 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
If you want good racing, then you want there to be at least the risk of this happening, if not a likelihood.
Love to see that in a race risk assessment, or on the application for your public liability insurance. The DH comparisons will continue but most people will have very little idea about what goes on in setting up races and getting stuff signed off.
Deliberately adding risk with serious consequences is reckless.
Not spotting it is negligence.
Edit @thm the consequences of hitting the gutter kerb thing could have been reduced. I agree not eliminated but mitigated.
When riders are pushing as hard as they can, crashes will happen on descents, corners, cobbles and straight bits of road in Harrogate. I've even seen crashes on climbs (and I'm not thinking of this year's Ventoux which gets a special category). Same in rallying or F1 or even some running races.
The issue is what happens next - slide across road losing skin into something soft or slide across road losing skin into a concrete block?
The consequences are very different, and I think that is the point. A couple of lorry loads of hay bales would have totally changed the consequences on that descent. She'd probably have been sat there cursing her luck as the others went by her, before getting back on the bike and cruising to the finish.
On the plus side, she's tweeting that although she has fractures she'll be OK. Hard as.
If you watch the vid of Van Vleuten's crash then you'll see it was a simple, basic line error - she was on completly the wrong line.
She is in the middle of the RIGHT carriageway approaching a tightening right-hander. Mid-corner she runs out of room, bricks herself, slams on both brakes and goes OTB into the gutter/massive kerb. She should be on the LEFT side on entry, and the road before is basically straight so this was easy to do.
You may prefer to blame the road/IOC/someone but this was Van Vleuten's error, and a basic error at that.
Separate the crash and the consequence.
She crashed, but the consequences were are least in part down to the organisers.
The consequences are very different, and I think that is the point. A couple of lorry loads of hay bales would have totally changed the consequences on that descent. She'd probably have been sat there cursing her luck as the others went by her, before getting back on the bike and cruising to the finish.
And thats about it, hay bales would have made a huge difference, Im amazed that the safety folk didnt agree or didnt think of it or be told. Disc brakes, handling skills, commitment etc we will never know but hay bales would have helped
I don't think anyone is saying that the the IOC or the course designer is responsible for the crash, what people are sayign is that they should have been more considerate of the RESULTS of the crash
BBC have a couple of still pics showing what happened - having seen it live I've no desire to watch the video again
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/37005595
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Not really wanting to get into a huge debate about this, I thought it was an excellent race overall and I agree that the possibility of crashing due to rider error is part of what makes it a good race, but the reslt of that crash needs to be considered and it wasn;t considered enough in this instance
Deliberately adding risk with serious consequences is reckless.
Not spotting it is negligence.
So which bit are you accusing the organisers of?
Edit @thm the consequences of hitting the gutter kerb thing could have been reduced. I agree not eliminated but mitigated.
To an extent, the roads and the gutters were not designed for racing, Racing chose the road, What are your expectations? Every bit of kerb and every corner to be padded?
anyway, there but for the grace of God...I just wish here a speedy and full recover. Over and out.
You may prefer to blame the road/IOC/someone but this was Van Vleuten's error, and a basic error at that.
So a beginners guide to risk assessment.
What could happen here?
Well a rider could slip out etc. Get off line and if it's wet it could be more likely.
What is the consequences of that happening?
Well they will slide into that massive stepped kerb/gutter at speed.
That could be a very nasty accident resulting in head/neck injuries and other broken bones.
[b]the important bit[/b]
If we can't eliminate the risk (it's a bike race so probably not) what can we do to mitigate the consequences to a reasonable level.
@thm the comments about negligence and reckless were for the poster suggesting that we need that sort of risk for good racing.
Separate the crash and the consequence.
This. Yes, we can expect fully-committed riders to make mistakes and go down on descents.
It is precisely because this is completely foreseeable that we expect the organisers to take a glance at the run-out from a handful of the worst corners and attempt to mitigate the consequences.
Does the TT use a different course?
I bet Van Vleuten would be cheered up massively by reading this thread. 😥
She probably wouldn't.
[quote=martinhutch ]
Does the TT use a different course?
