Thursday Shorts

104 thoughts on “Thursday Shorts”

1. Of late the rider safety issues seems concentrated on the risks of non-race vehicles getting on the course. The risk is real but blocking every farm and field gate, every private drive, and clearing every private car parked – at least ensuring the driver won’t arrive and start driving – on the course takes massive ressource. I recently watched the amateur Tour de Moselle passing through my village and counted at least thirteen police motorcycles and twenty-odd support vehicles, yet numerous points of possible access to the route were not supervised resulting in substantial risk. I’m not sure what the answer is but ending the less well-funded races or reducing them to closed circuit races would be sad.

   • I understand your point, but what happened with Fin Tarling was simply unacceptable. It’s a little murkier with smaller/amateur races, but there has to be a stronger standard for the bigger races. The Cycling Podcast boys were discussing the issue and brought up harsh penalties for race organizers, which I believe is the only solution that will really work. If it means the loss of a race that’s better than the loss of a life. Of course it gets complicated at the margins (e.g., how do you decide when a course is “too dangerous”), but things like vehicles on courses are black-and-white. If you can’t get that figured out, don’t have a race.

     • It is difficult, at the Tour de France every junction and even side track is policed. But no other race gets coverage like this. You could have volunteers but what if a driver barges past, is the organiser still liable? As you say the Cycling Podcast had a good discussion on this – they discuss stripping organisers of their races/demoting the event as a suggestion, NB this already happens but it’s rare, trying to recall a race that was sanctioned and think the Eneco Tour (Benelux version) was cited before? – and the peloton clearly want to see some visible improvement on this.

       • This year’s Eneco tour was called Tour Of Holland last year and was a total shambles ineed. They couldn’t rely on police support for security (this year apparently they can, to some extent) and relied on volunteers. People road onto the race course past the volunteers and disrupted the race several times. One or two stages were neutralised as a result of this. I don’t think the race was demoted but I can imagine there must have been some stern talks between the organisers and the UCI before allowing it to be on the calender y again this year.

         • Was thinking of an event in a Belgian stage race a few seasons back.

           EDIT: found it, the Binckbank Tour in 2019 was fined by the UCI and told to make several improvements, UCI press release here.

       • > You could have volunteers but what if a driver barges past, is the organiser still liable?

         If that is the end of the traffic management plan, then yes.

         But at a race which does it well, that’s where the traffic management plan simply moves on to the next layer – the advance police motos/cars circulating on the route over the next 10-15 minutes after the road closure lead vehicle goes through. The car which ignores a volunteer marshal or exits a driveway onto the course gets stopped by one of these advance police vehicles, or directed off the race route when they arrive at the first proper junction, and the process has worked.

         There’s then the final layer of the closer escort vehicles within the last 5 minutes, acting as a last line of defence or as backup for the earlier layers.

     • Yes, we won’t have races. We’ll be left with a handful of them, and soon they’ll be gone, too. Track cycling is also a good sport, anyway.

       It’s quite silly to put the burden on the weakest ring of the chain whilst for whomever is living these situation directly it’s pretty manifest that it’s about broader cultural and social issues relative to the perception and relevance of cycling, something which “stakeholders” (usually referring to the biggest fishes in the pond) and “podcasters” never gave much importance, as worried as they were about the “business model”, just ignoring the basic fact that if you screw the modem you won’t have business either.

       Without volunteers, the sport as we know it just won’t work. Without public support (even besides the huge amount of public money), the sport doesn’t work. Without popular respect, not to say appreciation, for the sport, it literally hasn’t a place in this world.

       The mere fact that people including those in the sport aren’t fully aware of this is just shocking. I suppose it’s partly due to very specific experiences which were generated in relatively minor and short term contexts like UK cycling, the USA etc.

       • The “modem” => model
         Oh the modem, speaking of ol’ times tech ^___^

         • I was going to say that if you’re still relying on a modem, you really shouldn’t be in business!

       • Gabriele, you have created quite the straw man here. What the UK or the US have to do with it is beyond me. You seem to be suggesting that the only solution is general cultural respect, but that is only part of the equation and does nothing about a delivery driver randomly entering a course during a race. The only thing that’s “silly” is throwing up one’s hands and refusing to hold accountable the only people who actually control the conditions of a race. Fin Tarling died because the race organizers didn’t properly prepare for the race, not because of “broader social and cultural issues.”

         • Speaking of straw man -___-
           … now let’s tackle the other accidents we’ve been having in different races.

           By the way, your comment below about ToC just confirms what I am saying above.

           Generally speaking, specific accidents must be treated one by one, and that’s already happening. If there’s a negative trend that we notice and which we want to deal with, particular cases bring limited insight. As other observed here and there.

           And let me insist again. I am not saying at all that nothing can be done regarding single accidents. They must be examined, responsibles held liable and become inspiration for further measures. But if we speak of *policies* that’s a whole different matter and a broader vision is required.

           I am sure that if you read the rest of comments below by other readers and inrng themselves, you can find more interesting pieces for reflection on this question.

     • These “Cycling Podcast boys”, how many races have they ever organized in their life?
       Guess the number is lower than Picnic-PostNL WT wins in 2026.

       • As any long term listener of the Cycling Podcast can tell you, Lionel Birnie organised a week-long stage race when he was a teenager, which included the classic ‘Porn Shop TT’ stage.

   • A few years ago I was a volunteer steward for the Route du Sud (now called the Tour d’Occitanie) when a stage finished in Castres. We turned up on the morning and were given minimal instructions, a high-viz vest and a red paddle. We were then attributed a road junction and had to stop cars coming onto the finishing straight. Fortunately I only had one car to stop and they were very understanding. But do all races rely on local volunteers to do this? I’m not sure how I would have coped with a more aggressive driver if they decided to ignore my red paddle!

     • I can’t speak for other races, but I know the Tour of California used a lot of local volunteers at intersections. I don’t know what they did for all the driveways along the route.

       • I was a volunteer for Stage 5 of the Tour of California and was assigned to a crosswalk between an apartment building and the beach, so not even an intersection. They used a large number of volunteers that year, at least in the finish town of Santa Barbara. I got a hi-viz t-shirt but no paddle. No many pedestrians wanted to use the crosswalk so I didn’t have to do very much. Because it was at the bottom of a hill before the flat approach to the finish line, my view of the peloton, led by Discovery drilling it for Hincapie, was exceedingly brief.

     • > But do all races rely on local volunteers to do this?

       Yes. This is just how road racing has to work in my country. It’s all based on volunteer marshalls (in some associations, marshalling is a required duty – you must marshall X races to participate in the club/association).

       Riders are told (and have also signed a form saying the same) that the road is open, they will encounter other road users, they must obey the rules of the road, and they are responsible for cycling safely. Even the top stage race in my country, which gets police motorcycle support, the riders have to sign that same form.

       You can not get the roads closed. So either it is this, or all racing has to stop.

       • Most races including a lot of the pro calendar including some World Tour races rely on volunteers, often to stand at junctions and moto drivers. Normally ASO, RCS and Flanders Classics races don’t. For the anecdote the worlds in Montréal had a volunteer who had also done the 1974 edition there too.

         • The Giro still used selected volunteers a few years ago, not sure about now.

         • I think we need to recognise that essentially all road bicycle racing relies on best effort, volunteer, marshalling of the roads – and that this *will* be imperfect. Especially in modern times.

           That a small handful of the very highest level races manage to be able to police the roads enough to keep vehicles off for the vast majority of the time is very much an exception (and even then, it’s not been unknown for cars to sneak onto grand tour courses).

           It’s not what the riders want to hear, but it is a fact that needs to be acknowledged.

       • Agree with Paul J 100%.

2. At the same time as Mr IR discusses Picnic-PostNL’s alleged “culture of fear” a separate report reveals a “toxic culture” at British Cycling. It must be easy for an insistance on high standards and performance to stray over an acceptable line, particularly when points, funding and survival are at stake. In Picnic’s case the allegation sounds surprising as intelligent riders like Bardet spent five years there and then recruited Picnic DS, Matt Winston, to Decathlon, or maybe it merely shows that Bardet was intelligent enough and confident in his ability and thus able to resist undue pressure.

   In both cases the charges won’t make for happy sponsors.

   • Interesting point regarding Bardet. I’d add John Degenkolb, who has been there for a while and doesn’t seem like a Yes-man to me either.

3. Niche linguistic comment – please feel free to zap if not of interest however if you are a student of Japanese my thought on the Miyazaki drawing caption is that it reads “Fu i nyo n yo kita ne” .

   With “Fu i nyo n” being Fignon as written in Katakana script (used to write non-Japanese names and words, and also used where italics, all-caps, bold etc are used in English).

   Full caption reads something on the lines of “Fignon’s arrived!” I think.

   As other commenters have said on other posts, please think about writing on your recent cycle tour. I’m sure it would be well received.

   • That makes a lot more sense. Will edit the text above so everyone gets it right the first time.

4. On the Fignon picture: “The handwritten title seems to be “fusion” but is Fignon escaping from his helmet, sunglasses and race radio or merging with them?”

   Were race radios a thing in 1989? I thought they had been introduced by the Motorola team (a telecoms sponsor showcasing their products in a new arena) which would date the introduction to the early 1990s?

   So a bit of artistic licence, I guess. The helmet would be somewhat anachronistic as well, hard shell helmets dating from the mid 1980s but far from universal until the early 2000s. Picture Fignon in your mind’s eye and it is glasses, flowing blond hair – and no helmet.

   • Radios came later as you say, the early 1990s. Is Miyazaki wishing for an earlier version of the sport?

     The models used by the peloton haven’t improved much since, most teams buy them from a radio shop in Belgium. But there’s a new supplier now and if the price is higher, the performance is a lot better.

     • I think that’s it, Hayao is daydreaming about an older version of the sport, which explains why Fignon, beat by tech in 1989, riding in an instinctive, passionate way hardly associated to race radios, and so iconic with his hair and glasses, unlike the general helmet and sunglasses imagine we’re so much used to.

       Curiously, the TDF that followed showed that race radios don’t necessarily prevent a good deal of attacking drama!

5. “…impose liability.”

   As an American trial attorney, I can tell you this works very well.

   When defendants are ordered to write checks, intractable problems suddenly become very tractable.

   • Should the cars entering the course be liable (or their insurers) or the race organisers? I would like the first to be true: suspect fewer drivers would be tempted to flout the rules.

     • This is why it is difficult, especially on a 200km course each day. Are drivers made aware in advance and on the day, is the course closed with signs, staff etc? A lot to think about.

     • It’s probably not one or the other. It could depend if the race organizer took reasonable and prudent measures and the intruder forced their way onto the course. Alternatively, the race organizer does not take prudent measures and the intruder didn’t even realize they were driving onto a closed bicycle race course.

       I think the F. Tarling case was the latter.

