Is this the start of the end?

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Probably not. Plenty of riders were unhappy with it, but they didn't want to break ranks.

That's part of cycling. The organisers were telling the riders to race and the riders collectively decided not to.

What's wrong with that? Having rules about snow and 40 degree heat won't change riders not racing when they don't want to.

The rules only prevent riders from racing when they shouldn't.

Yes. It takes the decisions out of the realms of peer pressure and team pressure and rule by the most dominant personality and into the hands of the objective.
Riders, who in the past have doped to the brink of death, are the last people to arbiter their own safety.
Maybe we should let rugby players decide when they are concussed and boxers when they've had enough punishment too.

Rick Chasey wrote:

The way it is at the moment races are cancelled or neutralised when weather is clearly dangerous - so what's the problem?

And there are now formal protocols and guidelines. And riders can happily tell Cancellara to get stuffed.

rick_chasey

Boxers being concussed and riders deciding not to ride or to ride in certain conditions is not the same, especially since, as you pointed out yourself, riders have precedent for not racing when they deem conditions unsafe.

I can't think of an instance where riders have raced in conditions which resulted in notably more accidents than usual conditions. Probably because they're not concussed.

This is a none issue. We just hear more moaning because of twitter.

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

I can't think of an instance where riders have raced in conditions which resulted in notably more accidents than usual conditions. Probably because they're not concussed.

And then one day something serious will happen. And the riders will blame everyone else for making them race. That stage in California in 42 degrees a couple of years ago was a dodged bullet. How many times can you play russian roulette without getting shot?

ddraver

Rick Chasey wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The lack of empathy partly comes because your average commuter does ride in conditions the pros complain about. In traffic. Not the same context sure - I don't need someone to explain why racing is more dangerous than just riding - but that's where it comes from.

Are there many 12km 10% ice covered descents or 40 degree heatwaves in Putney?

The conditions that commuters would cycle in would not merit a cancellation or neutralisation.

I've ridden in the peaks below freezing (quite regularly when I was a student) and I did 4 cols in the Pyrenees in 36 degree heat, so yeah, I have done it.

To be fair Rich, coming down Putney Hill on a fixie trying to beat the lights cos youre already late, whilst dodging buses, school run mums on the phone and psycho taxis is pretty epic....

rick_chasey

Think you're being a bit over dramatic to be honest.

None issue.

ddraver

are you talking to me or Rich?

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Think you're being a bit over dramatic to be honest.

None issue.

My point is that in every other sport whether is it safe to compete is decided by the officials and backed up by the rulebook.
In cycling it is decided by the most vocal rider and backed up my peer pressure.

Formal rules transfer the power to the officials, so if they give the OK anyone who wants to ride can ride regardless of what Cancellara says.

Going back before you joined the conversation though, there were one or two who seemed to think that almost any danger should be endured by riders for their entertainment (unless they can get morally outraged about it, like doping and level crossings)

DeVlaeminck

Are there any examples of riders being seriously injured because a race wasn't cancelled due to weather conditions when it should have been ?

I just don't see what is wrong with the system that is in place at the moment - race organisers do cancel races and if all the teams and/or riders feel the race organisers are in the wrong not to cancel then they have it in their power to refuse to race.

As for it being objective - it really isn't that simple - yes you can specify a temperature as too hot to race but what is objective about deciding whether the weather is too bad to handle a descent ? Would falling snow necessarily neutralise a descent - what if it is wet snow and not settling, what sort of wind should be cancel a race for ? The concern many who oppose this have is that this is going to lead to conditions that for a century have been considered part of the sport now being considered too dangerous to race in - that does take away part of the appeal, the uncertainty and the challenge.

Anonymous

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Are there any examples of riders being seriously injured because a race wasn't cancelled due to weather conditions when it should have been ?

MSR 2013. but it was stopped, a bit too late for many

RichN95.

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Are there any examples of riders being seriously injured because a race wasn't cancelled due to weather conditions when it should have been ?

Just because something hasn't happened yet, it doesn't me that you shouldn't guard against it happening in the future.

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I just don't see what is wrong with the system that is in place at the moment - race organisers do cancel races and if all the teams and/or riders feel the race organisers are in the wrong not to cancel then they have it in their power to refuse to race.