At least part is the same, the TT goes along the newly-tarmacced bits on the cobbled section heading south towards the first loop (commentary was saying that the tarmac was laid expressly for the TT). That leads me to suspect they won't be using Vista Chinesa
reggiegasket - Member
If you watch the vid of Van Vleuten's crash then you'll see it was a simple, basic line error - she was on completly the wrong line.
Balls. She didn't set herself up on the wrong line, she got late coming out of the previous turn and by the time she got to her accident knew she was going to have trouble making the turn. However, due to the kerbs taking away all option of going wide there was zero option other than to attempt to yank it round, and she had a bloody good go. The error that caused it could've been 100 yards back up the road
presumably the organisers reckoned yes they may crash but the cost / fuss of protecting those gutters / gulleys wasn't important - or would reduce the road space - or - if raining - would affect the efficiency of clearing surface water.
That was just horrendous to watch, my wife was convinced she'd broken her neck there and then, and the impact was about as bad as you can get..
If you watch the vid of Van Vleuten's crash then you'll see it was a simple, basic line error - she was on completly the wrong line.
So what? The issue is the drainage channels and high curbs that have contributed to broken pelvis vertebra and collar bones by seasoned proffessional riders who at the time were racing at the limit in the final km to win an Olympic medal.
the significant contributor to some of those injuries was the poor crash protection/run-off areas at the side of the road. Had they come off on a similar European road there would have probably been a low kerb and pathway and less injuries.
RegieGasket,
What legend and others said, wrong line but not deliberate and looked more like a high side than a braking error, the back wheel steps out, finds some grip and the resultant sideways momentum throws her over the bars.
Regardless, crashes happen. It could have been a baby Robin on the course, or another rider, the cause is immaterial because you can't control it except by canceling the race (or holding a straight flat time trial). The only thing you can influence is the outcome. That kerb could have had a ramp put against it, or straw bales (look at hairpins on the tour, they very often have bales if there's no run off), or flatten the kerb entirely and put up netting. None of that would be difficult or complicated, which is why it's done elsewhere, but the organizers didn't for some reason.
martinhutch - MemberSeparate the crash and the consequence.
This. Yes, we can expect fully-committed riders to make mistakes and go down on descents.
It is precisely because this is completely foreseeable that we expect the organisers to take a glance at the run-out from a handful of the worst corners and attempt to mitigate the consequences.
Completely agree, looked like a horrific crash, felt sick watcing it. Though she could well have been dead.
How much does it cost to haybale or mattress the corner? nothing in the scale of Olympic spending. A bad oversight pure and simple. No idea why there is dispute, crash mitigation should have happened and it didnt.
@kcr and mikewsmith
If you want good racing, then you want there to be at least the risk of this happening, if not a likelihood.
No.The risk of injury is not a prerequisite for good racing.
Very selective quoting of what i said. I said
"it's a race, some very fatigued athletes at the limit of their abilities, there is an expectation that people are going to overcook corners. If you want good racing, then you want there to be at least the risk of this happening, if not a likelihood.
But when it happens, you want there to be a run off, or at worst a bit of torn lycra and road rash. Maybe even occasionally a collarbone - roads are hard. As well as the obvious crashes in the tour there were loads more where people overcooked corners and rode into the bushes or into people's driveways.
The issue here was no run offs and big, raised edge kerbstones meaning that even an innocuous off carried a high risk of harm. On one hand everyone knew they were like that and had the choice to ride more safely as a result, but I still think more needed to be done to protect those edges"
Your misquoting is making me feel like a **** and i'm absolutely not, I'm outraged by the lack of protection of those edges. As i said in another post, for a few haybales this could have been avoided - the Red Bull soap box derby has better accident provision. Disgraceful.
Apologies, my mistake to quote the quote.
Had they come off on a similar European road there would have probably been a [s]low kerb and pathway and less injuries.[/s] sheer drop off the edge of a mountain
Fixed that for you.
I find a lot of the comments above a bit odd.
When the TdF was in Yorkshire there were many situations where the road ended with a dry stone wall, and no one complained.
