Monday’s crash in the finish of the Tour of the Basque Country was horrific, the bunch was speeding inside the final kilometre, rounded a bend into the finishing straight to find two narrow iron bollards topped with traffic cones in the way. The first riders came around the corner just tight enough to avoid trouble, behind others could not see the obstacle. Some swerved at the last minute prompting the first falls before others hit the metal poles at full speed.
Racing is dangerous enough and there are safety rules and guidelines to protect riders. Only they’re vague because it’s too hard to set down firm rules for events that exploit open roads.
The danger was heightened by the small obstacles, perhaps a parked car would be more obvious, to spotted though the spokes of someone else’s wheel or visible over the top of other riders. Some didn’t see these small bollards and the cones until it was too late. Sergio Pardilla, Peter Stetina, Nicolas Edet and Adam Yates all broke bones in the crash and have a long recovery ahead. I understand the race has offered apologies to the riders and offered to fly their families to Spain so the injured can have loved ones to visit them in hospital.
The rules: the how and why this happened has rightly angered many and much of the frustration has been directed at the UCI. However the governing body isn’t responsible here although it can certainly react. There’s actually a UCI rule declining responsibility in the case of an accident while another says:
the organiser shall ensure that the race course or the competition grounds include no places or situations that could constitute a particular safety risk to anyone (riders, attendants, officials, spectators, etc.).
As you see this is general and covers everything from the route to spectators and it puts the onus on the organiser and not the UCI. Should the rules be more specific? Good luck drafting it, athletics can specify what a 400m track should look like but road racing adapts to the urban environment, from the cluttered festival of street furniture in a Dutch town to the vagaries of a medieval Italian città. Safety’s meant big races like the Tour de France finish on the drab outskirts of a town rather than use the charming historic centre-ville.
The UCI has a guide for race organisers. It’s just that, a guide and the kind of technical document that includes all sorts of tips and suggestions to incorporate. Here are some of the safety points:
The organiser must indicate, at a suitable distance, all obstacles that it is reasonable to know about or foresee and that represent an unusual risk to the safety of the riders and race followers. The various obstacles must be pointed out in the event programme/technical guide.
The increasing amount of street furniture in many towns complicates the organisation of cycle races. It is nowadays essential to remove or provide protection from such obstacles. The organiser must anticipate potential crash sites during the race
The organiser must pay particular attention to providing the riders with warnings when passing through towns and in the final stages of the event (last 20 km). These warnings should be both visible and audible. A member of the security staff (mobile escort) waves a flag (preferably yellow) and gives repeated blasts on a whistle while standing in front of the obstacle
The obvious point is that if roads provide danger then these obstacles need to be signalled, take the Ronde van Vlaanderen which posts someone wearing hi-viz to wave a flag and blow a whistle on almost every junction, traffic island and other potential obstacle. In the case of the Basque danger this week, topping the poles with traffic cones is so unsatisfactory to be reckless but we’ve yet to get the full story, for example was a municipal worker supposed to remove them in time for the race only it didn’t happen so cones were stuck on top in haste? Was someone supposed to stand in front with a whistle and a flag to warn the riders but they couldn’t make it? In short was there supposed to be more than two plastic cones?
Could the race lose its World Tour status? What is new for 2015 is the presence of a UCI “technical delegate” for all World Tour races. Any feedback can go straight to the UCI and safety is a prime consideration. A demotion for a year could be a way to punish the race organisers and send a clear signal to everyone else, pour encourager les autres. But this would hit a race that’s probably not profitable and vital for many riders in the peloton. Perhaps a warning is needed rather than a demotion?
Rider protest: riders lined up on the start line and refusing to roll out for five minutes. Even in the timid history of rider protests this was polite but at least people made the point of acting together. The important aspect needs to be done elsewhere. The US rider union put out a punchy statement yesterday wanting to hold the race and UCI to account, here’s an excerpt:
We do not expect all risk to be removed from pro cycling. However, we do expect and demand that sensible measures be taken to prevent avoidable crashes like we saw in Monday’s finale.
The race organization could have taken any number of measures to prevent this outcome: divert the peloton away from the bollards with temporary barriers; station an official in front of the bollards with a flag; illustrate the dangerous feature in the road book; make an announcement on race radio which could be relayed to the riders by their teams.
It’s this kind of stance that promises to make things happen, someone wants to hold race organisers and the UCI to account and is going public about it too.
Consent: to pre-empt any comments saying “but this Sunday 200 riders will race through the Arenberg Forest” the differences are big:
- consent: riders agree that the pavé are a risk and adapt their riding and even their bikes to suit
- warning: the dangerous cobbles are rated and each sector is clearly signalled
- practice: you can ride the Arenberg Forest any time and many riders check out the course while nobody is expected to recon the finish of a stage race so closely, there is the assumption and the reliance that dangers will be signalled
Conclusion
There are no prescriptive safety rules for the finish of a race to stipulate, say, the minimum width of a finishing straight or to require the removal of certain obstacles, nor for them to be flagged. It would too hard to write down everything, instead it’s expected that the organisers know what to do and safety measures, especially in the closing moments of a race, should be obvious.
There are safety guidelines and a top World Tour event needs to exceed these. Something went badly wrong on Monday and if the UCI isn’t responsible it can and should act; calls to demote the race seem punitive although the riders lying in hospital today might think it’s the least that could be done.
Yesterday’s five minute protest looked feeble but seeing the peloton standing together is a rare sight and it should be the catalyst for more. At a long last a rider union is communicating effectively on the topic and this bodes well.
I’m surprised BMC didn’t withdraw in protest. Truly terrible organisation.
Well done for highlighting the possible issues surrounding the bollards being there. The photo on cyclingnews looks as though the bins are usually in the road but were moved onto the pavement (sidewalk). So yes, maybe somebody else was supposed to move the bollards but this wasn’t done. If so then they’d probably have been better off leaving the bins in the road, at least they’d be easier to spot.
However the solution (a cone on each bollard) is far from adequate. Did whoever placed them there think that this was the final solution or were they just ‘marking’ them for somebody else to deal with?
I would have thought that for a race like this calibre there would be some kind of ‘sign off’ of the final 3km by the race finish technical staff and the commissaire.
We don’t know what happened with this race but normally the course route is checked several times. As you say the bins could be the problem, maybe the organisers asked the municipal authorities to remove them off the road… they duly did this hours before race arrived but sadly left the bollards in place with “helpful” cones on top.
Don’t team recon the final few kms of a stage in the morning anyway to check out best places for sprints to start / pinch points etc.? ie is there a danger of over-reacting due to broken bones?
(Apologies if this is a completely unreasonable comment, having never raced I don’t know if it or not)
A reasonable comment and yes, it often happens, yes but drive the course and it might seem to simple, in car it’s possible to ignore the bollards.
When Oleg Tinkov posted his Facebook rant last week about the state of cycling, I (only) agreed with his comment on the current amateurism of cycling. In a way I like that the sport still looks amateur compared to other sports, but when it comes to the organisation of some races and safety, you can only agree that the sport needs to move to the 21st century.
When you see the video and especially the picture, you can only agree with him.
I agree. This race finish was amateurish and negligent. But I find myself asking how many people must have seen the posts sticking up with the cones on top and done NOTHING. The answer is FAR TOO MANY PEOPLE. Even as a spectator in the vicinity I would have felt the need to bring it to someone’s attention.
That’s exactly what I was thinking. If I was standing there as a spectator, it would have been obvious how hazardous those poles would be and I probably would have stood in front of them waving my arms. That would be common sense.
This can only be summed up as negligence by the race organizers whether that was their solution or another solution didn’t get incorporated.
The solution should have been to shape the corner by moving the righthand barrier line so that the poles were contained on the public side. The corner and the finish straight appears to to have been wide enough to allow for this.
I think that we can all agree that Mr Rushton has experience aplenty in these matters and can take on board his comments regarding the way the finish should have been mapped out. Frankly, am surprised by the shoddiness as Tour of the Basque Country is a high level race which always attracts the best GC riders.
I thought that, but the course did not appear to be barriered at that point. Admittedly they could have used some ‘spare’ barriers to create a localised adjustment to the line, but it kind of suggests they didn’t have too many barriers to play with.
In the first few seconds of the video clip you can see someone holding a red flag move out of the way from in front of the bollards and dip back into the crowd once the first couple riders went by!
The question is did this person with a flag presume the 150 following riders would see the bollards once the first few had passed; or, did they feel to vulnerable (to collision with a rider) trying to wave the flag in the prominent hazard?
Hard to tell for sure but I think you’re right, there’s someone moving and something red there.
Looks more like a flying traffic cone for me.
That UCI guide for race organisers needs to be mandatory for World Tour races.
It’s another indication of the relative weakness of the UCI in the overall governance of road cycling. People look to them as the head of the sport and vent their spleen on them when things go wrong, but they don’t have the power that one would normally expect from such a body.
There are so many things they can’t dictate, even at the top level, even in their own WT showcase. Incidents like this push us nearer and nearer to some form of standardisation that will, and must, come. No matter how much mewling about tradition and history and independence comes from the die-hards, it’s needed in too many ways, too many places for it not to happen.
Amen
I agree. I don’t think its as hard as Inrng suggests to define, for example, how the last KM in a WT race should be: certain road width, lack of road furniture, how to deal with obstacles, etc. It routinely annoys me that races unnecessarily complicate the last KM adding in roundabouts, narrower roads, barriers with feet that stick out into the road and 90 degree turns, for example. All dangerous nonsense.
Without intending to sound flippant about the crash and the serious injuries, I’m almost surprised there is footage of it, so bad has the television coverage been. Yes, I understand it’s a local production, and the budget cannot be huge; not everyone can be Sporza. But this ought to also be subject to some bare minimum standards for WT events. I mean, it’s a great race, it is a shame this negligence has tainted this edition.
As for demotion, it would still be the Pays basque…
Would anybody call for demotion of the Tour de France had id happened there?
Certainly I’d force them to focus on safety much more, next year it will be the safest race.
Coupled with the recent auto/bike incidents in Flanders, I would think if UCI wants to remain relevant, they will champion rider/course/event safety and bully the race organizers into getting more resources allocated in this area.
Why things did not improve after the death of WW in the Giro is beyond me.
Perhaps things did not improve after WW’s death because his death appeared to have nothing at all to do with an unsafe course or unsafe racing conditions.
That may have been the perception, but how do you allow a semi with a trailer onto the course, then not have the gendarmes at hand to wave their flags and blow their whistles ?
That’s true but an incident like that should prompt a formal audit of everything, for example how long it takes first aid to arrive, what lessons can be learned and so on. From what I understand and recall this never happened.
Absolutely. That’s what I do for work, have done so in F1 following death of a marshal, in petro chemical, major construction etc. also worked on risk management for UCI worlds. Cross industry learnings and investigation techniques are vital to me, I would never hesitate to ask others from outside to help if I felt the I did not have enough expertise on hand. Sorry for the badly written post, just got off a plane. Hope you get the gist.
That makes sense. It’s an grim phrase to use to but the idea is “never to waste a death”, to learn everything possible from what happened with a view to preventing it.
Bernie would never let that happen in F1
Actually there were several loose manhole cover incidents. Shanghai, Monte Carlo, etc.
Today I read a streaker run over the F1 course. Was that Bernie or why he let it happen?
The UCI fines teams and riders for foul play. Do they fine race organizers? They should.
This incident looks like something was overlooked. Like maybe everyone thought someone else was taking care of it. There should be a named person/group responsible for rider safety at all races, as well as a UCI counterpart to check their work and enforce safety rules.
The problem with this is that, as INRNG points out, the race is “probably not profitable (yet) vital for many riders in the peloton.” I think a purely financial reaction and punishment would do little other than threaten the future of this, and similar races.
I completely agree that something needs to be done. From what I’ve read, those bollards are removable, so the fact they were left there really is inexcusable. I’d argue that they’ve failed to meet any of the bullet points in the UCIs guide, so maybe that needs to be taken out of their hands? As others have suggested, if someone was responsible for signing off the last 3/5/10km then that person could be help directly responsible. Could/do the UCI not provide someone who could oversee this role? This would increase safety without necessarily impacting on running costs.
It’s interesting how UCI road events different in this regard, from even something as relatively comparable as cyclocross. I was involved in last year’s Canadian CX Nationals event, and the level of control the UCI has over the entire course in CX is immense. The senior UCI commissaire on site does a course walk of the entire course with the organizer and will not sign off on the course and allow the event to proceed until they are satisfied with absolutely everything.
Obviously such a close eye isn’t practical on a 150-300 km course, but as you say, the last 3/5/10 km should be pretty easy to cover.
Surely if a race wants to be a UCI-backed World Tour Race then the UCI can appoint a delegate who signs off on the course (and certainly the finish) in terms of safety/suitability – and who becomes the responsible person on the UCI’s behalf? I sense that responsibility for this farce will, once more, slip through the cracks.
it seems likely to me that the local authorities were supposed to remove the bins and bollards but some bright spark messed up on the morning of the race – maybe forgot the key for the bollards, maybe thought the cones would be sufficient.
i’ve seen it all too often that non-cyclists have no concept of the requirements for safe cycling – even commuter or recreational, let alone WT racing. they don’t get the speed or intensity of a peloton so think that if it is possible to get past safely then that is sufficient. this says the race organisers need to take more direct responsibility for things
This.
As someone who works in construction that often deals with trying to keep the public safe I’m amazed by what guys on my crew deem sufficient to keep pedestrians and vehicles in check. They would be clueless about keeping a sprint finish safe.
I would imagine most guys on my crew would feel pylons on top of bollards would be totally fine. Often it’s these guys that are in charge of things like this.
Surely somewhere within the race organization there is someone, or multiple people, signing off on a legal document to say that the race complies with the UCI’s safety guidelines? I presume the ultimate figure that the “buck” stops with is the race director?
Post investigations, it is these individuals that should be held to account, not the organization (in this case the race). It could be an individual financial fine or a restriction to continue to practice that line of work.
This is where a riders union should be standing up for its riders. Not publishing mild statements but organizing and following up the incident in a court of law. This would highlight this issue to the cycling world, improve any legislation regarding the UCI safety guideline, and ensure that the responsible people (race directors?) conduct their jobs in the correct manner in future.
If such was to take place, it must come from the union side, and not that of the UCI. It must be independent; UCI rules and potentially staff would be included in such an investigation and possible trial.
I think I read that part of the finishing course in Bilbao was also used during another race and previously the poles had barriers in front of them… The Vuelta a España was there in 2011 but I can’t recognise any footage of the same section.
It is actually the Association of North American Professional Road Cyclists (ANAPRC) that put out the news release. So not a U.S. rider union, specifically.
Agree with MD, the race organizers deserve some of the blame. Yet they really don’t have the financial
heft to sustain too much a hit that would come with down grading the race.
Doesn’t some of the “blame” lie with the race referees who have the most experience with course safety and the rules?
At club racing level in Victoria, Australia, the race commissaire is responsible for inspecting the course and informing the riders of any safety issues at the pre-race briefing. However, it is the race organizer’s (headed by the race director’s) responsibility to plan the route; the race organizer’s guide states the following:
“The organiser must however take care to avoid obstacles such as road narrowings, traffic islands and speed bumps in the final few kilometres. These obstacles must not be present in the last kilometre.
I don’t know whether the same rules apply to UCI WorldTour events in Spain, of course.
Surely as commissaires nominated we do what we can with the means at hand but we cannot pre-ride (in car) all stages and finishes in a stage race to check matters like this. Distances, time schedules, meetings and the likes normally dosen’t allow for this.
What we (I) normally do is discuss with the organiser if any points along the route need further inspection or scrutiny and if yes, we try to make it. It is not always possible to make it. Needless to say, in this respect – as a foreigner – I rely heavily on the trust and skills of the organising body.
As also INRNG mentions, on a recce-ride prior to raceday, security/safety/barriers etc might not even be in place making any inspection pretty formal and not thourough with respect to the safety measures implemented come raceday and stage finish.
“most experience”; on the local course this is bound to be the organiser and in some cases local commissaires, not me as I rarely get to repeat a race as UCI commissaire.
Thanks to UHJ for the informed comments, experience and insight from a UCI commissaire, much appreciated.
There are UCI rules that ban inflatables bridged over the course. This from today’s Scheldepris, as if the other crashes weren’t enough. https://vine.co/v/eBvdww37B30, or this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ix0dAkSqA8w from DeRonde
NB Some inflatables are supported by internal gantries, but not these.
I don’t want to diminish the seriousness of this and yes there should be a full investigation to see what lessons can be learned for the future.
A completely separate incident, but in the same vein of “danger to the peloton”, I watched another terrible crash 24 hours later at Scheldeprijs (spelling?) – caused by riders being unduly aggressive in fighting for position. It looked like a rider in black (Argon?) and an Astana rider bouncing off each other there, taking unnecessary risks, bring down a whole bunch. Should a rider union or the UCI intervene in these cases too and insist that dangerous riders get DQed and perhaps suspended for a race or two after reviewing whether a rider has caused that crash? I know we have seen this (rarely) in the TdF, but the aggression seems to be getting worse and worse so perhaps the deterrent needs to be more regular? These types of crashes are much more common than the terrible one your blog relates to.
TD, back in the day. USCF 30 years ago here in the US. we other racers use to take care of riders who raced to aggressively as we might have observed in todays sprint finish.
I can’t speak for ProTour but I would imagine that if someone is at fault for riding in an unsafe manner the affected teams will note it and there will be “pay back” at some point in the future when no one is presumably looking! Isolate an offender from his team and just by chance take that offender into a barrier (hook) or road furniture by accident ( squeezed)
Peloton justice, revenge is best served cold…
Not advocating it but it use to work back in the day…
It still happens, those who ride kamikaze-style get a reputation and will be flicked or chopped without hesitation the next time, if only for self-preservation.
The Scheldeprijs crash saw three riders with Bennett, Guardini and what looks like a Lotto-Jumbo all riding too close but I’ve checked the slo-mo and, with the video I’ve seen, it’s too hard to tell what’s going on, you can’t spot elbowing in the low-res images. Note Guardini gets a push forward from a team mate, it doesn’t cause the crash but it puts him even more in the box.
it does seem strange that on occasions riders get thrown out of the TdF (Renshaw for example, altho that was pretty blatant even if it didn’t actually cause anyone to fall off) while for some of these big pile-ups there seems to be no official effort to find culprits (if there are any). Is that because it’s often too complicated/contentious to pin blame in any one place? – or maybe they don’t want the risk of having to kick a draw card (Cav for example) off a race at an early stage…
Maybe someone can tell us whether vigilante justice was common in the olden days and/or among amateurs, but I don’t think professionals are into that sort of thing these days. It’s considered fair to try to lead an opponent into a road hazard to get him off your wheel, but certainly not by pushing or shoving him into it, that is not part of the sport. And the penalties for dangerous riding– vacating results, ejection from stage races– seem adequate given that there is not much of a problem. The most recent cases I can recall have involved punishment or call for punishment (Rodriguez-Deignan in the Vuelta last year) for incidents in which no one crashed. The real problems with safety come from the inherent risks of racing on public roads, and the arguments are about which risks are truly inherent and which ones may be unacceptable.
I can’t imagine riding blindly at 30 mph into a pole. I’ve heard of cyclists being paralyzed or receiving irreversible brain trauma from hitting bollards. Though it sucks to break bones, luckily no one was hurt worse. I wish all those who crashed a speedy recovery.
Common sense is all too often uncommon.
Riding into one meter high poles, placed in the riding line of a group of cyclists, let alone a tightly packed racing group fighting for position at the finish of an event, is to be expected. If you have ridden in say France, where they often place these type of poles in the middle or end of cycle tracks, you will have witnessed many similar accidents, even when riding at ‘club pace’. Unless adequate warning is given by preceding riders, they are almost impossible to see.
The organizers must accept responsibility of a serious oversight in the organization. It is simply not good enough – at any level let alone WT.
Do the Commisars have any responsibility in this regard? In rallying a steward will usually travel in the route opening car and may demand a stage is cancelled, the finish moved or additional protection added, for example. His word is law and the event can be delayed while the work is carried out.
Specific rules remove responsibility from the UCI and therefore the commissaires. However if they’re told of a danger or spot it they have a duty to act. In this case they could have ignored the danger, either as they speed to the finish line in the car with the job done or even that race vehicles were turned off the course just before this.
@Tovarishch, see my reply a little further up the thread.
In general we ride in an open-roof car (as per regulations the open-roof is mandatory for commissaires) behind the peloton/groups, not in front and cetainly not in due time to prevent anything like this. This would most likely have been the responsibility of the race-director riding in front to report on oncoming dangers (ambulances, badly parked cars, narrow bridges etc.). He (or she) should have recced the route, anticipated this and acted.
My personal guess is, what has already been suggested, that the responsible forgot the keys or shovel to removed the poles and chose the not-so-good secondbest precaution instead.
I really think it would be worth the organizers of cycle races and closed road rallies getting their heads together to share experience. The problem with rallying are similar but with potentially much more severe consequences in the event of an accident. The one thing one rarely sees on cycle races are marshals to control spectators and use initiative to handle just such a situation. A single man with a yellow arrow isn’t sufficient.
Surely something can be learned from other sports, no doubt about that.
Marshalls are deployed in most WT races but they have more than enough to do blocking side roads, marking traffic islands etc. which is normally their focus, not the public. But that might chance.
“The race organizer should stand with feet spread a comfortable distance apart, then reach in, grab their ears and pull their head out of their a__!” might be added to the UCI rule book? Other than “We don’t give a s__t!” what excuse can be used to explain this? Interesting that we’re not hearing so much from the riders about the neutral support vehicle issues, which to me are in every way just as inexcusable. The UCI and race organizers are easy, safe targets for ire while a component supplier to most of the pro peloton seems to be less so. Who employs those drivers? How are they chosen?
Of course the Scheldeprijs js mass-crash is on the account of too large a peloton coming together of a one-day race, where big crashes are the norm. If riders complained about too large a field or about a course that’s not selective enough, their security concerns would get more traction. As long as their legitimate security concerns are mixed with aspiring, not so legitimately, to shorter, more controlled races, or not riding in the cold, or other comfort issues, riders have a credibility issue, despite the Basque blunder.
First time commentator here (but long time reader).
I agree with almost everything posted by Inner Ring. However, I would like to point out a small detail that in no way should clear the organizer’s responsibilities: those damned poles were in fact located on the “inside side” of the last bend of the course. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-f0wCkcg8Uw
So in theory, the flow of the peloton should have deviated to the other side of the road – maybe this thinking lead to some neglect when dealing with the poles? But unfortunately the race moved in the “wrong” direction when Tony Martin started his leadout on the inside (at t=9m07, you can see how close he comes to the cones).
It might not be easy to set out the detailed requirements for a safe finishing area. It’s not difficult to add a rule requiring WT organisers to have their course (or just the finish) approved by the UCI/Commissionaire before the race can go ahead.
@Nick, as with the “not allowed to ride on anything but the route”-rule, this is far more difficult IRL. Writing the rule is the easy part, enforcing it is quite something different.
Sheer distances and time schedules can easily prevent any inspection. What is more: As commissaires we are – believe it or not – skilled volunteers. We are reimbursed for travel costs and organisers will pay for hotels/meals etc. For compensation we receive a small amount per day but max of no. days = no. of racedays+1. Any inspection would need to raise the number of days and that would reduce the group of commissaires available as we all only have limited time for our “hobby”. the raised number of days would be an added expense for the UCI (and the organiser; hotel/meal etc).
