Forum menu
A risk assessment cannot reduce the risks to nil. And neither should it when sport and recreation are the focus of it.
An 18 year old lay alone in a forest dying in one of the richest countries in the world as hundreds of people drove and rode by. Saying that you can't reduce risks to nil is not a helpful comment.
Yes, cycling is dangerous. There is always a risk people could die. That doesn't mean people dying when it could have been prevented is acceptable.
If you are worried about your favourite sport being impacted then can I suggest your priorities are wrong.
An 18 year old lay alone in a forest dying in one of the richest countries in the world as hundreds of people drove and rode by. Saying that you can’t reduce risks to nil is not a helpful comment.
As Wikipedia would say: citation needed.
You don't know that. Yes, there's a lot of actually quite morbid rumour and speculation that there could be some truth in it but right now, the unhelpful comments are coming from you rather than anyone else.
Perhaps it’s because I often participate in risk assessments but the first question I would ask would be, ‘What happens if someone crashes and no one sees?
Really? That would have been your FIRST question about a road race on a fully closed circuit with hundreds of staff and marshals and the world's press in attendance?
If you are worried about your favourite sport being impacted then can I suggest your priorities are wrong.
I'm actually worried that the rush to be 'as safe as possible' means a slow demise of a balance to 'as safe as necessary'. This is across many things in life, not just cycling.
My experience also shows that some risks are hard to predict and therefore almost impossible to plan for.
Unfortunately many involved in health and safety expect complete and utter safety, removal of all risks (perceived and unknown) and if something ever goes wrong immediately call for punishments, more rules and more restrictions. Incidents should be seen as tragic and a learning opportunity - and in this case we don't know the full facts yet.
Yes we can improve, but we will never make things completely safe and will never predict every single hazard.
the unhelpful comments are coming from you rather than anyone else.
Since we're talking about unhelpful comments, something has been bugging me and then I remembered. You're the one that regurgitated a story you'd heard second hand about Nicole and Tony Cooke and presented it as your own. A story that was designed to discredit a couple of people who were being 'unhelpful'.
I know this could be regarded as playing the man not the ball but given there's been plenty subtle and not so subtle aspersions about my character for bringing this subject up I think it's fair to know exactly where everyone is coming from.
For my part, I'm involved in QA for life saving devices so I'm quite familiar with the process involved in risk assessments and how the job often involves fighting with higher ups and making myself deeply unpopular for doing so. I also happen to be a father who for some reason keeps picturing his own daughter in the same situation Muriel found herself in and is getting somewhat upset about that. So far there has been nothing to suggest the 1.5 hours alone is not accurate. Or is there?
For your part, I don't know. We know you say you are involved in these races. We know you like to talk down people who are seen as 'troublemakers' with stories told in the first person but you never actually experienced. Someone who also likes to gaslight the rest of us by saying no one could have ever thought about the possibility of a racer crashing and no one seeing it.
You really are the perfect embodiment of the UCI and probably bike racing in general.
Halfway down the page in case anyone is interested:
https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/victoria-pendleton-2/
Brucewee - you're making this very personal and coming across as aggressive. That's not appropriate.
You're also applying your experience in a very specific industry to a very different situation. One size does not fit all.
Brucewee – you’re making this very personal. That’s not appropriate.
Yes, I'm angry. Mostly at the UCI but also at people on here who feel the most important thing is no one talk about it.
Sorry for being inappropriate.
You’re also applying your experience in a very specific industry to a very different situation. One size does not fit all.
When it comes to fighting with management who all have their own angles and objectives, one size does fit all. If safety happens to align with their objectives, great. If it doesn't then safety takes a back seat every time.
Yes, I’m angry. Mostly at the UCI but also at people on here who feel the most important thing is no one talk about it.
More than happy for people with the actual relevant facts to talk about it. People with an aggressive anti-UCI position using this tragedy to further their cause, less so.
I think you'll find the Matts and crazy-legs of this world have a far better idea of appropriate risk assessment for sporty/outdoor activities than many on here. And I'm saying that as a Trustee of a charity (Scout groups) who will go to prison if someone dies through our negligence. I take this really seriously.
More than happy for people with the actual relevant facts to talk about it.
The main fact we have and the one that has got me upset is the time between her crash and being found. Is that number actually in dispute?