A lot of Alpine decents are way more dangerous too.
Maybe we should make all race courses like this. Take away the risk, take away the skill factor.
[img] 
[/img]
I hope the Dutch rider recovers fully. She took a risk on the day and it didn't pay off. That's sport.
The duty of any organised sporting committee it to protect its competitors whilst retaining the fundementals of the sport, so look at the rule changes to rugby on order to protect its participants especially in the scrum, hockey introducing face masks at short corners.
The road race organisers failed to make the appropriate arrangements to protect riders from serious harm on the descents if a crash occured. It then failed to have marshalls close enough to offer assistance. It learnt nothing from the mens race when the crashes indicated the potential dangers, in fact it did not retension the point that Porte went into the fence.
The crash was horrific and one hopes the rider will recover fully.
Had they come off on a similar European road there would have probably been [s]a low kerb and pathway and less injuries. sheer drop off the edge of a mountain[/s] a telegraph pole
Fixed your fix.
hockey introducing face masks at short corners
I saw that yesterday. It has changed the sport. The goal keeper is now padded to the hilt. It changes the game completely, which is fine, but its not the game it was. It wont be long before its like ice hockey.
Pretty sure there'll be a grass verge before the stone wall in Yorkshire? Please show us a picture of a stone wall on a blind bend on a 1:5 hill with no grass verge.
I find the "victim blaming" quite depressing, on a cycling forum.
I'm surprised no one's starting asking for F1 to go back to the "good 'ole days" when they used to kill on average a driver per race.
And to finish, a quote for Jackie Stewart,
"Cornering is like bringing a woman to a climax. Both you and the car must work together. You start to enter the area of excitement at the corner, you set up a pace which is right for the car and after you've told it it is coming along with you, you guide it along at a rhythm which has by now become natural. Only after you've cleared the corner you can both take pleasure in knowing it's gone well."
Pretty sure there'll be a grass verge before the stone wall in Yorkshire? Please show us a picture of a stone wall on a blind bend on a 1:5 hill with no grass verge.
Halfway down The Cove Road by Malham Cove, sharp left-hand bend just where the bridleway heads off down to the village. Can't find a shot of the actual bend but this is a little further up the road http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1367166 . Yes there's grass between road and wall but it's all of a foot wide.
The steep bit of Park Rash is similar - http://cyclinguphill.com/100-climbs/park-rash/ , Oxnop Scar - http://cyclinguphill.com/oxnop-scar/ I'm pretty sure there are others.
OK I wasn't gonna contribute anymore but I just wonder if those arguing "it's just what road racing is" have grasped why CB thought the descent was too dangerous.
My understanding from the commentary is that there were a number of steep, off camber corners leading into those wheel-trapping gutters.
The UCI has been defending the course so I assume it organised the event, or at least ratified it.
Pretty sure there'll be a grass verge before the stone wall in Yorkshire? Please show us a picture of a stone wall on a blind bend on a 1:5 hill with no grass verge.
Steepness has nothing to do with it either. The people that wanted to win the race took a gamble, unfortunately for some in didn't pay off.
This is an example of one of the decents on TdF.
https://goo.gl/maps/4AGvFP9k2vt
It's going a little off topic, but there were concerns at the time about the Yorkshire roads at the tour;
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/tour-de-france/10942573/Tour-de-France-2014-Yorkshires-roads-are-too-narrow-and-dangerous-warns-German-rider.html ]Narrow Roads[/url]
The van Vleuten crash was sickening, the impact was hard and the fact that she was lying motionless for some time really didn't look good for her. I hope she can make a full recovery.
Back to the actual race, I thought Lizzie rode well (pretty much unsupported), it was a shame she didn't quite have the legs up the last climb to stay in touch and I guess the rest of the group lent on her on the run in. I think the Dutch deserved the win, they rode a smart race with a very strong team.
Saw Rochelle Gilmore interviewed by the BBC last night.
She made the very good point that Lizzie is likely to have had a few sleepless nights in the last week, so who knows what could have been if she was better at using the whereabouts system?
You need to separate out the crash itself (which shouldn't have been unexpected, people crash in all dynamic, fast-moving sports) and the consequences of that crash (slamming into a big concrete kerb).
Watching it on TV, I thought the descent looked good - it's nice to see a race with some technical aspects rather than simply a massive great hillclimb to a summit finish or a big wide boulevard sprint to end it.
However I can appreciate that taken at speed, epsecially in those quite dark conditions and with what looked like a bit of drizzly rain falling that it could very quickly have become dangerous.
Falling off is one thing but that kerb should have been protected. They managed it on the Olympic RR course in London using red padded bags which also helped showcase the line to take. The fact is that the organisers hadn't even been back to fix the fence that Porte had been caught by the previous day.
Funkydunc re hockey, thankful no it is not the same game, no grass pitches no wooden sticks, it is faste r and the introduction of composite sticks, better techniques and generally faster the keepers need to progress from old cricket pads to kit that protects them. Having witnessed two skull injuries at short corners I am all in favour for a better game for players and spectators.
[/i][i] I find the "victim blaming" quite depressing, on a cycling forum.
I'm surprised no one's starting asking for F1 to go back to the "good 'ole days" when they used to kill on average a driver per race.
I echo this sentiment but would just say victim blaming is depressing. Any one longing for the good ole days, there are several anecdotes of injuries and deaths on the thread already and that is why sport needs to protect the competitors and balance with keeping the fundementals of the sport.
[i]
[/i]OK I wasn't gonna contribute anymore but I just wonder if those arguing "it's just what road racing is" have grasped why CB thought the descent was too dangerous.
I am assuming , possibly incorrectly that we have no Olympic champions nor tour de France riders on the thread, so if CB has concerns then I will listen to his expertise.
I am assuming , possibly incorrectly that we have no Olympic champions nor tour de France riders on the thread, so if CB has concerns then I will listen to his expertise.
I'll be interested to hear from one of the local lads who was in it...
And to finish, a quote for Jackie Stewart,
"Cornering is like bringing a woman to a climax
He taught Swiss Tony everything he knows.
so if CB has concerns then I will listen to his expertise
I think we've had quite enough of experts in this country, thank you very much.
She took a risk on the day and it didn't pay off. That's sport.
I think you're missing the point.
Taking a risk is part of sport, but the consequences of getting it wrong shouldn't be so serious, i.e life threatening/career ending.
I admire those of you who are taking Boardman to task on this but I ask you:
What exactly do you know about road racing? Put up a list of your achievements for us all to gauge & judge. Lets see if they compare to Boardman's....
If he thinks the course was lacking in protection for the riders, I'm inclined to take his word for it. Not some keyboard warrior on a MTB forum.....
Not to mention he's actually ridden (or at least seen) the road in question in real life.
"Cornering is like bringing a woman to a climax
Depressingly so..... I start off on exactly the right line, I lower my posture, I shift my position to effect the perfect entry, then i overcook it and end up in a sticky mess flat on my back some way short of the desired exit point.
Whilst I wouldn't be taking cornering lessons from CB, I completely agree with his sentiments. Crashing is part of road racing ([url=
should know[/url]), it's the consequences we have a right to feel angry about.
Taking a risk is part of sport, but the consequences of getting it wrong shouldn't be so serious, i.e life threatening/career ending.
Why not?
There are plenty of sports out there where serious injury/death are a consequence. Its all part of what makes up the sport. Did anyone pull out of either road race stipulating the course was too dangerous?
What are these sports where serious injury and death are a consequence of getting it wrong?
DH MTB
Skiing/Boarding
Red Bull Rampage etc
Motosport in general
etc etc
Why not?
There are plenty of sports out there where serious injury/death are a consequence.
Yes there are, thing is there was really simple and easy stuff they could have done to mitigate these risks. Or should they have put spikes and flailing chains by the side of the road.
On dangerous stuff I was about 100ft of Paul Bass when he hit the deck and broke his back. They had medics on the scene in under a minute and a chopper swooping in. It was a hell of a moment wondering what we were pushing people to do in the name of sport and if it was worth it. Cam Zinks doc is a tough film as it's badly edited but it does convey the fact you have asked somebody to risk their lives to entertain you and is that right.
