Crashes, what can be done?

[Netserk]

I agree the peloton is too big.

Without checking it, I think the Giro peloton is the smallest it has been for more than 40 years.

EDIT: 39 years to be exact.

 

[Red Rick]

Punish riders adequately for dangerous behavior instead of consistently rewarding it.

Much bigger factor tham 3km rule or parcours

 

[jmdirt]

Bumping this thread to say that the root cause of a lot of these late crashes is the fact that there are 2 separate races with different riders going on at the same time on the same road.

No GC contender today had any interest in gaining time on their competitors in the last hour of todays stage.

Would 2 finish lines be that bad? More than 3km. 3 km seems arbitrary - its way too late because the racing is getting tense around 10k to go.

If it was at 10k to go - take GC times here - so no need for GC guys to ride at the front in case of splits in the group.

Then the GC rider will truly drop off and roll in, not worry about losing 8" in some stupid late split.

10k gives the sprint teams lots of time to arrange the trains. 3 km is way too late for that. You need to be in position already at the 3k mark making the racing intense.

With a GC finish time far from the stage finish, then the stage players can battle it out amongst themselves and the GC guys can stay safe

10K is too far IMO

 

[CyclistAbi]

For specialists contesting the sprint. If the rules would be made more clear and enforced more frequently. That would likely reduce the number of crashes. Long term. Like each new generation for things to slowly improve. If the effort is invested.

Neutralization. This actually doesn't reduce crashes. Hence 3km or 10km. It doesn't make that much difference. Crashes percentage won't drop because of the length of it. The problem is the group is not reduced. GC riders having initiative to be there. It's a flaw of the current system. GC riders have as much business of being there as sprinters being in a bunch sprint on the MTF. It's a flaw of the system that nobody bothered to resolve yet.

The idea that current system proves you are a worthy GC contender. Due to having the skills to ride in such bunch. It's not a skill but a lottery. Hence bike handling skills don't have much to do with it. On top of that and as a GC contender. You have to prove it constantly. It's not like you are riding in a bunch only at the end of sprint stages.

 

[CyclistAbi]

So in short currently crashes at the end of sprint stages are there by design. If the crash didn't occur, to make the selection, then the system failed. And partially it does but ultimately it doesn't come down to skill. Avoiding it. It's a lottery. Hence the idea that it proves worth of GC riders is moot. Skill of a GC rider is proven elsewhere.

 

[CyclistAbi]

It's like watching tennis and ping pong in the same match. Literary. It just makes no sense doing it like that.

P.S. I am not talking about pickleball.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

So in short currently crashes at the end of sprint stages are there by design. If the crash didn't occur, to make the selection, then the system failed.

I think that calls for explanation. Who do you believe has a vested interest in there being crashes? What 'system' benefits from rider injuries?

 

[Wyndbrook]

The simple thing of ensuring courses as as safe as possible are still being woefully neglected, the wooden island in Napoli and the corner where Thomas lost his chain should have been marshalled and protected.
It's not ok to say, well there were no incidents this time.

 

[CyclistAbi]

I think that calls for explanation. Who do you believe has a vested interest in there being crashes? What 'system' benefits from rider injuries?

Nobody really. Likely a hundred years back this was not such of a problem. A finish of a sprinters stage. In regards to the whole peloton being there. Now when it is. Nobody has really done anything to address it.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Nobody really. Likely a hundred years back this was not such of a problem. A finish of a sprinters stage. In regards to the whole peloton being there. Now when it is. Nobody has really done anything to address it.

In that case, what did you mean by this:

So in short currently crashes at the end of sprint stages are there by design.

and this:

If the crash didn't occur, to make the selection, then the system failed.

Because it sounds very much like you are saying that race designers want final straight crashes.

 

[CyclistAbi]

@Armchair cyclist

No. Race (stage) designers don't have much power over this. Other instances responsible for cycling development and safety need to acknowledge and resolve this problem by changing the format of racing. When it comes to sprint stages on stage races. To remove the initiative for GC riders and their teams to be there in the finale of sprint stages. Like it is now.

P.S. For rather obvious reasons sprint stage designers are rather keen to put such stages in town centers. That is something that is rather beneficial to introducing more crashes. But that is another story. Not related to what we discussed above.

 

[houtdffan]

far fewer crashes back when it was the 1km rule

How about going back to that. You seldom saw dangerous sprints. Only real mass crashes at the finish were Hinault's in 1985 and the stage 1 crash in 2003. Now, we get 3-4 every GT


I actually wonder if taking the real time of every rider at the line, without regards for splits would make things safer. You wouldn't have some riders going at grannie speeds while others are going flat out. That speed differential is rather dangerous

 

[SHAD0W93]

far fewer crashes back when it was the 1km rule

How about going back to that. You seldom saw dangerous sprints. Only real mass crashes at the finish were Hinault's in 1985 and the stage 1 crash in 2003. Now, we get 3-4 every GT


I actually wonder if taking the real time of every rider at the line, without regards for splits would make things safer. You wouldn't have some riders going at grannie speeds while others are going flat out. That speed differential is rather dangerous

But there are a lot more sprint teams and trains now clogging the front even more. If the time goes to you crossing the line, not only way it increase the issue of more riders at the front to set up a sprint now for not only the sprinter but FC rider, GC leaders would start sprinting as well at a slower speed than the others, and it will be hard to get the exact time without a chip. It also doesn’t help with some of the routes having a complicated finish.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

@Armchair cyclist

No. Race (stage) designers don't have much power over this. Other instances responsible for cycling development and safety need to acknowledge and resolve this problem by changing the format of racing. When it comes to sprint stages on stage races. To remove the initiative for GC riders and their teams to be there in the finale of sprint stages. Like it is now.

