Rider and car (nearly) collide on the Koppenberg in the 1987 Tour of Flanders.
Every time I go riding, I know I subject myself to masses of cars and motorcycles, each of which has the potential to momentarily occupy the same space my bicycle and I are occupying, a physical impossibility that Nature will resolve via a messy process involving my death. I don’t know very much about the vehicles surrounding me or their drivers, apart from that they likely don’t know how vulnerable a Cyclist is, or how much longer it takes us to stop than it does them, particularly in the wet. I know that they don’t appreciate how fast a bicycle can travel, or that I likely can’t see or hear them coming up from behind, or that I don’t know whether they can see me at all or whether or not they will pull out in front of me even if they do. But I am certain that they don’t appreciate how lethal their vehicle is and I am even more certain that they are likely distracted; they might as well be pointing a loaded gun at me.
This reality comes with the territory of being a road Cyclist, and I accept that. I take every reasonable precaution I can to be safe, apart from not riding my bike in the first place; a life without Cycling on the road hardly seems like a life in the first place. I am also fortunate to have ridden as long as I have and that my experience has allowed me to develop a sort of sixth sense when it comes to recognizing which drivers are about to do something that will put me at risk. I accept the risk, I do whatever I can to control those factors I can, and hope for the privilege to return home safely and ready for The Next Ride.
I am terribly saddened by the death of Antoine Demoitie during Gent Wevelgem after being struck by a motorcycle involved with the race. I understand that motor vehicles are a part of the race, including for the purpose of providing live pictures for us, the fans. But I personally find it unacceptable that riders are being put at the same risk that we encounter on the street when we go out training. A bicycle race is already rife with danger; adding the risk of being hit by a car seems reckless.
I read Breaking the Chain shortly after it was first published. Apart from the shocking tale of drug use in the peloton, the story relays how many stimulants are used by the drivers in the following caravan. The notion that the bike race is packed to the gills with vehicles whose drivers are not only distracted and stressed out but are also intoxicated sends the imagination to dark, dark places. We will never be able to eliminate the risk of vehicles hitting riders, but we can certainly take measures to reduce their frequency. Race vehicles hitting riders isn’t new, but their occurrence have dotted race history with a frequency that makes the individual accidents noteworthy, the 1987 Tour of Flanders being a standout case. But it seems like every recent race involves an incident between a rider and a race vehicle, to the point that these accidents have even influenced the outcome of the race on several occasions. It all points to the fact that we’ve prioritized the publicity of the events over the safety of the riders. That prioritization is perverse and entirely in the race organizer’s control. It is time they take whatever measures necessary to minimize the risk to the riders who already stand to lose their lives without the help of the vehicles in the race.
On Sunday, Antoine was denied his Next Ride. Our thoughts and condolences go to his wife, family, and friends. Changing our approach to the motorcade will never bring Antoine back to life, but it can help us avoid repeating this tragedy. If the solution involves less live television coverage, then I’ll be the first to raise my hand and say I’ll happily give up the privilege of seeing the races live. I hope Antoine is the last rider to suffer his fate.
I know as well as any of you that I've been checked out lately, kind…
Peter Sagan has undergone quite the transformation over the years; starting as a brash and…
The Women's road race has to be my favorite one-day road race after Paris-Roubaix and…
Holy fuckballs. I've never been this late ever on a VSP. I mean, I've missed…
This week we are currently in is the most boring week of the year. After…
I have memories of my life before Cycling, but as the years wear slowly on…
View Comments
@davidlhill
I'm just thinking of it as realpolitik - the authority may well be with the UCI but the power is with the big race organisers like ASO and RSC. We've seen that again and again. Don't forget how this all started. Races were publicity events for newspapers.
They hold the commercial rights and if the UCI said "Only 4 press bikes per 60 riders" or something like that, the owners could say their ability to market and commercialise the race was being limited and who was going to pick up the tab.
Whereas the owners could enforce a pool tomorrow if they wanted. Pools are not unusual - they often take place on government or charity events where there are only X seats on a plane, or where they are trying to avoid having 20 cameras trampling the flowerbeds.
I'm not saying it isn't possible with a dialogue between the UCI, organisers and riders but it requires common-sense and compromise on all sides so...
Safety in bicycle racing is about what it was in Formula One in the 60s and early 70s. It took enough carnage and drivers dying (I still remember Francois Cevert's crash at Watkins Glen in '73 that caused Jackie Stewart -- my all-time favorite F1 driver -- to retire one race earlier than originally planned) before F1 took safety seriously. But it took a long time. It's why you now see race tracks with so much runoff and "soft" safety barriers. If any of you saw Fernando Alonso crash at the opening F1 race in Australia this year, a crash like that would likely have been fatal not that long ago. It's sad to say about our sport, but it's probably going to take more tragic incidents like Antoine Demoitie (RIP) to happen before anything changes. ASO in particular seems very much wedded to an "old school" model for what the sport of cycling should look like.
I wish you would use crash instead of accident, Frank.
https://pinboard.in/u:tedder42/t:crash-not-accident/
The part I've never understood is that the photomotos seem to be free to thread as and when they please. I'd have thought that they should be allocated to "ahead" or "behind" and then have clear rules on what position they can take in splits.
OK I guess they will often want to get ahead to take static shots and then jump back on to catch up but the timing of when they can thread seems to need policing as often they can be seen tooting horns to thread a massed peleton spread the full width of a narrow road. That always just seems to be asking for trouble and in such time they should not be allowed to pass.
@Teocalli
Reminds me of this video from last year's TDF. 1:10-ish and Cav is shouting to let riders in front know that a bunch of motos are shoving their way up the verge. It's sort of amazing that *more* riders don't get hurt.
https://youtu.be/HpJFUiwFi6k
@Owen
And those were Police motos with sirens - stealth mode photomoto in that sort of situation should not be allowed to pass.
I am confused by discussions like this. First there is an acknowledgement that cycling, particularly bike racing, has risks. But then when those risks show themselves there are suggestions that the risks should not exist.
Any time such an incident occurs it calls for an evaluation of the stayus quo to determine if things need to change. Some how, Kobelev's death was the tipping point for requiring helmets. Why then and not after Casayelli's! Who knows.
Much of what I read here is about the beauty and freedom of cycling. Some of that comes from being inspired by the pros. To see the races vehicles are necessary. Should number of vehicles be looked at? Sure. But recognize they are there because there is a demand, and we are that demand. So is some of our reaction to this tragedy due to guilt? Maybe, but just know there is no way to erase the risks and In some ways isn't it the risks they take that is intriguing? The pros know that, and we know that. Sadly some of the risks are not as romantic as decents down twisty cols...they are for motorbikes and press vehicles, but risks are risks.
@Teocalli
Seriously.
@Ted G
Seems to me there's a quantifiable difference between "risk of impatient driver on regular street" and "moto in professional bike race who should know better." Risks can be mitigated. In the case of a professional race, strict vetting and training of moto riders/drivers, reasonable numbers of motos allowed per event, strict limitations on passing/engagement with riders (how many times do we see a rider waving the moto out of his face?), etc should be the norm.
even with the the limitations and regulations you suggest there is still the potential for tragedy no? We are all falable so there are no guarantees for safety. That begs the question of what is safe enough? Considering the number of professional bike races each year, the number of bike racers I each of those races, and the number of serious and/fatal incidents could it be that despite the risks, riders are more at risk is other parts of their lives then they are when they are racing bikes?
@Ted G
Nobody is asking for safety guarantees, just an examination of whether current practices pose an unacceptable risk in comparison to the benefit they provide.
Circumstances and opinions evolve in sport as in life. What was acceptable 20 years ago is often not acceptable today and it is the duty of organisers and authorities to take part in that discussion.
It's incremental not absolute.