Cyclists in Italy have demanded reform of the country’s road safety laws and better education for motorists, after a promising teenage cyclist was killed during a training ride on Friday, when she was hit by an overtaking driver.
19-year-old Sara Piffer, who was set to enter her second year with UCI Continental team Mendelspeck, was training with her brother in the northern Italian region of Trentino on Friday when she was fatally struck.
According to La Gazzetta dello Sport, an initial reconstruction of the incident, which took place on a straight road between Mezzocorona and Mezzolombardo, revealed that the driver was travelling in the opposite direction to Piffer, and collided with the 19-year-old while attempting to overtake another motorist.
It has been reported in the Italian press that the overtaking driver has claimed that he couldn’t see the two approaching cyclists due to the low sun.
Piffer was treated by paramedics at the scene and taken to hospital by helicopter, where it was confirmed that she died from her injuries. Her brother Christian, an amateur racer, suffered only minor injuries in the crash.
The 19-year-old’s tragic death came as she was preparing for her second season at UCI Continental level with Team Mendelspeck, after a promising 2024 which saw her pick up a victory at the GP Città di Corridonia, place second at the Cronoscalata Festa dell’Uva uphill time trial, and finish fifth in the young rider classification at the Tour Féminin International des Pyrénées.
She started the season by making her debut among the very best riders in the world in the Women’s World Tour races Strade Bianche and the Trofeo Alfredo Binda.
The previous year, Piffer was sixth and eighth in the Italian junior time trial and road race championships respectively, and was also touted as a future track racing prospect.
According to Mendelspeck team director Renato Pirrone, Piffer – who he described as a “fantastic, really motivated person” – had asked her parents for a year’s break from her academic studies to pursue a full-time racing career with the squad.
In May, the teenager dedicated her win at the GP Città di Corridonia to Matteo Lorenzi, a 17-year-old racing cyclist, also from Trento, who was killed earlier that month after being struck by a van driver during a training ride.
Paying tribute to their daughter in the Italian press ahead of her funeral on Monday, Piffer’s parents also highlighted the dangers currently faced by cyclists on Italy’s roads.
“They asked me to choose the clothes for my daughter’s funeral, I picked a cycling jersey she won last year,” her mother Marianna told La Repubblica.
“It has ‘winner’ on the front and she dedicated that success to Matteo Lorenzi, who was killed last year. Sara was always a winner for me, but she died in the arms of her brother.
“Before she went out training, I told her to be careful. She replied: ‘The others have to be careful around us cyclists, because they don’t understand the risks they take’.”
Echoing that same message, her father Lorenzo told Corriere della Sera: “She was a flower, a gift from God. I am grateful for having had her, I am only grateful for that. Sara was good at doing everything.
“She was always cautious and happy to be able to go to training with her brother, because they didn’t always manage to go together. She told me: ‘Dad, we are always careful, it’s the others who aren’t careful of us’. And unfortunately, that was the case.
Reflecting on Italy’s roads and the attitudes of drivers, Lorenzo continued: “It’s a Wild West now. I’d say we need more common sense. Unfortunately, they always realise it too late.
“Maybe to gain that minute they put other people’s lives at risk. I see things getting worse on the roads.”
Piffer’s brother Christian, who witnessed the crash, but escaped with minor injuries, added: “I heard a noise, I looked back, then ran to my sister but there was nothing I could do.
“At first I was angry with the driver, then I saw that they were scared and ashamed.”
While Christian admitted some sympathy towards the driver in question, the immediate aftermath of Sara’s death has witnessed a swell of anger growing in Italy’s cycling community – in which the memories of the high-profile deaths of pro cyclists Michele Scarponi and Davide Rebellin still searingly fresh – directed at the dangerous actions of motorists and the apparent inability to tackle the country’s road safety problems.
According to the Italian government’s official statistics, 204 cyclists were killed on Italy’s roads in 2024, while 197 were killed in 2023.
Speaking to Tuttobiciweb, former Giro d’Italia winner and classics star Francesco Moser, who lives in the same village as the Piffer family, called on the government to “stop this massacre”.
“It’s unacceptable. There are far too many tragedies on the roads, far too many deaths. We’ve got to do something,” the former Hour Record holder said.
Meanwhile, Renato Beber, the president of the local Trentino branch of the Italian Cycling Federation, said in a statement: “We unite ourselves to the immense pain of her family and loved ones, and we can’t avoid addressing the authorities either: it’s necessary to take concrete steps for the safety of cyclists who out on the roads, dedicate themselves to their passion, and follow their dreams. It’s necessary to move from words to actions.”
“The roads are not dangerous,” Valerio Bianco, a press officer at RCS Sport, the organisers of the Giro d’Italia, said on social media. “Those who do not respect the rules, those who do not take into account the lives of others, are dangerous.
“Today it was Sara Piffer’s turn, hit at 19, tomorrow it will be someone else’s turn. If we do not protect the weakest, it will always be worse.
“How many more times will we have to see photos of crumpled bikes on the side of the road? How many more times will we have to mourn young lives like Sara Piffer’s?
“But then we see the big laughs at the memes about cyclists who ‘get in the way’. The problem is always at the root.”
Local cyclist Martina Centomo added: “Sara Piffer was killed by a motorist, not a car. Let’s not remove blame and responsibility from those who once again have broken another life. There is really something wrong. More than reform of the Highway Code.
“Why does the Italian legal system not conform to the rest of Europe in protecting the most vulnerable? Why is there no education on road safety? Why is there no effective way to make drivers aware of the danger and possible consequences of their driving? This is all absurd.”
This clear anger, directed at the apparent apathy shown towards the safety of cyclists by Italy’s ruling class, comes just months after controversial Italian politician and journalist Vittorio Feltri was roundly condemned by the cycling community after telling an event organised by his Il Giornale newspaper that “I only like cyclists when they get run over”.
The highly inflammatory comments came on what would have Michele Scarponi’s 45th birthday, and over seven years since the Giro d’Italia winner was killed while out on a training ride by a van driver who allegedly admitted to prosecutors that he had been watching a video on his mobile phone at the time of the fatal collision.
“Milan continues to develop for the better. With [Gabriele] Albertini as mayor, the city had a crazy development. But I believe that the city continues to improve,” Feltri, a prominent Berlusconi supporter who joined current prime minister Giorgia Meloni’s right-wing Fratelli d’Italia (Brothers of Italy) party in 2021, told the event in September.
“The only thing that bothers me is that the roads are full of potholes and the bike paths. I only like cyclists when they get run over.”
The 81-year-old’s inflammatory comments were heavily criticised by Italy’s cyclists, including Tudor Pro Cycling team rider Matteo Trentin, a former European champion and stage winner at all three Grand Tours with three Tour de France stage wins, who has often been outspoken on road safety and dangerous driving.
“Dearest Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni,” Trentin wrote on social media in response to Feltri’s comments, “When you want, I invite you to go for a bike ride with this character from your party, who apparently still lives during the Industrial Revolution. You can also use the electric one, so it’s more fun.”
Trentin’s intervention was welcomed by his fellow Italian cyclists, with one noting that describing Feltri’s comments as “disrespectful to those who have lost a loved one” while cycling is “an understatement”, and branding them as “insensitive and gratuitous malice”.
Just over two weeks after Feltri’s remarks sparked a backlash from Italy’s cyclist, the lorry driver who killed recently retired classics star Davide Rebellin in November 2022 – before fleeing the scene back to his home in Germany – was jailed for four years, one year less than the five-year term that prosecutors had sought.
29 thoughts on ““The roads aren’t dangerous, drivers who don’t respect others’ lives are”: Anger and calls for road safety reform, education in “Wild West” Italy after teenage racing cyclist killed by overtaking motorist during training ride”
I am so saddened by this.
I am so saddened by this.
“I was blinded by the low sun
“I was blinded by the low sun” is less an excuse than it is a reason to take more care, slow down and maybe, just maybe, not start an overtake on a stretch of road you cannot see to be clear.
Johnny Rags wrote:
Ask a driver to *slow down*, just because they can’t clearly see what’s ahead of them? Are you quite mad, sirrah??
This. If you can’t see what’s
This. If you can’t see what’s coming, you don’t overtake.
A couple of years ago I had a
A couple of years ago I had a driver in a Range Rover tell me that I needed to wear hi-viz as he could not see me due to the low sun. When I told him that if he cannot see what is in front of him he should not be driving he turned purple and started shouting. This BS excuse needs to be punished severely the next time a motorist tries to use it to shift blame for their crimes.
jamesha100 wrote:
Yeah. I was reading some comments made on a radio phone in regarding cyclists wearing hi viz and someone had genuinely phoned in to say something like ” all vulnerable road users should wear his viz. Often, a driver is checking the phone or whatever, and hi viz on a pedestrian or school kid who runs out into the road might mean that the distracted driver sees them in time”. I mean, how do you argue with someone who so completely transfers the responsibility for the risks they present to vulnerable road users onto those self same people? How are drivers so utterly oblivious to their responsibilities?
We’ll have to see the penalty
We’ll have to see the penalty meted out to the killing driver before we can conclude that there’s another European country as bad as the UK for cyclists
Drivers everywhere, with a
Drivers everywhere, with a few exceptions, seem to be universally bad. Why do we allow people who don’t value others’ lives to operate lethal machinery in public?
This is a political problem, not a road safety one. We could easily make penalties for dangerous driving more effective, and the licence test more stringent, and enforcement more thorough, but we choose not to because driving, init.
Ultimately the problem is
Ultimately the problem is humans. That is amplified by “mass motoring” – but even “professional drivers” mess up and kill.
So it’s “how much death, maiming and destruction is acceptable”?
Agree we can likely squeeze slightly higher standards from our existing driving population (and perhaps better stop those entirely unsuited to drive) … but ultimately the Dutch have shown the way. Separate (properly – including junctions) where necessary, and seriously “tame the car” where mixing. (The later is actually removing a lot of the driving, slowing down those who remain and motivating and guiding safer behaviour in drivers – plus mitigating possible errors).
I don’t think the solution is robotaxis either. That way may – ultimately (not there yet) be “safer” – but opens the door to some concerning futures (see eg. NotJustBikes video for a full dystopian vision).
chrisonabike wrote:
If you believe the Dutch have solved this problem via construction, explain why their cyclist fatality rate remains so disturbingly high. They are averaging 280 cyclist fatalities annually from a tiny population — despite riding extremely short distances at extremely slow speeds per their official statistics ( 2 km at 12 km/h on average ). And despite pursuing a construction-based strategy for about a century now. Why has it not yet worked, after a century? When can we expect it to start working?
Conversely, we have seen the actual solution implemented in Japan. Japan has almost no dedicated cycling infrastructure, and a very questionable road system due largely to factors beyond their control, like geography. Yet they have the world’s safest roads for cyclists and pedestrians. How? Because they enforce their traffic laws, and when a driver hits a person, that driver goes to jail. Everyone knows this, and comports themselves appropriately on the roads.
This a solution that every country can employ, as soon as they recognize the utter folly of continuing to waste lives, time, and money on hopeless construction-based strategies which have yet to work, anywhere on this planet.
I still maintain that
I still maintain that removing a small percentage of drivers from the roads will make life exponentially safer for everyone else. ie if you get rid of those that simply don’t have the self-control – if they drive to fast, they are easily distracted, they don’t have good spacial awareness, they have anger management issues etc etc – then there will be a calming effect on the remainder.
The problem is that we’ve portrayed traffic collisions as “accidents” and therefore most drivers have this feeling that they can happen to anyone. Whilst this might be true, to an extent, most “accidents” occur through careless or dangerous driving. If you can eliminate the high risk drivers then it’s going to be safer for everyone. The insurance companies already know who these drivers are!
The big hurdle is the car industry. Even a 2% reduction in drivers is the best part of 1 mill consumers. It also means an increased demand for alternative forms of transport and that might lead to a modal shift away from cars.
IanMK wrote:
The big hurdle is the car industry. Even a 2% reduction in drivers is the best part of 1 mill consumers. It also means an increased demand for alternative forms of transport and that might lead to a modal shift away from cars.— IanMK
Agree with the first. In fact – there have been plenty of instances of “dark arts” by the motor industry and their promotors here! e.g. “jaywalking”.
The second is pertinent also, especially because driving is so space-inefficient. Small reductions in numbers driving can create a big change.
However our whole framing of this as a personal (and legal) issue is actually problematic. (Stops us seeing the wood). The Dutch have shown that there is merit in a more statistical / “human factors” viewpoint. Understanding why people are likely to do certain things, and working *with* human nature where possible. So making it easier for people to do the right thing. But understanding that some people won’t so not just fixing this after the fact (criminal justice) but minimising the consequences of likely mis-behaviour. They call that “sustainable safety” (it’s actually a bunch of concepts).
Example: we know that a certain fraction of people will speed (e.g. given a straight wide road) without needing to decide for each whether this was “a mistake”, impatience, “incompetence or “deliberate criminality”. Perhaps there are some specific reasons why are people are speeding in a certain location – we have to understand that. Then (at a lower, tactical level) there are tools to either slow drivers down (where needed) or alternatively “make it safe”. So e.g. like motorways – create routes for driving at speed more safely, where vulnerable road users do not need to be, as they have alternative, better options.
* But they haven’t abandoned personal responsibility, nor criminal sanctions
IanMK wrote:
I am not so sure. (In fact I’m sure that “exponential” is not true). I think it may be there:
a) Definitely a few – often serial – “wrong’uns” e.g. joyriding youth, those with drink/drug issues, those criminally unconcerned, with impulse control issues which might also cause them to attack people withouth a car.
b) A vast mass of the rest of driving humanity, some really obsessively careful (e.g. taking advanced driving exams), some professionally certified (e.g. HGV drivers) … but then all kinds of everyone, plus some older folks with decreasing abilities / those who have acquired some sporadic health issues … down to folks who are mostly OK but not particularly careful or considerate.
Just saying “we’ll remove (a)” – well, their numbers are continually replenished (e.g. wayward yoof). And currently we have some serious legal and practical issues about how we actually do that effectively (e.g. there are repeat disqualified drivers, people who don’t improve etc.)
BUT even if we can, I suspect that the large numbers in (b) – even though their crash rate may be an order of magnitude or so lower – makes up a significant part of the total. (And recall – they’re all humans, so e.g. “careful, qualified professional drivers” kill people every year…)
As to the effect on the “culture of the roads” – that is probably a bit of a “tragedy of the commons”. Given we all pass a driving test (well – those who’ve bothered to take it) and yet speeding is universal, driving on the footway / cycle path is universal, “amber gambling” is very common … I think just a dash of exemplarly punishment won’t shift the dial much. (People will no more think they’ll get nicked than they do that they’ll crash now!)
(I still think we can do a bit better, and we haven’t quite reached the point of diminishing returns yet. But I don’t think that is all that far away, *given* the current system e.g. motornormativity for a few generations, public transport degraded, active travel simply not considered for many short journeys).
Because the whole of society
Because the whole of society is built on top of the car. Its fundamentally a paradox. Its like guns in the US. It should be something that is treated very seriously and yet its treated like a joke. Like something that doesn’t require any attention or respect.
Its treated like that because everything about it screams that. The fact you can pass your test and never take another one. The fact you can be excused from losing your license if you have a “good” excuse. The fact we light up speed cameras like a christmas tree because god forbid people can’t only slow down for that 100m stretch of road. The fact we don’t send people to prison for killing someone behind the wheel when they do something really stupid.
Its all just a joke at this point.
An easy way to modify driver
An easy way to modify driver behaviour would be an automatic ban from driving for a set period if convicted for causing death or injury. I would like to see 20 years but 10 would probably be effective.
Good idea … except even in
Good idea … except even in the UK (as opposed to Italy) with our “world-beating” road safety stats we’re a long long … way from there.
First “but hardship” – won’t you think of the children / disabled partner / elderly parents? (Or as we read recently – four ferrets. Not their fault they live with a hopeless driver).
Then – this will have no impact on those we *know* cause misery on the roads eg. those driving without a licence / while already banned. By their existence they show what the issue is – there is precious little road policing and certainly not enough to stop people chancing it (and probably doing so until they crash again, rather than just getting stopped by police).
I spend quite a lot of time
I spend quite a lot of time in Italy (the clue is in the name) and I can testify that drivers in Italy are dangerous. Everyone is on their phone. People speed. Roads are not suitable for cycling.
unlike the UK, there are lots of traffic police about so perhaps this helps to keep things in check. I remember as a child, driving around with my grandfather and oncoming vehicles flashing their lights. In Italy this meant there was a police car around the corner doing stops so the driver was warning others to slow down or u turn if the car or driver was illegal. This used to make my grandfather furious – he believed that illegal motorists should be caught. Italy is above the EU average for road fatalities per million inhabitants.
Rome73 wrote:
I ride quite a bit in Italy too, and the drivers are every bit as dangerous as in the UK. Close passing is terrible.
They still flash their lights to alert you to speed cops further up the road.
I cycled in Italy on a
I cycled in Italy on a holiday once. I can’t claim my 4 or so bike rides were representative, but even in that short time, yeah, saw a number of mad drivers. Doesn’t seem to be malice towards cyclists, just sheer recklessness by some there.
Killing someone with a car
Killing someone with a car needs to be punished the same as killing someone with any other weapon. The driver would have to prove it was not intentional, and even then it would be considered manslaughter. Perhaps then drivers will think more about the danger they represent to others.
The driver would have to
The driver would have to prove it was not intentional
Much though I agree with your first sentence, I think the basic rule is that the prosecution has to prove it was intentional
I think you are confusing
I think you are confusing intentionality with negligent behaviour.
As in I didnt intend to saw that granny in half as I took my running chainsaw into Waitrose.
This is where motorists enjoy
This is where motorists enjoy a presumption of protection which needs to change. Sure, intent to cause harm is very difficult to prove, but the law goes too far the other way and fails to account adequately for negligence.
Holding a driving license requires an understanding of the risk, (or should do), which precludes the level of ignorance that certain actions whilst driving are dangerous unless otherwise confirmed.
Even my favourite rule of the highway code; 163 “Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so” could be improved with more emphatic language; “Do not overtake unless it is safe and legal to do so”
This would change “I couldn’t see any issues so I went for it” to “You couldn’t be certain that the lane was clear so you should have reduced speed and not attempted the overtake”
Overtake only when it is safe
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so
This has long since been written off as unnecessary bureaucracy by Lancashire Constabulary (never prosecuted anybody for close passing; never carried out a ‘close pass operation; double and single unbroken white lines ignored by police when cyclists overtaken), so they would have no hesitation in immediately binning any new wording.
It is becoming increasingly
It is becoming increasingly obvious to me, after many years of video reporting, that the highway code is just seen as an arbiter for civil cases where it needs to be determined whose insurance will pay out in a collision. The only exceptions to these are the “MUST”s. In my opinion unless the hc is changed to read you MUST not overtake where it is unsafe to do so, or you MUST leave 1.5m when passing a cyclist (with accompanying changes to the road traffic act) no progress will be made.
I have recently had some close passes in traffic calming areas where rule 153 tells drivers not to overtake other moving road users and to allow cyclist to pass through the traffic calming measures. NFA, not even an advisory letter.
Rule 153
Traffic-calming measures.
On some roads there are features such as road humps, chicanes and narrowings which are intended to slow you down. When you approach these features reduce your speed. Allow cyclists and motorcyclists room to pass through them. Maintain a reduced speed along the whole of the stretch of road within the calming measures. Give way to oncoming road users if directed to do so by signs. You should not overtake other moving road users while in these areas.
Apologies to wtjs who, if I’ve understood correctly, only reports “must”s now and still the police won’t take action as far as we can tell.
wtjs who, if I’ve understood
wtjs who, if I’ve understood correctly, only reports “must”s now
Not strictly accurate! I did report this, as it shows Lancashire driving schools (also a driving instructor school!) teaching close passing, which as we all know is not a must not– naturally, the reports were ignored by the police and the driving school anyway
https://upride.cc/incident/ej65pff_greenpass_closepass/
I didn’t report this, as I already have an extensive collection of such ignored reports, but I do report all the RLJs as it’s such a clear cut offence. The police regard it as a ‘everybody does it’ and have compensated at these A6 lights by putting in long delays. This is OK so long as there isn’t an M6 blockage which results in a diversion up the A6 and the gargantuan jams which I cycle past with glee
https://upride.cc/incident/lonsdalebus_route88_redlightpass/
Yes another fucker who thinks
Yes another fucker who thinks and knows that not caring about anyone else on the roads acceptable. In what mad world is uttering the words “I couldn’t see because the sun was low so I overtook anyway” OK and anything but a complete admission that they should go to jail for a long time and never be allowed to drive again. They are admitting that they couldn’t see and still made a dangerous manouvre. Imagine doing that in any other walk of life and killing someone.
The whole thing is a perfect example of the bizarre little world and rules we have created around driving. Make no mistake, this isn’t an admission of responsibility, its a very common and very good way of saying “it wasn’t really my fault” and the courts will no doubt buy it. I’m sure the driver is of good character, hard working, devastated etc.
The quote from her mother is
The quote from her mother is so sad. No family should have to go through that.
This is so sad but also so
This is so sad but also so sadly familiar. I am not sure whether more punitive sentences – e.g. life driving bans – would make any difference but it would be a start.
RIP Sara – you deserved better from the world.