Crashes, what can be done?

Page 9 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
@Unterlenkerfahrend

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

Anyway above i said:



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.
No that's not what I said. Given specific extreme circumstances it's reasonable to have a say on raceday itself but again - I'm repeating myself here - so many examples in recent years weren't unforseeable extreme events but instead things that could have easily been adressed beforehand. That's what I'm refering to in regards to bad and unclear communications.

Adress the UCI, ASO and the press beforehand with a representative united voice - and if things develop in a foresable way than you have even more leverage on raceday itself to boycot or do other things.
But do nothing for weeks and then suddenly on raceday realize that, hey, sometimes in May there can be cold weather in the Alps (hello Giro), or hey, some roads in France are really twisted, who would've thought? Well, that just doesn't give you a solid standing against someone trying to organize things.

Like I said, UCI and ASO can be vultures but from an organizational perspective it's understandable why they're being ignorant when all we get is incohesive vague demands on raceday itself.
 
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.



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.
I watched the coverage - Brian Smith was all over the place in his commentary on the issue - For someone who allegedly watched the Eurosport coverage you've either not carefully listened or cherry picked arguments to suit your narrative.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
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.
I hear what you're saying, but by "self policing" I meant fellow spectators on the road. I live in the hinterlands and don't get to attend pro tour level races very often, but if I did, I'd like to think I'd give the person beside me a heads up that s/he is about to cause a huge pile up.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
Seems like for a lot of people, giving them a heads up would sound something like this:
"Oi, moron! They're behind you!"
There is a law in France that you are required to help someone if they are in danger/hurt. Obviously you don't need to endanger yourself, but I think pulling someone out of the way of a cyclist could count as trying to stop them getting hurt.
 
What do you mean? This woman, unintentionally but carelessly, caused a lot of pain and harm. She shouldn't be publically named (imo, no idea what French law is in this regard) and she won't be put in the guillotine, but she should be punished appropriately.

Good on her for presenting herself to the police though.
If it's 1,500 Euro, like the article suggests, I'm in favour of that.
Today during the broadcast they said 3 months of prison and 15,000 Euro were possible, plus compensation - that would be definitely too much for my taste.
Just look at how many people today leaned towards the riders again, standing meters on the road. Okay, what she did was worse, she didn't even look into their direction, but I think punishing one person like that "to set an example" is unfair and directing the blame only towards her.
 
If it's 1,500 Euro, like the article suggests, I'm in favour of that.
Today during the broadcast they said 3 months of prison and 15,000 Euro were possible, plus compensation - that would be definitely too much for my taste.
Just look at how many people today leaned towards the riders again, standing meters on the road. Okay, what she did was worse, she didn't even look into their direction, but I think punishing one person like that "to set an example" is unfair and directing the blame only towards her.
They can only punish her by what the law allows for; it's not like they can just decide what the punishment must be to set an example. No matter what punishment she gets, I'm sure plenty of other people have broken the same rules and have been punished the same as she will be.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
They can only punish her by what the law allows for; it's not like they can just decide what the punishment must be to set an example.
Sure... I don't know what the law says, I don't know where the commentators got that info from and whether it's reliable.
But of course there's a margin for acting - the law may say organizers and riders have the right to claim a certain sum, and it may depend on their willingness to sue her further.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
If this had happened in Austria my biggest worry would be for the health insurance to make her pay for all the medical treatments the riders received, that could add up to a lot very quickly. The insurance would 100% do that here, even if the riders don't file any individual claims against her.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
Seems like for a lot of people, giving them a heads up would sound something like this:
"Oi, moron! They're behind you!"
She is standing sort of alone and all the other people are on her left side looking towards the peloton. So nobody is even looking in her direction to warn or pull her away. This sort of thing is rare but happens with commuters waiting for a train. A few commuters go very close to the edge and donot look towards the incoming train and you can guess the rest. Many times people are saved by other commuters standing near them who warn or pull them away.
 
Sure, but if someone's at fault they demand the money back from the individual. Like, if I punch someone in the street, the courts will make me pay for his treatment.
Aaah... and what you're saying is that in Austria, if they didn't get a specific list of which injuries were caused by her antics, they'd just assume all the injuries on stage 1 were caused by her antics?

She is standing sort of alone and all the other people are on her left side looking towards the peloton. So nobody is even looking in her direction to warn or pull her away. This sort of thing is rare but happens with commuters waiting for a train. A few commuters go very close to the edge and donot look towards the incoming train and you can guess the rest. Many times people are saved by other commuters standing near them who warn or pull them away.
I wasn't specifically talking about this situation. Just generally about idiots running in front of the riders, or trying to take selfies, or running in front of the riders while trying to take selfies.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
What do you mean? This woman, unintentionally but carelessly, caused a lot of pain and harm. She shouldn't be publically named (imo, no idea what French law is in this regard) and she won't be put in the guillotine, but she should be punished appropriately.

Good on her for presenting herself to the police though.
As for the short version. I mean that i don't believe banning the supertuck position improved safety in the peloton and i don't believe making an example out of this woman will improve safety in the peloton or that it will have any meaningful effect in potential future similar situations.

In addition i feel that if ASO took the stance it is OK for them to sue this woman and to encourage the teams to do the same. In this case the standard should be set the same for both. This woman only caused one safety related incident on stage 1. Most of others incidents on stage 1 and especially 3 are ASO fault. If we take away the situation where it is a moot point and most woudl call it "riders fault" one situation stands out that ASO is liable for. They are the race organisers and as such responsible for rider safety. ASO agreed with riders that the end of the stage 3 is not safe enough and additional safety measures should be taken. After they baked up and sent riders on the road without applying this safety measures. That resulted in safety related incidents. If ASO feel UCI is to blame, ASO can sue UCI. Teams and riders should sue the ASO.

I am not a big advocate of "sue method". But if ASO went all in on this woman, legally, then the same standards and actions should apply for them too. And that would do much more good in regards to future riders safety. Compared to suing this woman. If nothing else it would bring all parties involved behind the same table and forcing them to discuss the future that includes less safety related incidents.
 
As for people that say not much can be done. Sure it can be. We discussed this like each 5 minutes on some forum and already thought of some solutions.

Educating the fans by promotional videos on Eurosport. If this would already be in full swing somebody would pull that woman back.

Separating the goats from the bulls on sprint stages. There is no need for the goats to be there at the end. A solution that removers the initiative for the goats to be there would hence reduce incidents where bulls stomp all over the goats.

This two things applied would likely make this year Tour edition a blast. Compared to this hampered edition we are now watching. Where much things were decided on stage 3. Due to (preventable) safety realted incidents.
 
Last edited:
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.
I'm just glad he's lecturing you on the rules of discussion now instead of me! :rolleyes:
 
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.
Remember Rob Contador punching the doctor guy who got too close?
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0W__FNIGwA


@ 3:00
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM3_vZxZyJA
 
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
I'll just ask without doing the math...would that have helped PR?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY