Crashes, what can be done?

[AmRacer]

@Pozzovivo

Changes implemented likely shouldn't kill the ethos of this sport. And even with 90 riders i do feel that there would still be some bunch riding in the middle of the stages. What comes to mind is maybe one could choose to not ride irrationally over there? But here i guess one has to understand this are humans, athletes at their prime, some power play is to be expected. So all in all if 9 riders would be riding, instead of 180, we would still get some of that.

Half of the peloton would be out of job.

 

[Pozzovivo]

@Pozzovivo

Changes implemented likely shouldn't kill the ethos of this sport. And even with 90 riders i do feel that there would still be some bunch riding in the middle of the stages. What comes to mind is maybe one could choose to not ride irrationally over there? But here i guess one has to understand this are humans, athletes at their prime, some power play is to be expected. So all in all if 9 riders would be riding, instead of 180, we would still get some of that.

Responded to exactly this comment a year ago. It would help a lot and still keep many of the same aspects that are relevant today. The price of being in the exact middle position is enormous in 180 group vs 90 group. A lot of riders do only this in grand tours. They fight for position.

Almost same wording. It wouldn't kill anything but the worst riders contract. Which sucks for them. Teams of five to six is riders are plentiful to maintain many of the same dynamics. Look at Ineos 23 giro for instance.

Anyway

 

[Pozzovivo]

Half of the peloton would be out of job.

I know, most likely, yes. Why should there be 1000 and not 500 people living to ride a bike in the first place? We don't need 200 cars in formula one. In fact, that would lead to crashes...

 

[CyclistAbi]

@Pozzovivo

Would it make that much difference, though? Having 90 in the middle of the stage, riding in a bunch. They still wouldn't fit.

 

[Pozzovivo]

@Pozzovivo

Would it make that much difference, though? Having 90 in the middle of the stage, riding in a bunch. They still wouldn't fit.

YES it would make a huge difference! And they would fit a crazy amount better than 180...The dynamics is mostly the reason. Many riders and are trying to be at the front because the cost of being at the back is so high with huge pelotons. Only the Yates brothers understood this and made a different choice. Credit to them.

 

[CyclistAbi]

@Pozzovivo

I agree that it would likely made a huge difference at the end of bunch sprint stages, so i guess it could be tried out there first. Before reducing the peloton to 90 riders and doing such test. Realistically what do you feel has bigger chance of being tested out first? As for potentially reducing or increasing the number of riders. This are i guess always options but not necessarily to be safety orientated ones. Having less riders would statistically likely reduce the number of crashes, overall. But as said relatively speaking i don't see on how 90 riders split in the teams would fit any better then 180 riders. On occasions the bunch would still form and they still wouldn't fit. So for this mid stage bunches i feel that other solutions would need to be implemented it's just that currently nobody has put too much thought into it and hence solutions seem sparse. I am rather sure that solutions exist, to improve rider safety when riding in a bunch, regardless of the number. After bunch sprint finale gets cleaned up, of bloat, then we can try to do something about that too, addressing bunches in the middle of the stages. On what possible solutions are without changing the sport too much if at all.

 

[Pozzovivo]

Speeds and number of riders jostling for position in sprint finishes are definitely an issue. Maybe limit the gearing - we now have 10 tooth rear sprockets? 53/12 was enough. But most high profile crashes of recent years were not sprints - e.g. Froome, Vingegaard and Pogacar (LBL). Fabio Jakobsen an obvious exception.

I think it was Dan Martin the british-irish rider who got that question, about gearing, on the cycling podcast. And he coudn't be less generous to that suggestion. I agree with Daniel Martin. What happens if you limit gears but all else equal. Yes they go slower in some sections but then... "Let's play who breaks last"... Let's see who can dive bomb who...

It may have a very marginal impact.

