Following the recent spate of collisions between cyclists and race motorbikes, Tom Boonen has suggested that it would actually be safer for riders if there were more vehicles involved in each race.
The Belgian’s point is that most collisions occur when motorbike riders are rushing to pass the peloton. Speaking to Het Nieuwsblad, he said that if there were more vehicles, there wouldn’t be quite the same pressure to get past.
He points out that passing the peloton need not be dangerous. “The problem is that it often must happen at an inappropriate time for the riders.”
Boonen believes that if there were already vehicles further up the road, there wouldn’t be such an urgent need to pass and overtaking could then perhaps be carried out more safely. “More vehicles would take away the time pressures for them,” he said.
The UCI is currently investigating the circumstances of the crash that left Lotto-Soudal’s Stig Broeckx in a coma and is also planning on updating safety rules relating to how race vehicles operate. As well as addressing the number of vehicles allowed and their positioning during races, the governing body said that the size and power of motorcycles was another issue it was considering.
15 thoughts on “Boonen says MORE motorbikes at races would improve safety”
Should come work for
Should come work for Edinburgh council this guy. They share a love of solutions that make the situation worse.
He is better placed than me
He is better placed than me to make a judgement on this. If the riders have suggestions then it would be prudent to listen to them, seeing as they are the ones who suffer when things go wrong.
Grahamd wrote:
Yes like killer disc brakes, for example.
unconstituted wrote:
Agree with Grahamd.
It amuses me how some people think they know what’s better for the peleton than the pros themselves!
700c wrote:
Yes like killer disc brakes, for example.
— unconstituted Agree with Grahamd. It amuses me how some people think they know what’s better for the peleton than the pros themselves!— Grahamd
Amuses me how irrational that was.
By your reasoning – a professional bike rider can talk utter bollocks and couldn’t be challenged by anyone that isn’t a professional bike rider.
Total nonense of course.
People in all fields should be challenged, at all times.
unconstituted wrote:
Silly me, you’re quite right. What does Tom Boonen know about pro cycling anyway?
700c wrote:
Yes like killer disc brakes, for example.
— unconstituted Agree with Grahamd. It amuses me how some people think they know what’s better for the peleton than the pros themselves!— 700c
Amuses me how irrational that was.
By your reasoning – a professional bike rider can talk utter bollocks and couldn’t be challenged by anyone that isn’t a professional bike rider.
Total nonense of course.
People in all fields should be challenged, at all times.
— unconstituted Silly me, you’re quite right. What does Tom Boonen know about pro cycling anyway?— Grahamd
Really, that’s where you’re at with all this. Zzz
unconstituted wrote:
Silly me, you’re quite right. What does Tom Boonen know about pro cycling anyway?— unconstituted
Really, that’s where you’re at with all this. Zzz— Grahamd
I resisted responding to the other thread on Van Garderen, where you’re trying to be controversial and provoke a reaction. But I wonder, is your input just designed to wind people up? (in which case not ‘trolling’, but ‘flaming’ perhaps). Or are you a serious contributer who just comes across as a bit angry and rude?
700c wrote:
I resisted responding to the other thread on Van Garderen, where you’re trying to be controversial and provoke a reaction. But I wonder, is your input just designed to wind people up? (in which case not ‘trolling’, but ‘flaming’ perhaps). Or are you a serious contributer who just comes across as a bit angry and rude?[/quote]
On better run forums there is ability to get rid of tools like this. It requires a consensus to rid these parasites, but it can be done.
I try to approach forum input as if I am at the pub when I make any replies. You would soon know when you’ve stepped over the mark.
I’d suggest that some posters get out of their bedrooms and learn some social interaction skills (for instance at a pub) that would avoid the hate that they get.
“Comes across as”???
“Comes across as”???
Really, that’s where you’re at with all this. Zzz— unconstituted
I resisted responding to the other thread on Van Garderen, where you’re trying to be controversial and provoke a reaction. But I wonder, is your input just designed to wind people up? (in which case not ‘trolling’, but ‘flaming’ perhaps). Or are you a serious contributer who just comes across as a bit angry and rude?— Grahamd
He have good point about more
He have good point about more vehicle, more cam placement, less necessary to pass riders&peloton and then its more safety.
Most accident happens by passing too close and too soon. When you get rid of necessary to pass them, they can ride safer and less worries about vehicle passing from behind.
I agreed with this idea.
Drones.
That is all.
Drones.
That is all.
Morat wrote:
Nailed it. This is the natural conclusion to all this.
Everything else is myopic.
unconstituted wrote:
Nailed it how?
It’s not the camera bikes that are constantly racing past the riders. It’s the ‘marshall’ bikes racing to get ahead so they can manage the rolling road closures etc.
Ah, drones !
Ah, drones !