Tour de France Tour De France 2021, stage 1 (Brest-Landerneau, 197.8 km)

[BlueRoads]

The Landerneau gendarmerie is investigating the "manifestly deliberate violation of an obligation of safety or prudence".

 

[Pirazziattacks]

Either it's intentional or she didn't care. Either way she is the REASON for multiple riders having BROKEN bones and for a VIOLENT crash. You still are having major issues understanding CONSEQUENCES for your actions. Her actions resulted in a VIOLENT crash that resulted in multiple BROKEN BONES. She needs to be punished.
The rest of your comment is 100% projection.

So now you're saying it was intentional or careless, after previously being certain that it was INTENTIONAL. By the way, this isn't the US where people and police intentionally drive into protestors on a regular basis (now with legal protection in some states), and now cycling races as well.

Note that you're confusing my position with arguing for no consequences when what I've said that prison and/or financial destitution would be spiteful and violent responses. Because that's your main motivation here right, spite?

 

[Pirazziattacks]

There is no need for it to be intentional for it to be criminal. Reckless endangerment was created to address this. Obviously France has a different legal system and the specifics would change, but the general point remains.

What point would that be- lock her up? That's the only point that was being made.

 

[Koronin]

So now you're saying it was intentional or careless, after previously being certain that it was INTENTIONAL. By the way, this isn't the US where people and police intentionally drive into protestors on a regular basis (now with legal protection in some states), and now cycling races as well.

Note that you're confusing my position with arguing for no consequences when what I've said that prison and/or financial destitution would be spiteful and violent responses. Because that's your main motivation here right, spite?

She DESERVES it. She CAUSED a VIOLENT crash. You said she wasn't violent. Doesn't matter her actions CAUSED violence. YOU are changing the goal posts. The goal is to ensure people who CAUSE crashes in the peloton SUFFER consequences and MAJOR ones at that to get them to STOP. If there aren't MAJOR consequences the people will continue to do what they are doing and put riders LIVES at risk.

Make sure you read what Blue Roads wrote. It is being investigated as deliberate (which means intentional).

 

[red_flanders]

What point would that be- lock her up? That's the only point that was being made.

The same point being made to lock anyone up? To punish a transgression and create a deterrent for similar actions in the future. I am kind of baffled that this is a question.

 

[Pirazziattacks]

The same point being made to lock anyone up? To punish a transgression and create a deterrent for similar actions in the future. I kind of baffled that this is a question.

I think I've made my position on incarceration quite clear here. What you're proposing is to respond to a negligent, careless act with a violent one. How you think this would solve anything is beyond me. To repeat myself- nasty, spiteful, small-minded.

 

[Anybody_but..]

As far as I'm concerned the race is over and there is no point bothering with anymore of it.

I thought you are a serious woman.

After that declaration (yesterday 9:36 PM) you've comitted so far 19 posts, 10 of them with CAPS LOCK in use, claiming Alaphilippe as a d..er and arrogant person.
Please, follow your promises.

 

[red_flanders]

I think I've made my position on incarceration quite clear here. What you're proposing is to respond to a negligent, careless act with a violent one. How you think this would solve anything is beyond me. To repeat myself- nasty, spiteful, small-minded.

Well good luck overturning basically everyone’s view on justice and responsibility. Making up a new definition for “violence” to support your view is simply not compelling to me.

Frankly, I think such an attitude, while rooted in compassion (I assume) quite likely ends up creating the very discord and trauma it seeks to avoid by removing personal responsibility from the equation. I find it dangerous and misguided, however well intentioned, but you are free to your opinion and it’s a good topic to debate.

 

[Pirazziattacks]

She DESERVES it. She CAUSED a VIOLENT crash. You said she wasn't violent. Doesn't matter her actions CAUSED violence. YOU are changing the goal posts. The goal is to ensure people who CAUSE crashes in the peloton SUFFER consequences and MAJOR ones at that to get them to STOP. If there aren't MAJOR consequences the people will continue to do what they are doing and put riders LIVES at risk.

Make sure you read what Blue Roads wrote. It is being investigated as deliberate (which means intentional).

Deserves what- violence? None of what you're talking about has anything to do with preventing crashes, it's about personal gratification through retribution (in this case meted out by the French state). People who really want to endanger and injure cyclists do so in vehicles and largely get away with it in most places. We all know this.

By the way, capitalising random words only makes your already incoherent rants even harder to read.

 

[Koronin]

The Landerneau gendarmerie is investigating the "manifestly deliberate violation of an obligation of safety or prudence".

I thought you are a serious woman.

After that declaration (yesterday 9:36 PM) you've comitted so far 19 posts, 10 of them with CAPS LOCK in use, claiming Alaphilippe as a d..er and arrogant person.
Please, follow your promises.

A few words does not mean cap locks, it means emphasis. Not watching doesn't mean I won't continue to comment on this disgusting stage.
My opinion of Alaphilippe hasn't changed in a good while. I called him that last year a couple of times. He proved when he lost LBL to Roglic.

 

[Koronin]

Deserves what- violence? None of what you're talking about has anything to do with preventing crashes, it's about personal gratification through retribution (in this case meted out by the French state). People who really want to endanger and injure cyclists do so in vehicles and largely get away with it in most places. We all know this.

By the way, capitalising random words only makes your already incoherent rants even harder to read.

She CAUSED violence which you claimed she didn't. She deserves major punishment that fits the crime. People get away with crimes because no one knows who committed a lot of crimes. People who injury/kill cyclists when found do pay and do go to jail depending on the severity of what happened including charges of manslaughter for killing riders.
Capitalizing specific words is for EMPHASIS. The rest of your sentence is projection.

 

[Anybody_but..]

A few words does not mean cap locks, it means emphasis. Not watching doesn't mean I won't continue to comment on this disgusting stage.

Well, you didn't promise not to watch...... BUT NOT TO BOTHER!!!!!!!!!!!! (using your manners)

 

[Koronin]

Well, you didn't promise not to watch...... BUT NOT TO BOTHER!!!!!!!!!!!! (using your manners)

I said I wouldn't watch anymore of the Tour in 2017 after stage one and the only thing after that I watched was a clip of why Sagan was kicked out of the race and that was about 8 hours after it had happened.

 

[jmdirt]

So now you're saying it was intentional or careless, after previously being certain that it was INTENTIONAL. By the way, this isn't the US where people and police intentionally drive into protestors on a regular basis (now with legal protection in some states), and now cycling races as well.

Note that you're confusing my position with arguing for no consequences when what I've said that prison and/or financial destitution would be spiteful and violent responses. Because that's your main motivation here right, spite?

You mean like this:

80 Killed in Truck Attack on Bastille Day Crowd in Nice, France

'The individual who was driving the truck was neutralized,' officials said. France's president called it an obvious terror attack.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Pirazziattacks]

You mean like this:

80 Killed in Truck Attack on Bastille Day Crowd in Nice, France

'The individual who was driving the truck was neutralized,' officials said. France's president called it an obvious terror attack.

www.nbcnews.com

Very different circumstances, wouldn't you say?

 

[Sandisfan]

Not sure where he's supposed to go, happened really fast and all he could have done was swerve hard into his teammate I guess causing an even worse crash

https://twitter.com/x/status/1408817818854998017

https://twitter.com/x/status/1408792810468397059

Count me as someone who reacted with surprise that he went down in that situation. You can never tell of course exactly how it went, but I was surprised that amount of contact brought him down.

Of course I weigh 200 pounds and mountain bike aggressively, so my personal perspective might be a bit off from a skinny roadie riding in a pack.

Watching that clip I think her left hand/forearm that is holding the cardboard sign, is what clips Tony's handle bars and immediately turns his bars to the right suddenly. He had no chance to stop what happened.

 

[Pirazziattacks]

Well good luck overturning basically everyone’s view on justice and responsibility. Making up a new definition for “violence” to support your view is simply not compelling to me.

Frankly, I think such an attitude, while rooted in compassion (I assume) quite likely ends up creating the very discord and trauma it seeks to avoid by removing personal responsibility from the equation. I find it dangerous and misguided, however well intentioned, but you are free to your opinion and it’s a good topic to debate.

What makes you think that I've made up a new definition for violence on the spot? Do you think I'm the only person to hold such views?

How is me saying that calling for the financial destitution or imprisonment of this person is nasty and spiteful taking personal responsibility out of the equation? Do you really believe these are the only ways someone can or should take responsibility for their actions?

 

[IndianCyclist]

I looked at the incident in slow motion.
The spectator is holding a cardboard sign standing on the edge the road but with the cardboard and their left hand extended across the road. Tony Martin is close to the side of the road but with enough gap from the edge. He is looking at ~ 30 ° downward angle. As he approaches ~ 10 m he sees the cardboard/hand and stops pedaling and starts to brace. After this he instinctively starts moving his body to his left fearing what is coming. After this he also starts to straighten his back. These last two actions probably weaken his grip on the handle and also leave him vulnerable to imbalance. He hits the cardboard and then presumably the hand. Then his handlebars twist to his left and beginning the whole cascade of events. Whole thing is over in ~1 s. In these type of incidents, instinct takes over. Having being in a bike accident, you have the time just to think "OH S**T" before the crash, forget about doing anything.
A Sagan type bike handler would have increased his grip and barrelled through with his head down.
The response by the TDF is to sue. This is only a deterrent measure for the rest of the TDF. Any third rate lawyer can prove that it is not intentional just by the direction of the eyes of the spectator. Also the fact that there are no warning signs that the road is not to be stood/walked on and no warning/announcement that the peloton is coming or was heard. So nothing is likely to happen. Not even a fine. Its only a show that that they are taking action which should deter/frighten the fans into behaving for the rest of the TDF. If they go after this, mostly likely the cost will be high and most of the culpability will fall on the organizer.

 

[Captain Sensible]

If she isn't French (as a lot of spectators watching the Tour are ) and she has already left France how can/will she charged .

 

[Googolplex]

Didn't F1 used to have 30 cars on the grid in the 70's and 80's, but later reduced their numbers?

Maybe in 50s or 60s. At least in 80s the limit was already at 26 for the race, like it is now. In 70s it was 24 at least at some point.

 

[Googolplex]

Any third rate lawyer can prove that it is not intentional just by the direction of the eyes of the spectator. Also the fact that there are no warning signs that the road is not to be stood/walked on and no warning/announcement that the peloton is coming or was heard.

She wasn't intentionally causing a crash, but she was intentionally on the road, which was closed for bike racing. Like a drunk driver is not intentionally crashing, but is intentionally drunk. From TV images I wouldn't be sure about warnings or announcements.

 

[geisterhome]

You have no idea what cycling is like. The whole time, fans are standing on the road, or hold banners over the road. 99 % of the time, they jump away just before the riders rush past. Or remove their flags or banners just in time. As a rider it's impossible to take this into account. Because then, you have to constantly brake. Riders are counting on the public to jump off just in time. But this time, the stupid lady wasn't looking at the riders, but at the passing camera. Tony Martin is absolutely not to blame. It's shameful that you accuse him of carelessness.

When u have clear vision of a fan, and that fan is looking in the opposite direction while standing in your way, maybe you should consider braking for once

 

[proffate]

A lot of people here seem to be under the impression Martin ran into a cardboard sign. No, he obviously ran into the spectator's arm that was holding the sign. Hence the look of shock and dismay on the spectator's face when they were hit at 30kph. That spectator is an ignorant fool. Do you stand on the edge of a curb and stick your arm out over the street when a bus is driving by?

On the other end of the spectrum, I feel really bad for the spectator in the spandex who was absolutely annihilated by a pile of riders during the second crash, even though he was standing 10' off the roadway.

 

[red_flanders]

What makes you think that I've made up a new definition for violence on the spot? Do you think I'm the only person to hold such views?

How is me saying that calling for the financial destitution or imprisonment of this person is nasty and spiteful taking personal responsibility out of the equation? Do you really believe these are the only ways someone can or should take responsibility for their actions?

Putting someone in jail certainly fits no reasonable definition of violence, which involves physical harm against someone. Beating them would. And I think it’s a couple of days in the county clink, not 5 years in the pen.

And who is calling for her “financial destitution”? I’m certainly not. I think a stiff fine would be quite appropriate, something on the order of several hundred Euro in addition to 3 days in jail. And no, fines are not perfect because of course several hundred Euro is nothing to one person but might be quite difficult for someone else. Life is complicated.

If you have a better idea on how to make someone pay for what I consider gross negligence, that’s great, I’m interested to hear it. Anyway, it’s a huge shame we’re even discussing it, it never should have happened. I’m sure we all agree it shouldn’t happen again.

 

[Volderke]

When u have clear vision of a fan, and that fan is looking in the opposite direction while standing in your way, maybe you should consider braking for once

I am honestly gobsmacked by the amount of experience judging the situation.
When you are on the highway, and have a clear vision of a deer standing on your lane, while other lanes are full of traffic, and another truck is directly behind your car, what will you do?

1. try to drive around the deer, without crashing into other cars on lanes besides you, and with some luck you avoid too much damage collding with the deer?
2. hit the brakes hard and get smashed by the truck behind you?
3. swerve into the other lanes, crashing for sure with other cars?

Martin did what had the most chance of getting away with it: hitting the lady's arm (which was stretched out very far, and she probably tensioned her arm quite a lot to make sure her cardboard was stretched and readable), and hope for the best: not crashing and just having the impact of the spectactor.
Braking would be a 100% sure crash.
Swerving to the left, into the peloton, would have been a 100% sure crash.