Crashes, what can be done?

[Armchair Cyclist]

I'm advocating for using a different sign at that location, because the currently used sign is interpreted as a sharp corner. Which the riders interpret correctly, but if the road is also not up to standards of normal roads, you aren't made aware of this.

We already have multiple different types of signs for riders, so maybe there's already one that says the road itself is dangerous.

I suspect that riders pretty much blank out standard road signs: most are obviously meant for vehicular traffic and do not apply to them, and are at a height that is not where they are generally looking.
So this would have to be some kind of mobile signage, flashing lights or other high visibility feature, sufficiently rare that riders don't come with time to ignore them as routine, and yet not something that riders become so dependent upon that they are at a greater risk in lower budget races where they are not present. I'm not saying that there could not be a place for them, but they are only at best a very partial solution.

 

[Berniece]

So this would have to be some kind of mobile signage, flashing lights or other high visibility feature, sufficiently rare that riders don't come with time to ignore them as routine, and yet not something that riders become so dependent upon that they are at a greater risk in lower budget races where they are not present. I'm not saying that there could not be a place for them, but they are only at best a very partial solution.

Indeed, we already have such signages. Seen them multiple times during Flanders Classics races. They were mostly used to indicate that the road would get smaller, or make a weird turn, a bit like a chicane.

 

[Brullnux]

I really have no idea how the itzulia crash fits into your thesis because no one was fighting for position. Some riders overcooked the corner and others made it round just fine. The only reason it was a big deal was the collective salary of those who went down. The actual injuries were very minor at the end of it. Roglic quit the race with nothing worse than a few scratches. I mean c'mon. Would a domestique be allowed to walk off the job like that?

Were the injuries "very minor"?! You had two people with broken collarbones, two people with broken vertebrae, punctured lungs, a broken sternum, a broken scapula, several fractured ribs, and a concussion, all in the same crash. I would be surprised if Vine and Cras race again this season, Vingegaard and Evenopoel might be out until June/July, and Cepeda will also have a verg long time off the bike.

How many recent crashes have had such an extensive (and serious!) injury list?

 

[ashhutch1997]

It's good to see that the riders are starting to realise that their behaviour is the main problem. Let's hope we start to see this change in mindset converted in their behaviour on the road.

It's them who take the risks but it's also on them to control how much risk they take. The bikes are A LOT faster than 10 years ago. They have to adapt and take this into account.

I disagree on the whole 'bikes are a lot faster now' statement. These modern bikes aren't as fast as made out, for example, the Specialized Venge from 4 years ago is faster than the SL8 they are using now, Specialized even admitted that.... In fact, a lot of manufacturers have stopped producing areo bikes. If anything, I'd say these bikes of today are slower, but that's IMO, there's a lot of marketing BS out there.. But again, this is my opinion, I actually sold my 'modern bike' and brought a much cheaper one from 6 years ago for this reason.
Now yes, the speeds are very high, but I would put this more down to nutrition, sports science, training and clinic related issues.

 

[Andy262]

Not possible to make 157km safe. This was just bad luck, didnt look like a dangerous part of the route.

And yet not a dissimilar situation to last year’s tragedy in Switzerland. A deceptively sharp bend on a fast, wide, downhill road. Given the concrete culvert and boulders I think we should count ourselves lucky this wasn’t even worse.

 

[Keldergoat]

MVDP spittin' truths again. 'The most dangerous thing about cycling are the cyclists'.

Van der Poel glashelder over veiligheid in koers: 'Meest gevaarlijke aan wielrennen zijn de coureurs zelf'

Veiligheid in het peloton: het is één van de meest

www.indeleiderstrui.nl

 

[EliseeReclus]

I do feel like one thing that's missing when it comes to crashes (maybe only particularly dangerous ones or involving multiple riders) is some kind of neutral/independent report into what caused the crash so that it can actually be figured out what can be done to rectify it. Otherwise we end up with lots of pontificating and hobby horse suggestions that sometimes aren't really that relevant. It feels slightly like this thread (and indeed the discourse more generally) is caught in a loop of throwing blame at riders, organisers and the UCI when really we have no idea how to attribute fault for what's going on in a race or crash. In this instance we seem to have competing ideas around whether it was the riders racing in a way that is not especially safe, the tree roots in combination with riders riding on the hoods, unsafe course design and I'm sure some other ideas. It would be helpful if there something that balanced these different explanations so that some output and changes can be made subsequently.

For instance if there's a race that has multiple crashes from what is deemed as dangerous course design - the UCI can demote the race's status or put it on a warning that it has to improve their safety.

If a particularly dangerous stretch of road has caused crashes it can be taken out of the race, have mandated safety measures to amend the course or have the stretch neutralised if it needs to be used.

If a specific rider is consistently causing crashes they can be fined, or there can be some equivalent of F1 Racing's license system to restrict the types of races they can compete in until they have demonstrated a level of safety.

If a team's tactics or team actions are regularly causing crashes they can be fined or some kind of sanction can be taken against the DS giving the instructions.

Finally, if it's the fault of something outside of these like the race caravan, fans on the side of the road or how emergency services react to crashes then some kind of control measures for these instances should be introduced.

 

[Mayomaniac]

According to Sobrero, who was near Roglic when the crash happened, the road wasn't really dangerous and sich a crash could happen everywhere on a stage. He also mainly blames the fighting for positions and trying to be near the front all stage long.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

You don't have to put signals on the side of the road for each corner. Only for those corners that are dangerous. In this case, Itzulia is a WT race, there's a standard to uphold too.

There is an argument to make, at the same time, that actually this kind of signage would be more important at junior and amateur ranks where riders are less experienced or aware, whereas elite WT pros would be expected to have learned the skills to read the road.

The flip side is that in the junior and amateur ranks, the difference in levels between the best and worst rider in the bunch is far greater than at the WT level (and with the increasing Premier Leagueification of cycling, that is reducing yet further) and so you don't have a huge péloton hitting these parts of the course. That's kind of why you need a selective parcours. The descents in País Vasco are for the most part perfectly safe to negotiate... in smaller sized groups that we are used to seeing in this race where there is more visibility and time to react to situations as they transpire on the road, not a full pack.

 

[Berniece]

There is an argument to make, at the same time, that actually this kind of signage would be more important at junior and amateur ranks where riders are less experienced or aware, whereas elite WT pros would be expected to have learned the skills to read the road.

How can you read that tree roots push the street a bit up in some areas when you are going 50-70km/h? But I agree that the ranks shouldn't have an impact on how much signage should be placed.

 

[scribers]

Yesterdays crash is possibly the most consequential and dramatic crash I can recall in terms of who was involved and the seriousness of it.

 

[awavey]

I'm advocating for using a different sign at that location, because the currently used sign is interpreted as a sharp corner. Which the riders interpret correctly, but if the road is also not up to standards of normal roads, you aren't made aware of this.

We already have multiple different types of signs for riders, so maybe there's already one that says the road itself is dangerous.

Road surface issues or problems of that kind are usually noted in the roadbook route instructions.

teams are also perfectly capable of recon of their own on a route.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

How can you read that tree roots push the street a bit up in some areas when you are going 50-70km/h? But I agree that the ranks shouldn't have an impact on how much signage should be placed.

Local knowledge (either your own or consulting others), recon rides, studying the roadbook, going at a speed that enables you to react to changing conditions on the road. Mikel Bizkarra posted about it; Pello Bilbao said that he knew that that corner was coming up and the speed they were going was potentially dangerous, so he hung back. Bilbao is a guy who is known for some great and high-speed descending, so maybe when you see a guy like that - racing on his home roads - taking precautions, it might be a hint that there's a reason for that coming up. Matteo Sobrero was right up alongside Rogla at the time and said that there was nothing out of the ordinary about that corner and it was just something that could happen on any road at any time. Away from those who were there or who have the local knowledge, Lilian Calmejane has raised that the bikes, the modern 'finishing bottles' and rider attitudes need to be discussed as they're causing crashes, and Mathieu van der Poel has said that the biggest danger is the riders, not the courses.

But some people who have signage to sell and a populist fanboy shill who tried to hide that he was being paid by the team whose leader crashed out yesterday somehow managed to warn everybody about the dangers of this particular corner before the route of the race was even announced, and Twitter only understands the language of outrage, so they sell that it's all the race organisers' fault.

 

[Berniece]

Local knowledge (either your own or consulting others), recon rides, studying the roadbook, going at a speed that enables you to react to changing conditions on the road. Mikel Bizkarra posted about it; Pello Bilbao said that he knew that that corner was coming up and the speed they were going was potentially dangerous, so he hung back. Bilbao is a guy who is known for some great and high-speed descending, so maybe when you see a guy like that - racing on his home roads - taking precautions, it might be a hint that there's a reason for that coming up. Matteo Sobrero was right up alongside Rogla at the time and said that there was nothing out of the ordinary about that corner and it was just something that could happen on any road at any time. Away from those who were there or who have the local knowledge, Lilian Calmejane has raised that the bikes, the modern 'finishing bottles' and rider attitudes need to be discussed as they're causing crashes, and Mathieu van der Poel has said that the biggest danger is the riders, not the courses.

But some people who have signage to sell and a populist fanboy shill who tried to hide that he was being paid by the team whose leader crashed out yesterday somehow managed to warn everybody about the dangers of this particular corner before the route of the race was even announced, and Twitter only understands the language of outrage, so they sell that it's all the race organisers' fault.

Local knowledge and recon rides are indeed important, but it's the area of the organizer. They drew out the route. It's easier if the organizer checks these things and warns the riders on the road, than that every team separately needs to do a recon of every possible route and warn their riders.

Also how could riders in the front know that Bilbao was staying a bit back to take precautions? Should they all look back more? Or for each route they must first determine who knows the are well, and then make sure to keep your eyes on them? Those are all ridiculous things of course, when it's just easier that the people that drew out the route, who went over the road, could just check if it's dangerous, and then notify the teams, riders, etc of this.

 

[Izzyeviel]

Yesterdays crash is possibly the most consequential and dramatic crash I can recall in terms of who was involved and the seriousness of it.

why are GC contenders trying to win the race on a descent before the final climb? Cyclists need to change their attitude and approach to these races. 'You can't win the race at the first corner, but you can sure lose it.'

 

[roundabout]

Road surface issues or problems of that kind are usually noted in the roadbook route instructions.

teams are also perfectly capable of recon of their own on a route.

Maybe teams get their own roadbook, but there is nothing about any issues with road surface/dangerous descents in the roadbook on the race website.

Link to the roadbook here

Error

asociacionoce-my.sharepoint.com

 

[Ricco']

Regarding informing the spectator about the state of a fallen rider, MotoGP has some kind of telemetry that quickly puts on screen which rider has crashed.

Couldn't that also be put on screen? Seriously, we are well in the middle of the 21st century with IA taking over and we still can't have an integrated solution with all the riders tagged and with precise GPS location.

Also, all riders have radios with them, so they can feedback back to headquarters if they are alright, so that can information can be put on screen. Like "Crash, bib no. 139 - Rider OK!"

I honestly wouldn't mind if team radio was banned and instead replaced by a race control (like in motorsports), that would constantly be feedbacking information to the riders, that could also report back to them. Let the tactics and the multiple scenarios be discussed on the hotel or when receiving bidons.

 

[awavey]

Maybe teams get their own roadbook, but there is nothing about any issues with road surface/dangerous descents in the roadbook on the race website.

Link to the roadbook here

Error

asociacionoce-my.sharepoint.com

That's where the word "usually" comes in

 

[search]

Maybe teams get their own roadbook, but there is nothing about any issues with road surface/dangerous descents in the roadbook on the race website.

Link to the roadbook here

Error

asociacionoce-my.sharepoint.com

often this kind of stuff is in the daily communiques. This one for Catalunya for example has almost 10 pages of it in the end

COMUNICAT – Google Drive

drive.google.com

No idea if this is the case for Itzulia as well, though.

 

[Extinction]

Nobody knew who this company - who have a vested interest as they sell safety barriers to pro races - was until Benji posted about them yesterday. Suddenly not listening to them is worth losing your WT status over.

For all we know them contacting Itzulia could have just been a cold call sales opportunity. There were no obstacles on the road itself and the road was plenty wide enough and in good weather. The riders didn't push it hard enough on the climb to reduce the péloton size, and then took too many risks on the descent. They have agency. They can make their own decisions. Some of them maybe don't like to, because then they can't blame someone else if they do something wrong, but they can.

