This is just an attempt at relativization. Basically similar to saying it doesn't really matter if 100 riders crash or 1 crash, as there will always be crashes. This in the end is just such a meme, an excuse if you will, for being lazy and for not taking any responsibility for it. And indeed as a result then we get the whole GC bunch crashing at mini SB at Giro.
Well any sort of putting things into perspective can be called 'relativization'. There is nothing to conclude from my post that would justify accusing me of making a statement logically equivalent of "if 100 riders crash or 1 crash" doesn't matter. Mass crashes aren't even the issue with gravel and cobbled stages at all because the selection makes this increasingly unlikely. You just hold the dogmatic assumption that cobbles and gravel are much more dangerous and produce an unacceptable amount of crashes relative to other surfaces.
It's not that we didn't have crashes, severe ones, on the standard surfaces as well. And many standard surfaces hold similar risks, especially given bad weather. That was my point. You in turn, instead of at least addressing what I am saying turn around to insult me. Bad style.
Lack of any sort of basic decency, when it comes to improving riders safety. Commentators on ES apologising all the time, this is just what cycling is, all about injuring athletes. Day after day after day. Do you really feel that doing it like that, this sport has any meaningful future, outside die hard fans? Until this improves cycling won't be a mainstream sport, the overall public image, on when it comes to safety, is just too bad.
I am not, as you suggesting, against rider safety. But what I am is against trying to eliminate all risks from life. My point was that I don't think you'll have road racing as a super safe sport. Hell you can't even ride your bike privately without risks, especially when not wearing a helmet, and that's not factoring in traffic.
Also I don't think that the safety aspect is what keeps cycling from being mainstream. It's really not very healthy to play football or egg-shaped football at all. The only way to make them safer would be to ban the way they are played altogether. And this is in many cases true for cycling as well. Being a pro athlete is not healthy in general in the long run for most people.
Which is not to say that absurd risks should be taken, or super dangerous stuff should be included in the races. I just don't think that the idea holds up that cobbles and gravel are so much more dangerous than say a hilly race on narrow roads on wet roads and a technical course. There's risk involved in taking part in these races and take it up as a job. But then the risk comes with the job. And cycling is much less dangerous than a lot of the work humans have to do on this planet for worse pay, less interest in their safety and much worse medical assistance. Your moral revulsion would be better employed there. That doesn't mean though that dangerous jobs should be banned, some are necessary, some just pay well and people decide to take the risk. It's not that cyclist are lied to about what their sport entails before they join and are then forced to stay in cycling for example.
So my point is: there are risks that can be expected to be taken by cyclists, and I don't think the risk of going over cobbles/gravel falls into the category of risks that aren't asked of pro-cyclist per se just by being pro-cyclists.
But I guess here lies where we really disagree: I think humans are allowed to do risky stuff.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram