Crashes, what can be done?

[Devil's Elbow]

Is there any actual source anywhere for these very confident statements? Given how they're presented as facts, I reckon there is?

It's all well and good discussing measures against crashes in pro cycling, as ideally we'd want as few as possible in any case, but I'd be interested to know how we know there are actually more of them now.

Number of crashes is also not the greatest metric, because dozens of small crashes can easily combine for fewer injuries than one massive crash. And if the peloton gets decimated early by one or multiple big crashes (think the 2021 Tour), then you are likely to see fewer small crashes in the remainder of the race. Number of injuries would be a better indicator, IMO. So if you really wanted to research this, then the medical bulletins of the Grand Tours since, say, the introduction of the ProTour in 2005 would be a good place to start.

 

[awavey]

Is there any actual source anywhere for these very confident statements? Given how they're presented as facts, I reckon there is?

It's all well and good discussing measures against crashes in pro cycling, as ideally we'd want as few as possible in any case, but I'd be interested to know how we know there are actually more of them now.

I can still remember the Team Sky documentary from their 2011 TdF, so thats 15 years ago now, where theres a section of how you must just survive the first week of the Tour because literally theres a crash everyday that results in a rider, because theres alot of energy in the peloton, sprinters and their teams are jostling more for their wins, and often a favourite for the podium, going home and not making it to Paris. And theres like maybe a 30sec-1min compilation of crash after crash after crash, the DS calling out crash on the radio constantly.

Coverage wasn't as extensive in those days maybe not all the crashes that certainly happened, stuck in people's minds as much.

I dont feel from what ive watched over the years its gotten markedly worse. I mean i did watch one of the races in Flanders the other week where the men seemed to handle the conditions fine but the women riding the same roads were like bambi on ice, though it seemed it was alot of the proconti level riders and teams causing the issues. Experience is often lacking I feel.

But really the only thing that I see thats changed is younger riders dont seem to engage brain as much in bunches anymore they seem to be in that were indestructible mode and will happily ride faster into situations where caution would be better for it.

Like Pidcocks crash, descending at 60kph, now he's a skilled rider and can descend like a man possessed, but what went through his mind that said its ok in that moment to grab a water bottle ?

And btw none of this crash protection stuff would have made any difference to the injuries he ended up with.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

Experience is often lacking I feel.

This is also a big factor. I remember lots of crashes at the 2021 Worlds in the junior and U23 races, lots of people expecting carnage in the men's race with the bigger peloton, and then it wound up being completely fine. Thankfully, the peloton doesn't keep getting younger...

 

[jmdirt]

Is there any actual source anywhere for these very confident statements? Given how they're presented as facts, I reckon there is?

It's all well and good discussing measures against crashes in pro cycling, as ideally we'd want as few as possible in any case, but I'd be interested to know how we know there are actually more of them now.

I too would like to see hard data, but the general statement that there are more crashes is very obvious if you watch racing. Yes, I am confident in saying that. The source, my eyeballs.

Don't hold your breath waiting for the UCI to report the crash count.

 

[jmdirt]

Number of crashes is also not the greatest metric, because dozens of small crashes can easily combine for fewer injuries than one massive crash. And if the peloton gets decimated early by one or multiple big crashes (think the 2021 Tour), then you are likely to see fewer small crashes in the remainder of the race. Number of injuries would be a better indicator, IMO. So if you really wanted to research this, then the medical bulletins of the Grand Tours since, say, the introduction of the ProTour in 2005 would be a good place to start.

Definitely number of crashes, and number of riders involved. Number and severity of injuries is worth tracking, but less relevant maybe because a 'minor' tip over can lead to a broken clavicle, while a high speed pile up might only end in lost skin and light bruising.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

Definitely number of crashes, and number of riders involved. Number and severity of injuries is worth tracking, but less relevant maybe because a 'minor' tip over can lead to a broken clavicle, while a high speed pile up might only end in lost skin and light bruising.

