Crashes, what can be done?

Page 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Logic-is-your-friend

Logic-is-your-friend

Jun 7, 2011
20,301
19,201
28,180
carolina said:
Of course, there is no easy solution.

Even with the neutralization at 10kms, all the GC teams will go crazy until that point.
Trying to find better routes is also not that easy. Maybe yesterday that was the better route available?

The UCI and the organizers need to do better and a change of rules might help reduce the crashes, but ultimately, having 10 different teams trying to be at the front is the main issue and no rule will avoid that.
Click to expand...
The GC teams want to be at the front, because they are afraid that in a hectic and chaotic final of a sprint stage, there will be gaps and crashes. That's why they want to be at the front and actually make matters worse, by pushing even more riders to the front. If you neutralize the GC at 10k, that's the point when the sprint trains crank it up. That also means the risk of gaps and crashes caused by the sprint trains is smaller before that point and there would be less of a reason for the GC teams to start pushing to be at the front the entire time. The way it is now, it's basically a self fulfilling prophecy. "Make sure you're at the front, because there will be gaps and crashes". Yup...

SafeBet said:
I have no idea if taking time with 10 km to go would solve (or even reduce) the problems.
But I guess they could experiment in some smaller races, or even in the Vuelta, and see how it goes.
Click to expand...
Dauphiné
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan, Broccolidwarf and SafeBet
King Boonen

King Boonen

Jul 25, 2012
12,967
1,970
25,680
carolina said:
Of course, there is no easy solution.

Even with the neutralization at 10kms, all the GC teams will go crazy until that point.
Trying to find better routes is also not that easy. Maybe yesterday that was the better route available?

The UCI and the organizers need to do better and a change of rules might help reduce the crashes, but ultimately, having 10 different teams trying to be at the front is the main issue and no rule will avoid that.
Click to expand...
As other have said, I think GC teams racing at these points is a function of the sprint teams racing. Moving the point GC times are taken further back should hopefully prevent this happening. We may be wrong, but it seems worth trying.

Route decisions are multifactorial with lots of competing interests. Yes, organisers and the UCI need to do their best to plan the safest routes possible and refuse routes deemed too dangerous (and teams need to proactively assess routes and make their feelings known ahead of time to aid this), but I'd note that we've also had complaints in the past about wide roads causing crashes because it allows too many sprint trains and sprinters to get involved. It's a balancing act that is more easily dealt with by removing riders from the situation. If lowering rider numbers isn't an option, creating rules that allow for riders who don't want to be involved in the sprint to get out of the way seems like the next best thing to try.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Broccolidwarf, SafeBet, Samu Cuenca and 1 other person
C

CyclistAbi

May 29, 2019
9,799
10,582
18,180
King Boonen said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what rides did before the stage. ASO refused to listen and denied the request from riders. UCI made inappropriate comments after the race.
 
S

Salvarani

Oct 15, 2017
15,989
17,388
28,180
I think the riders, right now, are going about it in the wrong way.

Sometimes they might have to adjust their speed and go as fast as the road allows them to. It cant be full gas into corners on a narrow road with riders all across the road. It is a lottery who goes down and who is not.

Maybe they will have to accept to take a few seconds loss here and there. At least you are in the race with a fighting chance, and hopefully your competitors will lose some here and there too. Hopefully the bad luck evens out.

UCI and ASO of course has to do their job on taking precautions and do their job on safety measures. They have for sure screwed up in the past, but I dont think the blame is totally on them right now.

Teams and riders also gotta use their common sense in some situations. There has to be some accountability from their side too here on how they race. You have to adjust how you race and how fast you are going. Each individual knowing their limitations. Depending on if it is uphill, downhill, flat, curvy, smaller road, bigger road... and so on.

For sure there can be a bad design. Dangerous ones, but maybe everyone has to adjust sometimes also. Not thinking it is totally safe to go at 60km/h with 4-5 riders all across the road. Everyone stressing over position. Things gonna happen. Reckless behavior.

My two cents. Agree or dont agree. If you read this long, have a good evening. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: carolina
M

mrgmyers

Aug 10, 2010
147
111
9,030
The UCI appear to have learned very little from the Tour of Poland yes cars have to come off the course at the finish because it is dangerous when riders are sprinting yet Caleb was left lying on the road with a lone marshal waving riders around him THAT is totally unacceptable sure it WILL be expensive for the race organisers and will involve the UCI having to do something about regulations in relation to crashes on the finishing straight (Something neither will like) but there should be a doctor and medical team on hand at the finish ready to deal with incidents like this I have worked in Motorsport for 20 odd years and seen plenty of deeply unpleasant incidents but the sight of Caleb just laying there did turn my guts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
Broccolidwarf

Broccolidwarf

Mar 26, 2015
7,144
2,633
18,180
I would suggest people stopped using words like "dangerous", about yesterdays stage - it is far over the top.

It wasn't particularly dangerous, it was on "normal" roads, always with at least 2 car lanes width, and there wasn't any significant road furniture either.

The roads were not that different, from what the riders face the rest of the Tour - or the rest of the year for that matter.

Yes, the 3K limit should have been moved, because it was the first sprinters stage at the Tour, which carries with it special dynamics - but the route in itself, wasn't any better or worse than most.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmdirt
C

CyclistAbi

May 29, 2019
9,799
10,582
18,180
King Boonen said:
Read. The. First. Sentence. I. Wrote.
Click to expand...

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 must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom