Voodoo76

more safer? that just doesn't sound right.

slim_77

1. Data collection
2. Data analysis
3. Conclusions
4. Actions

I think reporting is the way to go, however, I don't like the idea of posting it for public use because people can twist and turn data too easily and come to the wrong conclusions.

I think the local/regional USAC rep's should collect the numbers of everyone involved in every crash. From the numbers they can keep a spreadsheet to track individual riders over the course of a season. They can then study the crash frequency of certain riders and require a clinic of some kind before allowing them to race again the following season.

I like what MDcatV said about mentoring--we've got an informal relationship with another club and I think it helps (we're mostly newbs 5/4s, they are cat 1-3s, but everyone is race smart, with many years of experience and, more importantly, willing to help an ignorant cat 5 learn)

This same clinic can serve as mandatory "new rider clinic" for cat 5s and returning racers (usually 4s). A director of a local club (xXx-Athletico) does a new rider clinic at some of the spring races and it directly saved my a$$ on three separate occasions. That and a little luck allowed my "dangerously long streak" of good luck to run until three weeks ago--first crash in 43 races. I was at fault.

I'm a new cat 3 so most crashes that I've seen occur because of simple mistakes and not out right vilany. THAT is another issue.

To address it, why not do the same data collection. Ask the (cat 1-3) riders to report dangerous riders by race number and describe the incident. After a certain frequency, and after they ensure that it is not the same indivudal reporting the same guy over and over (keep track of both names: reporter & reportee), then enact USAC discipline on a sliding scale based on category of offences. These consequences can range from suspension to loss of upgrade points, to written warnings, etc.

mollusk

You have just earned a BF Gold Star for word choice! Congrats!!!! That and $4 gets you a specialty drink at Starbucks.

Brian Ratliff

I'm not sure $4 gets you anything at Starbucks... Might have to toss him at least another buck.

davids0507

The one crash I've been in during a bike race was during a training clinic. It was the clinic where they taught and had us practice bumping, and there were by far the most crashes during that practice race. I think bumping on purpose should be illegal. It's good to be able to handle incidental contact, but purposeful contact to gain position is bull****. Contact to avoid falling in an emergency is fine.

In the higher categories, there is a mentality of "win at all costs" in cycling that disturbs me. You can try all sorts of tricks, but in the end of the day people need to realize that the fitness of a rider or team should be a determining factor in who wins the race, and they need to learn the difference between "tactics" and behavior that is simply unsporting. Plowing into the peloton to seek shelter from the wind, battling with the sprinter for position on his teammates' leadout wheel, preventing someone from overtaking you by physically blocking them (or physically disrupting a chasing peloton) -- those kinds of things need to be prevented and perhaps punished. People need to learn to be respectful of their competitors and prepared for the possibility of losing in an honest race. I think that stricter rules for "sporting behavior" need to be drawn up.

This happens at all levels -- a great example was when Cavendish and Hushovd were sprinting in the Tour de France last year (stage 14?), and Cavendish didn't give Hushovd anywhere to go. Cavendish's defense was that he went in a straight line and the fence bulged inwards, but even if this was true it still shows a basic lack of respect for his competitor and he was rightfully censured.

Maybe this goes against your competitive instincts as a racer, but those instincts might also be part of the problem.

grolby

It absolutely should NOT. That's the craziest thing I've ever heard. Mistakes happen and it's instinct to keep yourself from falling over, but it should not be explicitly ok to contact other riders to stay upright. Seriously, how is that a good idea?

BS. It's a not a friggin 5k, it's a bike race.

There are plenty of ways to do all of these things without causing a dangerous situation to develop. Tactics are not the enemy.

The problem is that the lines are fuzzy. What exactly are the standards for "sporting behavior" that will be established? When is it ok to take a wheel and when is it not? How do you tell who is at fault when a crash happens? I'm pretty skeptical of any attempt to impose regulation on what tactical riding is acceptable and what is not, because I don't think the problem is any of the things you mention, it's excessive aggression in trying to accomplish them, in resorting to brute force when safe use of position and smart riding haven't worked. Exactly what, in your opinion, constitutes "an honest race," anyway? That's something that safe riders disagree on, and it's a loaded phrase.

I'm not so sure; altering your line during a sprint is also an offense. What if he moved left and squeezed someone sprinting on that side? What if he didn't realize that the barriers were pinching in until it was too late to do anything about it? I'm not intending to argue one way or the other as to whether his penalty was deserved or not, but I am trying to point out that the line is murky, and that's why that particular incident caused controversy. Cav could also point to the fact that closing the door on an opponent is a time-honored tactic that most consider legitimate and that racers aren't fined. The question is whether a racer is riding dangerously in doing so, a matter of finding the line between "closing the door" and "riding him into the barriers." The line is often pretty bright, but in some cases, such as Cav v. Hushovd, it's not.