 

[CyclistAbi]

I mostly read in this "gear" debates as lets at least do something, compared to doing nothing at all. So in this sense even such things are i guess progress. Regardless of their effectiveness. But this honestly is something to address at the end, on where the bulk of the work was already done and you are just fine tuning some details, that last percent or so. Considering the volume of crashes and resulting injuries currently ongoing, the cog, having one teeth more or less, that is a non factor when it comes to improving things substantially.

 

[jakasspeech11]

It’s definitely a step in the right direction to see the UCI moving towards official standards. Having a clear framework is usually what's needed for manufacturers to really commit to mass production, so hopefully, we see this tech becoming standard sooner rather than later.

 

[Pozzovivo]

@Pozzovivo

I agree that it would likely made a huge difference at the end of bunch sprint stages, so i guess it could be tried out there first. Before reducing the peloton to 90 riders and doing such test. Realistically what do you feel has bigger chance of being tested out first? As for potentially reducing or increasing the number of riders. This are i guess always options but not necessarily to be safety orientated ones. Having less riders would statistically likely reduce the number of crashes, overall. But as said relatively speaking i don't see on how 90 riders split in the teams would fit any better then 180 riders. On occasions the bunch would still form and they still wouldn't fit. So for this mid stage bunches i feel that other solutions would need to be implemented it's just that currently nobody has put too much thought into it and hence solutions seem sparse. I am rather sure that solutions exist, to improve rider safety when riding in a bunch, regardless of the number. After bunch sprint finale gets cleaned up, of bloat, then we can try to do something about that too, addressing bunches in the middle of the stages. On what possible solutions are without changing the sport too much if at all.

I think you’re raising reasonable questions, but I also think your main objection is built on a misunderstanding of what “fewer riders” is supposed to fix. Let me respond properly for once.

You get a clean test of this in every breakaway stage or reduced bunch sprint. The peloton splits in three. Break, GC group with helpers, and dropped riders. Almost never dangerous stage. Basically never a mass crash. This would be more frequent with fewer riders for dynamic reasons.

You're right of course, apeloton will always be longer than the road is wide, whether it’s 90 riders or 180. The real problem is how many riders are forced into the same positional contest at the same time. And why are they?

Crashes mostly happen when two things coincide: limited road space and a big incentive to be near the front (this also increases speed). In those moments, a huge number of riders all try to move into the same top positions because being 60th instead of 20th can be race ending in terms of result. That is what produces the “washing machine,” the chopping, the overlapping wheels, and then the big domino crashes.

Reducing the field size changes that mechanism in a way that “other solutions” often do not. With fewer riders, you don’t just reduce crowding a little. You reduce the number of people who feel they must be top 20 right now, and you reduce the number of bodies and bikes available to be swept up when something goes wrong. Even if a bunch still forms mid stage, it behaves differently. Fewer simultaneous move ups, fewer lead out trains and positioning domestiques, less accordion effect, fewer chain reactions. And the key thing is that big peloton crashes are not linear. They are contagion events. One touch of wheels becomes five riders, then fifteen, then thirty because there is no space or time to react. That cascade potential grows with field size. So the effect of reducing riders is very plausibly disproportionate, not just “half the riders equals half the injuries.”

Of course other measures matter too. Sprint regulations, barriers, course design, enforcement, equipment, all of that can help at the margins. But a lot of these are downstream fixes: they try to manage the consequences of a high pressure environment rather than reducing the pressure itself. Field size is an upstream lever. It directly lowers exposure, reduces interactions, and reduces the intensity of the positional battle that creates risk in the first place.

So yes, start with sprint stages if you want a trial. But the “90 riders still won’t fit so it doesn’t help” argument doesn’t hold. The benefit is that fewer riders are compelled to fight for the same limited space, and when something inevitably happens, fewer riders get taken out in a cascade.

 

[CyclistAbi]

So basically we do seem to agree that with implemented measures, such as neutralising last couple of km of sprint stages, we can take the initiative away, for most riders to be there, hence addressing most of the concerns you raised in term of the sprint stage finale.