       Pidcock’s complaint for his teammates is even more disturbing – hit by a police motorcycle going against race traffic – since it would be assumed the police motorist are their to protect the race. I haven’t seen anywhere how this was explained; I’m sure there’s more to it than Pidcock’s complaint.

       • Less races, less expertise for everybody involved.

         Nothing of the above came as a surprise to me…

     • @John. The American way is sue everyone who may possibly be liable (permissive joinder) and let the judge and jury sort it out (joint and several liability). Works great.

       • Perhaps. But apparently not at all in order to reduce cyclists’ casualties on the road.

         • @Gabriele, liability would reduce casualties and injuries. The combination of general, special, and punitive damages and legal fees changes behavior of defendants. The loss control industry (injury prevention) originated and continues to evolve because of litigation.

           Here is a question to consider. Who, in or around pro cycling, fears litigation?

         • @Albert
           I’m talking about normal people killed while riding their bicycle around on public roads for whatever purpose. The USA have a terrible score which doesn’t get better (north of 1K a year if I recall it right). I guess human life is paid poorly or something like that, hence nobody can get those figures to drop a bit (Italy is similar or worse, alas, but not the rest of Europe).

           As a partially separated point, another issue with that approach is that when a big industry is involved you can be sure that things begin to get better only once they got horribly horribly bad and somebody got very rich in the while, never paying back enough, really (tobacco, sugar, PFOAS, social networks etc.)

       • Albert:

         That does not work in Europe because the person initiating the action becomes liable for the defendants costs if they lose, or fail to accept a reasonable settlement. The American way allows for frivolous and vexatious actions, so does not “work great”. [Actually, it is a bit less clear-cut than I presented, but you get the idea.]

         • Nonny: this is an excellent point and encapsulates the good and bad of our litigious system. While it does hold bad actors accountable in many cases, it also causes a chilling effect which prevents a lot of fun from happening. The Tour of California for example.

         • @Anonyous, America is the same as Europe in this respect. State and federal law have many provisions to discourage frivolous, bad faith, meritless, and malicious cases.

         • @Albert.

           Yes, there are rules in the US “to discourage frivolous, bad faith, meritless, and malicious cases”. Some argue they are not particularly effective. And bearing the costs of lost legal actions is a very simple and effective way to discourage such cases. Of course, the threat of bearing costs can discourage good cases from being taken to court too.

           Note, using the law to get an outcome only makes sense if the costs of going to law are low (and the property rights are well-defined and concentrated). Otherwise the only people who benefit from going to law are the lawyers. Other regulatory means can often be cheaper and more effective.

     • I would like to catch this one for a much longer perspective: It ha always been a mystery to me how a driver’s licens can be held without – as a minimum – being taught about events that can take place in public places like roads. I have yet to come across a book on the subject intended to educate aspiring drivers and car owners how to drive around an event like a bike race – which, let’s face it – is by far one of the biggets events that can happen on a public road (and often even at car speeds).
       I have aften suggested to my federation that they approach the responsibles for teaching driving skills and explain the need for this to be included in the curriculum.
       I know you will have difficulties finding a race to “approach” in teaching terms but I believe that if you included teaching and discussions on this subject when acquiring a driver’s license, many mishaps could be avoided. Also; if taught the subject, the driver will be easier to hold liable for misconduct.
       The improvements will be a long time coming but I think it is worth pusuing this idea.

6. The natural end point of concerns about the safety of racing on public roads is no racing on public roads. People used to race cars on open public roads, many rallies didn’t have special stages until the 1960s. They weren’t required. But as cars got faster, roads got busier and attitudes to safety changed this became less acceptable. I don’t think its too much of a stretch to suggest that cycling is heading down a similar road, so to speak. Bikes are faster, roads are busier and attitudes to safety continue to evolve. It’s probably within our lifetimes when all road races will be on laps of small, managed, crowd controlled circuits. Enjoy what we have while it lasts I would say.

   • That sounds rather pessimistic but I guess it may partly depend on your age!

   • I think so too from an absolute safety perspective, even if the end result would be quite a different sport. Although it opens the question of whether this happens to the pro peloton first and amateur races continue with these risks, or whether it applies to all. But this does not mean it happens, the sport might find a way to muddle through it all.

   • The Grand Tours will always be point-to-point on the mountain stages. It is difficult to see how a circuit could be created when they are climbing mountains.

     PS. The Mille Miglia road race for cars used to be 1000 miles up the spine of Italy. Crazy they did this through small villages and towns in the 1950s without any protection for people on the route. By the 1950s, the cars would have been pretty fast (they were driving modified formula one cars, with Stirling Moss beating Fangio in the race in 1955).

     • Mille Miglia: I’ve read there were some very gruesome injuries and deaths, to both drivers and spectators.

       • The Mille Miglia is the famous one. There was the Targo Florio too which continued into the early 70s. Roads were closed only for the race. Practice was undertaken, in full Le Mans spec sports cars, amongst local traffic. The Safari rally was on completely open public roads in Kenya up until the mid 1990s. There is plenty of footage of Group A rally cars bullocking along while packed buses and cars pull to the side of the road. All of these events still exist in a vastly reduced, much safer, entirely less entertaining form. There will still be a Tour of Flanders, Giro and Tour etc years into the future. They just won’t look anything like they do now. They’ll be smaller, safer and easier to package up for TV.
         My general sort of point is, while its fine to get upset about safety issues, especially those involving deaths, if local authorities, police and politicians etc are bombarded with people saying ‘you need to do this, you need to do that’, often at considerable cost to the taxpayer, they won’t move villages, ban locals from using their cars or give a mountain pass similar safety precautions as you might find at Formula 1 circuit. They’ll just ask the skinny men on their bikes not to come back.