As someone who was part of a club that had to go through something very similar (so I'm talking from very real and relevant experience) your expectations are so far out of sync with what is reasonable it's unreal.
It's been a week since the accident, there are multiple organisations and literally hundreds of people that will need to feed into an investigation to find out what happened. They are spread over the world due to the nature of the event. There is a formal investigation being undertaken by authorities in Switzerland, which may have the potential to lead to criminal charges and is likely to restrict what can publicly be released.
There is so much information to obtain and process in an incident like this that it's unreasonable to assume that it is all gathered yet (particularly as it may be under caution [or Swiss equivalent]). It then needs to be worked through to get a detailed timeline of what happened and who knew what when. The video puts a lot of potentially unnecessary events to try and make it seem like they know more than they do but what Cat Ferguson was doing is broadly irrelevant. Until this has all been worked through, and it will take time, releasing unverified information is distressing to family, friends and may also be harmful if (quite possibly when) it ends up in court.
We've not had the coroners (Swiss equivalent) findings or police reports released before which any actions would be presumptive
Lots of shouting at the UCI but the event was run by the Local Organising Committee, it seems it was their course design therefore they would have responsibility for risk assessment and mitigation. UCI then had commissaires to review and support so have a review role but do they have responsibility for on the ground actions. Swiss team I'm assuming should be monitoring their riders. I would expect that all three of those organisations are internally reviewing their actions on the day and procedures they have in place.
Nobody is saying things shouldn't be investigated, nobody is saying that investigations might not identify change that should be implemented and nobody is suggesting anyone should not be held to account. However knee jerk reactions and unformulated responses don't help anyone, may actively prevent the right people being held to account and the right actions being implemented.
So quite frankly, some random on the internet's morbid desire to be furnished with a timeframe for no reason at all is irrelevant. It also runs contrary to the Families request to avoid speculation and as they of all people are the ones we should be concerned about, maybe think about winding your neck in.
As someone who was part of a club that had to go through something very similar (so I’m talking from very real and relevant experience) your expectations are so far out of sync with what is reasonable it’s unreal.
Hearing lots of people with experience organising events telling me to shut the **** up. Telling me I've got a morbid fascination, etc.
If you think the 1.5 hours is acceptable, if you think a rider crashing and no one seeing was impossible to predict, if you think no one talking about this is the best course of action then you need someone from the outside with experience of risk mitigation to have a long ****ing hard look at what you are doing.
The number of deaths at cycling events is increasing. The speeds are getting higher. The margins are getting tighter. Riders are willing to take risks they maybe weren't before.
It is getting more dangerous.
And the UCI's solution is to blame the riders and bring in cards (and fines).
If you think the the solution to all this is to continually tell people to stop talking about it then maybe you're the one who should be winding their neck in?
Anyway, like I said halfway up the last page. I don't want specific answers on this case at the moment. Like you said, best wait for the investigation.
Lots of shouting at the UCI but the event was run by the Local Organising Committee, it seems it was their course design therefore they would have responsibility for risk assessment and mitigation. UCI then had commissaires to review and support so have a review role but do they have responsibility for on the ground actions. Swiss team I’m assuming should be monitoring their riders. I would expect that all three of those organisations are internally reviewing their actions on the day and procedures they have in place.
What I want to know is, when the UCI was writing it's guidelines/rules for event organisers, what risk assessment was done regarding the very real possibility a rider could crash and no one see? What procedures are in place to ensure organisers are following the rules?
Or, as crazy-legs said, did such a possibility simply never occur to them?
Because if such a possibility never occurred to them then lots of people need to lose their jobs.
There are multiple solutions, some involving technology (a crash detector isn’t outside the realms of possibility, live tracking which notes when someone stops, etc) and some are administrative (you assume everyone is still racing until you are informed they aren’t and if they suddenly drop from 7th to 97th you expect an update from the team).
I'll go through the list of technology that I've personally witnessed cause issues.
I've seen a race organiser spent a lot of time dealing with somebodies partner, as their crash detector had been activated during an event with little phone coverage, and the partner was continually hassling the organiser to find their partner, despite nobody having reported anything, and marshals failing to locate anybody at the apparent crash activation spot. Turned out the rider had crashed, was fine, but due to lack of phone coverage only the crash activation came through, and no more tracking.
Now repeat that at an event with several hundred riders all with crash detectors, and crash detectors become a wall of noise.
Trackers can be more useful, but add in failed trackers, poor reception, poor accuracy (especially during bad weather), and additional cost, and for most events, the risk assessment doesn't stack up in their favour. Ask any participant if they'd be willing to pay at least an extra £10 on their entry to cover the cost of a tracker on a fairly well contained event, and you probably won't have many takers. Anybody who really wants tracking, can use their phone with an app of their choice.
As for monitoring race positions, people drop positions for numerous reasons. On a large event, you could quite easily tie organisers in knots trying to monitor such a thing.
I'm not trying to dismiss your concerns, which I share, but there is a limit as to what event organisers can practically do, while still making events viable.
Then wait until the investigation is completed properly. Otherwise, you’re just rubber-necking a tragedy, it’s ghoulish
No one needs to wait to ask the question, 'What risk assessment did the UCI carry out regarding a rider crashing and no one being aware? What does the UCI do to make sure the race organisers follow the mitigation factors?'
These are basic questions the press should be asking and yet they are not. It has nothing to do with an ongoing investigation (the results of which it wouldn't surprise me to not see until round about Christmas), it's something that is an ongoing risk for racers and we should know that people's lives aren't being unnecessarily put at risk for our entertainment. Unfortunately Muriel Furrer wasn't a high enough profile casualty for the mainstream press to take an interest and the cycling press has to worry about its access in the future.
Call me goulish, call me morbidly fascinated, call me whatever the **** you like. I've been laughed at for proposing risks that are 'impossible' (only surprisingly enough these things often turn out to be more possible than people would like). It's not particularly nice but people who laugh at you and call you names when you refuse to let them bury their heads in the sand aren't really worth any respect anyway so I can live with it.
Hearing lots of people with experience organising events telling me to shut the * up. Telling me I’ve got a morbid fascination, etc.
No we're saying that a week from the accident, before appropriate authorities have completed their investigations and reports is an unreasonable time to be demanding information be released to the general public against the families wishes.
If you think the 1.5 hours is acceptable,
We don't know whether the time would have affected the outcome as we don't have a coroners report. We don't know the timescales or processes in place, therefore we don't know (and at this time have no reason to know) whether the timeline is correct or not. Is it reasonable, on the face of it no, but does procedure need to change or was someone negligent leading to a delay that could have been resolved then let's see what the investigation outcome says.
if you think a rider crashing and no one seeing was impossible to predict,
Nobody is saying that, it is however unlikely, that the crash is serious is even more unlikely and that the crash results in the rider and their equipment maybe not being visible to and unable to move to obtain help from anyone even more so.
if you think no one talking about this is the best course of action then you need someone from the outside with experience of risk mitigation to have a long * hard look at what you are doing
I think uninformed speculation prior to proper investigation is unhelpful. I'm not so naive as to assume that noone is talking about it, if for no other reason than it was announced that it was being investigated by the authorities in Switzerland. I'm also fairly confident that given the potential legal implications any potentially liable parties will also be undertaking a thorough review of procedures.
The number of deaths at cycling events is increasing. The speeds are getting higher. The margins are getting tighter. Riders are willing to take risks they maybe weren’t before.
I'm not sure they are, do you have proof rather than hyperbole? Yes they are on average but a) we don't know whether that is relevant in this case b) downhill speeds seem to be less affected than flat speeds so in this case potentially not relevant and c) equipment is getting better, braking is more reliable, etc. the major outlier is the clothing and safety equipment worn. Are they willing to take more risks, go back and look at some of the crazy stuff that went on even when I started watching, at the top end people have always taken risks looking at the spectacular cocktails of drugs riders used (which killed them on occasion), the unwillingness to accept helmets because of potential overheating, it's always been there.
It is getting more dangerous.
Do you have any evidence for that? There have been deaths and serious injuries in the peloton forever.
And the UCI’s solution is to blame the riders and bring in cards (and fines).
We've not seen what the UCI may choose to do in response to this, so we just don't know what may happen now.
What I want to know is, when the UCI was writing it’s guidelines/rules for event organisers, what risk assessment was done regarding the very real possibility a rider could crash and no one see? What procedures are in place to ensure organisers are following the rules?
Why, do you feel you are owed an answer or this before the investigation is completed? Why are you assuming it won't happen? Are you an event organiser that might need to change their procedures or are concerned about the liability you may be exposed to.
