# "Radios make the racing safer"



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

... shall we now revisit this topic?


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

I contend that radios and the resulting evolution of team tactics has actually made the racing more dangerous.

When every director in every car says, at the same point in the course "be at the front" then the squeezes and crashes are inevitable.

What would happen without the director in your ear? Many riders would slide back, tailgun the pack, not take risks... and the overall pack would be safer.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

Sure. But is this tour significantly less safe?

http://cyclocosm.com/2011/07/has-the-2011-tour-de-france-really-been-more-dangerous/

Although maybe its not the racers' radios we should be worried about but the in car radios.

http://pages.citebite.com/s8j5v9f3wcvq


----------



## dalessit (Dec 4, 2009)

Creakyknees said:


> ... shall we now revisit this topic?


I am all for Race Radio's but not sure how that would have helped any of the crashes that have happened so far. They've pretty much been in the middle of the Peloton so everyone in the race knows what's going on. 

In all the big crashes teams have had guys back with the guy on the ground waiting for him to get up so they can pull him back up to the group.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

kbiker3111 said:


> Sure. But is this tour significantly less safe?
> 
> http://cyclocosm.com/2011/07/has-the-2011-tour-de-france-really-been-more-dangerous/
> 
> ...


Sounds like creaky "did not do the math"


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

den bakker said:


> Sounds like creaky "did not do the math"


since when are facts relevant to this discussion?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Creakyknees said:


> since when are facts relevant to this discussion?


I just remember you using the same phrase in the past  
I don't see anything relevant out of this anyway.


----------



## DZfan14 (Jul 6, 2009)

The lion's share of the riders seem to believe they are safer with them. I defer to the inmates.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

kbiker3111 said:


> Sure. But is this tour significantly less safe?
> 
> http://cyclocosm.com/2011/07/has-the-2011-tour-de-france-really-been-more-dangerous/
> 
> ...


Cosmo's math is wrong, as noted in the comments.

But let's get back to my OP - are radios making the racing safer? I see no evidence in support of that statement.


----------



## Jrmccain (Apr 11, 2007)

I wonder how many guys want to say "fock this" when they hear director yelling in their ear but know the entire team is marching to the same orders and defiance would be obvious. It has definitely made the tactics and moves more organized, but I don't know if that is always a good thing.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

kbiker3111 said:


> Sure. But is this tour significantly less safe?
> 
> http://cyclocosm.com/2011/07/has-the-2011-tour-de-france-really-been-more-dangerous/
> 
> ...


Cosmo's numbers don't differentiate causes of elimination. It could be that the team was ejected off the race (Festina), quit in sympathy (ONCE), riders missed time cuts, riders had ongoing injuries (Fignon), etc etc etc etc.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

orange_julius said:


> Cosmo's numbers don't differentiate causes of elimination. It could be that the team was ejected off the race (Festina), quit in sympathy (ONCE), riders missed time cuts, riders had ongoing injuries (Fignon), etc etc etc etc.


yep... and Cosmo's numbers entirely ignore cases like Contador and Leipheimer, who are still in the race but have lost time to crashes... there are lots of crashes that do not result in DNF's


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

Further case in point: the car that knocked down Hoogerland and Flecha, had a radio of course... and ignored instructions to not pass.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Creakyknees said:


> Further case in point: the car that knocked down Hoogerland and Flecha, had a radio of course... and ignored instructions to not pass.


So therefore, the radio did nothing positive nor negative.

So that's a reason to ban them?

The radio is not the issue, it is the human on the end of the radio that is the issue.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Elementary nOOB question:

What year did riders start wearing radios?



I'm going to take a W.A.G. and say mid '90's.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

As a former DS (women's team) I say they make things safer, we used em ALOT at races like Philly to inform the riders of hazards coming up they could not see/know about (like then men's pack headed at them).


----------



## SantaCruz (Mar 22, 2002)

DZfan14 said:


> The lion's share of the riders seem to believe they are safer with them. I defer to the inmates.


+1

If the majority of riders and DS's believe in race radios, who am I to disagree. I say they should ban the UCI.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

SantaCruz said:


> +1
> 
> If the majority of riders and DS's believe in race radios, who am I to disagree. I say they should ban the UCI.