As for mid stage bunch forming and riding here i feel that things might not be as linear as you wrote. I feel that what you wrote would still apply, at least relatively speaking, for that remaining 90 riders left. So ultimately even if we reduce the peloton to 90 riders some new solutions, that currently don't exist, would still need to be figured out and implemented, for the remaining riders.

One solution could be to penalise prolonged bunch riding with GC seconds lost. So an attempt to move forward would not in any way be obstructed, simply riding in a bunch for prolonged period of time on the other hand would. This might make riding more aggressive as a result as it becomes difficult to block attempts. But anyway, lets clean up the ends of sprint stages first, remove the riders with no initiative to be there. Much less work needed. It even happened already in the past, due to some circumstances invoking it.

 

[Divergence]

I think reducing the gearing will not make any difference at all. Reducing the peloton size will make a difference. But I think the best solution is to just eliminate sprint stages in the GTs and in the big 7 week races and possibly reduce the number of stages and/or increase the number of rest days (sprint stages are more or less rest days where riders roll the dice not to crash). Let the sprinters go to the track or in some races no-one watches anyway and let us have 10 stage races where the who is who are always competing.

 

[CyclistAbi]

But I think the best solution is to just eliminate sprint stages in the GTs and in the big 7 week races and possibly reduce the number of stages and/or increase the number of rest days (sprint stages are more or less rest days where riders roll the dice not to crash). Let the sprinters go to the track or in some races no-one watches anyway and let us have 10 stage races where the who is who are always competing.

So eliminate them not due to safety but as you don't feel the need to watch them? Plus how do you eliminate sprint stages? It's not possible, then a couple of a bit skinnier contenders will end up doing the same, specialise in sprint finales on i guess a ramp and beyond. Elite sprinting IMHO belongs to pro road peloton, just like TT and beyond. Not all people liking one or the other discipline IMHO shouldn't open the door to dropping something altogether being a viable option. I for example don't feel gravel belong in pro road peloton but i don't have any expectations of dropping it altogether. It will en up in there one way or another.

 

[Divergence]

So eliminate them not due to safety but as you don't feel the need to watch them? Plus how do you eliminate sprint stages? It's not possible, then a couple of a bit skinnier contenders will end up doing the same, specialise in sprint finales on i guess a ramp and beyond.

Sure I do not find watching sprint stages fascinating. But the reason to eliminate them is because most of the bad crashes happen during sprint finales. And I thing those are the crashes we do not need at all. IF someone crashes on a descend or by shear bad luck then OK, that is the sport.
Finally, is someone specializes in an uphill sprint, that should not be a problem because the stage would have been selective enough so that there is not 150 people gong in the last corner fighting for position.

 

[Pozzovivo]

So basically we do seem to agree that with implemented measures, such as neutralising last couple of km of sprint stages, we can take the initiative away, for most riders to be there, hence addressing most of the concerns you raised in term of the sprint stage finale.

As for mid stage bunch forming and riding here i feel that things might not be as linear as you wrote. I feel that what you wrote would still apply, at least relatively speaking, for that remaining 90 riders left. So ultimately even if we reduce the peloton to 90 riders some new solutions, that currently don't exist, would still need to be figured out and implemented, for the remaining riders.

One solution could be to penalise prolonged bunch riding with GC seconds lost. So an attempt to move forward would not in any way be obstructed, simply riding in a bunch for prolonged period of time on the other hand would. This might make riding more aggressive as a result as it becomes difficult to block attempts. But anyway, lets clean up the ends of sprint stages first, remove the riders with no initiative to be there. Much less work needed. It even happened already in the past, due to some circumstances invoking it.

No we don’t agree in general but on some specific. Bunching in the middle is not the problem also. No weird fixes the sport even more convoluted. Making gc time neutral on say 25 km before the sprint will make a difference. We agree there but it also makes the sport even weirder and arbitrary. The most important effect is that the current dynamic is replaced with a much more open race as Belgian ChatGPT flat leadouts and support riders that are only there too pull against breaks and position will be replaced with guys going on the attack and have a chance of succeeding much more often.

