash on the radio constantly.

Coverage wasn't as extensive in those days maybe not all the crashes that certainly happened, stuck in people's minds as much.

I dont feel from what ive watched over the years its gotten markedly worse. I mean i did watch one of the races in Flanders the other week where the men seemed to handle the conditions fine but the women riding the same roads were like bambi on ice, though it seemed it was alot of the proconti level riders and teams causing the issues. Experience is often lacking I feel.

But really the only thing that I see thats changed is younger riders dont seem to engage brain as much in bunches anymore they seem to be in that were indestructible mode and will happily ride faster into situations where caution would be better for it.

Like Pidcocks crash, descending at 60kph, now he's a skilled rider and can descend like a man possessed, but what went through his mind that said its ok in that moment to grab a water bottle ?

And btw none of this crash protection stuff would have made any difference to the injuries he ended up with.
 
Dec 6, 2013
8,687
8,112
23,180
Is there any actual source anywhere for these very confident statements? Given how they're presented as facts, I reckon there is?

It's all well and good discussing measures against crashes in pro cycling, as ideally we'd want as few as possible in any case, but I'd be interested to know how we know there are actually more of them now.
I too would like to see hard data, but the general statement that there are more crashes is very obvious if you watch racing. Yes, I am confident in saying that. The source, my eyeballs.

Don't hold your breath waiting for the UCI to report the crash count.
 
Dec 6, 2013
8,687
8,112
23,180
Number of crashes is also not the greatest metric, because dozens of small crashes can easily combine for fewer injuries than one massive crash. And if the peloton gets decimated early by one or multiple big crashes (think the 2021 Tour), then you are likely to see fewer small crashes in the remainder of the race. Number of injuries would be a better indicator, IMO. So if you really wanted to research this, then the medical bulletins of the Grand Tours since, say, the introduction of the ProTour in 2005 would be a good place to start.
Definitely number of crashes, and number of riders involved. Number and severity of injuries is worth tracking, but less relevant maybe because a 'minor' tip over can lead to a broken clavicle, while a high speed pile up might only end in lost skin and light bruising.
 
Sep 20, 2017
13,084
24,451
28,180
Definitely number of crashes, and number of riders involved. Number and severity of injuries is worth tracking, but less relevant maybe because a 'minor' tip over can lead to a broken clavicle, while a high speed pile up might only end in lost skin and light bruising.
Number of riders involved is a difficult one to track accurately, because it's difficult to define what constitutes being involved in a crash. Are you involved if you have to put your foot on the ground? Because that's something that can happen both because people are crashing in front of you, and because someone crashes into you from the side. If no to the former but yes to the latter, where do you draw the line between the two? If no to both, then how hard does a rider need to crash into you to be considered involved?

And it also isn't data you're going to be able to find for the non-televised early stages of stages/races that were the norm everywhere quite recently, making it impossible to compare to even the mid-2010s. Medical bulletins will probably have survived somewhere going decently far back.
 
May 27, 2022
1,457
2,553
10,180
Is there any actual source anywhere for these very confident statements? Given how they're presented as facts, I reckon there is?

It's all well and good discussing measures against crashes in pro cycling, as ideally we'd want as few as possible in any case, but I'd be interested to know how we know there are actually more of them now.
I thought the Tour of Flanders was pretty crash free this year.
 

TRENDING THREADS