-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
@Libertine Seguros
Exactly. As some started to act as this is somehow done. That something was actually done and this is all over now. That this thread has served its purpose. Somehow caught up with one possible technical solution. As if cycling apparel really ain't going to get any safety related upgrades in the future. Among other changes introduced.
Nothing was done yet.
P.S. Maybe by the time this thread reaches one of the Eddy threads in length. Maybe by then some minuscule thing will actually get done. And we will be able to say, well. Something was actually done.
Exactly. As some started to act as this is somehow done. That something was actually done and this is all over now. That this thread has served its purpose. Somehow caught up with one possible technical solution. As if cycling apparel really ain't going to get any safety related upgrades in the future. Among other changes introduced.
Nothing was done yet.
P.S. Maybe by the time this thread reaches one of the Eddy threads in length. Maybe by then some minuscule thing will actually get done. And we will be able to say, well. Something was actually done.
Crashes, what can be done? Change sports. Increased bike performance and rider preparation, along with the investments this costs, has placed even more pressure on riders to get results. Such that they take more risks and fall at higher speeds. Once upon a time, a rider could brake without fear of losing his contract. No more. And yet the answer is more safety protocols, without addressing the underlying issues that work against them.
Last edited:
This thread hasn't "run its course", because each time we get major crashes, different causes and different lessons are there to be learned. The current safety state of the sport is the product of a century of careful adaptation to the dangers posed by the sport, which have got greater as the technology has improved and speeds have increased, as well as the professionalism of the sport meaning the gaps between talent levels in the major races are much less. That refinement process will only continue. However, there are certain limitations to what can be done which are the product of the very character of road cycling, in the same way as safety at the Isle of Man TT or the Pikes Peak International Hillclimb will never be able to replicate the level of safety at a modern F1/MotoGP circuit; even more so because it's a pack sport and you will organically see crashes just naturally occurring from touches of wheels, bumps of handlebars etc. as people place themselves in the bunch, dispose of bidons, grab musettes and all those other things that are just ingrained parts of road cycling. Road cycling can never be truly 'safe', only 'safer'.
There have been many discussions about what can, should and will be done to improve rider - and spectator - safety in this and other threads over the years. It's only become locked in on one subject of discussion because you have routinely gone back to the well on your pet subject, a solution looking for a problem, and - thankfully - there hasn't been another avoidable incident like a Jakobsen/Groenewegen severe enough to redirect discussion back to something which adds value for a while.
The Bubble Boy solution is a brilliant example of an engineer's solution to a problem.
Somehow, it simultaneously goes both too far and not far enough.
Too far insofar as it creates user resistance among ordinary users by making their journeys by bicycle more problematic, with time and effort needed to get into and out of the bubble: imagine popping down to the shops for some milk, it'd be a complete pain in the hole to have to spend ten minutes getting into the bubble and inflating it before you leave, then getting out of it when you get to the shops and then back into it when you'd bought your milk, and then have to deflate it when you got home in order to store it.
At the other extreme, it doesn't go far enough. Clearly, putting a safety device of that scale on the user is the wrong way of doing it. You need to put some sort of frame around the bicycle upon which you can mount deflated bags which will automatically fill with air in the event of an accident, with that being triggered by some kind of AI-programmed accelerometer that can tell the difference between an accident and not an accident.
That, though, creates a new problem: while you could build a shell-encased frame that would be aerodynamically efficient while travelling in a forward direction such a system would obviously be dangerous in crosswinds. To solve this problem an engineer would suggest adding stability by adding an extra wheel at the front of the bike and an extra wheel at the rear. As well as adding stability this would allow the use of heavier and stronger materials in the manufacture of the shell that would provide even more safety. We could perhaps call this a velocar.
With all the additional space created you could even add a motor, turning your four-wheeled bicycle into a four-wheel e-bike. You could easily get a motor capable of 150-200 HP into that space. You could also add extra seating for passengers. And air-conditioning. And a radio.