 

[Divergence]

So eliminate them not due to safety but as you don't feel the need to watch them? Plus how do you eliminate sprint stages? It's not possible, then a couple of a bit skinnier contenders will end up doing the same, specialise in sprint finales on i guess a ramp and beyond. Elite sprinting IMHO belongs to pro road peloton, just like TT and beyond. Not all people liking one or the other discipline IMHO shouldn't open the door to dropping something altogether being a viable option. I for example don't feel gravel belong in pro road peloton but i don't have any expectations of dropping it altogether. It will en up in there one way or another.

So you edited the post a little. IMHO elite sprinting belongs to the track. Also, while we are at it, TT should be done on road bikes. I do not really see the need for a special bike just for that event. Regarding gravel, I also do not think it should be in the major races. Just hilly and mountainous routes and let the best rider win. Of course, there should be a some possibility for tactics, i.e., sending teammates in breakaways (that is why I would rather see flat stages expunged rather then reducing the size of the peloton).

 

[CyclistAbi]

Sure I do not find watching sprint stages fascinating. But the reason to eliminate them is because most of the bad crashes happen during sprint finales. And I thing those are the crashes we do not need at all. IF someone crashes on a descend or by shear bad luck then OK, that is the sport.
Finally, is someone specializes in an uphill sprint, that should not be a problem because the stage would have been selective enough so that there is not 150 people gong in the last corner fighting for position.

So you edited the post a little. IMHO elite sprinting belongs to the track. Also, while we are at it, TT should be done on road bikes. I do not really see the need for a special bike just for that event. Regarding gravel, I also do not think it should be in the major races. Just hilly and mountainous routes and let the best rider win. Of course, there should be a some possibility for tactics, i.e., sending teammates in breakaways (that is why I would rather see flat stages expunged rather then reducing the size of the peloton).

But the thing is non sprinters don't have to be there in the first place, last couple of km can easily get neutralised. It's just that for now it hasn't happened yet. I do feel that it will happen before sprinting gets dropped from pro road peloton, though.

As for the best mountain/hilly specialists, calling them the best riders, history IMHO doesn't favour specialists. The best riders are considered the ones that excelled in all mentioned categories. As for TT bikes i feel they should stay, road bikes are a different tool not as good for this job.

But as this was not really a discussion about safety but some personal preference, on what disciplines somebody prefers, i feel that is settled in terms of this thread.

No we don’t agree in general but on some specific. Bunching in the middle is not the problem also. No weird fixes the sport even more convoluted. Making gc time neutral on say 25 km before the sprint will make a difference. We agree there but it also makes the sport even weirder and arbitrary. The most important effect is that the current dynamic is replaced with a much more open race as Belgian ChatGPT flat leadouts and rulours Willie replaced with guys going on the attack and have a chance of succeeding much more often.

Bunch forming and riding in the middle of the stage is basically a behavioural thing. Penalising it, when prolonged, that changes behaviour and not the sport. But i agree that we are not ready for that yet. For years now not even bunch sprint finales are addressed, it's still considered to be better if you push the whole peloton in there, regardless of the crashes. So one step at a time i guess.

 

[Divergence]

But the thing is non sprinters don't have to be there in the first place, last couple of km can easily get neutralised. It's just that for now it hasn't happened yet. I do feel that it will happen before sprinting gets dropped from pro road peloton, though.

As for the best mountain/hilly specialists, calling them the best riders, history IMHO doesn't favour specialists. The best riders are considered the ones that excelled in all mentioned categories. As for TT bikes i feel they should stay, road bikes are a different tool not as good for this job.

But as this was not really a discussion about safety but some personal preference, on what disciplines somebody prefers, i feel that is settled in terms of this thread.



Bunch forming and riding in the middle of the stage is basically a behavioural thing. Penalising it, when prolonged, that changes behaviour and not the sport. But i agree that we are not ready for that yet. For years now not even bunch sprint finales are addressed, it's still considered to be better if you push the whole peloton in there, regardless of the crashes. So one step at a time i guess.