The Itzulia organisers were placed on probation regarding their WT status a decade ago around the irresponsible decision to put traffic cones on top of metal bollards in a sprint run-in in Bilbao. These were marking car parking spaces and they had neglected to take into account that once the cars were removed, these would stick out into the available space to the riders until it was too late for a better solution. The injuries that resulted from that were the organisers' fault because they were directly the result of organiser irresponsibility. They passed that probation. This example was just a racing incident that unfortunately happened at an inopportune time and location.

That was an off-camber curve, however, which means if you take it too wide inertia and gravity make it impossible to correct the trajectory. It is the most insidious type of curve, because seemingly straightforward. Moreover, at the point at which an unfortanate rider hurls off course, there is a concrete culvert and some boulders (none of which were taken into consideration as added dangers, given that nothing was done to create some sort of buffer zone). Even after the break arrived there and a rider had difficulty in negotiating that curve, nothing was done to warn the peloton of the impending danger. So I can't understand why you insist the organization had no responsability in the unraveling of events?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

That was an off-camber curve, however, which means if you take it too wide inertia and gravity make it impossible to correct the trajectory. It is the most insidious type of curve, because seemingly straightforward. Moreover, at the point at which an unfortanate rider hurls off course, there is a concrete culvert and some boulders (none of which were taken into consideration as added dangers, given that nothing was done to create some sort of buffer zone). Even after the break arrived there and a rider had difficulty in negotiating that curve, nothing was done to warn the peloton of the impending danger. So I can't understand why you insist the organization had no responsability in the unraveling of events?

I didn't insist they had no responsibility for the outcome, just that they had no responsibility for the crash occurring. Not e.g. using hay bales or pads to protect from the culvert and boulders is on the organisers. Not designing a parcours that was selective enough such that everybody still has something to protect is on the organisers. Riders going too fast for the roads and making mistakes or not giving themselves enough reaction time to be able to respond to situations developing in front of them is on the riders. Riders soft-pedalling the climb so that the bunch coming down the descent that they're taking too fast is larger than anticipated is on the riders.

 

[roundabout]

That's where the word "usually" comes in

Yes, and without explicit requirements for roadbooks it will be a crapshoot whether the roadbook means that it's a safe descent or the organizers did not really bother to look in detail without checking out the routes in person.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Local knowledge and recon rides are indeed important, but it's the area of the organizer. They drew out the route. It's easier if the organizer checks these things and warns the riders on the road, than that every team separately needs to do a recon of every possible route and warn their riders.

Also how could riders in the front know that Bilbao was staying a bit back to take precautions? Should they all look back more? Or for each route they must first determine who knows the are well, and then make sure to keep your eyes on them? Those are all ridiculous things of course, when it's just easier that the people that drew out the route, who went over the road, could just check if it's dangerous, and then notify the teams, riders, etc of this.

OK, so what about Sobrero saying it wasn't anything out of the ordinary and could have happened on any road? This wasn't an unusually dangerous or unacceptable descent, especially not for this particular race which is in a part of the world where... well, just look at a topographical map. It was a two-way road in good weather conditions, the organisers had signposted to warn of the corner to come, and there were no obstacles on the road. It was just a stretch that is prone to becoming a bit bumpy. The issue was more the lack of safe run-off if an incident occurred at that particular corner.

You act as though it is far too onerous to ask riders to consult locals or undertake reconnaissance rides, but these have been part of the cyclist's arsenal as long as cycling has been a sport. Why is it suddenly no longer acceptable to expect teams to do research, at such a time when that research is easier to do than ever?

As I say, there is a certain section of the riders who want to reduce their agency to effort management and make it a pure physiological competition, but reacting to conditions on the road is part of the sport.

 

[roundabout]

I think the technical guides can be finalized as late as 30 days before the race start so sometimes it may just not be practicable to do recons.

Edit: and that's in addition to perhaps budgetary considerations

 

[Nick2413]

Does anyone know how much of the budget goes into safety features? The types of solutions being suggested would seemingly cost 6-7 figures per race when implemented in every potentially dangerous area. Is there remotely close to enough money for that in cycling?