In addition to rider education and training, rider safety can be improved by using promoter education about what kind of courses tend to offer the safest racing, and more consideration could be given to structuring the race format to improve rider safety.

Way back in the olden days a race permit wasn't supposed to be approved until a USCF official had approved the course. Is there any sort of concern for this now?

I remember one day long ago when we went to a race near NYC that had a course so dangerous that the riders refused to ride on it and the race was canceled on the spot.

Ideas offered could be to get away from industrial courses with a dangerous feature like a chicane or bad pavement, and race formats that encourage riders to ride slowly until the final sprint. The fastest races tend to be the safest races.

I think that if some races were shorter the speeds would be higher and the races would be safer. Years ago I did races around the East Coast with fields of 100-150 cat 3's, or 3/4's combined. The races were only 10-15 miles long and the speeds were so high that there were usually less than 40 finishers, and relatively few crashes. One year we had 165 starters, for 10 miles of racing, and I finished last in the field, for 12th place. For several years the Fitchburg Criterium was like this, and with so many riders it was easy for the promoter to offer premes of $20-$50 for every lap.

one of the candidates for VP-Safety + Medical, shared some fabulous thoughts with me -- I hope she'll share them here as well.

when developing the BOD position descriptions, I did my best to define what I thought were the most important services that each position could provide to the district. In the case of VP Medical-Safety, I see a great opportunity for promoter education. as someone who was a new race promoter not so long ago, I would have welcomed advice and assistance in this area.

I personally think this position can be integral in educating promoters and improving racer safety throughout the district.

Lorri

I won't rehash what I just wrote on the #5/Technology question but I see the NCNCA website as an easy way to improve rider safety. I'd support funding to build it out with extensive information for both new and experienced racers - how-to articles, videos, a Q&A board, "problem area" bulletins, that kind of thing. Take some of the mystery out of racing and communicate any problems that come up. The word I hear the most from people new to the sport is "intimidating" - it shouldn't be that way. But it's not just new racers....Casey has mentioned several times that Cat 5 isn't the field with the most injury-crash issues and we can all look at it as an ongoing learning process.

I also think it would be appropriate for NCNCA to do some research into what exactly the safety issues are. How can safety improve, without knowing what needs improvement? Imagine an online form where any NCNCA member (racer) could submit an incident report confidentially...whether it was something that happened during racing or training, whether it caused a crash/injury or just posed a risk of doing so. A NY club is doing this now and we could talk to them to see what they've learned about the process. Sure, there are the post-race incident reports the officials do but a ton of stuff doesn't make it onto there. And I've never seen public discussion of what the USA Cycling reports show. There's probably a good "legal" reason for that, but that shouldn't stop NCNCA from doing something on the local level. We can sort out the legal issues of gathering this info, and after a year we might have data on 100 incidents...and some good ideas about how to make racing safer. I'd support this as a budget item, it seems cheap and easy to do.

-Tad

Candidate for Treasurer

Since I was the one who brought and argued the motion at the last NCNCA Board meeting to eliminate 5's from the BAR/BAT competition, and since I have over the years made my position on the issue well known on this Forum, I don't think I need address it again.

I will say, however, that the version of the motion that was eventually passed was somewhat watered-down, but was still a first step in what I believe is an important direction in making fields safer by segregating novices into select training categories. Sometimes political ends need to be achieved in baby-steps, so I applaud the Board for agreeing with me on this first half-step in a positive direction.

My declared opinions on this subject go far beyond. I believe that all 5's should have to receive mentored training before they become 4's. Even road racers and climbers would strongly benefit from Early Bird or other structured skills training. Pack skills are pack skills.

Ours is a very dangerous sport, and before an individual should be allowed to join a competitive peloton and endanger themselves or others, they should have been required to have some training. Most hazardous group sports require training, licensure, testing -- we should at the very least require some training.

But once again, leadership is not just about expressing ideas. I have made the drive from Napa to teach at every Early Bird series since my second season in the sport. When I served on the BBC Board I created a mentored 5's race at the Albany Crit before there were such mid-season races. When they were standardized by the NCNCA mentoring program, I have actively participated as an official mentor since the program began. I've also helped Shawn Mehaffey with his Advanced Skills and Tactics seminar.

Everyone wants to make road racing safer. Some of us have consistently shared our ideas and DONE THE WORK to make it happen.

Jess "Zebraman" Raphael
VP Candidate

Hi DJ,
No, sorry for the confusion, but that is not what was meant or passed at the last meeting.
Only that the 5s participating would not receive points, all other categories would still receive BAR/BAT points if the race qualifies.

Believe me, there was MUCH discussion on this topic from MANY points of view. We pretty much beat the topic to death, and arrived at that motion.

Cheers,
Ron Castia
NCNCA President Candidate

In theory a cat 5 could become a cat 2 before even racing 25 qualifying races, and yet still ride like a cat 5! The safest races are those where in the field (of any age group) the cat 1s and 2s keep the pace fast enough to string out the riders and minmize bunching up (especially at turns).

George Meilahn
2010 Secretary Candidate

windblocker wrote:enforce the helmet rule. at anytime you are riding your bike, a helmet must be on, no exceptions. in addition the strap must be secure, not tangling.

I was at a race once where a tent pole fell on a rider's head when she was simply standing under the tent.

With all respect, I think this is far down on the list of potential safety measures. It's more a liability issue. I support Chris's response on this one.

WRT the BAR/BAT issue: the whole field should be denied points if there's any 5's in the race. Cat 5's are not supposed to have external performance-based motivations to reduce the pressure on risk-taking (or against risk taking of a different type), and helping teammates is performance-based. Is this what was meant?

Laurie makes a great point, however it is not limited to the Women's fields.

Truth is, and I think Casey has made this point many times, the NCNCA has limited authority to dictate how a promoter runs their race.

We have already passed a motion for the BAR/BAT to not include Cat 5 men in the points for BAR/BAT. This does remove one motivating factor for promoters to combine fields. It may or may not change the fields a promoter decides to run.
Some promoters give little concern to BAR/BAT when deciding what categories to put on the schedule.

I think one thing we can do through the mentoring program is to have some definite defined standards for qualifying a mentor.

Cheers,
Ron

What would also be nice besides separating the Cat 5's from some of the higher caliber races. I would like to see NCNCA/USAC go to invoice's for the events. I am not sure about others, but after spending 12 hours at a race the last thing I feel like doing is writing a dozen different checks.

A concern about safety I have is
upgrading in the women's field.

I have witnessed, too often, that
the very strong
women (triathlete type), begin racing as
a wcat 4 and win their first four races
off the front, and not getting "pack"
experience (to learn skills and race etiquette).
And then the same kind of "win" is
repeated as a wcat 3. A female could upgrade to a wcat 2
with less than 10 races and with minimum pack skills,
and or inadequate race knowledge.

I do understand that the club could take responsibility,
and advise their member to get more experience prior upgrading,
but I would also like to see some kind of enforcement that there
must be at least 25 races in each women cat 4 portfolio
(besides the points) before upgrading to a wcat 3.

respectfully,
Laurie Fenech

enforce the helmet rule. at anytime you are riding your bike, a helmet must be on, no exceptions. in addition the strap must be secure, not tangling.

One thing that would make all races safer is summit finishes. :D

Seriously though, I believe the NCNCA should:

Discourage events from offering races open to all categories (such as 45+ 1-5). Cat 5's should have separate races until they upgrade to Cat 4.

Support the Early Bird Criterium series, new racer clinics and try to add a 2nd shorter early bird type new racer series during the summer.

If any courses or races have a higher than average crash rate (I love the "P" turn, but...) have something done about it. Either have the course changed or if that's not possible give extra caution to the racers during the pre-race instructions.

Thank you,

Chris Phipps
candidate for NCNCA Treasurer

you read my mind!