Sure it is personal preference, but I am also sure it would reduce the number of nasty crashes. Just remember how Rog got taken of some 10km from the finish in TdF24'.

 

[Cookster15]

I think race commissaires have a bigger role to play, particularly in professional racing with television coverage and replays. If teams and riders are aware there are greater consequences for dangerous riding it will help encourage self policing. I lean towards this more than drastically reducing peloton sizes even if logically that should have a positive effect.

~90 riders just doesn't look as impressive on television for global viewers. And there will be more complaints from fans where their favorite teams or riders are excluded.

The 2025 TdF had 23 teams represented - each with 8 riders. Below are typical numbers. I added two options for a smaller peloton. One halving the teams and the other reducing riders per team. The latter would not work from a racing perspective.

Event	Number of teams	Riders per team	Total starters
2021 TdF	23	8	184
2022-24 TdF	22	8	176
2025 TdF	23	8	184
Option 1	11	8	88
Option 2	22	4	88

 

[proffate]

Smaller teams also makes the race more interesting as you have to make alliances or take risks

 

[Pozzovivo]

Smaller teams also makes the race more interesting as you have to make alliances or take risks

And multiple teams would not have 4 rouleurs each just to pull and position on flatter courses. More breaks would win and teams would select different type of riders.

 

[veganrob]

Riders are faster and more willing to take risk but their reaction time is not keeping up with the increased speed and/of congestion. My .02

 

[Pozzovivo]

I think race commissaires have a bigger role to play, particularly in professional racing with television coverage and replays. If teams and riders are aware there are greater consequences for dangerous riding it will help encourage self policing. I lean towards this more than drastically reducing peloton sizes even if logically that should have a positive effect.

~90 riders just doesn't look as impressive on television for global viewers. And there will be more complaints from fans where their favorite teams or riders are excluded.

The 2025 TdF had 23 teams represented - each with 8 riders. Below are typical numbers. I added two options for a smaller peloton. One halving the teams and the other reducing riders per team. The latter would not work from a racing perspective.

Event	Number of teams	Riders per team	Total starters
2021 TdF	23	8	184
2022-24 TdF	22	8	176
2025 TdF	23	8	184
Option 1	11	8	88
Option 2	22	4	88

I agree that commissaires and enforcement matter, but your post seriously overstates what “stricter consequences” can achieve and understates how much the crash problem is built into the incentive structure.

The core problem is not a lack of awareness. Riders already know which situations are dangerous. That does not lead to “self policing” today. the reason for this is that when risk rises, the incentive to fight for position usually rises too. If you know a narrow bridge, a corner, or crosswinds are coming, you do not calmly drift back and hope for the best. You move up because being behind is exactly how you get caught in the crash or the split. That is why the peloton fights hardest precisely when the road gets worse. The behavior you want is the opposite of what the incentives reward.

So unless you are proposing commissaires can consistently identify and punish “dangerous positioning battles” in real time, you are basically asking for a cultural change that has failed to materialize for decades. The sport already has rules. The problem is that riders cannot rationally rely on everyone else to behave cooperatively when the cost of being passive is immediate and personal.

What evidence is there for that claim that 90 rider peloton is not impressive. You just assert this? Because the visible pattern in the sport points the other way. The most talked about and most highly rated racing is often the most selective racing, where the effective peloton is smaller. Mountain stages after the selection, punchy finales, the last 100 km of Roubaix and Flanders, and the decisive phase after Cipressa and Poggio in Sanremo. No one watches those and thinks “this is underwhelming because there are only 60 to 90 riders left in the front group.” On the contrary.

If anything, the least engaging days for many viewers are exactly the ones with the largest intact bunch: long flat transition stages that end in a nervous mass sprint. Those are also the days with the most chaotic high speed positioning and the biggest multi rider pileups. So the “TV impressiveness” argument reads like a gut feeling, not an empirically grounded point.