Belief is fine for religion. I prefer evidence when we are talking about people's jobs and professions. And I have't seen any. Have you?


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

Creakyknees said:


> Cosmo's math is wrong, as noted in the comments.
> 
> But let's get back to my OP - are radios making the racing safer? I see no evidence in support of that statement.


I think radios make the race safer.

It's not that the "go to the front" command is something the riders don't know already. But the DS can warn the riders about upcoming obstacles, narrow roads, wet conditions etc., which makes the road safer.

it also makes the race more fair, since if someone has a mechanical, they are very likely to lose a big chunk of time (and perhaps the race) if radios are to be banned.

The counter-arguments that the radios make races more predictable and controlled since peloton knows the timegaps and can control the catch of a breakaway perfectly - there is nothing to stop a team from positioning a number of people (pay some spectators?) on the roads who will announce the time gaps. And with amount of technology we have, there will be cheating (texting to the garmin devices, anyone?). Do we really want to worry about yet another form of "cheaters"?

Constantly propagating information through peloton (sending a domestique to the car and then have him deliver the update by "salmoning" through peloton) is yet another way to get timegaps and other info, but this also presents yet another safety problem, if radios are to be eliminated.

Bottom line - I don't see much in terms of advantages, but a lot of disadvantages. In the end, riders and teams should have stronger voice in these and other decisions, and they seem to be predominantly in favor of keeping the radios, due primarily to safety and logistics concerns. They have a good point.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

55x11 said:


> I think radios make the race safer.
> 
> It's not that the "go to the front" command is something the riders don't know already. But the DS can warn the riders about upcoming obstacles, narrow roads, wet conditions etc., which makes the road safer.
> 
> ...


You are confusing tactical issues with safety issues. 

I do not dispute that radios make it way easier to coordinate racing tactics.

I do dispute the assertion that radios have any positive effect at all on rider safety, and I still have yet to see any evidence (though thanks for re-stating the same assertions that have been stated previously many times).


----------



## asciibaron (Aug 11, 2006)

DZfan14 said:


> The lion's share of the riders seem to believe they are safer with them. I defer to the inmates.


i miss the days when riders had to not only be good riders but also ride smart. now they have someone telling them everyone that is happening as it happens so they don't have to be great tactical masters.

this is of course secondary to the safety information they get via radio... i'm sure that a comment like "crash on the right, move to the left and push up" is purely helpful to prevent someone getting hurt.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

Creakyknees said:


> I do dispute the assertion that radios have any positive effect at all on rider safety, and I still have yet to see any evidence (though thanks for re-stating the same assertions that have been stated previously many times).


Ok I will give you a real life example. Two years ago at Philly there was construction that narrowed part of the course headed out and back from the wall. As bad luck would have it the mens and womens race were going to be passing each other in opposite directions through that section. Race radio informed us and we were able to tell our riders to move over it was scary and tense but no one crashed. Would peole have crashed without the radios? I don't know for certian but being able to pre warn the riders rather than people finding out by poping out to the side only to see the front of anothe feild was a nice option to have. When you trapped in a pack of a 100+ riders you can't always see whats coming up and things change even on a course that you know and have preridden.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

If they woulda had radios they could've been warned about that slippery courner and been better prepared. Possibly not crashed.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

32and3cross said:


> Ok I will give you a real life example. Two years ago at Philly there was construction that narrowed part of the course headed out and back from the wall. As bad luck would have it the mens and womens race were going to be passing each other in opposite directions through that section. Race radio informed us and we were able to tell our riders to move over it was scary and tense but no one crashed. Would peole have crashed without the radios? I don't know for certian but being able to pre warn the riders rather than people finding out by poping out to the side only to see the front of anothe feild was a nice option to have. When you trapped in a pack of a 100+ riders you can't always see whats coming up and things change even on a course that you know and have preridden.


what 34and3cross said.

Obvious safety issues:
Warnings from the car: "watch out for steep left turn coming up, it will be wet, slow down".