As for the event showing a "lack of respect," that's silly.

It behooves ALL riders to understand what the limitations of a particular situation is, and most importantly, NOT to press an issue when they feel that they have been mistreated by another rider. I think that the issue is not just riders who initiate dangerous moves, but also the riders who, having been encroached upon, won't back down or even escalate the situation because the other guy is riding unfairly. Having such an overly-developed sense of justice can be dangerous. And it also causes problems when riders are not able to recognize that a door has in fact been legitimately and safely closed on them, but continue to try and bull through because they think that they have a right to the spot they want. Case in point: those guys that we all love to hate who yell "outside!" or "inside" in crits and then try to come around in the turn, nearly ride themselves into the curb because no line actually exists, and then yell at you to "hold your line" because you didn't get out of their way.

In fact, I think that's my recommendation for making racing safer: when instructing new racers, bump drills and such are great, but it should really be drilled into new racers that no spot and no line belongs to you unless you already occupy it, and that calling "outside!" or whatever does not grant you any right to the spot you want. Obviously, it's just one tiny thing, but the belief that you have the right to the space you want is one that seems in infect a lot of lower-category racers, and in some cases it can be a dangerous belief. And in a general sense, I'd like to see it drilled into all racers that it doesn't matter if you're in the right. The rule is: don't try to ride through closed doors, period. If someone closes a door dangerously, just back off.

Part of the problem here is that this is what officials are supposed to be for: to make it right when someone rides dangerously and cuts someone off. But we don't have cameras everywhere like the pros do, so it's pretty hard to do a good job on that score. I guess what this comes back to is the need for racers to recognize that it's just a bike race. Ultimately, culture matters.

davids0507

That was a very passive-aggressive response.

I'll go through a few points, but I'm not good at HTML so sorry if it's hard to figure out what I'm referring to.

What I meant was just incidental contact -- if one riding is falling over onto the other, I've seen guys push against each other to make sure they both stay upright and that should be fine.

No *****, I'm not saying tactics are the problem, I'm saying I think we ought to have a better definition of what constitutes "tactics" and what behaviors shouldn't be allowed. Leading out your sprinter is a tactic. Attacking on a hill, sitting in the pack, counterattacking when a break is chased down, those are tactics. Preventing your competition from passing you by putting your bike in their way is bull****.

For example, what exactly do you mean by closing the door on someone? Because I can't think of a definition that boils down to anything besides preventing someone from passing you by putting your bike in their way. I realize that this has to be a part of bike racing because bikes take up a finite amount of space, but I think it goes against the spirit of fair competition to do so purposefully. There are a number of "tactics" that have been discussed on here that I find to be dirty, and they fall under that category of physically blocking another rider. I also agree with you on yelling "inside" and expecting people to move out of your way.

As far as Cav vs Hushovd, I thought it was clear that Cav had been in error, and apparently so did the officials, so perhaps you need to reevaluate your standards. If someone is between you and the fence and the fence moves, you should give them space. Sure, I understand that he might not have seen him, but "I didn't see you" is a bad excuse for doing something dangerous.

I was talking about respect for your competitor and for competition in general. Not respect for yourself. I have *never* advocated justice by retaliation, although I will yell at people when they mess up. In fact, I was one of the only people in another thread who spoke up against a BF member retaliating by crashing out another rider. So I'm not sure where you're getting this from.

I definitely agree with your last paragraph. So ultimately we agree with each other. But I think it's important to consider the possibility that it might be difficult to make bike racing safer without making changes to the way we race, and to think about what changes those could be.

efficiency

What's dirty to some isn't dirty to others. By your standard, putting someone in a box is "dirty," but it's not dirty to me. I'll to it purposefully if I think it's to my advantage. It's not against the rules, nor is it dangerous.

davids0507

That's a good example. I think it's unsportsmanlike to physically impede the progress of another cyclist if you can avoid doing so. Although I understand that pack riding sometimes makes boxing people in unavoidable. But there's another extreme -- for example, what's to stop you from surrounding a competitor with four of your teammates to prevent him/her from moving?

efficiency

Why would you waste four teammates to box in one guy?

I disagree that it is unsportmanlike. It's part of racing. It isn't dangerous, so telling people not to do it will not make racing any safer.