Your two options are strawmen. Presenting only two ways to get to 88 riders is not an argument against reducing field size. It is an argument against two extreme designs you selected yourself.

Nobody serious is saying “halve the number of teams to 11” or “keep 22 teams but slash them to 4 riders.” Of course those are awkward.
The obvious middle ground is what many people are actually advocating: a modest reduction that keeps the sport recognizable while lowering the crash pressure. Something like 14 to 16 teams with 6 riders for the biggest events. That preserves team tactics, leadership protection, and race identity, while materially reducing the number of bodies involved in the same fight for space.

The key mistake in the “commissaires instead of peloton size” framing is that you treat the problem as primarily moral or disciplinary. It is primarily structural. 200 starved dogs going 60 kph into a tight corner in france and belgium...

Crashes are not just individual bad decisions, but 180 riders make more mistakes than 90 riders.. These are events in a dense, high speed system with limited space. Field size affects four things at once:

1. exposure: fewer riders at risk
2. interactions: fewer overlapping lines, fewer simultaneous move ups
3. cascade potential: when something happens, fewer riders are available to be swept into the domino crash
4. Race dynamics: the chance of big bunches being together in a race at all. The cost of being at the back of them. The reward for taking risks to get to the front. And so on.

You do not need perfect enforcement to get these benefits.
Yes, some fans will complain if their team is excluded and riders will worry about fewer jobs. Those are real costs and they should be addressed transparently. But they do not make the safety argument wrong. The correct debate is whether the safety gains justify the changes, and how to implement them without damaging the sport’s ecosystem.

Also, it is not obvious that sponsor visibility suffers, rather the exact opposite. A smaller field can mean each team gets more airtime and clearer exposure, not less, and they will pay a lot less since 60 % of their riders on the roster don't even do the big races with attention!!!. And a safer product is easier to sell long term.
Sigh.

 

[Pozzovivo]

I agree with many suggestions in this thread, but most are marginal fixes. The main structural issue is still the size of the peloton.

Here’s a metaphor.

Imagine the race is a boat with holes along its sides. Holes above the waterline do almost nothing. Holes at or below the waterline are the ones that actually let water in and sink the boat.

Now put a massive 7 ton weight in the boat. That weight is the oversized peloton. It makes the boat sit low, which raises the waterline up the hull, so many more holes end up underwater. In that situation, plugging one hole helps a little, but plenty of other holes are still below the waterline, so the boat keeps taking on water.

If you remove the weight, the boat rises. The waterline drops. And suddenly many holes that used to matter stop mattering, because they are now above the waterline. The holes still exist, but they no longer flood the boat.

That’s the point. Crashes will always happen. But reducing the number of riders is one of the few changes that lowers the “waterline” of risk across the whole system, instead of patching one hole at a time while the boat is overloaded.

Most proposals in this thread are like “let’s patch this one hole” or “let’s make that hole smaller.” Fine. Helpful. But if the boat is still sitting low, you’ll always be fighting a battle because too many holes remain underwater.

And when I hear objections to the reduction, they often sound like: there will still be waves, the sea will still be rough, the coast guard should do more, people on the boat should cooperate better to plug holes. Sure. But none of that changes the key point. The best way to reduce flooding is to lower the waterline by removing the massive weight. It doesn’t guarantee zero water forever, but it moves the system from “many holes underwater” to “only a few holes underwater,” which is exactly what you want.

That is the difference between marginal fixes and actual structural change, and only UCI can do something but they are delusional or actually don't even care sometimes. It's frightening to have a governing body who reads the room so incredibly badly and who's main impact is to break every rule it makes, and blame the riders. They still haven't implemented the basic stuff like gps tracking for riders. Trying to take away radios in races???

I think the best of most people most of the time, maybe because I never meet people working in the UCI. I'll go and take some air.

 

[Netserk]

everything will be marginal until you ban pro cycling