I hope he (first) has no long term quality of life issues. If he can also return to pro racing that would obviously be brilliant, but it would have to be regarded as a bonus after injuries that serious. I hope he does, for his sake and the sport.
On a side note, I’d be a fan of TTs returning to road bike only but simply for ‘purist’ reasons rather than safety.
Surveillance video of Bernal’s crash released…he went full speed into the back of the bus. Unforunately, that was 100% him not paying attention…had absolutely nothing to do with the bike he was riding.
You still don’t get it… To be helpful: Unless the data tell us otherwise, we can’t rule out (yet) the possibility that TT bikes, mostly bcs positioning, nudge riders into not always have their sight on what’s ahead of them.
This doesn’t absolve Egan or any other rider of their responsibility in an accident, but It could mean that training in your TT bike carries an additional risk vs regular bike.
Well no schitt…Just having your hands away from your brakes makes this blindingly obvious. So as I stated, it is about situational awareness. Bernal was not paying attention to his surroundings and riding at a speed that was dangerous.
Just because additional care is required on a TT bike does not mean they are “dangerous”.
Nobody made an absolute statement. You are disputing a claim that you invented. Most people (myself included) are making a statement about the relative risk. A problem of elementary logic emerges when you make the following contradictory arguments:
and then:
I believe you are having problems with 2 premises that can be true at the same time: The accident was his fault and TT bikes are more dangerous than regular road bikes.
Maybe you should take that up with Tom Pidcock…who was quoted above and what I was referring to.
“It’s evident now where it’s getting quite dangerous,” Pidcock told BBC Sport.
The same quote, with others agreeing, was posted in another thread. So no, I did not just invent a claim.
But weird how you follow that up with:
Soooooo…
Which ignores the fact that Pidcock (and others) were claiming that the accident was, at least partially, the fault of the TT bike. The evidence at the time was pretty clear that was wrong (see his teammates yelling at him to watch out) and the video proves that out. I’ll state again - it begins with situational awareness.
The same argument was made after Froome’s horrific crash…which again ignored his lack of situational awareness. He was descending at high speed on a windy day while trying to remove his jacket. Could the TT bike have been a contributing factor in his crash? Possibly…but it was Froome’s fault because he was taking dumb risks. That doesn’t make a TT bike “dangerous.” He quite possibly could have had the same outcome if he had been riding a road bike with an aero wheel. His situational awareness sucked.
I know recovery could very well be a life-long goal here, but man - what a gift to have that kind of turn-around from what appeared to be very-worst-case-scenario.
Not weird, because the word more is a modifying determiner, in this case to indicate relative value, which is my point, as I’m purposefully avoiding the silly argument of the definition of dangerous.
Imagine if the world worked your personal definition of evidence?..We wouldn’t have left the savannah ! As I explained to you before, the only way to rule out the “TT bikes are more dangerous” hypothesis is:
Perhaps even include the severity of the accidents…However, when trying to assign causality you can perhaps look at:
Abnormal position and visibility
Handlebars
Brakes
Higher average speeds.
Minimal relative experience of riders compared to regular bikes.