5 mins before the guy in this helicopter could walk
[url= https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5836/21696173624_15b7027f9c_k.jp g" target="_blank">https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5836/21696173624_15b7027f9c_k.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/z4dyx3 ]IMG_3752[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/mikewsmith/ ]Mike Smith[/url], on Flickr
What are these sports where serious injury and death are a consequence of getting it wrong?
BASE jumping
Climbing up the outside of tower blocks
Being an educated liberal at a Trump convention
Being a paediatrician in Newport, South Wales
Playing table tennis with glass balls containing nerve agent
What are these sports where serious injury and death are a consequence of getting it wrong?DH MTB
Skiing/Boarding
Red Bull Rampage etc
Motosport in generaletc etc
Rampage is the only one in that list which doesn't make significant investment in protecting participants who crash.
I think the least they could have done is put straw bales in the massive gutters in the bits where an off was likely.
Whilst it is a risk, but it's not part and parcel of any of those sports (any more), they've all taken steps to mitigate the risk.
Padding on trees, catch netting, run off areas, body armour etc etc.
I don't know if you can straw bale 6km of descent though. Question is whether that route made sense or not really.
Swimming is another of those dangerous sports.
Perhaps Rio 2016 blew the safety budget on lifeguard for the Olympic swimmers. 😕
[img] 
:large[/img]
Having had an education and attending a Trump convention
FTFY 😛
I don't know if you can straw bale the outside of a dozen corners on 6km of descent though.
FTFY and of course you can.
Is that the padding? Or just stopping the mountain from falling down?
Where do you put the straw there?
[img] 
[/img]
Are there BASE jumping competitions where people die? Never heard of a competition climbing up the outside of buildings either?
People injure and kill themselves doing those sports not convinced they do in competition.
So rampage means all sportsmen are expendable?
See my post above
[quote=atlaz ]I don't know if you can straw bale 6km of descent though.
Of course you can, it's just a question of whether you can be bothered. They didn't need to straw bale 6km anyway - just the apex and exit of the corners, probably less than 500m in total. Though I'd like to think somebody sensible wouldn't have just thrown a load of straw bales at it and thought about the most appropriate protection at each point.
Has anyone seen the roadside video of Van Vleuten's crash yet? Harrowing just seeing her lying there for a few minutes on her own before she gets attention. [url=
Different sport though, the participants of that sport know the risks and consequences, and also accept those risks can't particularly be mitigated other than by their own PPE. And also that the high level of risk is part of that particular sport.
It's easy to say the cyclists in the road races did the same (accept the risks - otherwise just don't ride) but they weren't properly mitigated where they could easily have been. It also makes me think that 1/ it won't have been only CB that pointed out that it was dangerous and could have been made less so; 2/ after Saturday's crashes the opportunity was still there even then to act.
Whoever sanctioned / approved the route without requiring proper measures to be taken was in my opinion negligent in considering rider safety, and has got away lightly considering how bad it could have been and indeed, nearly was.
That video highlights the clear lack of care being exhibited by the organisers of the road race, on a descent that must have been highlighted on the pre-race risk assessments. There appears to be no mitigation, and no immediate medical care for the inevitable crash. That she was left lying face down for minutes before anyone attended her is in my mind unacceptable.
Agree aP, though it's not obvious what may have been going on via race radio. Poor girl, gutted for her.
Is there any speed / time element in Rampage scoring or is it entirely artistic (line choice and moves/tricks) based. You need to consider how racing changes the likelihood and consequences of mistakes
DH MTB
Skiing/Boarding
Red Bull Rampage etc
Motosport in general
DH MTB: padding/crash nets/PPE.
Skiing: as above.
Motorsport: a HUGE amount of safety measures put in.
The problem with the Olympic Road Race is that the road had so much potential to cause harm if a mistake was made.
FFS the netting wasn't even fixed after Porte's crash!
Redbull/BASE jumping etc are at the extreme end of sport where death is more likely for a mistake & it is very hard to mitigate for any mistakes.
The point being, that keeps getting missed, is that the Olympic Road Course does not appear to have had adequate protection installed given the level of risk that was on hand.
As I've already said: they hadn't even bothered to fix the netting after Porte's crash.
What does that tell you about the attitude of the organisers to rider safety??
Yep rampage you dig your line, chose your risk and can walk away. They had medics on scene in about a minute or less for every crash, there were 2 of those choppers waiting on standby in the event of a problem.
Hearing the cauldron of noise going silent was a very strange feeling. Bass gave the thumbs up when they took off, we didn't know until later how serious it was.
Christ, that FB video is awful. Where the **** were the medics, it really shouldn't take that long at the Olympics.
Is there any speed / time element in Rampage scoring or is it entirely artistic (line choice and moves/tricks) based. You need to consider how racing changes the likelihood and consequences of mistakes
I believe there are marks awarded for speed/flow etc, but it's not the be-all....
At a guess the risk assessment said the dangers are no worse than what is found in the normal pro cycling calendar.
Lets for example take the Passo Giau descent into Cortina d'Ampezzo (picked because i've done it and knew it made a good example). Included in the Giro on a very regular basis, no mass outcry about the dangers, and yet we find the following blind corner which is approached at very high speed.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/ @46.5223945,12.1194374,3a,75y,91.64h,67.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-C5Ja0juAbdysb1vY5ovtg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Which if you get it wrong leads to sheer rock face:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/ @46.5224628,12.1200604,3a,75y,73.88h,62.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8q2a9jGXJicUPHkV9BpV-w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en
And a wheel height wall ready to launch you into oblivion:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/ @46.5224995,12.1201379,3a,75y,68.57h,64.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suUgNhZsE1Y4eEabGvvvM-w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
If that section i've linked has been deemed suitable for racing umpteen times, then there's no reason the Olympic RR course shouldn't also have been deemed safe.
Its a case of the riders using their judgement about the level of risk they are willing to take. In the case of the Olympic RR, the riders will all have been out and recce'd the descent in the week leading up to the event, they all knew the risks, and they all made the decision they were worth it.
You mean that open corner, with good sight lines and a nice, dead straight, approach? Not really the same.
How many riders have needed hospital treatment following crashes on that descent? Because at least 6 did in the Olympic road race, after one race:
- Porte
- Henao
- van Vleuten
- Nibali
- Oliviera
- Thomas
I've been posting on STW for many years (10+?) but I still find myself caught off-guard by the amount of keyboard expert bullshit bellendery posted by some people.
This thread has seen everything from comparison with Rampage to criticism of her skills. Some posters are perfectly able to criticise their own shadow.
[quote=ads678 ]Christ, that FB video is awful. Where the **** were the medics, it really shouldn't take that long at the Olympics.
The one positive I'm taking from that is that the untrained bystanders left her alone - it's apparent from the video that she's breathing, so no immediate need to move her. A lot of vehicles drove past before anybody arrived to help her though.
If that section i've linked has been deemed suitable for racing umpteen times, then there's no reason the Olympic RR course shouldn't also have been deemed safe.
Given the outcomes I'd disagree.
Its a case of the riders using their judgement about the level of risk they are willing to take.
Quotes from Porte were that the guy in front went downeft him nowhere to go, could easily have done the slide into the kerb too.
Just because there are dangers elsewhere doesn't mean you can't make one safer. Otherwise we wouldn't bother with Road safety.
fifeandy - Member
At a guess the risk assessment said the dangers are no worse than what is found in the normal pro cycling calendar.Lets for example take the Passo Giau descent into Cortina d'Ampezzo (picked because i've done it and knew it made a good example). Included in the Giro on a very regular basis, no mass outcry about the dangers, and yet we find the following blind corner which is approached at very high speed.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/ @46.5223945,12.1194374,3a,75y,91.64h,67.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-C5Ja0juAbdysb1vY5ovtg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=enWhich if you get it wrong leads to sheer rock face:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/ @46.5224628,12.1200604,3a,75y,73.88h,62.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8q2a9jGXJicUPHkV9BpV-w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=enAnd a wheel height wall ready to launch you into oblivion:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/ @46.5224995,12.1201379,3a,75y,68.57h,64.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suUgNhZsE1Y4eEabGvvvM-w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=enIf that section i've linked has been deemed suitable for racing umpteen times, then there's no reason the Olympic RR course shouldn't also have been deemed safe.