But riders don't speak with one voice. Never have and never will. For every rider that wants to stop, there's one that wants to ride. There needs to be a sole authority. Many riders want the decision taken out of the hands of self-appointed patrons and their enforcers.

DeVlaeminck wrote:

As for it being objective - it really isn't that simple - yes you can specify a temperature as too hot to race but what is objective about deciding whether the weather is too bad to handle a descent ? Would falling snow necessarily neutralise a descent - what if it is wet snow and not settling, what sort of wind should be cancel a race for ?

Objective was a bad choice of words. Impartial would have been better.

DeVlaeminck wrote:

The concern many who oppose this have is that this is going to lead to conditions that for a century have been considered part of the sport now being considered too dangerous to race in - that does take away part of the appeal, the uncertainty and the challenge.

Yes, we've matured as a society and now take people's safety into consideration. The concept of duty of care now exists. Lots of things were acceptable for the best part of a century but no longer are. It's only rare circumstances that would see a race effected (as has always happened). No-one's cancelling a race because it's raining.

DeVlaeminck

sjmclean wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Are there any examples of riders being seriously injured because a race wasn't cancelled due to weather conditions when it should have been ?

MSR 2013. but it was stopped, a bit too late for many

Who was seriously injured ? I remember it being stopped and them getting in buses but I don't remember anyone being seriously injured because of the conditions, I'm not saying you are wrong just asking the question.

I did a race the same year which looked like this http://mapperleycc.org/assets/wp-conten ... e-2013.jpg

rick_chasey

With that logic rich I'm surprised you're so comfortable with descents near the finish.

They're very dangerous. We leave it to the riders' judgement to make sure they don't ride it too fast and risk serious injury, but clearly they can't be trusted. There's always someone who will take more risks and push it...

We expect riders to manage that situation and so I can't see why we can't expect riders to manage weather - especially given they have precedent for doing so.

milton50

I think you're arguing against a straw man, Rich. As far as I can tell no one is expecting cyclists to ride for hours in 40+ degrees. Nor descend down a mountain with roads covered in ice.

The problem is how can you possibly lay down a single set of safety rules that apply to all parcours, to all races and to all circumstances. Unless the rules will literally only prohibit riding in the two conditions I've already mentioned, in which case it would seem quite irrelevant.

Is it really too much for you to forgo maybe a couple of days of watching cycling to minimise the chances of serious injury to participants

Pro cycling is a dangerous sport. Presumably you're happy to watch countless men and women break bones, see their careers ended and sometimes even die on dry, clear days?

Like I said, I'm fully in agreement that 40+ degrees or hurricane winds are too dangerous. Where do you draw the line though?

ddraver

some of you - http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/inde ... o-extremes

I seem to remember a lot of the usual faux outrage and spluttering anger on here during the last 2 Giros when stages were cancelled or neutralised. By coding the protocols properly the UCI gives organisers a set of rules to apply and also adds a certain amount of predictability which benefits everyone.

For example - you want to run a stage of the highest road in Europe in Febuary? A stage won't run in temps below 5degC, the average temperature then is -10 then it's unlikely your stage will be run.

No one wants to see stages cancelled but RCS in particular have played chicken with the weather gods the last few years and the stages have been reduced to farce (which DeV is usually quick to point out!)

No_Ta_Doctor

WRT the question of whether anyone has been seriously injured in a race that shouldn't have been run due to conditions, firstly, the statistical data isn't a large enough set to be able to use (there aren't that many races where they're run but should have been cancelled or neutralised and there are only a couple of hundred riders in each) and secondly, where a race was run and nobody was seriously injured (or serious injuries were on the same level as similar races in better conditions) it's being taken as evidence that it was fine to race - e.g. Gent-Wevelgem.

I saw footage in G-W of riders that were physically unable to keep their bikes on the road, not because they were pushing their own limits, but because they'd reached the limit of what a 60kg bloke on a lightweight bike can do when hit by a gust of wind that strong. There was no way that should have been ridden - exciting and titillating as it was.

Races have always been neutralised or cancelled in bad conditions, this isn't new. All we're seeing is a codification of which conditions are unacceptable. That's got to be a help to everyone concerned. Riders are under pressure to race no matter what - and occasionally they will rebel. But race organisers are also under pressure to make sure the race goes ahead - they also need something to fall back on when the sponsors ask where the race they shelled out for went.

DeVlaeminck

Well look, I think we all agree that there are conditions in which races should not be run. Given that, someone has to have the authority to make the decision to cancel. In the past that has been the race organisers and that seems to me to have worked quite well. I don't agree that it's as simple as laying down max/min temperatures that it's safe to race in. There is no reason riders shouldn't race in sub zero if there is no moisture on the road especially with modern clothing and things like wind chill, rain and humidity can alter how cooling or warming a given temperature is. Ultimately these guidelines will boil down to terminology like unreasonable or unsafe which are so open to interpretation they have little meaning independent of the actual decisions made on the ground.

The real change here is not that a set of guidelines are being provided but that the responsibility for cancelling is moving from the race organisers to uci officials and the fear that that means a narrower range of conditions will be tolerated. I don't think anyone is against consistency - it is where the line is drawn that the argument is about. As far as the decision being in the hands of a sole authority goes - isn't it already? If riders and teams disagree with the decision of whoever is officially empowered we will still see it coming down to negotiation - the only way to avoid that is to make no decisions the riders and teams object to.

t4tomo

Supermurph09 wrote:

Ashbeck wrote:

The UCI are planning to start at the Giro it's extreme weather protocols. So what I'm interested in is how people see this? Is it the start of the end of the real hard men of cycling, who would happily cycle in blizzards, boiling heat, dusty air with spare tyres strapped around them, no service cars and only a packet of roll-ups to keep them going.
Are current riders becoming wimps? Is this the start of cycling being watered down so even the Gok Wans can win the Tour?
Or is it a good safety protocol? What's 'extreme weather' classified as?

I'd think the protocols might come into play when the weather is affecting the ability to broadcast a tv signal. After all the riders are essentially mobile billboards, I'd think sponsors would be keen to delay or alter a stage so that the race can be broadcast in full, instead of no coverage, incessant Kirby wiffle waffle and then seeing someone coming around the final corner!

Dragging this back on topic....

To be fair there is something quite exciting about seeing Roche appearing out of the fog. I'm with you on Kirby waffle though.

tailwindhome

t4tomo wrote:

To be fair there is something quite exciting about seeing Roche appearing out of the fog..

I've watched that clip back on you tube before - nostalgia has added the fog

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qgXQ3z ... age#t=1146

blazing_saddles

ddraver wrote:

some of you - http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/inde ... o-extremes

I seem to remember a lot of the usual faux outrage and spluttering anger on here during the last 2 Giros when stages were cancelled or neutralised. By coding the protocols properly the UCI gives organisers a set of rules to apply and also adds a certain amount of predictability which benefits everyone.

For example - you want to run a stage of the highest road in Europe in Febuary? A stage won't run in temps below 5degC, the average temperature then is -10 then it's unlikely your stage will be run.

No one wants to see stages cancelled but RCS in particular have played chicken with the weather gods the last few years and the stages have been reduced to farce (which DeV is usually quick to point out!)

Never mind, MTFs, in a bad winter that protocol could KO just about any Northern European race, including Paris-Nice.
If the UCI want to dictate temperature, then they need to shift the whole European calendar back a month, which is nigh impossible, given the TDF July lockdown.

TheBigBean

Surely the most dangerous things in cycling are flat sprints, riding in pelotons and downhills? They account for pretty much all of the bad accidents I've seen. So, if you want to make the sport safe remove them all.

I really don't get people's concern with temperature, but ice and snow is a bit tricky on a road bike I will admit that.

ddraver

Blazing Saddles wrote:

ddraver wrote:

some of you - http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/inde ... o-extremes

I seem to remember a lot of the usual faux outrage and spluttering anger on here during the last 2 Giros when stages were cancelled or neutralised. By coding the protocols properly the UCI gives organisers a set of rules to apply and also adds a certain amount of predictability which benefits everyone.

For example - you want to run a stage of the highest road in Europe in Febuary? A stage won't run in temps below 5degC, the average temperature then is -10 then it's unlikely your stage will be run.

No one wants to see stages cancelled but RCS in particular have played chicken with the weather gods the last few years and the stages have been reduced to farce (which DeV is usually quick to point out!)

Never mind, MTFs, in a bad winter that protocol could KO just about any Northern European race, including Paris-Nice.
If the UCI want to dictate temperature, then they need to shift the whole European calendar back a month, which is nigh impossible, given the TDF July lockdown.