Less obvious but still important safety issues:
* having domestique riders constantly rotate back to the car through the caravan and then weave back through caravan and through the dense peloton to deliver various messages from the car verbally - dramatically increasing likelihood of car-bike collisions of the type we saw in Flecha-Hoogerland crash

* having domestiques riders who happen to be riding ahead of a crash or mechanical hit the breaks hard and ride backwards to check for their teammates (creating one giant clusterf&ck) because they have no way to get information about who is involved in mechanical or crash behind them

* putting even more emphasis for all key riders (GC, sprinters, yellow/white/polka dot/green jersey etc.) to ride on the front all the time, because of unlikely help from any teammates if you ride in the middle or the back of the peloton (they will never get the message you need a wheel, or you stopped to get your bike swapped)


----------



## asciibaron (Aug 11, 2006)

velodog said:


> If they woulda had radios they could've been warned about that slippery courner and been better prepared. Possibly not crashed.


how would someone driving behind the race know if the road was wet ahead of the race? part of being a cyclist is reading the road.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

asciibaron said:


> how would someone driving behind the race know if the road was wet ahead of the race? part of being a cyclist is reading the road.



Because the race org vehicles ahead of the race radio back course conditions to the team cars. While reading the road is part of a being cyclist there are pleanty of things taht you can be ready for esp if your back in the pack some race radios help with that.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

32and3cross said:


> Ok I will give you a real life example. Two years ago at Philly there was construction that narrowed part of the course headed out and back from the wall. As bad luck would have it the mens and womens race were going to be passing each other in opposite directions through that section. Race radio informed us and we were able to tell our riders to move over it was scary and tense but no one crashed. Would peole have crashed without the radios? I don't know for certian but being able to pre warn the riders rather than people finding out by poping out to the side only to see the front of anothe feild was a nice option to have. When you trapped in a pack of a 100+ riders you can't always see whats coming up and things change even on a course that you know and have preridden.


so, an inherently unsafe course design... and some cones in the middle of the road would not have the same effect? or a cop with a whistle and a flag (like the Tour does it...)

that's really the best evidence you've got?


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

32and3cross said:


> Because the race org vehicles ahead of the race radio back course conditions to the team cars. While reading the road is part of a being cyclist there are pleanty of things taht you can be ready for esp if your back in the pack some race radios help with that.


Seriously... come on. I know you've been in enough race situations to know better. Riders will go too fast for the conditions in a criterium where they hit the same wet corner every lap... how is that any different than having some vague warning "hey there's water on this descent". No ****, we are racing in the rain, yeah maybe the descent might be wet.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

55x11 said:


> what 34and3cross said.
> 
> Obvious safety issues:
> Warnings from the car: "watch out for steep left turn coming up, it will be wet, slow down".
> ...


let's take these one by one.
'Warnings from the car: "watch out for steep left turn coming up, it will be wet, slow down"."
- addressed in my previous reply. Simply, those warnings are redundant and valueless - racers are going to haul ass, it's a race, that's what they do. From watching Tour tv it seems to me the most effective safety measure is a cop with whistle and a flag... seems the riders just ignore everything else.

"* having domestique riders constantly rotate back to the car through the caravan and then weave back through caravan and through the dense peloton to deliver various messages from the car verbally - dramatically increasing likelihood of car-bike collisions of the type we saw in Flecha-Hoogerland crash"
- first of all, the Hoogerland crash had nothing to do with domestiques in the peloton as you are no doubt aware. 
- second... have you not seen the guys with jerseys full of bottles? What exactly do you think the domestiques do all day? (hint: they go back and forth thru the pack). They will do that with or without radios.

"* having domestiques riders who happen to be riding ahead of a crash or mechanical hit the breaks hard and ride backwards to check for their teammates (creating one giant clusterf&ck) because they have no way to get information about who is involved in mechanical or crash behind them"

Now you are reaching into hypotheticals. Have you ever actually seen this happen, and it was a safety issue? I know it happens all the time at stage finishes as riders go backwards on the course to get to the bus or hotel but I've never heard of any crash resulting. 

"* putting even more emphasis for all key riders (GC, sprinters, yellow/white/polka dot/green jersey etc.) to ride on the front all the time, because of unlikely help from any teammates if you ride in the middle or the back of the peloton (they will never get the message you need a wheel, or you stopped to get your bike swapped"

Um, how is that different from the same exact thing they are told to do now... resulting in crashes?


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Radios have not made it any safer out there, they have just turned a game of chess into a game of checkers.

A cyclist who can read a race is more deserving of a win than one who has the better legs but must be told what to do with them.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

Creakyknees said:


> so, an inherently unsafe course design... and some cones in the middle of the road would not have the same effect? or a cop with a whistle and a flag (like the Tour does it...)
> 
> that's really the best evidence you've got?


Where would you put the cones in the road so some rider could hit them? Same with a cop where would he stand how would he communicate the on coming field? The solutions you are putting forward would have been poor for the situation which was happening on the fly, I will give you, tho, the fact that you were not there so it's difficult for you to form a picture of what kind of hazard you are looking at. 

Is that the best evidence I have, not really but its a good example. What is your evidence taht they don't add to safety? I have been in the position of warning riders of hazards on teh fly froma team car. I have seen the effects of having a radio first hand and provided you with an example, you have provided nothing to the oppose the idea that the riders listen. The idea that just because people fly through wet corners in crits is a bad example to put forward. Yeah people fly through wet corners in crits after the have gone through them a few times fast and seen they could go faster. The the races we are talking about they don't get to the see the corners until the are on them.

While my experinece is not extensive I do have some as a DS in a UCI races, to draw from. In addition I get to talk to alot of people on the inside about the radios and the courses as well as spend time in the caravan in press cars. So I have seen how uncontrolled this can be first hand and what the radios offer as far the ability to run a race on roads with changing conditions. 

Do they alter the tractics - sure they do to some degree. Do they provide safety - hell yes they do with out a doubt. Now the trick is deciding if the loss of safty is worth the supposed increase of exciment when the radios are removed.


----------



## jswilson64 (May 20, 2008)

velodog said:


> A cyclist who can read a race is more deserving of a win than one who has the better legs but must be told what to do with them.


You can take pretty much any technology and make almost the same argument. "XXXX has made it so much easier on the riders, they don't have to think about YYYY any more." Whether it's derailleurs, electronic shifting, "funny bikes," disc brakes (coming soon), name it. And DS's have always dictated the race -- remember LeMond's heartbreak in 1985? Radio just makes it more immediate.

The issue isn't radios, it's control. The directors want radios, the riders want radios; the UCI doesn't want radios, and the teams are drawing a line in the sand. It could just as well be the type of plastic the water bottles are made of, or what color socks the riders can wear.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

32and3cross said:


> What is your evidence taht they don't add to safety?.


This is the core of this debate so let's talk about it.

There is no evidence. Cycling does not keep sufficiently detailed records. So we can only go on personal recollections, experience and hearsay. But I am not the one defending radios - you are, so flip the question around - where is your collection of stats to support your assertion? 

There is perception, though. And it seems to be a pretty popular perception that this Tour has had a lot of crashes. So if that's true, then clearly radios have failed to prevent it. In fact the only case we know for sure radios were involved (Flecha/Hoogerland) the radio instructions were explicitly ignored.

So now we're down to the he said / she said. DS's and riders say they want radios. I have no problem with them wanting radios, like I said earlier, from a racing perspective they are really useful. 

But I do have a problem with them saying "safety" and then not having any evidence.

Because if you remove "safety" then the reasons to have radios boil down to "tactical advantage" and that is less defensible in the eyes of cycling fans.

So, the proof of "safety" should be on those who want the radios... not those who want to eliminate them. And I haven't seen it.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

jswilson64 said:


> The issue isn't radios, it's control.


This I agree with. When a sponsor spends $X million, they do not want a 25 year old making the wrong decision in the heat of competition. They want Johan or Jonathan in the car giving grownup supervision.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

Creakyknees said:


> This is the core of this debate so let's talk about it.
> 
> There is no evidence. Cycling does not keep sufficiently detailed records. So we can only go on personal recollections, experience and hearsay. But I am not the one defending radios - you are, so flip the question around - where is your collection of stats to support your assertion?
> 
> ...


