You might have seen on yesterday's live blog the comments from Movistar boss Eusebio Unzué raising the question about certain measures that could be introduced to Grand Tours to better protect riders, notably substitutions for injured or ill riders in the opening week, or even reducing the length of races to 15 days.
Unzué was not offering outright support to the ideas, although he sounded pretty convinced of the merits of the substitute proposal.
"If [Grand Tours] were reduced to 15 days, the best riders would probably ride all three Grand Tours. That would give them enough time to recover between them and be competitive in all three. It would create spectacle if the best riders were racing against each other more often.
"If a rider crashes, can he not climb into a car or ambulance to get examined and then start again the next day if he hasn't broken anything. Why not? We want more humanity. We want to protect the riders' health. And why don't we allow substitutions, at least in the first week of a Grand Tour? We lost Enric on the first day to a crash. So why not at least allow us to replace him and have eight riders on the team?
"I think we've all grown used to the idea of an epic sport and the belief that all these things form part of the epic nature of the sport. But remember, football didn't allow substitutions in the past either. Why don't we give it a try? Let's take the step and see if we like it. A change is needed."
So, what do we think?
Unsurprisingly, considering everything we know about the man, Soudal Quick-Step boss Patrick Lefevere isn't a fan, and said it would "give us a headache".
[Zac Williams/SWpix.com]
"Unfortunately, falling and getting sick are part of it," he said. "A big part of your team's success is being resilient, being able to switch to a plan b. Those are the moments when the great champions rise up, bounce back from a setback – that's what people want to see. Racing is boxing: just because you're hanging in the ropes at a certain moment doesn't mean you lose the match.
"Who will determine when an injury or illness is real? I'm already looking forward to the VAR. It will be absolutely impartial and will undoubtedly consist of French doctors... No, this is going to give us a headache. I'm not going to stop this, but I'm not going to support it either. It will be for cycling after Lefevere ."
No surprises big Patrick is a man who'll refer to himself in the third-person... UAE Team Emirates' Joxean Fernández Matxin was more supportive and said in principle it is "absolutely very good" but also raises potential questions...
"It is complicated," he said. "Who will evaluate whether a crash is big enough? How serious does an injury have to be? Should you break your kneecap or is pain in your knee sufficient? And what about fatigue? After two weeks of racing, exhaustion is very similar to being ill.
"Still, I think the idea itself is absolutely very good. I am in favour of a simple variant, without medical criteria: I would give each team the right to change one rider in the last week."
Add new comment
12 comments
Re Essex police.
I can't believe no one has commented on this good news story. The force and local cycle campaign need to be congratulated. Hopefully other forces will follow suit although I suspect Lancashire may be some time.
It will be interesting to see if it is accompanied by better KSI stats for cyclists and an increase in cycling in the area.
Is it time for a Roadcc to produce a league table.
I wonder if the same proportions apply to the different report sources (drivers, cyclists, pedestrians etc) in all areas of the country.
If so, then anyone complaining about cyclists reporting dangerous driving can shut up as it is well under 50%.
If substitutions ever became a thing they would need to be strictly managed because teams would no doubt look to use it to their advantage. End of the first week, strong leadout rider is suddenly too unwell to continue and is replaced by a climber...
You would need like-for-like swaps. There would also need to be consideration about what those riders can do. For example, if you are in the breakaway on day eight of the Tour and your three breakaway companions are all substitutions that joined the race today you'd be p****d. The substitution riders would need to be excluded from all jersey competitions and I would have their GC time set to a certain number of minutes behind the current last place.
How about each team is permitted a "bench" of say three riders, all teams' riders to ride in a bunch ahead of the race with the publicity caravan, no breakaways permitted, following a set pace car. That way any time a substitute was required they would have exactly the same mileage in their legs as the person they replaced; it would also mean that the substitutes would be "live" on the road, so if they were needed they could wait at the side of the road and slot into the race at whatever position the person they were subbing left it. I know this would probably be a logistical and financial nightmare, but it would be the only fair way I can see of allowing replacements. Otherwise we could see some absurdity such as a rider who rode the last two days of the race winning the sprint on the Champs ahead of riders who had done the whole three weeks.
The cyclist dismount sign is there if as you ride your bike on the path next to the bridge barrier & fall over the side of the bridge, the authority responsible for the road & path can point to the sign telling you it was at your risk for ignoring the sign.
There are minimum barrier height requirements on bridges for different modes of use, the sign is cheaper than fixing the barriers, but are only advisory.
They don't tend to come with cyclist remount signs, relying instead on the riders common sense when its safe to do so.
It's a bit odd, because that's not even a cycle path, it's a footway. There's a 'cyclists rejoin carriageway' sign at the junction preceding it.
I can only think the intention is it applies to the road. Your point about the low barriers is valid, as you can imagine if a cyclist was caught in a gust of wind whilst riding on the road and went over the barrier, the council could still point to this sign.
But then the next bridge to the south has very similar height barriers and no 'cyclists dismount' sign.
Probably the intent was to make the path a shared cycleway over the bridge, theres one over the A14 that has them too, that forced them to install the sign, but then they abandoned the idea after more thought and just haven't been bothered enough to get rid of the sign.
The bridge to the south clearly hasn't been designated a cycle path, as that path literally goes nowhere.
It's possible they planned a cycle track, but I'm not sure. Looking back on streetview, it seems there used to be a much wider footway that has been narrowed to accomodate an extra lane of traffic. The sign does need to go though. I can imagine some motorists would think it means cyclists should get off and walk over the bridge!
I live very near this junction. The whole area was rebuilt a few years ago to accommodate high volumes of traffic entering the nearby Jaguar Land Rover and Aston Martin sites, which would cause queues onto the motorway at peak times. All the roads are new (other than the bridge). The (lousy) cycle infrastructure was installed at time of construction.
I think the bike paths provide a connecting route to the JLR site, but there is no cycle infrastructure on the far side of the bridge, and none going anywhere else. If I'm riding that way, I always stay on the road through the junction. The whole area is quiet outside JLR rush hour times.
The pavement where you are asked to dismount is too narrow for a two-way bike path, but I imagine peak bike traffic is effectively one way anyway, and building a bigger bridge would have been challenging.
It is a bit of a shame that the original road between the junction and Gaydon has been removed. It might have made a nice fully separated bike route, but it is on the wrong side of the new construction to be very useful for riders going to JLR (and a fair few do), and would still leave you having to navigate the bridge somehow.
Longbridge Island, a couple of junctions further up (and much busier at all times) has a dedicated bike/pedestrian bridge allowing you to avoid the whole thing.
I don't know if anyone else has spotted this? Last week I got diverted off the M1 (night closure) and I switched on to the A5. Anyway, somewhere between Dunstable and Milton Keynes there was a sign, at some roadworks, that said something like "pedestrians and cyclists please wait to be escorted". I did wonder why would cyclists need to be escorted on a road but again it might just be the company passing the liability buck.
Did someone at road.cc actually have to speak to that Mamnick chap for the story. You do know that an employer has a duty of care to their employees don't you?
No fan of Rapha particularly, but at least they are not on record as racist, sexist bigots who glorify gun violence.
All good prep for Tom with Sunday's XCO race in La Nucia......