Edited for you

blazing_saddles

ddraver wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

ddraver wrote:

some of you - http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/inde ... o-extremes

I seem to remember a lot of the usual faux outrage and spluttering anger on here during the last 2 Giros when stages were cancelled or neutralised. By coding the protocols properly the UCI gives organisers a set of rules to apply and also adds a certain amount of predictability which benefits everyone.

For example - you want to run a stage of the highest road in Europe in Febuary? A stage won't run in temps below 5degC, the average temperature then is -10 then it's unlikely your stage will be run.

No one wants to see stages cancelled but RCS in particular have played chicken with the weather gods the last few years and the stages have been reduced to farce (which DeV is usually quick to point out!)

Never mind, MTFs, in a bad winter that protocol could KO just about any Northern European race, including Paris-Nice.
If the UCI want to dictate temperature, then they need to shift the whole European calendar back a month, which is nigh impossible, given the TDF July lockdown.

Edited for you

My bad for coming late to the party.
I thought this was a discussion on proposed, not hypothetical protocols.
I guess we can forget that one, then.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

Surely the most dangerous things in cycling are flat sprints, riding in pelotons and downhills? They account for pretty much all of the bad accidents I've seen. So, if you want to make the sport safe remove them all.

I really don't get people's concern with temperature, but ice and snow is a bit tricky on a road bike I will admit that.

quite.

sherer

TheBigBean wrote:

Surely the most dangerous things in cycling are flat sprints, riding in pelotons and downhills? They account for pretty much all of the bad accidents I've seen. So, if you want to make the sport safe remove them all.

I really don't get people's concern with temperature, but ice and snow is a bit tricky on a road bike I will admit that.

you forgot to mention spectators too. They cause a fair few accidents so remove them as well

dish_dash

sherer wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Surely the most dangerous things in cycling are flat sprints, riding in pelotons and downhills? They account for pretty much all of the bad accidents I've seen. So, if you want to make the sport safe remove them all.

I really don't get people's concern with temperature, but ice and snow is a bit tricky on a road bike I will admit that.

you forgot to mention spectators too. They cause a fair few accidents so remove them as well

And cars/motos...

deejay

Blazing Saddles wrote:

If the UCI want to dictate temperature, then they need to shift the whole European calendar back a month, which is nigh impossible, given the TDF July lockdown.

Ah, The UCI are the culprits of the modern calendar.

1991 (because I have a plasticised Road Calendar at hand)
Vuelta Espana - 29 April to May 19 about a week after L-B-L
Giro d'Italia - 26 May to 16 June

The Spanish screamed abuse about the change to September but everybody is now at ease because they moved the World Road Champs to late Sept/Oct.
2015 Giro d'Italia - 9 to 31 May and virtually the Vuelta calendar position.

For the benefit of the British.
21 June - Manx International
30 June - National Champs
6 July - Tour de France

Yellow Peril

But other than in conditions that fundamentally dangerous (such as a hole the width of the road) don't you ride at speeds dictated by the conditions prevailing?

saying a road is ok to ride but not to race doesn't make sense to me.

edeverett

Epic-ness can be preserved (for stage races at least) by having an exception for uphill finishes. If it's 100kph winds and a blizzard up the Stelvio no one's going to die or have a fast crash - put a jacket on and get up there.

Asking people to race downhill in nasty weather is different.

RichN95.

There were some indications that it was too cold at the Tour of Romandie today

Pross

I can see a couple of practical issues here:

1. In rugby, for example, a referee decides if a pitch is safe to play but both teams have an influence. I have seen several occasions when a referee decides a pitch is safe and one team's management agree but the other team (who usually have a weakened team available by coincidence) insist it is unsafe and the ref backs down as he doesn't want a 'told you so' and all that goes with it if a player gets injured due to the conditions. Surely there's a likelihood that race commissaries will be put under similar pressure to cancel races that are the right side of borderline i.e. nothing will really change.

2. The UCI has been keen to globalise cycling which has included moving to countries with more extreme climates (usually heat). How will those countries react if they lose fairly large chunks of their races due to the temperature being deemed too high? I know that the Arabian races are held in 'cooler' months but even so there's a risk that temperatures could cross the maximum for several days running.