Voodoo76

Some of the comments regarding contact iin this thread I find surprising. If you think you can be a bike racer and avoid contact you're nuts. Stick to TT's or take up Tri's. The safest group I ever trained with were constanly bumping. A little good natured push on the hip, hand on another riders shoulder while you pass a water bottle or have a chat, a little push on the rear up a hill. In the old days maby mess with another riders bar end shifter or a friendly head butt.

All of the above were a part of normal day to day pace lines and training races. And this paid huge dividends on race day. Now a tight space or a little contact was no big deal. Beleive me, racing is much less stressful and safer if you take any fear of contact out of the riders.

Brian Ratliff

I would like to think the Europeans are laughing their asses off at some of the comments here. Sometimes it just comes down to HTFU. Take your knocks, gain experience, then go and teach all the Cat 5s on your team the ropes.

The real answer is probably to quit doing crits in the lower cats. If you think about it, it's kind of a stupid race format to throw a noob into. Too many things going on with the cornering and the accelerations and such. They don't last long enough either. Think of this: a Cat 5 entering racing at the start of the season in Oregon is going to have 20+ hours in a peloton by the time they get to Cat 4 (there are only road races in the early season). That's time enough to really get to know your fellow Cat 5s, and as such, the peloton has the feeling of "classes" with the same people racing together from Cat 5 through Cat 4. A Cat 5 in a crit heavy region, on the other hand, is going to have only five hours of peloton riding before he's a Cat 4, and if results are typical, a fair amount of that time is going to be spent riding circles by himself.

If you let only Cat 4s and up race crits, you'll guarantee that the new Cat 4 racer will have 20 hours give or take of road racing under his belt before throwing in the additional complexities of corners and crit specific tactics. After hearing that a Cat 5 in Chicago can upgrade to Cat 4 in a week; that kind of scares me. Good for growing the sport, perhaps, but you run the risk of making Cat 5 a mere formality and almost a noob purgatory as opposed to it being a real entry level category where you learn the intricacies of racing.

grolby

Sorry to resurrect this, but I'm a bit bored, and I'm procrastinating.

What a strange thing to say. What was passive about it?

Okay, yes - incidental contact happens and is even to be expected. I agree with this.

Sure you are. You are pointing at a particular set of tactics and saying "I don't like these moves, and therefore they are a problem." The fact that you want the definition of tactics to be "moves that I happen to like," and the definition of not-tactics to be "moves I don't like" doesn't make it so. It's like saying "punk rock isn't music," when what you mean is "I don't like punk rock."

No, preventing your competition from passing you by putting your bike in their way is long-established as part of the sport - just as it is in other mass-start sporting events without lane restrictions, including auto racing and long-distance track running.

This is not bike racing 101.

Sure, I just happen to disagree that these elements of the way we race are dangerous per se and that changing them will make racing safer. All of these tactics can be executed without putting other racers in danger. It's culture that matters - being willing to call dangerous riders on the errors they're making, riders' willingness to adjust their behavior if it is a problem, and institutional willingness to sanction (either officially or socially) riders who refuse to do so.

I actually agree with this; the difference being between friendly/incidental/accidental contact vs. deliberate aggressive contact.

This is not Europe, and we're all amateurs with our health, occupations and families to think of. Bike racing carries an inherent risk of crashing and injury, so that extent we do need to HTFU, but keeping racing as safe as possible within that context is not something to laugh off.

Wow. I really disagree with this, for a few reasons.

First, the continued belief (it's basically an article of faith) that crits are more dangerous than road races. There's really no particular reason to believe that this is true, and compelling arguments to be made in the opposite direction. Crits are more intense, yes; I think that this is conflated in the minds of racers to mean "more dangerous," but that's a cognitive response to the high-intensity, high-adrenaline experience of racing a crit.

Second, the implication that pack time in RRs only in the lower cats will translate into safe and skilled crit racers their first time out in that environment. There's obviously some transfer, but it's far from complete. Pack handling doesn't have nearly the same importance in low-cat RRs that it does in crits. There are plenty of racers around here that absolutely blow the doors off of me in road races right now, but who run roughly even with me in technical crit results because of my greater comfort in the group. The ones with the legs and the skills, they're continuing to blow me out of the water. And of course, five hours of experience in crit racing is not equivalent to five hours of experience in road racing in terms of opportunity to learn pack riding. The learning curve is steeper in crits, so the challenge is greater, but so is the payoff vs. time invested.

Finally, access. This plan might work okay in places like the PNW where road races are a major part of the racing schedule, but racers in MABRA or the Chicago area are basically screwed. It could take racers in those regions years to make Cat 3; that would kill the growth of the sport right quick. And of course, even in regions where RRs are readily available, it's simply not fair.