I can imagine there would be some resistance today to that sort of solution just as there was in the 1930s when Mochet had the same train of thought and the UCI banned it. So perhaps a different way is needed. Rather that protecting the rider with a near complete outer shell à la crabs and tortoises, why not work on a more simple exoskeleton that would add strength where needed. You could, for example, add some sort of exoskeletal structure along a rider's arm that would absorb some of the impact when a rider lands on the ground, thus diminishing the risk of a broken collarbone.
Of course, once you develop even the most simple form of an exoskeleton the engineers would be going off on one and building a whole armoured suit for the rider, just like knights of old. Which will only confuse future historians when they learn that Bartali's nickname was l'uomo di ferro or that Ireland's Rás hero Mick Murphy was called Iron Man.
The hardcore engineers would then take that three steps further: rather than an iron suit into which the rider fits, why not build something that would take external inputs from a rider - power meter readings - and feed them into a suit-like machine which would do the actual real-world bicycle riding. The riders could be housed in some sort of studio space in which there would be no danger of them crashing. Given the noise of their pedalling would sound like a washing machine on spin cycle we could perhaps call this a spin studio.
In time, we could even do away with the real-world suit-on-a-bike and just feed the inputs into some sort of digital avatar. I've no idea what we'd call this, possibly some exotic-sounding French cycling term, like bidon.
This is the problem with engineers. They love engineered solutions. When in fact some counter-intuitive thinking is actually called for. The more safety you build into some systems the more dangerous you make them. If you look at, say, the three-kilometre rule, rather than making sprints safer they have added danger via moral hazard: riders think they're safe, riders take more risks. So instead of trying to imagine rules or technologies that add safety we need to think of ways to make cycling less safe. Just like your father would try to scare you straight in order to get you to respect danger.
Somehow, it simultaneously goes both too far and not far enough.
Too far insofar as it creates user resistance among ordinary users by making their journeys by bicycle more problematic, with time and effort needed to get into and out of the bubble: imagine popping down to the shops for some milk, it'd be a complete pain in the hole to have to spend ten minutes getting into the bubble and inflating it before you leave, then getting out of it when you get to the shops and then back into it when you'd bought your milk, and then have to deflate it when you got home in order to store it.
At the other extreme, it doesn't go far enough. Clearly, putting a safety device of that scale on the user is the wrong way of doing it. You need to put some sort of frame around the bicycle upon which you can mount deflated bags which will automatically fill with air in the event of an accident, with that being triggered by some kind of AI-programmed accelerometer that can tell the difference between an accident and not an accident.
That, though, creates a new problem: while you could build a shell-encased frame that would be aerodynamically efficient while travelling in a forward direction such a system would obviously be dangerous in crosswinds. To solve this problem an engineer would suggest adding stability by adding an extra wheel at the front of the bike and an extra wheel at the rear. As well as adding stability this would allow the use of heavier and stronger materials in the manufacture of the shell that would provide even more safety. We could perhaps call this a velocar.
With all the additional space created you could even add a motor, turning your four-wheeled bicycle into a four-wheel e-bike. You could easily get a motor capable of 150-200 HP into that space. You could also add extra seating for passengers. And air-conditioning. And a radio.
I can imagine there would be some resistance today to that sort of solution just as there was in the 1930s when Mochet had the same train of thought and the UCI banned it. So perhaps a different way is needed. Rather that protecting the rider with a near complete outer shell à la crabs and tortoises, why not work on a more simple exoskeleton that would add strength where needed. You could, for example, add some sort of exoskeletal structure along a rider's arm that would absorb some of the impact when a rider lands on the ground, thus diminishing the risk of a broken collarbone.
Of course, once you develop even the most simple form of an exoskeleton the engineers would be going off on one and building a whole armoured suit for the rider, just like knights of old. Which will only confuse future historians when they learn that Bartali's nickname was l'uomo di ferro or that Ireland's Rás hero Mick Murphy was called Iron Man.
The hardcore engineers would then take that three steps further: rather than an iron suit into which the rider fits, why not build something that would take external inputs from a rider - power meter readings - and feed them into a suit-like machine which would do the actual real-world bicycle riding. The riders could be housed in some sort of studio space in which there would be no danger of them crashing. Given the noise of their pedalling would sound like a washing machine on spin cycle we could perhaps call this a spin studio.
