Is pro racing getting more dangerous?

[The fridge in the blue trees]

I'd like to say fans have gotten dumber, but well, the internet wasn't around decades ago, so probably nothing changed there either.

 

[Extinction]

It's not that racing is more or less dangerous, it's that the risks have changed and the sport has to react to that....The ever-increasing professionalism in the sport has massively reduced the gap between the best and worst rider in a top level pro raceway in competitiveness...

Cycling has always been a top heavy heirarchy. The falling off of Spanish and Italian pro-conti teams can be explained by new players and investments replacing them. There is no more dangerous racing between epochs. Show me that statistically cycling today is more dangerous than in the 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s. What's happened is that with increased professionalism and material performance, the overall speeds have increased from an average 36 kph Tours to now 42 kph. But the cream still always rises to the top and you have to finish within the same time limit as before. Hence, the difference between the Bigs and the rest has remained a proportional constant.

The real difference is the impact, with social media, that such tragic outcomes have on public perception. Especially in an age in which in the Western World safety concerns have become so paramount.

 

[Extinction]

I'd like to say fans have gotten dumber, but well, the internet wasn't around decades ago, so probably nothing changed there either.

Remember when it was said that ignorance was connected to people not having access to information and that the internet would have fixed it? Well, it wasn't that.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Cycling has always been a top heavy heirarchy. The falling off of Spanish and Italian pro-conti teams can be explained by new players and investments replacing them. There is no more dangerous racing. Show me that statistically cycling today is more dangerous than in the 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s. What's happened is that with increased professionalism and material performance, the overall speeds have increased from an average 36 kph Tours to now 42 kph. But the cream still always rises to the top and you have to finish within the same time limit as before. Hence, the difference between the Bigs and the rest has remained a proportional constant.

The real difference is the impact, with social media, that such tragic outcomes have on public perception. Especially in an age in which in the Western World safety concerns have become so paramount.

Yea, but the top consists of far more riders at a similar level to the very best than it did in previous generations. There are more Bigs and more Rest. The péloton is bigger and the amount of high level competitive racing they are doing is higher as well, plus more travel with flyaway races. We aren't seeing the top classics men spending half their season on the kermesse circuit, and there is much less differentiation between the teams and the péloton racing each major race. The number of teams doing all of the top races has swollen to the point where it takes up almost the entirety of the startlist - a startlist which itself consists of a larger number of teams entering than used to be the case too.

 

[Extinction]

Yea, but the top consists of far more riders at a similar level to the very best than it did in previous generations. There are more Bigs and more Rest. The péloton is bigger and the amount of high level competitive racing they are doing is higher as well, plus more travel with flyaway races. We aren't seeing the top classics men spending half their season on the kermesse circuit, and there is much less differentiation between the teams and the péloton racing each major race. The number of teams doing all of the top races has swollen to the point where it takes up almost the entirety of the startlist - a startlist which itself consists of a larger number of teams entering than used to be the case too.

The peloton isn't bigger. The 86 Tour had 210 starters, the 2022 edition 176. Today's riders race on average far less than their predecessors and with far more comfort. Race distances have generally diminished. Diet and nutrition is science based. Hence, wear and tear has decreased. You don't have knackered, half delerious guys on stimulants (I'm talking historical facts, not clinical stuff), driving all over Europe to meet sponsorship obligations and pay the rent lining up for the 160th course of the year. I'd much prefer to start a race against well-paid and primed professionals, with every need cared for, than the often rogue, cut-throat mercenaries of yore.

In every aspect today's cycling is more professional, scientifically prepared, better equipped (tires and brakes especially), less subaltern for those not at the very top, higher salaries, without the desperate pack fodder on the hunt for a new contract, etc.

If anything, therefore, as far as the state of the peloton is concerned, today's riders are much better off. None of this, of course, changes the fact that fatalities can take place in a sport where risk is the constant companion. Satistically, however, deaths during races have not significantly increased over the last decades. What has changed again is the impact such tragic news has on public perception, because of increased television and internet exposure.

 

[hrotha]

Pelotons aren't bigger. The peloton is. There's a difference.

 

[Tonton]

"More dangerous"? No. Riders will push it, it's in their blood, it's what got them to be a pro, the 1% of 1%. They will always try as hard as they can. This has nothing to do with gaps or whatever: it's a mindset...push the limits, regardless of what the limits are.

It's cycling, riders suffer uphill and when they switch to descending, they need to be 100% focused. "Lucide" as we say in French. One mistake can cost your life.

We are quick to label riders as "poor descenders" when the disclaimer should be "at this level". A crazy level...these guys/gals are insane. All of them. They will keep pushing the limit...if that's what it takes to win.

What makes cycling more dangerous, if you ask me, are motorcycles, cars, trucks, during races and while training. Drivers are idiots these days.

 

[Extinction]

"More dangerous"? No. Riders will push it, it's in their blood, it's what got them to be a pro, the 1% of 1%. They will always try as hard as they can. This has nothing to do with gaps or whatever: it's a mindset...push the limits, regardless of what the limits are.

It's cycling, riders suffer uphill and when they switch to descending, they need to be 100% focused. "Lucide" as we say in French. One mistake can cost your life.

We are quick to label riders as "poor descenders" when the disclaimer should be "at this level". A crazy level...these guys/gals are insane. All of them. They will keep pushing the limit...if that's what it takes to win.

What makes cycling more dangerous, if you ask me, are motorcycles, cars, trucks, during races and while training. Drivers are idiots these days.

The other thing is that they can push the limits. They can do things that mere mortals can't. Until you have experienced it, you have no idea. They go down faster and you thought surviving uphill was enough!

 

[Tonton]

The other thing is that they can push the limits. They can do things that mere mortals can't. Until you have experienced it, you have no idea. They go down faster and you thought surviving uphill was enough!

True. Although it doesn't matter what the limits are. Steel frame and bad breaks, same thing. One will try. Another one will follow. It will never end.

 

[Extinction]

True. Although it doesn't matter what the limits are. Steel frame and bad breaks, same thing. One will try. Another one will follow. It will never end.

A rider can go flying down into such an insidious curve, but unfortunately not an elbow, where your speed decreases significantly, thinking the trajectory is fine, to suddenly be going ad astra.

You can't prevent this, it simply happens and then we all mourn and I say this with immense sadness.

 

[jmdirt]

Disclaimer: What I'm about to type doesn't answer the question posed by this thread.

Tom Pidcock does not win Alpe d'Huez in last year's TdF without a "dangerous" descent.

 

[rallybanana]

i remember the finishes with barriers not even placed together with people standing in between. In a mass sprint stage.

It still happens in Colombia apparently

https://twitter.com/x/status/1670394757795774465

View: https://twitter.com/faustocoppi60/status/1670394757795774465

 

[pelotonIQ]

Professional cycling has always been cutthroat, you either bring home the victories or bye bye. These riders did not reach WT-level by having fun and giggling but by racing hard and being competitive from a young age. There is always going to be riders pushing the limits and taking risks to finish as winners no matter how ''safe'' cycling is.

The death of Gino Mäder is a tragedy and may he rest in peace but we shouldn't be too quick to point fingers when nobody knows all the details. We don't know what caused the crash, could it be a riders error? Equipment error? Or did the organizers pick a descent-finish with bad roads?

I'm sure this crash will be investigated and more details will come out.

 

[frisenfruitig]

Obviously it's the riders that choose what kind of risks they are willing to take but the organizers share a huge responsibility too. Why is it necessary to put a dangerous descent as a finale when they could just finish on the summit? It's really not necessary to introduce that big of a risk just for the sake of spectacle. Same thing with dangerous corners in the last km of the race, a bunch sprint is dangerous enough as it is. It's reckless and it happens way too often still, but apparently these organizers can just do whatever they want without any consequences.

 

[Wyndbrook]

It's not about 'is it getting more dangerous' it's about how can it be safer.

 

[Rackham]

Obviously it's the riders that choose what kind of risks they are willing to take but the organizers share a huge responsibility too. Why is it necessary to put a dangerous descent as a finale when they could just finish on the summit? It's really not necessary to introduce that big of a risk just for the sake of spectacle. Same thing with dangerous corners in the last km of the race, a bunch sprint is dangerous enough as it is. It's reckless and it happens way too often still, but apparently these organizers can just do whatever they want without any consequences.

I view sprint finishes with dangerous street furniture & corners in the final km's as a different matter. It's indeed dangerous & unfortunately something most likely money related (a stage has to somehow finish in the town/city in question, however possible & irrespective of the roads).

Descents though (& descent finishes) are on the contrary skill related & something integral to cycling. A descent finish needs to give good descenders something to gain an advantage from, i.e. where good climbers can either extend their advantage - or lose it - based on their own skill.

Cycling can't just be about dropping watts bombs, it has to be about riding skills as well.

 

[Extinction]

I view sprint finishes with dangerous street furniture & corners in the final km's as a different matter. It's indeed dangerous & unfortunately something most likely money related (a stage has to somehow finish in the town/city in question, however possible & irrespective of the roads).

Descents though (& descent finishes) are on the contrary skill related & something integral to cycling. A descent finish needs to give good descenders something to gain an advantage from, i.e. where good climbers can either extend their advantage - or lose it - based on their own skill.

Cycling can't just be about dropping watts bombs, it has to be about riding skills as well.

Agreed. Fabio Casartelli died on a non-finishing descent at the 95 Tour. The rider made a mistake that cost his life, because mountain descending, on any mountain descent, is fraught with danger and totally unforgiving. Unfortunately Mader, like Casartelli, misjudged the corner or, less probably, had some mechanical issue. Mader was not going for the stage win or trying to get on the podium, he was simply flying down a mountain, because pro cyclists simply fly down mountains, finishing descents or not. From my own experience, he probably felt very sure of his descent, but all of a sudden found himself going into a corner at high speed taking the wrong line and could not correct his trajectory. Everything went fatally wrong in an instant. The descent itself, however, wasn't the problem: wide, dry roads on good surface, but human (or less likely mechanical) error.

It was the kind of high speed descent that even had it not been used at the finish, would have still been a place for good descenders to attack; either to break away early on a stage or, like Pidcock in the Alpe d'Huez stage of last year's Tour, gain an advantage going into the final climb. In any of these scenarios riders will push limits and so something could go fatally wrong. There is no way to prevent this, because cycling simply comes with such risks when riders race down mountains.

Without such risks it's no longer big-time European cycling, with it's history, with it's glorious triumphs and bitter defeats, its landscapes, its incredible displays of skill, bravura, panache, with its dangers and, unfortunately, tragedies.

 

[RedheadDane]

I view sprint finishes with dangerous street furniture & corners in the final km's as a different matter. It's indeed dangerous & unfortunately something most likely money related (a stage has to somehow finish in the town/city in question, however possible & irrespective of the roads).

For me, a big problem is those finishes that were clearly designed with the expectation that it would be a solo rider - or a very small group - in the front of the race. But then something happens - or, perhaps more correctly; nothing happens - and instead a large group comes in for a sprint.
Just take the finish of the last ITT in Suisse; obviously not a problem, because it was an ITT, but could you imagine a large sprint there?

 

[proffate]

It was more dangerous when they didn't wear helmets.

It got more dangerous when they switched to carbon components before figuring out carbon technology.

It got safer when the tires got a bit wider.

It got more dangerous as Europe added more road furniture to race courses, er, public roadways.

I hope more safety equipment is one day introduced like chin bars and hip pads and full body airbags.

But all of these are marginal differences. Maybe one day zwift will be indistinguishable from reality and then we'll finally be safe and cozy.

 

[proffate]

or less likely mechanical

How did you determine the relative likelihood? Front tire failure seems pretty likely imo.

 

[DNP-Old]

It’s probably safer than ever, but we just cannot accept the fact that certain things happen due to one’s own mistakes, bad luck or a series of unfortunate events. We must find a scapegoat, at all costs. There is nothing that could have prevented Mader’s death other than such egregious decisions that it probably does more harm to cycling than it does good (speed limit e.g.).

 

[RedheadDane]

It got more dangerous as Europe added more road furniture to race courses, er, public roadways.

And that's the darkest irony: Things that increase safety for the general public, sometimes makes it more dangerous for pros... There was talk that the thing that caused Lambrecht's crash was a reflector in the road; great for preventing cars from going into the opposite lane, not great for bike racing on in the rain.

Then, of course, there's how random it can sometimes seem. Lambrecht crashed, and then landed in the worst possible way. Mäder and Sheffield crashed in basically the same spot, Sheffield walked away with a concussion, Mäder... never woke up.

I hope more safety equipment is one day introduced like chin bars and hip pads and full body airbags.

You might wanna ally yourself with CyclistAbi.

 

[Extinction]

How did you determine the relative likelihood? Front tire failure seems pretty likely imo.

Could be, but we don't know. Although the other one that went off the road at that same curve didn't blow a tire, so I doubt it

 

[VO2 Max]

The title of the thread is exactly the right question. And I suspect the answer is that noone really knows, and until we have real data on the commonalities between big incidents and near-misses then cycling can only be reactive.

Near-misses especially are an important thing that we don't talk about. We all know why this thread is here, but the circumstances may still have been too dangerous even if Gino had managed to keep himself upright; we don't know how many riders might have come into that corner too fast but did manage to get round ok. These are highly skilled guys after all. It's a very difficult dataset to collect for sure.

But what I've seen over the last few days is really just grasping in the dark, perhaps just trying to reassure ourselves: the organiser just needs to find another few km after the end of the descent; or all mountain roads to be covered in ski nets; or even speed limits; or whatever else it is. That's a route towards unintended consequences.