         • I think the Tour can carry on as is because it has so much support and clout, every side road and farm track is staffed by police – I’ve posted here before you wonder if burglars rub their hands because every officer is busy guarding a farm gate – and the same for the Ronde. But it’s smaller races that are in trouble, most rely on volunteers and the way to square this probably to use circuits.

           It’s a bit grim but some actuarial exploration of the risks could be useful; the UCI has a database of every crash that tries to record the causes. This way the risks can be rated and addressed.

         • @inrng
           Totally agreed on risk exploration. And on the rest, too. I tend to doubt that this sport can survive healthily keeping alive only the top of the pyramid.
           Actually, what the reform documents insist on is “maintaining an open, protected pyramid”. Although it refers to teams, teams must race races, I suppose…

         • @inrng
           No need to wonder, it’s a fact that especially on big mountain stages there’s a real pillage on the cars of those who parked 20-50 kms away to get closer (and ride some climb) by bike. All police from the zone (and most people) are busy with the Tour…!

         • Another way to handle the problem of how to ensure the roads are closed is to race in places that are fairly empty. The Tour, for instance, has largely abandoned the big cities and the densely inhabited regions. It is now largely raced in the “empty diagonal”. Neither Milan-San Remo nor Lombardia race in Milan any more.

           Racing through a largely empty landscape sharply reduces the number of road-junctions that need police/volunteers to ensure no-one enters the course. In a big city there can be a junction every 100m and constant traffic on those roads. In the “empty diagonal” there might be a junction only every 5-10km with only an occasional farm-vehicle ever using the road.

   • As I expressed above, I share partly similar views. Yet, I think that we should distinguish carefully the race being a danger for people around it or people around the race (and on a vehicle) being a danger for those racing. The final political consequences might be the same, but the premises are radically different.
     And it’s not just “philosophy” or, better said, it’s philosophy but a very material one, as that kind of “confusions” is what lays to the ground for many safety issues.

7. @inrng Perhaps I lost some elements along the way, but I cannot see *any* reference at all in the new project to the aspects that you label as “similar”, namely “calendar reform, no overlapping races, shrinking stage race length etc etc”.
   You insist on that further on about “ideas like shrinking the grand tours down to two weeks” although wondering “why were they even evoked?”. Only, they weren’t!, at least not in the public press releases.

   I guess you might have some insider information, but barring the general idea of “calendar reform”, which obviously appears there because it was one of the “chapters” presented for consultation, no consensus or hint of sort was even close to surfacing regarding overlapping races or shrinking them.
   It’s also worth noting that “calendar reform” was far from receiving the most attention or any unanimity by those who participated in the consultation, as what raised most interest was safety, what got more consensus was the growth of women cycling, and what got most focus although with much debate to come was financial equity and commercial rights.
   In other words, calendar didn’t look at all like a prominent issue for cycling stakeholders.
   The only point on that was having more coherent geographical blocks.

   So, I’m pretty surprised that you highlight so much the calendar within the reform project and also citing elements which officially aren’t even on the table anymore.

   But, as I said, maybe there’s something more behind and beyond consultations and official projects…
   Is this a case of the institutions trying to “sell” some change as “people want reforms” while “people” actually don’t care or don’t want anything like that?

   • If I understand correctly, there are only lots of “suggestions” made on the invitation to comment made by the UCI about what it should do. Some of those suggestions are from parties who have argued along the following lines (more-or-less, since this is what they ultimately want). They suggest some of all of these reforms: there should be a simple world tour calendar in which all WT riders race all races, the races do not overlap, some races are removed from the world tour calendar, and the Giro and Vuelta are reduced to two weeks. They do not care about the survival of the rest of the calendar or the teams that ride those races. They also want the Tour de France to hand out the (imagined) huge amount of money it has to the teams.

     Their proposals, in my opinion, will kill the sport.

     • Indeed, and media like CN gave those specific proposals a lot of visibility.

       But what I eventually read in the summing up made by the UCI with the proposed focus for the reforms is quite different, i.e., those ideas were apparently limited to a reduced number of parties and so they didn’t make the cut – or they didn’t for now. Or they apparently didn’t.

       That’s why I was interested in knowing if there’s any source defending that they somehow made it into the final draft, because I can’t see any of them in the official material released by the UCI.

       Luckily enough, most people in cycling (not all of them) still understand something about how cycling works, so if you include tens of parties it’s quite probable that what makes less sense gets cornered.
       Of course, I’m not that naif and I’m sure that Deloitte might be able to bring in through the back door what couldn’t be let in through the front one.

       • The summing up document is a genuine summary of what has been proposed, and not a template for action, nor an endorsement of any of the particular proposals. Deloitte have been hired by the UCI and will ultimately produce a document, based on the proposals, which reflects what the UCI want to do, or believes is possible to implement.

         Note that ASO can pull out of the UCI and run their own series, should they dislike what is ultimately suggested. (RCS and Flanders Classics could also do this). Both ASO and RCS work closely with government, and understand they need to maintain government support for their races. The UCI knows that these key stakeholders need to be kept on board.

       • The UCI says “the UCI … …will assess standardised shorter stage-race formats such as five days from Wednesday to Sunday and some three-weekend Grand Tour formats to reduce overlap”. This is quite similar to the 2013 proposals to shrink “week-long” stage races (which can be 9 days across two weekends) down to five days, reducing overlap etc.

         I can assess shortening the Giro, Vuelta or Tour right now: it won’t happen. Maybe the Giro could be shrunk but only if RCS got some giant golden carrot in return and good luck trying.

         • Thanks – I hadn’t read the full document, just the press release linked above: I considered that what made the press release is what is seen as worth being implemented. In fact, the sentence quoted above belongs to the second part of the “UCI comments” paragraph, introduced by an eloquent “Beyond this…”. It feels like, “ok, message received, we’ll call you back”. Yet, it’s a bit disturbing that that lobby hasn’t given up already.

         • One week stage races have strong incentives to run over two weekends. The weekends are the prime viewing periods (rather few people watch weekday races), and it is easier to close the road over the weekend. We can partly think of the two weekends being used to subsidise the midweek stages. Of course, the economics of stage races is pretty miserable anyway (and the UCI points system is creating further problems for stage races).

8. Surprised about Bardiani not making the top-30. They really have missed Fiorelli. Perversely, missing out on the Giro next year might make it easier for them to send their strongest riders out points harvesting to get an invite for 2028. They had pretty meagre returns from the Giro this year, although they wouldn’t be the only PRT to come back this year from a Grand Tour without much to show.

   • We had some incredible intrigue behind the scenes, like some teams which had sponsors in common with some of these minor races obtaining by organisers that they “blocked” competitors for the top-30, plus planning kept secret until the very last moment in order to create doubts among teams with less economic resources (like Bardiani) when decididing to go or not to some very far races. Like, Bardiani has to think twice (or more) before deciding to which far away races they can take part in, so they tend to go where there are direct rivals they feel they can beat, hence many teams keep their schedule more secret than ever (again, with some “complicity” by race organisers), so that when the official startlist is about to come out, it’s already too late for Bardiani to organise it.

     All that said, and sad as it is, Bardiani is in a terrible position in the “new cycling”, because the Devo Team trend hit hard on their model. Worth noting that athletes are very often paid worse by Devo Teams than by Bardiani, but of course they see more opportunities in the former option.

     Paradoxically, teams with less expertise and a less healthy model can find a niche more easily in the current context.

     • The examples of Pellizzari, Pinarello and going back a bit, Ciccone ought to work for Bardiani as you can join and go on to big things. But it’s hard, a lot of 17 year olds can be lured by Remco’s Specialized and Red Bull kit etc

       • I think it is also worth noting that while the Tour de France generates most of the money in professional cycling, there are several other races which are commercially significant. These races are (more-or-less) the Giro and the Vuelta, and the three most important monuments (Milan-San Remo, Flanders and Paris-Roubaix). Most other races simply are not particularly important in terms of viewership or commercial impact.

         It would be commercial suicide to drastically reduce the number of days in the Giro and Vuelta due to the fact they get large TV audiences. The race days which would replace them would get tiny figures. The people arguing for shorter Grand Tours really do not understand how the sport works.

9. Something worth stating is that the UCI do not run the races (with the exception of the world championships). The individual race organiser is responsible for safety and the commercial operation of the race (including selling the TV rights). The UCI will not accept responsibility for safety at individual races since it could then get sued in the courts and bankrupted if it loses. This is obviously a risk they will never take-on. The UCI’s role is limited to placing the race in the UCI calendar, and describing the equipment (and not much more).

   A great deal of the discussion does not seem to understand how limited the role of the UCI actually is. For instance, some people argue the UCI should organise a race in their area (they do not organise races) or that they should sell the TV rights in a single package (they do not own the TV rights). They might make some suggestions about the course conditions, but these suggestions are not regulations (which would make the UCI liable).

   • Agreed but the regulator has a lot of room with nudges, incentives or simply asymmetrical application of the same norms to sway the course of things in a given direction. Lots of example from recent or further past. Of course, this is very far from having absolute power, even more so as the management of antidoping has been partly transformed when compared to 20 or 30 years ago.

10. Seems like Total Energies (or whatever they’ll be called) will still be around next year, so some good news.

    • I’ve seen a report or two but waiting for more confirmation; today Mathieu Burgaudeau is signing with Burgos-BH which is not a good sign or at least what is left of the team doesn’t have many calling cards for invites.

11. It’s interesting. The riders highlight the recent incidents and argue that safety standards must be improved. I look at the relative infrequency of incursions by vehicles onto closed race roads and draw the opposite conclusion: the system is working quite well when one considers that these are races on public roads that have limited resources (they often rely on volunteers, as others have mentioned). Frankly, I am surprised that there aren’t a lot more incidents over the course of the season when one considers the number of KMs that mus the secured and the number of cars in action. Clearly, races are working hard to ensure that their events are as safe as possible.

    Given that securing police support is becoming more expensive and volunteers are becoming more difficult to find, it seems unlikely that the situation will improve in the near future. There are alternatives like circuit races and doing away with less safe smaller events, but those both come with significant costs (concerns about the public growing fatigued of circuits and riders losing opportunities). Simply put, racing on public roads is integral to pro cycling’s appeal. With that in mind, it seems that the only practical solution is for the riders to accept a certain degree of risk in this area as they do with descending and riding in a peloton. I expect that many, and likely the majority of them, would be prepared to do so if the alternative is to lose a lot of the smaller events that fill out the calendar and provide opportunities to emerging racers.

    • Seems to me that the recent protests suggest that the opposite is true.

12. “One thing where a union could act is workplace relations but the CPA seems missing in the news today from Dutch broadcaster NOS and podcast De Waaier”

    No the CPA, but the secretary of the Vereniging van Beroeps Wielrenners (VVBW), the Dutch riders union, was interviewed and he said he was familiar with problems within Picnic-PostNL. The KNWU said it will look into it too.

    Team management did themselves no favour in dispelling the rumours of the team being cult-like, by surrounding the journalists with 25 employees when they arrived at the appointment to hear the management’s side of the story, trying to grasp a phone from one of the journalists and refusing to answer the questions they were sent beforehand.

    The more immediate problem seems to be that the finances are a total mess too. The UCI already gave the license for only this year and the financial situation hasn’t exactly improved, with the bad results and Accell, the owner of LaPierre, going bankrupt. The team has a lot of debt based on publicly available data and they are only still racing, because an unknown sugar daddy has been willing to be a guarantee (guarantor?, can’t come up with the word.)

    “Final 2026 rankings will be published next Tuesday.”

    But there are still races in 2026? According to the calendar the last race of 2026 is the Vuelta Ciclista Internacional a Costa Rica. And considering the small points gap between Picnic-PostNL and Bardiani, the latter could still leapfrog them if they decide to go to those races.

    • The official UCI 2026 ends with this Sunday, there are races as you say after this but they count for 2027.

      Thanks for the local detail on the rider union work, it’s exactly the sort of work it can do here.

13. One thing I was confused on was that the teams are supposed to submit rosters to the UCI as of yesterday . . . but riders are still moving between teams! Carapaz has broken his contract today. How on earth can this be policed, or are the rosters provisional?

    • It’s sort of provisional, the UCI wants to see that the team looks suitable and can get the measure of the team. It depends when the Carapaz deal was done but if it was yesterday then it’ll require both NSN and EF to resubmit or add documents to their 2027 dossier for the auditors and also adjust the bank guarantee to reflect the change in the wage bill. In short you can change, but have to get it all reviewed too.

      • Thanks for the information. I presume that this means the UCI will be quite busy for the next few weeks, since some riders will be moving rapidly from closing teams, and I doubt whether Carapaz will be last to break his contract this year.

        Personally my bet is on Skjelmose wanting to move to an Ayusoless environment, particularly given what his reaction after Ayuso came in.

14. Late to the discussion, but what might also help safety is races that stick to the same courses year to year. If someone living along the route has experienced the race and it’s disruption in other years, they’ll more easily recognize what’s happening and not mistakenly enter the course. But if it’s a new route, even if there’s been a pr campaign, signs and mailings, not everyone will be aware.

    • It’s a risky strategy, as going too many years in a row risks the locals starting a campaign to get the race shifted elsewhere, especially if they are in the middle of a route and the local economy isn’t getting the benefit that a stage finish town gets.

      Whether the route changes every year or not, a good strategy is to recruit volunteer marshals locally with the offer of a donation to a club/association they nominate. The word will get around that the race does actually contribute on a local level instead of just blowing through and leaving a ruined day of trading and a trail of energy gel wrappers to be picked up.

      • In Italy it usually once worked like that, volunteers being people already involved in grassroot racing, like clubs, juvenile teams etc. You often didn’t need much of a donation either as people were keen on taking part and their personal role as active members in a more general sense within their local communities granted that sense of connection.

        My experience today in Italy is that drivers are *not* confused at all about the presence of the race. But they mentally associate that with usual everyday cycling, not having an idea about speeds and assuming that cyclists will take care of not being hit. Plus, extreme arrogance and irresponsibility, which is no novelty at all.

        You’ve got on a car the sort of people who do a U-turn to drive over again the cyclist they just hit and throw to the ground, well, what can you expect?
        -___-

        • > In Italy it usually once worked like that, volunteers being people already involved in grassroot racing, like clubs, juvenile teams etc. You often didn’t need much of a donation either as people were keen on taking part and their personal role as active members in a more general sense within their local communities granted that sense of connection.

          Good for lower level races to rely on cycling clubs, but professional races need to go a bit further in the modern age where anyone can look on the internet and see WorldTour riders are on average salaries €384k.

          Interestingly, my impression from the Tour Down Under is that cycling clubs are quite underrepresented among volunteer traffic marshals. Part of that is because it’s a niche sport and most of the local towns don’t have a club, but the clubs in the more densely populated Adelaide region seem more interested in organising group rides than getting involved.

          It’s a big win for local clubs in mainstream sports like cricket and netball, and service clubs like Lions or Rotary, which helps spread the benefit of the race further through the community than just racing fans. Groups that contribute also get preferential access to set up food stalls and other fundraisers around stage finish locations, which is even more lucrative than the traffic marshal donations.

          • Volunteers tended to be needed all the same as a first layer, as you say, because the density of population and roads in Italy is such that you need a huge deal of human resources to cover it all.
            Secondly, cycling has been (or was?) a mainstream sport in Italy. It still obviously is in some part of the country.

            In that sense, and as I already reported, thousands of people were lining up along the first climb of Lombardia, 200 km away from the line, after having ridden there on their bike from all over the province.
            A big difference I noticed is that the road was closed to motorised traffic relatively little time before the race actually passed (less than 2hrs before). Previous editions typically closed the road to motorised traffic several hours before and even to cyclists during the last hour.
            The political pressure to reduce the time extension of road closures is growing exponentially year after year.
            Curiously, this time it was the massive presence of cyclists on the climb as they rode there *to watch the race* that discouraged most cars from actually taking advantage of the “open” road.

            At the same time, and quite sadly, on TV the race got the worse result in recent years, for the first time below a 7% share and 700K, although slightly so. With Pogi, the race often broke the 800K mark and typically got close to a share of 8%.

        • > My experience today in Italy is that drivers are *not* confused at all about the presence of the race. But they mentally associate that with usual everyday cycling, not having an idea about speeds and assuming that cyclists will take care of not being hit. Plus, extreme arrogance and irresponsibility, which is no novelty at all.

          That’s why marshals with stop signs are only one layer of a comprehensive traffic management strategy.

      • This applies beyond UCI or club races. I represent communities that are on the route of a closed roads sportive in Scotland that relies on the same route every year. It is very unpopular outside the main town where the sportive is based. The problem is that the roads are closed for a substantial part of a day during what is usually the busiest part of the agricultural season. Most of us tolerate the event but some are furious about it because of the inconvenience and the fact that there is no benefit to anyone outside the main town. Cycling visitors are an integral part of the local economy but mountain biking and individuals or small groups get much support than large events.

        A good bit of this issue is linked to local authority policies. There are local funds to promote cycling to which the sportive could contribute. But rather than spend money on fixing potholes on the roads closed for the sportive, all of this money is diverted to a small number of urban centres, justified on grounds of population rather than importance for cycling and rural communities. So cyclists suffer from riding on dangerous and poorly maintained roads, while any sense of common interest between different road users is sabotaged by short-sighted and ignorant policies that benefit those living in towns at the expense of others living in more rural areas.

        • Yeah a sportive is all day. A pro race is like an hour of closure. In races like Renewi and Eneco, where local populations mostly like bikes and racing, the same route would just make it so everyone knows not to back out their driveway during it. Sure , eventually the community may get fatigued about it, but that’s a separate yet important issue.

          • Local support for regular events is crucial. We have a family home close to the Ghisallo climb which is always part of Il Lombardia. The road is closed not only for much of the day of the race but for other events including a national motor rally every autumn. I have never heard of significant objections but then the commune of Bellagio benefits hugely from cycling tourism that is underpinned by both the reputation of the race and the cycling museum at Ghisallo. On a summer weekend there can be hundreds of cyclists testing themselves by going up from Bellagio to the Ghisallo – probably similar to Mont Ventoux. That brings visitors who stay beside the lake or stop at the restaurant at the top, all generating income for the local population.

            The other big difference between our communities in Scotland and Bellagio is that the communes (including Magreglio at the top) and the province keep the road up to the Ghisallo in immaculate condition. That is part of the deal to encourage tourism. UK local authorities are too large and focused on other issues to understand and act in a similar manner.

15. @inrng – I’m really interested in one comment you make above:

    “the UCI has a database of every crash that tries to record the causes. This way the risks can be rated and addressed.”

    Do you mean that database exists, or you are suggesting it *should* exist?

    I work in an industry that’s intrinsically high risk, and therefore takes safety incredibly seriously. This is exactly where you start – you collect and then analyse the facts on what actually causes accidents (or could have done).

    Whereas in cycling I see a lot of *debate* about accidents and their causes – speed, equipment, cars on the route, race radios etc – but very little of it is grounded in evidence. What *actually* causes accidents? In the data.

    It always makes me wonder – does the evidence exist? And if so, why isn’t it the basis for the debate.

    I’ve long felt the approach is pretty clear. Race organisers / the UCI should, after every crash, require the riders to answer a few simple questions to establish, as best as possible, the cause of it. Rider inattention? Road furniture? Pothole? Whatever.

    Then you analyse the data so you can act on it in an informed way.

    Better still, you also make it public and let others analyse it too. That way you start to actually ground the debate in facts, rather than opinion and anecdote.

    But does this evidence already exist? Your sentence suggests so?

    If so it should be more widely accessed and, crucially, used. (As a data analyst working in a safety-obsessed industry, I have at times considered offering a bit of help building the system. But I would guess my offer would be refused…)

    • The UCI has the database, it’s been going since the start of the 2021 season. The aim is to log the reasons behind crashes and injuries.

      • Interesting, thanks. Have they talked much about the steps they’ve taken in response to the data?

    • https://incidentdb.sportsdatascience.be

      An example of its use from last year (July 2025):

      “The UCI would also like to give an update on the race incidents analysed by the SafeR Case Management Committee and recorded in the UCI Race Incidents Database since the beginning of the year. In the last six months, the Committee has identified and analysed 297 incidents at events on the UCI WorldTour, UCI Women’s WorldTour and UCI ProSeries (men and women) calendars. Of these, 203 causes have been identified. The most common cause – or main contributing factor – is the riders’ own mistake (29%). Upcoming points of interest, where teams and riders are positioning to be at the front (such as cobbles, sprints and climbs), are at the root of 12% of incidents, as are wet or slippery roads. Other incidents stem from descents, traffic infrastructure, sprints, road configuration and conditions, feed zones and other riders’ mistakes.”

      My take is that’s a case of a mere starting point on which to work much more (in the sense of improving the database build-up, even before bringing up any result), as – for instance – categorising looks rather weak.

      • Reporting incidents is a step in the right direction but what counts as an incident? A culture of safety requires near misses to be taken as seriously as accidents. This has to be learned, as the natural attitude is to dismiss close calls as “no harm done, no issue” or even as something to brag about, evidence of skill or daring. Changing this culture was a the key aspects in turning aviation from the crash fest it was into the safest mode of transportation that it is today.
        I look at the peloton, which is rolling carpet of near misses managed with utmost skill, and wonder if a culture of safety is even possible.

    • The data base exists, and can be analysed. But we should be clear that it is only as useful as the accuracy of the data. And accidents can have lots of different causes. A simple example will help.

      The peloton are riding along and someone is taking a drink and hits a traffic island at 50km/h. What has cause the accident? Is it rider error (inattention will riding)? Is it the traffic furniture (there is no accident if it is not there)? Is it the speed (there would be more time to see the furniture at lower speed, and it would be easier to adjust the line)? It is not clear how to record the accident and what to blame as the main cause. Different ways of recording the cause will lead to different conclusions about how to address safety issues. Problems like this make the database much less useful than people might think.

      • Well, you have to start with the information.

        In your example – say you learn that a significant proportion of accidents did happen when riders were taking a drink and hitting traffic islands. Then you might think about signalling traffic furniture earlier, and educating riders that when they see a warning sign, they should keep both hands on the bars until they’re past the furniture.

        In high-risk industries that’s just what you do. Lots of small actions to avert or mitigate risks. One single one doesn’t change the world, but learning from the data and implementing lots of risk mitigating actions do.

        But you have to (a) collect the data, (b) continually analyse it, and (c) continually act on what you learn.

        It’s good to know they’re doing (a). Assuming they are doing (b) and (c), perhaps they should communicate the steps they’re taking in response a bit more.

        • @Tricky Hawes, well said.

        • The point is that it is often difficult to assign the accident to a [single] particular cause. And how you do that affects the conclusion you reach. The data is still valuable, but it has limits.

          For instance, the way the data is coded means that “the riders’ own mistake account for 29% of accidents”. Note that the causes add up to 100, so there are obviously going to be interpretations in the way the data has been entered into the database.

        • Tricky, thanks for your excellent contributions to this debate. I also work in a risky field, and inevitably accidents happen from time to time. To avoid them as much as possible, workers receive a lot of training and when they happen they are thoroughly investigated and reporting is highly transparent. I assume that some of this is happening behind the scenes in pro cycling, but they can definitely be more transparent about exactly what is being done.

16. Genuine question: how does the broom wagon work, exactly?

    Does it keep itself behind any athlete who wants to persevere racing or has it its own timetable, leaving behind athletes who hence become “out of race”? (I’ve often seen the latter in minor races, but what’s the official rule in big ones?).

    And if a rider is left behind the broom wagon, can he or she get back into the race if he or she overtakes it again?
    (I have seen it happening even in big races, but I’m not sure if it’s really allowed according to race rules).

    • The brrom wagon is the official end of the race and must be last. Sometimes local police require a more official “End of race”-car but generally it is last.
      Prior to race start, it is generally agreed how much the broom wagon can lag behind the main convoy e.g. 15-20-30 minutes depending on the profile and known nature of the course. This is done to actually keep the race slightly short and together so not to aggrevate other people by having them waiting too long for the passing.
      Riders dropping down will have to remain in front of the broom wagon to stay in the race. If this makes the broom wagon go to far behind, a commissaire in the broom wagon has authority to signal the rider to drop his number (bib) and either go home by bike/DS car or be picked up by the broom wagon.
      If a rider drops behind the broom wagon he/she is out for good. The wagon will wait behind any rider having a puncture or other accepted mishap before following the rider back to the race or the next dropped group.
      As a commissaire is inthe broom wagon they will be listening in on both radio tour and the commissaire’s channel.
      Ok? Feel free to ask if this is not clear.

      • Thank you very much!

        • You’re welcome. It was nice for once to be able to help you, who always has something interesting to contribute with in the discussions.
          😉

          • Well, truth is that what I myself, (as I guess most others) consider really unvaluable is your experience in a key role for the sport, and your kindness in sharing.

          • Gabriele and I have something in common: English is not our native language and therefore it is a piece of cake for us to write delightful sentences that have to be read twice.

            “The word unvaluable is a rare and mostly obsolete adjective with two contradictory meanings: historically it meant priceless or invaluable, while in modern contexts it can mean not valuable or having negative value.”

          • @Wednesday The worst (or best) of it all is that such things are happening to me even in my native language
            ^___^

          • Well, I learned something – again!
            Never to late, I suppose.

17. Reading the details of the Picnic-PostNL “culture of fear” reminds me (in a PTSD-tinged way) of my recent experiences at a large, successful Dutch company: leaders who are control freaks and prone to micromanagement and dehumanizing subordinates; an obsessive attention to a precious ‘culture’ that’s toxic for everyone except those who directly benefit from the system; self policing and a culture of silence; lots of “burn out” cases (overspannenheid, i.e. protected sick leave for depression/mental exhaustion).

    It makes me wonder if there’s something distinctly Dutch at play. I’ve experience crappy workplace environments in the US, but this was very different. It really did feel like leads and management looked at people below them as “the enemy”, just as described in the linked article. I’d never experience that before. I feel bad for the riders who had to go through that, though it’s not surprising to hear given the circumstances of Tom Dumoulin’s and Marcel Kittel’s exits from the team.

18. It appears that two men’s WT teams missed the initial deadline to register with the UCI: Jayco and Picnic. Of course, they still have time to register (but could face a small fine for late registration). It also seems that four Pro-Teams have not registered. Hopefully, not all of them are ceasing operations. Personally, I do find the struggles with the smaller Pro-teams is rather worrying.

Comments are closed.