In time, we could even do away with the real-world suit-on-a-bike and just feed the inputs into some sort of digital avatar. I've no idea what we'd call this, possibly some exotic-sounding French cycling term, like bidon.
This is the problem with engineers. They love engineered solutions. When in fact some counter-intuitive thinking is actually called for. The more safety you build into some systems the more dangerous you make them. If you look at, say, the three-kilometre rule, rather than making sprints safer they have added danger via moral hazard: riders think they're safe, riders take more risks. So instead of trying to imagine rules or technologies that add safety we need to think of ways to make cycling less safe. Just like your father would try to scare you straight in order to get you to respect danger.
Nothing compared to the horrific fall of 80 meters off a cliff by Pedro Horrillo in the 2009 Giro, however.
Armchair cyclist
Moderator
We now all know that he was able to sidle sideways until he could walk up the bank and all was fine, but the apparent indifference of the rest of the peloton here looks pretty damning.photo of the year?
"What's that? You've fallen over the side of a bridge and are just clinging on by your fingertips? Yeah, well I've got a pedal between someone else's spokes, and my mate is busy adjusting his Garmin, so you'll just have to wait."
If you visit CN home page ATM. It says two things. Ferron was hanging from the bridge today. Hayter has fractured collarbone. There is nothing that specific in this two cases. One could be prevented with some sort of fence like barrier and another with more protective apparel. Yes, even falling from a bridge. Even this is so common in pro peloton. That it needs the appropriate attention. On how to prevent from it to happen so frequently in the future.
The real question hence is on why doesn't it get done.
@fmk_RoI
No. That is not it.
First of all "the ball" was introduced by people being silly. Hence what you did is you proved the silly people wrong.
Secondly i already posted a vest alike solution in this thread. For commuters. Hence what you are saying in your reply and on how such protective apparel works in reality are two different things.
No. That is not it.
First of all "the ball" was introduced by people being silly. Hence what you did is you proved the silly people wrong.
Secondly i already posted a vest alike solution in this thread. For commuters. Hence what you are saying in your reply and on how such protective apparel works in reality are two different things.
@all
Some of you seem to have a rather hard time excepting that collarbone injuries could really get reduced by introduction of more protective apparel. Airbag technology already proven it can do that job in different sports. And it meets the criteria needed for pro peloton. It will happen eventually. In my opinion best to just let it go. And accept that as a fact. Trying to prove this can't get done. That is a dead end. As for believing OK. We can't prove that wrong. Lets just act silly instead. Note that such behavior just makes you silly and not right.
Point being don't be so caught up with this. You can focus on other areas just fine. Like lets say an ordinary fence. Or things like that. We don't all have to be so focused on collarbones and sun cream. We got that covered. I will persist until there is a significant drop in statistics. And until the awareness to wear sun cream is high enough. Others don't just wait and believe the rest will get done by itself.
Some of you seem to have a rather hard time excepting that collarbone injuries could really get reduced by introduction of more protective apparel. Airbag technology already proven it can do that job in different sports. And it meets the criteria needed for pro peloton. It will happen eventually. In my opinion best to just let it go. And accept that as a fact. Trying to prove this can't get done. That is a dead end. As for believing OK. We can't prove that wrong. Lets just act silly instead. Note that such behavior just makes you silly and not right.
Point being don't be so caught up with this. You can focus on other areas just fine. Like lets say an ordinary fence. Or things like that. We don't all have to be so focused on collarbones and sun cream. We got that covered. I will persist until there is a significant drop in statistics. And until the awareness to wear sun cream is high enough. Others don't just wait and believe the rest will get done by itself.
Do us a favor, everytime you think of this collarbone issue and conveniently forget everything we said in support and against your arguments and our own ideas that get ignored. Just go back and reread the last 4-5 pages of this thread. You would find we have already answered, debunked, and corrected the ideas.