Number of riders involved is a difficult one to track accurately, because it's difficult to define what constitutes being involved in a crash. Are you involved if you have to put your foot on the ground? Because that's something that can happen both because people are crashing in front of you, and because someone crashes into you from the side. If no to the former but yes to the latter, where do you draw the line between the two? If no to both, then how hard does a rider need to crash into you to be considered involved?

And it also isn't data you're going to be able to find for the non-televised early stages of stages/races that were the norm everywhere quite recently, making it impossible to compare to even the mid-2010s. Medical bulletins will probably have survived somewhere going decently far back.

 

[ashhutch1997]

Is there any actual source anywhere for these very confident statements? Given how they're presented as facts, I reckon there is?

It's all well and good discussing measures against crashes in pro cycling, as ideally we'd want as few as possible in any case, but I'd be interested to know how we know there are actually more of them now.

I thought the Tour of Flanders was pretty crash free this year.

 

[CyclistAbi]

@Libertine Seguros

The reason i linked to that article is due to containing the first graph and data confirming there was a 400% rise in injuries in last decade or so. As if i wouldn't provide some link you would nag me about it, on how i came to that number, did i imagine it? This number is well known to anybody related to SafeR, including UCI.

As for the rest of what you wrote, on how UCI should change rules and riders should learn to ride differently. You could have easily added world peace in it there too?

As for you not agreeing this is an existential issue for this sport. The perception doping gave to this sport, true, it didn't kill the sport. As for the rest, the stigma was and still is horrendous. Injuries and deaths are now surpassing that whatever you like it or not.

Is there any actual source anywhere for these very confident statements? Given how they're presented as facts, I reckon there is?

It's all well and good discussing measures against crashes in pro cycling, as ideally we'd want as few as possible in any case, but I'd be interested to know how we know there are actually more of them now.

Number of crashes is also not the greatest metric, because dozens of small crashes can easily combine for fewer injuries than one massive crash. And if the peloton gets decimated early by one or multiple big crashes (think the 2021 Tour), then you are likely to see fewer small crashes in the remainder of the race. Number of injuries would be a better indicator, IMO. So if you really wanted to research this, then the medical bulletins of the Grand Tours since, say, the introduction of the ProTour in 2005 would be a good place to start.

Yes, data says there was a 400% increase in injuries in the last decade or so. All people in charge of this sport know the number.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

@Libertine Seguros

The reason i linked to that article is due to containing the first graph and data confirming there was a 400% rise in injuries in last decade or so. As if i wouldn't provide some link you would nag me about it, on how i came to that number, did i imagine it? This number is well known to anybody related to SafeR, including UCI.

As for the rest of what you wrote, on how UCI should change rules and riders should learn to ride differently. You could have easily added world peace in it there too?

As for you not agreeing this is an existential issue for this sport. The perception doping gave to this sport, true, it didn't kill the sport. As for the rest, the stigma was and still is horrendous. Injuries and deaths are now surpassing that whatever you like it or not.

Doping got cycling in hot water with the IOC and got it marginalised or kicked off TV in countries with large audiences.

Crashes have not done that yet. Or even come close to it. "Injuries and deaths" are demonstrably not surpassing doping in terms of people's perception of road cycling, except in the windmills you're tilting at in your mind.

 

[CyclistAbi]

@Libertine Seguros

I don't agree with you, deaths and injuries are worse. And currently pro road peloton is plagued with it and the conditions are worsening. And lets not forget the highest most reason of on why anti doping actually exist today is athlete health.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

@Libertine Seguros

I don't agree with you, deaths and injuries are worse. And currently pro road peloton is plagued with it and the conditions are worsening. And lets not forget the highest most reason of on why anti doping actually exist today is athlete health.

Deaths and injuries are objectively worse than doping in terms of what people think of them as actual concepts, yes.

But in terms of them actually currently impacting the reputation and perception of pro cycling, just no. Like I say, you're acting like sponsors are pulling out, TV companies are refusing to show the races, teams are being shut down and laws are being changed in order to stigmatize and marginalise professional cycling.

All of those things happened in response to doping. None of those things are happening in response to crashes.

Maybe they should. But the only place they actually are happening is in your mind and in your posts on this thread.

 

[CyclistAbi]

But the only place they actually are happening is in your mind and in your posts on this thread.

You have to admit that this are cheap shots and as such irrelevant. The reality on other hand is data says 400% increase of injuries in last decade or so and the other reality is people started to notice. So, if such trend will continue, what do you reckon will happen as a result?

 

[Unchained]

Crashes, what can be done?
Allow teams to use available technology to prevent tire problems, help prevent blowout punctures more common while racing over roads made of rocks.
Crashes, what can be done?
Allow teams to go through careful, expensive research and planning to deploy technology without arbitrary, late announcement that UCI has changed their minds.
Crashes, what can be done?
Fire people at the UCI who don't have piles, stacks of correspondence, back and forth with teams, manufacturers, race organizations about issues like rider location beacons, handlebar width, tire inserts, cassette cog limits, wind and rain race restriction guidelines and tire pressure control systems.. If anyone at the UCI has not been in years or minimum, multiple months long dialogues with all involved parties they should be immediately dismissed and banned from cycling for life

 

[Libertine Seguros]

You have to admit that this are cheap shots and as such irrelevant. The reality on other hand is data says 400% increase of injuries in last decade or so and the other reality is people started to notice. So, if such trend will continue, what do you reckon will happen as a result?

The reality may be that there has been an increase in injuries. There is nothing wrong with you claiming this, as it is factually accurate.

But the reality is not that this presents a threat to the existence of professional cycling at time of writing. There is no tangible evidence of this. Therefore when you claim this, it is needlessly hyperbolic and factually inaccurate.

You have a long history on this thread of misleading quotes, misleading links, false representation of what those links and articles say, and making factually inaccurate claims. You include some truths - but you then demand that everybody treat all of your claims as equally truthful when many of them are baseless accusations or speculation. And this subtracts from the value of the truthful parts of your arguments. As I've said many a time.

At the moment, unless you are the one leading the charge, there is no evidence that there is any intention of any party that is actually relevant to proceedings to Ban Pro Cycling.

 

[Squire]

Yes, data says there was a 400% increase in injuries in the last decade or so. All people in charge of this sport know the number.

If you mean that article you linked from 'Seven Cycles', it's a bunch of absolute crap.

Whoever wrote it has no idea about numbers or statistics. Going from 100 to 300 isn't a 400 % increase, it's a 200% increase. But of course 400% sounds better for their conclusion, right, so let's write that.

And selecting the year 2014 with 119 injuries as the starting point, and not 2015 which has double the amount of injuries, is of course extremely convenient to make that point. Otherwise it'd be a 50% increase, which isn't as useful to sell their stuff.

Also, there is zero reference to where those 'number of injuries' comes from. It says everything is third-party sourced, without any reference to any third-party source. To me that isn't 'data says'. But if, as you say, all people in charge of the sport know these numbers, then it shouldn't be so hard to reference.

They are also contrasting the minimal increase in average speeds over the years with the purported huge increase in injuries, when looking at average speeds makes absolutely no sense in this context. There's also a bunch of other strawmen littered across the article.

 

[CyclistAbi]

The reality may be that there has been an increase in injuries. There is nothing wrong with you claiming this, as it is factually accurate.

But the reality is not that this presents a threat to the existence of professional cycling at time of writing. There is no tangible evidence of this. Therefore when you claim this, it is needlessly hyperbolic and factually inaccurate.

You didn't really answer my question. That is if such trend will continue, what do you reckon will happen as a result?

You have a long history on this thread of misleading quotes, misleading links, false representation of what those links and articles say, and making factually inaccurate claims. You include some truths - but you then demand that everybody treat all of your claims as equally truthful when many of them are baseless accusations or speculation. And this subtracts from the value of the truthful parts of your arguments. As I've said many a time.

At the moment, unless you are the one leading the charge, there is no evidence that there is any intention of any party that is actually relevant to proceedings to Ban Pro Cycling.

Can you give an example of that? The last time you said that it turned out it was you that turned something in a hyperbole as you assumed something i didn't say. Assumed instead of asking. It took numerous exchanges to explain that. Beyond that i don't remember when i did that so please refresh my memory a bit and lets see.

@Squire

You asked if any such data exists that would prove the rise. So bottom line now that you seen the numbers do you acknowledge it or not?

 

[AmRacer]

You didn't really answer my question. That is if such trend will continue, what do you reckon will happen as a result?



Can you give an example of that? The last time you said that it turned out it was you that turned something in a hyperbole as you assumed something i didn't say. Assumed instead of asking. It took numerous exchanges to explain that. Beyond that i don't remember when i did that so please refresh my memory a bit and lets see.

@Squire

You asked if any such data exists that would prove the rise. So bottom line now that you seen the numbers do you acknowledge it or not?

But does this trend really exists?
Is this so called trend statistical and mathematical correct?

 

[CyclistAbi]

But does this trend really exists?
Is this so called trend statistical and mathematical correct?

Read the article first. It has graphs too.

 

[AmRacer]

Read the article first. It has graphs too.

Graphs doesn't mean it's statistical and mathematical correct to be called a trend. It's just observations.

 

[CyclistAbi]

@AmRacer

So did you end up reading it?

 

[Squire]

@Squire

You asked if any such data exists that would prove the rise. So bottom line now that you seen the numbers do you acknowledge it or not?

You didn't read my post, did you? That article is a sales pitch for their products. The numbers have no references. They also misrepresent the numbers badly, both in a very biased selection of comparison points and even stating a plain wrong percentage increase which doesn't agree with their own graph. This doesn't mean the numbers in the graph are wrong. But if they're not referenced, they might as well be made up out of thin air to sell their stuff. I asked for sources. I got no sources.

 

[AmRacer]

@AmRacer

So did you end up reading it?

Until you can confirm whether it's mathematical and statistical correct to call it a trend, I call it observations.

 

[CyclistAbi]

Until you can confirm whether it's mathematical and statistical correct to call it a trend, I call it observations.

Ah i see it now. You don't want to call it a trend you would like to call it an observation. To be honest call it whatever you want. Just as long as we understand each other on what it means.

This doesn't mean the numbers in the graph are wrong. But if they're not referenced, they might as well be made up out of thin air to sell their stuff. I asked for sources. I got no sources.

OK, fair point, you don't know if the numbers are correct. So if the numbers are correct, then you do acknowledge the rise as being a fact?

 

[AmRacer]

Ah i see it now. You don't want to call it a trend you would like to call it an observation. To be honest call it whatever you want. Just as long as we understand each other on what it means.



OK, fair point, you don't know if the numbers are correct. So if the numbers are correct, then you do acknowledge the rise as being a fact?

If it's not statically and mathematically correct, then it's observations. You are free to call it whatever you want.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

You didn't really answer my question. That is if such trend will continue, what do you reckon will happen as a result?

You never really presented it as a question. You presented your interpretation of what would happen as though it was already happening, and, crucially, that we had to work from the starting assumption that it was already happening.

Can you give an example of that? The last time you said that it turned out it was you that turned something in a hyperbole as you assumed something i didn't say. Assumed instead of asking. It took numerous exchanges to explain that. Beyond that i don't remember when i did that so please refresh my memory a bit and lets see.

Well, that is in and of itself an example of it.

Because all you have to do is scroll back to the last page of the thread, and we'll see you citing an article about a training crash, quote it extremely selectively in order to omit the context, claim it's not about a training crash, and then when confronted with the evidence that it is, in fact, about a training crash, claim that it backs up your point about racing crashes and that it doesn't matter that the article actually does not say what you claim it says.

And we'll also see you citing an article about women's health as though it pertains to crashes in the pro péloton, claim that it backs up your point, and then try and pivot it back to your crusade about protective apparel when the article you cited had nothing to do with either crashes or apparel.

Your methods of arguing are disingenuous and it's hypocritical to flip it around saying other people are making assumptions, when you clearly misconstrue or misrepresent the meanings of the articles you post in support of your argument repeatedly.