Shouting doesn't bring anyone back, it doesn't stop it happening again, poorly thought out and rushed legislation or regulations are less effective than well considered and properly planned change. It may be that there was perfectly sound processes and procedures in place that weren't followed or it could be that there is a gap that is identified that can be reasonably addressed or it could be that there is a gap where the further implications of addressing it generate more risk than leaving it open. The only way that will be determined is through the relevant bodies undertaking their investigations. Shouting for answers from the UCI (who may well not be the right people to focus on) on STW forum that they won't read does nothing, moves things nowhere but may be seen by the family and may cause them distress.
No one needs to wait to ask the question, ‘What risk assessment did the UCI carry out regarding a rider crashing and no one being aware? What does the UCI do to make sure the race organisers follow the mitigation factors?’
These are basic questions the press should be asking and yet they are not.
Not they are not, they are questions that should (and are) being asked by formal investigators in a legal environment where the outcome is quite possibly that people serve jail time.
The press could ask that but it will be purely rhetorical as they know full well that no organisation at this stage will be willing or able to provide an answer.
If you got the answer to your question what do you do with it? Stop all racing until something is put in place?If not then why did you need to know now and not wait for the formal investigation outcome? In terms of putting people's lives at risk, it's not new, we've got years and years of racing to look at to know that fatal crashes are not something that happens often.
Those questions also don't lead to identifying any appropriate solutions which is what you (and the rest of us) want to see as an outcome. But those questions are difficult to answer and need to consider the need to reduce potential harm against practical delivery and ensuring that cycle racing is still feasible.
mrhoppy +1
#Shouting doesn’t bring anyone back, it doesn’t stop it happening again, poorly thought out and rushed legislation or regulations are less effective than well considered and properly planned change. It may be that there was perfectly sound processes and procedures in place that weren’t followed or it could be that there is a gap that is identified that can be reasonably addressed or it could be that there is a gap where the further implications of addressing it generate more risk than leaving it open. The only way that will be determined is through the relevant bodies undertaking their investigations.
This.
As brucewee will know, risk management is not best done by press or those without the information we can have, nor is rushing into decisions which are not fully informed or balance. We need time for the full facts to be gathered, a considered enquiry and though process undergone, and recommendations put forward.
Suggesting anyone asking for a considered and balanced approach is 'against' safety is just plain wrong, as is suggesting that risk benefit is at the heart of sports and recreation is also putting our sport above safety is a falsehood.
Asking for people to be fired and looking to apportion blame is also a very quick way of shutting down the truth, of obscuring lessons to be learned. We need all involved to speak without fear or favour, and look to learn not blame.
This is an utterly tragic case, but rushing will not serve anyone well in the future.
These are basic questions the press should be asking and yet they are not.
Having seen that the press cannot even get the nuance of an eBike vs electric motorbike right, I would not put any faith in any reporting from press on this.
I have been up close and personal with the death of a teenager in an outdoor sport my employer provided. The press had not a clue about the intricacies, the judgements being made, the information on hand and more. They basically may as well have made a story up.
This needs leaving to the proper authorities, and the full reports as primary evidence need reading, not some junior reporters story.
Well, OK, I'm sure the results of the investigation will be released in due course, after enough time has passed so everyone can chill out a bit. Probably round about Christmas.
I'm sure there will be enough fudging to make the 1.5 hours to seem entirely unavoidable and we'll all be able to enjoy another year of racing under the leadership of David 'Radios are Fake News' Lappartient.
The number of racing deaths next year will probably not exceed 3.
Do you have any evidence for that? There have been deaths and serious injuries in the peloton forever.
Yes further up the page from the linked article, this section
According to known figures, between 1971 and 1980, 4 cyclists died during races in which they took part, 5 between 1981 and 1990, 6 between 1991 and 2000. From 2001 to 2010, 9 cyclists died in competition, while in the last decade, between 2011 and 2020, 21 cyclists died. In 2023 and 2024, 4 cyclists died on the road while competing. This is a clearly incomplete list that doesn't take into account the many tragedies that have occurred in women's competitions and at youth level.
The rate of accidents causing deaths is rising. Any competent safety organisation would be taking a long hard look at the causes and trying to mitigate them. This would appear to be missing. We can't reduce danger to zero but we can ensure that risk is reduced "as far as is reasonably practicable" which is the basis of all UK and European safety law.