P.S. For rather obvious reasons sprint stage designers are rather keen to put such stages in town centers. That is something that is rather beneficial to introducing more crashes. But that is another story. Not related to what we discussed above.

So what did you mean by the comments that I quoted above? Or do you now wish to withdraw them. Because they still stand as an accusation against someone, and the idea that stage designers don't have much power over the design of a stage seems an audacious argument to put forward.

 

[houtdffan]

But there are a lot more sprint teams and trains now clogging the front even more. If the time goes to you crossing the line, not only way it increase the issue of more riders at the front to set up a sprint now for not only the sprinter but FC rider, GC leaders would start sprinting as well at a slower speed than the others, and it will be hard to get the exact time without a chip. It also doesn’t help with some of the routes having a complicated finish.

also, start using wider finishing straights

 

[SHAD0W93]

also, start using wider finishing straights

Would be great!!

 

[Netserk]

far fewer crashes back when it was the 1km rule

Confounded, but some real effect too.

also, start using wider finishing straights

The wider the road, the more lateral movements. Gentle bends when it's false flat stretches the peloton out.

 

[CyclistAbi]

So what did you mean by the comments that I quoted above? Or do you now wish to withdraw them. Because they still stand as an accusation against someone, and the idea that stage designers don't have much power over the design of a stage seems an audacious argument to put forward.

Can you please rephrase this into more understandable question?

I feel that you already asked this exact question and my previous answer was already verbose enough to answer it. Hence best if we both first understand what the question is.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

You said:

So in short currently crashes at the end of sprint stages are there by design. If the crash didn't occur, to make the selection, then the system failed.

It is very difficult to interpret that as anything other than you claiming that somebody (some level within the organisation of the sport, presumably involved in course design, rather than an individual someone) specifically wants crashes to happen, and that crashes at the end of sprint stages are essential for competitive cycling.

Is that what you believe?
Is a sprint without a crash considered to be a failure by some people, and if so by whom?
What is this system that failed in the absence of a crash?
To whose benefit is this system maintained and tolerated?

 

[CyclistAbi]

@Armchair cyclist

I see. First of all what i meant with that statement is to be a mere description of the current format. As is. And as one can observe on numerous occasions by simply watching it unfold on TV. Feel free to dispute it if you believe the observation is not an accurate description of current state of affairs. And we can take it from there.

As for your interpretation of it or better an additional question. Blame distribution. It's an interesting question indeed. That is whenever you want to change something. You will always need to deal with some level of opposition. Terms like conservatives or naysayers are usually used. Are they to blame? It i guess depends. Was there just no real effort or pressure applied to improve things? Or was this ongoing and was simply blocked by somebody?

I would find it hard to believe a governing body like UCI is not aware of this ongoing problem. That is frequency of crashes by GC cyclists at the end of sprint stages. So the question is are they doing something about it? To reduce the frequency. Is there any pressure from cyclists, people watching cycling, cycling syndicates ... Ultimately the blame is distributed among all this parties. Some obviously take bigger share as they have bigger power and hence responsibility. All in all at some point they need to take responsibility for it. If the problem persist and things don't improve. Just like in all other sports. Cycling is not an exception here. Regardless if they did or did not do it barefoot 100 years back.

Hope this answers your question.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

I can only charitably conclude that what you meant by "by design" is " by virtue of a lack of change since a time when there were not so many riders involved in a sprint line", and that when you say that there are people resistant to change who would have an attitude that "If the crash didn't occur...then the system failed", what you mean is that the possibility of a crash is accepted as inherent risk.

I appreciate that English is not your first language, and I greatly admire the efforts of those who contribute here other than in their native tongue, but in this case I hope that your linguistic ability has let you down, and means that you have not commuicated what you intended. The alternative is that you have made a pretty appalling accusation.

 

[JohnCraft]

After being struck by a car while cycling and being forcefully thrown 20 feet into a curb, my immediate thought wasn't about wishing for an airbag to protect my collarbone. Instead, I expressed gratitude for wearing a helmet, as it prevented me from suffering severe head trauma and potentially ending up in a vegetative state.

 

[SHAD0W93]

After being struck by a car while cycling and being forcefully thrown 20 feet into a curb, my immediate thought wasn't about wishing for an airbag to protect my collarbone. Instead, I expressed gratitude for wearing a helmet, as it prevented me from suffering severe head trauma and potentially ending up in a vegetative state.

Same and very similar to what I posted awhile ago

 

[Samu Cuenca]

After my crash in the kitchen yesterday, I'd like a word with the floor manufacturer about why they haven't fitted it with an airbag system. It's like they want accidents to occur.

 

[CyclistAbi]

I can only charitably conclude that what you meant by "by design" is " by virtue of a lack of change since a time when there were not so many riders involved in a sprint line", and that when you say that there are people resistant to change who would have an attitude that "If the crash didn't occur...then the system failed", what you mean is that the possibility of a crash is accepted as inherent risk.

I appreciate that English is not your first language, and I greatly admire the efforts of those who contribute here other than in their native tongue, but in this case I hope that your linguistic ability has let you down, and means that you have not commuicated what you intended. The alternative is that you have made a pretty appalling accusation.

You could be a poet.