Armchair cyclist
Moderator
Because despite your repeated assertions, there is no evidence that it ever will be possible in a manner compatible with professional racing.
I'm sure you will find that as soon as you stop trying to defend this lead zeppelin of a concept, the rest of us will drop our criticism of it.
And I maintain that in the grand scheme of things, broken collarbones are a very minor issue.
I'm pretty sure that during the big crash in EDB yesterday, nobody was worried about how many broken collarbones might have occured.
Last edited:
This looks remarkably like a Cat3 crash in Santa Barbera, CA from 2017. In that instance everyone not involved in the crash began attacking leaving a rider hanging off the bridge 30' above a rocky creek!photo of the year?
Here they stopped and took care of each other as any rider should. What more can you say about Cat 3 riders and their regard for fellow competitors?
Airbag technology? What is that going to cost for bikes? The costs of top end bikes has already escalated out of control in recent years. Some of this is due to global supply contraints related to Covid. But much is also due to technology - disc brakes, 12 speed cassettes and aero frames. Even pro teams and sponsors will baulk at the costs of airbag technology. It would also be very ugly and risk make cycling a laughing stock.
No, it won't happen eventually. It won't be called cycling anymore. Cycling does not have budgets like Formula One who introduced measures like the halo. Some things can't avoided. Like the laws of physics.
But we need to protect those life threatening collarbones!
Was just watching super G at the worlds. Ilka did a rather good training ride in preparation for the downhill. Anyway. Tricia Mangan unfortunately crashed. But luckily her air bag vest was triggered and prevented any serious injuries from happening. And she could walk away after.
So contrary to some people claims here. Collarbones can and should be protected. Including in pro peloton. And the technology enabling it is already known. People claiming otherwise are not to be taken seriously. That is really all there is to it.
So contrary to some people claims here. Collarbones can and should be protected. Including in pro peloton. And the technology enabling it is already known. People claiming otherwise are not to be taken seriously. That is really all there is to it.
Was just watching the 12 Hours of Bathurst sportscar race. Luca Stolz and Jules Gounon did rather a good drive in preparation for the European endurance season. Anyway. Keith Kassulke unfortunately crashed. But luckily the car landed on its protective roof and prevented any serious injuries from happening. And he could walk away after.
Thank goodness car manufacturers took action, otherwise he could have sustained a nasty collarbone injury.
Thank goodness car manufacturers took action, otherwise he could have sustained a nasty collarbone injury.
Not sure I would highlight alpine skiing as a safe sport compared to procycling.
Both are obviously extreme sports with high risk, but having watched alpine skiing for almost 40 years, it would amaze me if the chance of serious injuries per athlete per race are not many orders of magnitude higher in alpine skiing (especially in downhill) compared to cycling.
If I am not mistaken, 2018 olympic super-g champion Ester Ledecka misses out of the current world's because of a collarbone fracture by the way.
You're not to be taken seriously on this matter, I'm afraid. Not much else to it.
Hmm... could it be that in skiing, which is generally done in conditions where it's quite cold, having an extra layer could be, if not downright nice - for warmth - then at least managable? Whereas in cycling, any extra layer - and there would be some extra bulkyness going on - would be a problem.
I could do one better that could honestly fix this whole mixup. Rewatching some old World Cup matches and David Beckham’s goal that shook the world against Greece. Anyways. Crazily enough. Five years later at the World Cup again. Zinedine Zidane decides to viciously headbutt Marco Materazzi in the chest. Materazzi crumpled to the ground. Unfortunately Materazzi did not have an airbag vest to deploy to protect his collarbone. Thankfully no collarbone injury occurred and in the face of Materazzi’s bravery. A red flag was awarded. And Materazzi would later walk away after despite the threat of an injury occurring. A true hero.
So as we can all concur, an airbag vest is not vital in every sport.
So as we can all concur, an airbag vest is not vital in every sport.
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
Tour of the Alps 2024 (April 15 - 19)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 359
-
-
Volta Ciclista a Catalunya 2024 (March 18-24)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 2K
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Latest: gregrowlerson
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram