Everyone’s favourite no-nonsense referee, Pierluigi Collina, may soon be expecting a call from the UCI, after world cycling’s governing body announced this afternoon that it plans to go down the football route by introducing a yellow card system designed to dissuade riders and sports directors, as well as other drivers and motorbike riders, from engaging in dangerous behaviour during races.
The new yellow card method of clamping down on what the UCI calls “bad conduct” comes as part of a suite of new measures the governing body hopes will promote safety at professional road races, after an increasingly long string of high-profile and serious crashes and incidents and calls for change in recent years.
> Jonas Vingegaard warned about the descent of Basque Country horror crash half a year ago, but organisers “never gave an answer”, claims Safe Cycling CEO
Along with the introduction of yellow cards, the UCI says it will also test the effects of restricting the wearing of earpieces during races, while – in a bid to make bunch sprints safer and less stressful – modifying the current 3km rule for GC time gaps and simplifying the method of calculating time gaps in group sprints.
(Zac Williams/SWpix.com)
The new measures are based on recommendations from the UCI’s SafeR initiative, launched in June 2023 (just weeks after Gino Mäder’s tragic death at the Tour de Suisse) to help improve safety in the bunch and unite cycling’s key stakeholders in their approach to the issue.
> "Profound safety problem" in elite cycling, finds report... but riders union president says it's "getting safer"
According to the UCI, the yellow cards system will be introduced, first as part of a trial phase, on 1 August and will apply to both men’s and women’s professional road races.
While the cards won’t physically exist – so the prospect of a commissaire running after a grumpy DS brandishing a yellow unfortunately won’t come to fruition – they will be listed in the race communiqué and will, the UCI hopes, “have a dissuasive effect on anyone present in the race convoy (riders, Sport Directors, other drivers and motorbike riders, etc.) who might engage in behaviour that could jeopardise the safety of the event”.
“In addition, the system will aim to make all these people more responsible by introducing the monitoring of bad conduct over time and consequently encouraging respectful behaviour,” the governing body says.
To do so, anyone found guilty of breaching the UCI’s current safety rules could be on the receiving end of a yellow card (along with the traditional sanctions imposed), with two yellow cards at the same race leading to the individual being disqualified and suspended for a week.
Anyone who receives three yellow cards within a thirty-day period will also be suspended for 14 days, while six yellow cards in the space of a year will lead to a 30-day suspension.
Good job Roy Keane isn’t a cycling sports director, then.
The UCI says no sanctions, however, will be imposed during the trial period, but that they will come into effect, pending review, from 1 January 2025.
Meanwhile, in a move likely to garner favour with cycling traditionalists, the UCI has also decided to test the effects of a restriction on wearing and using earpieces in races at unspecified races this year.
“This decision is based on discussions on the subject within SafeR, which led to the conclusion that earpieces could be both a source of distraction for riders and a physical hazard because the radio units are mounted on their backs, and represent a risk when a large number of teams are simultaneously asking their riders to move up to the front of the race,” the UCI said, adding that other measures, such as limiting the use of earpieces to one rider per team, will also be considered.
(Zac Williams/SWpix.com)
The three-kilometre rule, introduced in 2005 and which allows a rider who has suffered a crash or mechanical problem in the final 3km of a race to be credited with the time of the group they were in at the time of the incident, will also be modified, allowing organisers to increase the buffer zone to 5km in certain circumstances before a race.
“This measure is intended to take account of the increase in traffic calming infrastructure – sources of danger for the pelotons – within an ever-greater radius of the race finish sites. Extending the zone in which the rule applies, when necessary, will reduce the pressure on riders during the phase of the race leading up to the final sprint,” the UCI says.
> “It’s the third day in a row and it’s breaking my balls a bit now”: Bloodied Remco Evenepoel rages against Vuelta safety chaos
And finally, in a similar bid to add some calm to the chaos of a bunch sprint (especially for GC riders), the method for calculating time gaps in mass finishes will be simplified, with gaps between groups only being counted after three seconds, instead of one.
The UCI continued: “This systematisation of the three-second rule is intended to simplify the calculation of time gaps at stages with an expected bunch sprint, to relieve the pressure on riders not directly involved in the sprint and to allow them to leave a certain margin with the front of the race – three seconds corresponding to a gap of 50 metres rather than 17 metres for a one-second gap – and to thus reduce unnecessary risk-taking, particularly for riders aiming for the overall classification.”
Both of these new sprint rules will be tested at the Tour de France before a final decision is made.
Along with these new racing rules, the SafeR project will also work with experts to carry out equipment studies (such as on hookless rims with tubeless tyres, after Thomas De Gent’s spectacular blowout at the UAE Tour, helmets, and skinsuits) in order to define what equipment issues are contributing to crashes, possibly leading to tighter regulations on manufacturers.
> Zipp "reaffirms" safety of its hookless rims, but now advises teams to use tyres no smaller than 29mm
“The safety of riders is a priority for the UCI, and it was with this in mind that we created SafeR, a structure dedicated to safety, bringing together the main stakeholders in professional road cycling,” UCI President David Lappartient said today.
“I am convinced that the measures announced today, which are the fruit of the work of this new body and which affect many aspects of the road racing ecosystem, will enable us to make progress towards a safer sport.”
“SafeR has provided a platform for me to address the riders’ number one concern: safety in races,” added Adam Hansen, the president of the CPA riders’ union.
“Feedback has shown that the majority of riders wanted the 3km rule extended to reduce stress during hectic race finales. I am thrilled that this will be tested at some sprint finals at the Tour de France, and I thank the UCI and ASO for allowing it.
“Additionally, a large survey conducted last year indicated the need for a yellow card system in cycling, which will be tested in the coming months before being implemented next year. These initial measures recommended by SafeR to the UCI demonstrate that riders’ requests are being heard and acted upon. It is crucial, and we are making significant progress in this area. There is still much work to be done, and I look forward to continuing the solid work that has begun.”
Add new comment
67 comments
If you see the Green's manifesto published today, it reflects the platform on which Mr Starmers party should be standing.
Sadly, Mr Starmer has stolen many Tory policies and is now ignoring the ground on which the late Labour party stood, just to get into power. Once in power, he will not be any differnt from any of the last four Tory PM's.
Vote Red, sadly get Blue.
It's unnerving that green/environment issues aren't at the forefront of this election.
It's unnerving that green/environment issues aren't at the forefront of this election.
[/quote]
Exactly, the next 5 years are going to be critical in limiting global warming and none of the parties want to talk about it.
I wonder how many of them have bought apocalypse shelters in New Zealand so they'll be fine (I bet the Sunaks have one) and the people who can't afford to do that probably won't vote Tory anyway.
(the Grauniad ran a story today about how the two subjects not being spoken about during this campaign are the climate emergency and Brexit).
Talking of Sunak, I've just been reading what a deprived childhood he had. Apparently he didn't even have Sky TV. He really is a man of the people.
Feel sorry for the Kiwis as all the rich detritus of world will be setting up home there come the apocalypse
After the apocalypse all the sheep will be dead so the Kiwis will need something to eat!
Slightly off piste but this is the state we are in, near where I live they are building 300 new houses ( Persimmon ) and not a single solar panel between them. Drive a couple of miles down the road and 800 acres of arable lend has been given permission to turn it into a solar farm ( effectively armour plating the countryside ). You cannot make this stuff up !
Well - look at the European elections. Lots of pushback because people are "feeling the pinch" / don't trust the existing lot. Not a few people think "environment" stuff is a con - or at best used cynically against people for the benefits of our "betters".
Unfortunately the current "high living costs" come at a time when we've essentially run up big debts AND run down various services people think are important. And I think we're only just starting to realise what the costs will be if we want to adapt to climate change, never mind get onto a different ship.
I guess it's "political reality" - trying to bring up bigger issues or stating that if we want to "fix things" they may get worse first - to people who are already restive? Just means you're out of power.
Don't forget that election time is prime opportunity for the FSB to spread their message that democracy is broken and other forms of government are strong and going to plan. Easy to agree that the majority of politicians on all sides are incompetent chancers compromised by the globalisation delusion. Wouldn't a strong independent leader be more to your advantage...
Thus Orban and Trump are supported with cash and disinformation to foster their cults and bring chaos that FSB can exploit.
As a naive youth I voted for Holy Blair - because clearly the "sleazy Tories" had to go! Now I'm looking at parallels again.
Let's hope that if Keith gets (as is likely - but not guaranteed) in he at least avoids facilitating a couple of decades of bloodletting. (If we could have skipped the PFI madness that would have been good as well...)
My wife and I were talking about it last night.
Our constituency is staunchly Tory, unfortunately, and has been for over thirty years. At this election there are five non-Tory candidates (Lab, Lib-Dem, Green, Workers Party (is that George Galloway's lot?) and Reform UK (UKIP as was)).
If everyone opposed to the Tories tactically votes for just one of them - or possibly even two - then we could finally remove our MP.
But they won't, which divides the not-Tory vote among five and ensures (thanks to FPTP) that we will have a Tory MP again…
The most likely to be the One, to garner the most non-Tory votes, is the Labour candidate. But I'm not sure I want to vote for Labour any more and if I vote according to my conscience then I'm just another person dividing the opposition.
It's very frustrating, and rather depressing
If you vote with your conscience/beliefs then at least you won't be disappointed if they do win.
Sounds like your only option is to promote Reform in hope they can split the Conservative vote.
You lucky, lucky, lucky B@rstard!
In the last election the useless half wit who earns a supplementary income double the UK median wage from an oil company whilst pretending to represent my constituency polled 75% of the vote. Even if Reform split the vote 50:50 with him and everyone else votes tactically we still end up with a right wing racist as our MP
He definitely will be different from the last four Tory PMs. Even if you were right that he is effectively a Tory (which I don't agree with) he would still be a massive improvement on the recent residents of No 10.
[/quote] He definitely will be different from the last four Tory PMs. Even if you were right that he is effectively a Tory (which I don't agree with) he would still be a massive improvement on the recent residents of No 10.[/quote]
I hope I live long enough to be proven incorrect but sadly, I see little hope for change with Mr Starmer.
Being not quite as bad as the worst, most corrupt and incompetent bunch of politicians that we've ever had isn't really much of a recommendation.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/12/green-part...
Why can't one of them at least be like "We are on the side of SAFE drivers" and then lay out a set of plans which will actually improve the road network by removing the dangerous drivers from it.
It would force the detractors to say outloud "Actually, I don't agree with this because I want to put people's lives at risk."
Because that's not the important part? Because the "safe drivers" part is inherently limited by:
a) the fact of mass motoring (just can't expect humans en-mass to be particularly careful) and
b) the choices we've made in overall ethos beyond that. Compare UK's "maximising capacity for motor traffic with sufficient safety" vs. e.g. a Sustainable Safety approach of "safe and efficient movement of people, according to the requirements of their chosen mode".
Of course reducing a system to a phrase is foolish - but in the UK the effect has been to prioritise one mode - driving - over all others. We have indeed achieved "safe roads" but due to the first constraint that has effectively occurred by discouraging use of other modes. Where there's still conflict safety is achieved by moving everything else out of the way of drivers and their parked vehicles, or making them wait...
I'm not saying its ideal and I agree with you that a wholesale change would be ideal but, at least could they take a *step* in the right direction rather than running headlong into NHS failure, climate destruction and vulnerable road user obliteration.
I keep having to repeat to myself this year "At least the lesser of two evils is less evil. At least the lesser of two evils is less evil."
Totally agree, the whole approach to transportation is to treat it as a steaming great turd and successive governments from both sides of the benches just keep polishing the turd instead of flushing it away.
There is plenty of examples world wide on what could be described as integrated transportation that works safely it's not if something needs inventing. It needs the courage of conviction and in general politics is not particularly courageous when something radical needs to be done that might be construed as a vote loser. Depressing as it may seem we can only hope if labour get in they have copious tins of Brasso ?!
Or lots of glitter to roll it in.
I'm less confident that "small steps" initiated by central government are capable of being able to make us change direction. (Fortunately - cycling is relatively low cost and decentralised, so may be able to survive despite central policy). Witness the rounds of "encouraging cycle travel" which have occurred every few decades throughout my life: overall achieving nothing, or less.
As for removing the dangerous drivers - through conversation here I am now a bit more skeptical about that:
a) Just how much that would cost (in terms of police, courts, side effects on "other honest citizens" etc.) and
b) Just how much "low hanging fruit" (room for improvement before "diminishing returns") is there? (Basically - given that overall UK roads are "statistically very safe" just how much things could be changed? Also what's the relative damage done by the fewer "out-and-out wrong'uns" vs. the mass of "otherwise law-abiding drivers having a bad day (honest)")
Absent our new robot overlords taking over the driving (incentivised like "now you don't need to be distracted from your phone at all!") I can't see much chance of change in the "mass motoring" approach because "politics". (I'd love to see driving training / tests more than once a lifetime but even that is probably fantasy).
I think the best hope is ... the only approach that has actually worked elsewhere: improve public transport everywhere and better integrate this with other transport modes, take space for active travel from motor traffic where necessary (and tame the car elsewhere) - oh, and implement a sustainable safety approach.
I'm sure such a system would be as popular here as elsewhere, once it had been in place for a couple of years. But I'm less certain now we can get over the initial hurdle in the UK (public reaction against change).
The key advantage of driverless vehicles is that the software will do as it's told without question while the passengers have to accept that because the manufacturer is liable for incidents they alone must control the software and vehicle behaviour.
Meaning that Vulnerable Road Users are the top priority of driverless vehicles.
The sooner there are no human drivers on the public highway the safer we all will be.
Maybe. But what we've learned from e.g. the Volkswagen emissions shenanigans and some of the more recent tech stuff is that the top priority of complex systems is to benefit the people who design and sell them.
If you're just going to fill potholes why not just say you're on the side of road users.
They could always be tough on the causes of potholes, cars getting heavier, torquier and more numerous, traffic speeds increasing. It seems as if people think potholes are things that just appear. Take some of the cars away and the roads last longer and cost less to maintain.
Once again active transport is the answer, pretty much whatever the question is.
Pages