So apart from the logistics in inspecting beforehand, expenses would increase and the pool of available commissaires would decrease with a rule like that. Not to mention the pure subjectivity in assesing the necessary safety measures between commissaires/technical delegates/organisers
Thanks for the reply. I can see that it would cost more, but don’t necessarily see that the logistics are that complex. It may be that courses can’t be approved by the actual commissionaires for logistical reasons, but this doesn’t prevent them from being approved by the UCI in advance. The UCI is currently in the process of approving the Olympic road race course for next year after all, and has detailed negotiations with the organisers of the Worlds about the suitability of their courses. I don’t immediately see what prevents them from adopting a similar process with the WT race organisers too, other than cost and inclination.
(I’m also far from convinced that the “don’t ride off the route” rule was difficult to enforce. As far as I could see, nobody tried enforcing it – unless I missed a load of disqualifications in last year’s Spring Classics.)
In some respects you are right, Nick.
But inspecting/approving a short circuit that will be fully closed come raceday is one thing, inspecting and approving a stage route which is public road and subject to perhaps not-so-good-maintenance 6 months in advance is quite another.
Also you must remember that though the WT riders go fast and long, we have a lot of riders below WT that go equally fast for almost as long. These riders and races do not have the infrastructure and backing (financially or otherwise) to ensure that kind of inspection/approval.
It’s the money, you know 😉
Nice from Inrng to put the spotlight on rider safety, which I feel is often ignored and I am not thinking of extreme heat or cold in this context. After what happened in Basque Country, we had another massive pile-up in the Scheldeprijs yesterday – and not for the first time there. Some people and even reporters were talking of the “traditional mass crash” at the Scheldeprijs, which indeed it is. I cannot understand why nobody is doing anything about it then. Surely nobody likes to see crashes like some boxing fans are craving to see knock outs?
Instead, the Belgian UCI representative, also chairman of the Belgian Federation, was saying after the race that ‘the Scheldeprijs deserves to be in the World Tour’ : go figure! A number of riders could just as well have been killed or paralysed in such a crash, and I am beginning to wonder if that is what will be needed before anyone in the governing bodies is going to act. It was in Formula 1 until Ayrton Senna, its biggest star, died. If there’s so many crashes in more or less the same spot over the years, it is obvious that something is not right with the location. I don’t remember seeing so many bad accidents happening in the final sprint in Hamburg every summer. Andre Greipel often said that Scheldeprijs finish is too dangerous, which probably was the main reason he didn’t start yesterday, and Greipel cannot be accused of being a sissy sprinter. He’s not even afraid of doing a few cyclocross races in winter from time to time.
There are more races on TV or internet than in the past, so we see more crashes happening. Yet, long-time cycling fans feel it in the gut there’s more riders hitting the deck than before. Former classics kind Johan Museeuw said in an interview last weekend he doesn’t understand even riders ‘educated’ on the track are crashing. Track riders are known to have superb bike handling skills. In my view, the super light and responsive modern racebikes are a main reason, and it is hard to see what can be done about that. Adding compulsory weight to the bikes and have a minimum of, say, 8kg? I know it goes against the development of the industry, but Formula 1 has minimum weight limits as well. Young and inexperienced riders having no respect for the older generation? If the bikes were heavier, they may not have the energy left to manoevre their bikes into that tiny gap, that’s just physics. Something has to be done in any case, as some of these flat races are becoming hard to watch and it is not exactly good publicity for the sport neither.
There should be more riders speaking up for their safety. Race car drivers earn millions, but many cyclists are riding minimum wage. Which sport is the most dangerous these days?
It’s always the riders who are scrutinised and targeted for ‘inappropriate actions’ , and left hanging to defend themselves in public, but race organisers can apparently do what they want. I’d fully support if the UCI or a national body under the UCI umbrella has the power to assess race courses and particularly the final kilometres, and veto them if deemed necessary. More cost-efficient may just be to draw up some kind of technical guideline (hard, indeed) and impose sanctions like 2-year bans on organisers, or downgrading the race to a lower level. Some stick behind the door is definitely needed.
Allowing the current Scheldeprijs to enter the UCI World Tour would just make our sport’s main global race circuit even more of a mockery.
My father-in-law is a technical official (technical delegate) who signs-off equestrian cross-country courses. If he is TD for a competion, the competition cannot start without his approval. He is an Olympic medallist and as highly qualified as you can be as a technical official as well. Before he approves a course, he walks it with the organiser and a rider delegate. If he recommends any changes, he walks it again after they’re made. I don’t know if the rules require this or if this is his personal approach (he’s not around to ask at the moment) but he takes his role very seriously. Equestrian cross-country is a dangerous sport which has had to learn over time how to protect riders and horses – and that safety is not optional. Cycling could learn something from him it seems.
Road racing is by its nature exposed to such risks from road furniture, and no amount of pre-race surveying will eliminate every dangerous condition. In this instance, it looks like human error was involved when the person who placed the cones on the poles–in doing so revealing that he knew that these were dangerous–should have done more to indicate the danger. The danger was recognized, but the remedy was insufficient. While it was a terrible accident, amending the UCI’s rules or imposing stricter requirements on race organizers might not prevent similar accidents if the one person charged with implementing the proper safety measure, i.e., placing warning cones on the road, lacks the intelligence to carry out his task. We will need to wait until the investigation draws its conclusion before we can point the finger at the culprit. In the meantime, we need to outlaw all those people taking selfies! That poses more risk to the peloton than stationary road furniture. Oh, and by the way, to all you dog owners: Keep the dog at home when you come out to watch the race go by.
In 1988 at 21 years old, I was working with the Coors Classic on the 10 man construction team setting up starts and finishes and course safety. I’d driven a truck full of gear from Boulder to San Francisco to work the stages all the way back. On the final day in Boulder I stayed on my own, separate from the team, at a friend’s house, who wasn’t there, after 2 weeks of little sleep doing some of the hardest work I’d ever done up to then. Screwed up the alarm clock I guess. Sun waking me up through the window in this foreign environment. And I was flipping out. The team lead was driving all over Boulder looking for the big yellow Penske truck parked in front of wherever I might be. He found me about the same time I was jumping in the cab to head down to the race. He had to really calm me down, I was so distraught about the deal. Of course, arrived at the event late. The pro women’s race was already taking place. And sure enough there was a crash in to some barrier one of my hay bales would have been. She needed medical attention, though fortunately was not severely injured. It’s been one of those mistakes in life that’s always hung with me.
S__t happens, no doubt. I was actually at the Coors that year as well. But with the metal pipes, SOMEONE decided they were dangerous enough to put the cones over, but that’s all they did. If they could not be removed, like a lot of road furniture, real preventive measures should have been taken but weren’t. The riders do a lot of squawking about safety, why don’t they pony up a portion of their salaries to fund a representative to inspect the courses in advance? Things like these should be obvious, but if the UCI or the organizers fail to consider these things, the riders should take matters into their own hands. As has been noted, plenty of other sports have representatives of the participants charged with looking out for their safety. Perhaps Gianni Bugno should appoint someone?
It’s rather astonishing that you directly responded to someone’s personal and clearly painful anecdote about how human error on the organisation side caused an injury, and you still felt compelled to put all the responsibility for preventing incidents on “squawking” riders.
Like, what’s your deal?
Great writing and perspective. This piece and your post about last years Giro stage over the Stelvio (The Fog of War) are both excellent. Thanks for sharing.
Like it’s been said, given the non-standardized environment of road racing it’s very difficult to create standardized safety measures and expectations. It seems like this could be a good role for an ex-pro to play in event promotion. Someone could be hired directly by the event or sent from the UCI before a race to preview the final few kilometers to the line or any areas the organizer is unsure about. For someone who rides (but does not race) they may have seen those posts and thought nothing of them – it’s easy to avoid things like that on a ride. However, anyone who’s ever been in a peloton knows it would be unlikely to see those coming around the corner at speed. Even though general routes (city to city) get planned far in advance, I don’t think it would be too complicated to make minor adjustments to the finishes after sending a consultant to ride through the last few km and offer suggestions to make it safer (like complete barriers around that corner) or re-routing through town to avoid obstacles like that completely.