And I have seen proof and I know your wrong, but you can continue to argue it all you want we are not making and progress here so I'm done.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Creakyknees said:


> This is the core of this debate so let's talk about it.
> 
> There is no evidence. Cycling does not keep sufficiently detailed records. So we can only go on personal recollections, experience and hearsay. But I am not the one defending radios - you are, so flip the question around - where is your collection of stats to support your assertion?
> 
> ...


After watching the season's racing thus far, I'd question how much more exciting the racing can get. 

It seems that the only "reason" that luddites have for wanting radios gone is that it improves "excitement" or "brings back the good old days." Yet when you have races like Paris Nice (which had several breakaways hold off the field to win by seconds, even with radios screaming in the ears of the peloton) the Giro with it's bizarre turns of events, Tour stages which see guys like Thor climbing with the best in the business to save his jersey....it's hard to ask for more excitement.

The previous comment was right: it's all about control. There's no _good_ reason to ban radios in pro racing. It has worked for the past 20 years (give or take) and is a natural progression of the sport. The way I see it, why make the change if there isn't a good reason to do so? The body asking for the change should be the one providing sound reasons to make said change, not the other way around.

IMO.


----------



## Chainstay (Mar 13, 2004)

Creakyknees said:


> I do dispute the assertion that radios have any positive effect at all on rider safety, and I still have yet to see any evidence (though thanks for re-stating the same assertions that have been stated previously many times).


There can be no reliable evidence either way so your request is meaningless. Race situations and accident occurrences are far too fluid to collect meaningful comparison data between races with and without radios. Too many factors have changed over time including team tactics, field sizes, road furniture and spectators on the road. 

What do you want a controlled study? I respect the riders judgement more than I would some unreliable comparison statistics from a small irrelevant sample


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

Chainstay said:


> There can be no reliable evidence either way so your request is meaningless. Race situations and accident occurrences are far too fluid to collect meaningful comparison data between races with and without radios. Too many factors have changed over time including team tactics, field sizes, road furniture and spectators on the road.
> 
> What do you want a controlled study? I respect the riders judgement more than I would some unreliable comparison statistics from a small irrelevant sample


This is incorrect. For the past year, radios have been banned from Continental and Pro Continental races. If anyone was bothering to collect the data, it would probably be quite useful.


----------



## asciibaron (Aug 11, 2006)

32and3cross said:


> Because the race org vehicles ahead of the race radio back course conditions to the team cars. While reading the road is part of a being cyclist there are pleanty of things taht you can be ready for esp if your back in the pack some race radios help with that.


i can tell you exactly where i'll be attacking.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

Creakyknees said:


> Seriously... come on. I know you've been in enough race situations to know better. Riders will go too fast for the conditions in a criterium where they hit the same wet corner every lap... how is that any different than having some vague warning "hey there's water on this descent". No ****, we are racing in the rain, yeah maybe the descent might be wet.


well, it certainly does help to know this and there are many examples of this type of radio communications that we heard from the DS when they show footage from the cars on TV.
Repeated "road narrows on the descent" was a warning from one of the cars (Radioshack?) just a stage or two ago.

I believe the Vino/Zabriskie/Van den Broeck crash happened on the same corner where Hoogerland had to unclip and almost went down just a few minutes earlier. Not sure if this was radioed to the riders, but one could imagine that had Garmin car relayed this to their riders on the front (Zabriskie, Millar?), the entire pileup could have been prevented.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

asciibaron said:


> i can tell you exactly where i'll be attacking.


attack entire peloton on a dangerous wet curve on a descent, with 50K to go and a 5-man breakaway 4 minutes up ahead? 

good luck with that.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

55x11 said:


> well, it certainly does help to know this and there are many examples of this type of radio communications that we heard from the DS when they show footage from the cars on TV.
> Repeated "road narrows on the descent" was a warning from one of the cars (Radioshack?) just a stage or two ago.
> 
> I believe the Vino/Zabriskie/Van den Broeck crash happened on the same corner where Hoogerland had to unclip and almost went down just a few minutes earlier. Not sure if this was radioed to the riders, but one could imagine that had Garmin car relayed this to their riders on the front (Zabriskie, Millar?), the entire pileup could have been prevented.


sure, imagine anything you want. but they all had radios and crashed anyway, that's the facts.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Creakyknees said:


> sure, imagine anything you want. but they all had radios and crashed anyway, that's the facts.


they also had brakes and crashed anyway. Fact. 
They also had handlebar tape and crashed anyway. Fact.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

den bakker said:


> they also had brakes and crashed anyway. Fact.
> They also had handlebar tape and crashed anyway. Fact.


so when the fans start demanding that the UCI bans brakes and bar tape, we can debate those.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Creakyknees said:


> so when the fans start demanding that the UCI bans brakes and bar tape, we can debate those.


which percentage of fans wants radios gone?


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

den bakker said:


> which percentage of fans wants radios gone?


I have no idea. You might check with the UCI.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Creakyknees said:


> I have no idea. You might check with the UCI.


Why? I'm not the one speaking on behalf of the fans. 
But I do agree with the first sentence.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

den bakker said:


> Why? I'm not the one speaking on behalf of the fans.
> But I do agree with the first sentence.


Thanks for trying to derail the thread. This is about safety. Do radios improve rider safety, or not?


----------



## RUFUSPHOTO (Oct 14, 2010)

Creakyknees said:


> This I agree with. When a sponsor spends $X million, they do not want a 25 year old making the wrong decision in the heat of competition. They want Johan or Jonathan in the car giving grownup supervision.


Why do you want them banned? 

Also, not one of us here is a pro rider of that caliber nor are we in the management position to say if they are useful, safe, or whatever you want to debate about. 

I think that they are a valuable tool during races, as for radios making it safer, I don't think so YET I do not know.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

Creakyknees said:


> let's take these one by one.
> 'Warnings from the car: "watch out for steep left turn coming up, it will be wet, slow down"."
> - addressed in my previous reply. Simply, those warnings are redundant and valueless - racers are going to haul ass, it's a race, that's what they do. From watching Tour tv it seems to me the most effective safety measure is a cop with whistle and a flag... seems the riders just ignore everything else.
> 
> ...


well, your best arguments seem to be:
1. we can't make the racing safe(r) because riders only care about racing fast
2. having more riders going back and forth through the cars to get information (think water bottle getting times 10) will not affect safety
3. nothing else will change in the way riders respond to crashes and mechanicals - and imagining how riders will try to adopt is "hypotheticals"

I strongly disagree with 1 and 2 - riders want to stay safe and can sacrifice speed for safety if warned appropriately. Less information - about what happens to teammates will change the way they ride, which will affect safety. And the entire discussion is a hypothetical (what IF they ban race radios).

A better question is: what is to be GAINED by banning race radios?

There's clearly well-defined (and in my opinion easily defensible) arguments that radios help safety, and also logistics that will make race outcomes more fair (minimizing chances that somebody loses the tour due to flat tire). What are the best arguments for banning radios?


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

55x11 said:


> well, your best arguments seem to be:
> 1. we can't make the racing safe(r) because riders only care about racing fast
> 2. having more riders going back and forth through the cars to get information (think water bottle getting times 10) will not affect safety
> 3. nothing else will change in the way riders respond to crashes and mechanicals - and imagining how riders will try to adopt is "hypotheticals"
> ...



Of the 3 items you list, I haven't said any of those. Please read my replies carefully, and I'd appreciate if you quote me accurately.

Further, I'm not asking to ban radios. At least, not in this thread. 

I am simply asking, do race radios improve rider safety, or not?

So far I've seen attempts to derail the topic. 

I've seen hypothetical arguments, which I think are kind of silly since the UCI has already banned radios in Continental and Pro Continental, so there should be plenty of actual races to review, if anybody bothered. 

I've received a couple of personal jabs, which frankly befuddle me but don't surprise me, since this is the internet. 

I've seen at least one person who claims to be experienced, share some personal views. Those are not without merit and I have no reason to doubt his/her claims, but still, that's not the same as evidence.

But what I have not seen is any fact-based evidence. I have not seen anyone say "we reviewed every race with and without race radios and here are the data about crashes and injuries we found." The closest we got was Cosmo's blog, which, while a commendable attempt, was just plain wrong. 

So where are we? Still arguing with no facts. We are being asked to simply accept the opinions of people who clearly stand to benefit from the continued use of race radios (the Directors). Sorry, I reject that.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

Creakyknees said:


> Of the 3 items you list, I haven't said any of those. Please read my replies carefully, and I'd appreciate if you quote me accurately.


Quote from your previous argument: "Simply, those warnings are redundant and valueless - racers are going to haul ass, it's a race, that's what they do. "

If we accept a priori that riders will simply ignore any safety information transmitted through race radios, then I am sorry to say this discussion is meaningless. The radios will obviously have ZERO effect on safety if we are to accept from the start that riders will ignore any and all radio warnings and "haul ass" just because "tit's a race and that's what they do". But I don't think we need to accept that.

The rest of my arguments of what might logically happen if race radios are outlawed (constant trips to support car for info updates; looping back in case of crashing or mechanicals to look for teammates in absence of other information) were dismissed by you as hypothetical, and that's true - they are hypothetical by definition - this is just imagining what would happen if radios were banned.

The only way to *prove* safety benefits of race radio is either imagine what would happen if there were no radios (hypotheticals) or run identical TdF race with no race radios - which UCI tried to do and ended up with rider protests and neutralized stages.

The flip question is then: would it be safer WITH radio ban? What is on the other side of the balance? What are the benefits of radio ban that makes people to go along with it? 

Why should UCI overrule the voice of the riders and impose the ban? Based on what arguments?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Creakyknees said:


> Thanks for trying to derail the thread. This is about safety. Do radios improve rider safety, or not?


yes..

edit: examples have been given in this thread and others are available, for example in Jens Voights letter some time ago. 
I am not sure of any specific cases where the presence of radios made it more dangerous for anyone.


----------



## MattSoutherden (Jun 24, 2009)

It seems to me like the main reason (cited in this thread) for radios is also the cause of some of the problems. That is warning about upcoming hazards.

Although it seems obvious that warning the riders about tight corners, slippery road, technical roundabouts, etc, can only help protect them, then effect it has on the pack also contributes to the danger. When 22 DSs get on the radio to say "Take care on this slippery narrow descent", all the teams start swarming to the front to try and keep their protected riders safe, and in front of any problems. And what happend when 22 teams all start trying to get to the front? The pace rockets.

It's catch 22.*

To me, the best argument for radios I've heard is the one presented by Jonathan Vaughters** in his CyclingNews blog:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/jonathan-vaughters/radio-silence




* If you'll pardon the pun.

** Surprising, I know.


----------



## asciibaron (Aug 11, 2006)

55x11 said:


> attack entire peloton on a dangerous wet curve on a descent, with 50K to go and a 5-man breakaway 4 minutes up ahead?
> 
> good luck with that.


because that happens in every race


----------



## Speedi Pig (Apr 18, 2004)

It seems that most of the riders want the radios saying they improive safety. Since these are the guys whose butts are on the line, wouldn't the UCI be wise (there IS a first time for everything) to defer to their judgement.

As for making the Tour safer, fewer vehicles in the caravan seems obvious. Maybe cut the teams from 9 riders to 6 or 7? Smaller teams might make tactics more critical and the racing more interesting with fewer domestiques in the lead-out, leading GC contenders up mountains, and fetching bottles.


----------



## Chris Oz (Oct 8, 2005)

I say let them have radios all tuned to a single channel controlled by the RD. The RD can give the warnings, updates, directions and notification of riders down. Nice and safe, with no team directors on the channel.

On a side note the safer you make a race the more risks the riders will take. As a nice thought exercise imagine driving a car that has explosives in it rigged to your bumper bar (fender). How are you going to drive? Now compare that to how your would drive a bumper car? The safer riders feel the more risks they will take. This is not to say we should deliberately neglect safety. More to suggest that making things safer doesn't always reduce the risk.

One of the bigger things I have notice over the years is what appears to be a dramatic increase in street furniture (eg round abouts, traffic islands, speed bumps). It may just be that I am noticing it more but it and very narrow roads seems to be contributing to making racing more dangerous.


----------