Its a case of the riders using their judgement about the level of risk they are willing to take. In the case of the Olympic RR, the riders will all have been out and recce'd the descent in the week leading up to the event, they all knew the risks, and they all made the decision they were worth it.
POSTED 4 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST
At least you'd be able to enjoy the view on the way down!
[URL= http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v242/glasgowdan/giro_zps1xlvlckx.jp g" target="_blank">
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v242/glasgowdan/giro_zps1xlvlckx.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]
No-one's saying it wasn't deemed acceptable for racing on and as you say they all made their choices.
The fact is, it could have been made safer.
That video is awful, but she was breathing, clearly, couldn't have been moved (first guys there immediately protected her neck), and as in all first aid courses the first priority is danger - no point the motorbike guys attending to her if the next thing that happens is the next riders or cars down run them all over. Also the paramedic types couldn't have parked there for the same reasons, seems like they had to park on the preceding straight and run down first. I don't think in those circumstances the 'delay' is avoidable, short of stopping / neutralising the whole of the following contingent.
You mean that open corner, with good sight lines and a nice, dead straight, approach?
Hardly open, but admittedly it doesn't tighten.
Disagree about the good sight lines, the straight approach means you [i]could be[/i] travelling so fast you are well committed to the turn before you know whats round the other side.
Sight lines aren't really an excuse though, as anyone that thought they were in with a chance will have ridden the descent at least 3-4 times in the week leading up to the race, or at least filmed it and reviewed the footage.
At least you'd be able to enjoy the view on the way down!
It is indeed a superb view, although spending a week riding in the dolomites there are superb views everywhere you look
I was shocked and really upset watching it live, I really thought she was dead. Horrible crash.
My view is some hay bales on the exits of those corners wouldn't have been a bad idea at all, considering the tightening compound corners and off camber. But hindsight is a great thing.
[img] 
[/img]
I don't think having already ridden before makes it ok, at that point in the race I'd imaging fatigue impairs judgement somewhat and vastly increases the chances of mistakes.
Wouldn't the inclusion of bales have led to (more) riders, possibly, taking more and more severe risks?
Wouldn't the inclusion of bales have led to (more) riders, possibly, taking more and more severe risks?
Mitigate the consequences, reduce the impact of the risk. Would you suggest spikes on the outside of the corners to focus the mind
I don't think having already ridden before makes it ok, at that point in the race I'd imaging fatigue impairs judgement somewhat and vastly increases the chances of mistakes.
Helps in knowing what's coming. Doesn't help if, as in the men's race someone else screws up and puts you off line or takes you down. I'd like to think in that case at least i won't be going head first into an unprotected lump of concrete
Fatigue, judgement and skill are all part of racing. I don't think we want courses that can be descended at full speed by anyone; we need it to be one of the deciding factors for a race. But the penalty for a screw up should be losing the race, not your life / ability to walk.
Mitigate the consequences, reduce the impact of the risk. [b]Would you suggest spikes on the outside of the corners to focus the mind?[/b]
Did I go anywhere near suggesting that?
You win one whole internet point. 🙄
Wouldn't the inclusion of bales have led to (more) riders, possibly, taking more and more severe risks?
Maybe, but that's their prerogative. Most of us are saying that crashes are an inherent part of racing, but such harsh penalties for them needn't be.
Did I go anywhere near suggesting that?
You win one whole internet point.
No, you made the link between risk, consequences etc. So if asking if making it safer makes people take more risks then it's logical to assume that increasing the consequences would make people pay more attention and ride safely.
I've been posting on STW for many years (10+?) but I still find myself caught off-guard by the amount of keyboard expert bullshit bellendery posted by some people.
Quite. Some posters remind me of Airplane.
[img] 
[/img]
They knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash