Why did Armstrong cross the road?

After his bit of cyclecross after Beloki's crash at last year's tour, with the peloton bearing down
on him, Lance crossed the road before getting back onto his bike. Why do you think he didn't just
hop back on as soon as his feet touched the tarmac on the right side of the road, instead of
crossing in front of a descending peloton?

And no, "To get to the other side" isn't the answer I'm looking for.

 

I think just from the angle that he was at, with the split second decision... he happened to run sort of across to get the momentum to mount, and also he may have felt that the riders coming by were coming by right where he was, so it was safest to get across that road as quickly as possible before someone hit him.

 

I wondered about this occurrence; Isn't there some rule that you have to stay on the course. It
seems that Armstrong should have gone back to where he went off the road. He took a shortcut, of
course not one that he wanted to take.

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 19:24:26 +0100, "trg" <[email protected]> wrote:

>After his bit of cyclecross after Beloki's crash at last year's tour, with the peloton bearing down
>on him, Lance crossed the road before getting back onto his bike. Why do you think he didn't just
>hop back on as soon as his feet touched the tarmac on the right side of the road, instead of
>crossing in front of a descending peloton?
>
>And no, "To get to the other side" isn't the answer I'm looking for.

 

Darrell Criswell <[email protected]> writes:
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 19:24:26 +0100, "trg" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >After his bit of cyclecross after Beloki's crash at last year's tour, with the peloton bearing
> >down on him, Lance crossed the road before getting back onto his bike. Why do you think he didn't
> >just hop back on as soon as his feet touched the tarmac on the right side of the road, instead of
> >crossing in front of a descending peloton?
> >
> >And no, "To get to the other side" isn't the answer I'm looking for.
>
> I wondered about this occurrence; Isn't there some rule that you have to stay on the course. It
> seems that Armstrong should have gone back to where he went off the road. He took a shortcut, of
> course not one that he wanted to take.

This shows that the race judges have a clue. Armstrong's shortcut was obviously something he didn't
plan, couldn't avoid, and didn't benefit from. What would be the point of making him go back? It was
nice to see a case where a judgement was based on the spirit of the law and not the letter.

I'd wager that Armstrong would have waited for the group he was with if he'd gotten back onto the
road ahead of them; not doing so would surely have resulted in a penalty.

--
Michael Fuhr http://www.fuhr.org/~mfuhr/

 

No, you've missed the point of the question. I wasn't asking why Armstrong crossed the field. That
was understandable and perfectly allowable, since he didn't benefit from it. But after he crossed
the field, and jumped over the ditch, he ran across the road to the other side before getting on
his bike. Why didn't he just mount up as soon as he got to the road, instead of crossing to the
other side?

Michael Fuhr wrote:
> Darrell Criswell <[email protected]> writes:
>> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 19:24:26 +0100, "trg" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> After his bit of cyclecross after Beloki's crash at last year's tour, with the peloton bearing
>>> down on him, Lance crossed the road before getting back onto his bike. Why do you think he
>>> didn't just hop back on as soon as his feet touched the tarmac on the right side of the road,
>>> instead of crossing in front of a descending peloton?
>>>
>>> And no, "To get to the other side" isn't the answer I'm looking for.
>>
>> I wondered about this occurrence; Isn't there some rule that you have to stay on the course. It
>> seems that Armstrong should have gone back to where he went off the road. He took a shortcut, of
>> course not one that he wanted to take.
>
> This shows that the race judges have a clue. Armstrong's shortcut was obviously something he
> didn't plan, couldn't avoid, and didn't benefit from. What would be the point of making him go
> back? It was nice to see a case where a judgement was based on the spirit of the law and not
> the letter.
>
> I'd wager that Armstrong would have waited for the group he was with if he'd gotten back onto the
> road ahead of them; not doing so would surely have resulted in a penalty.

 

"trg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> After his bit of cyclecross after Beloki's crash at last year's tour, with the peloton bearing
> down on him, Lance crossed the road before getting
back
> onto his bike. Why do you think he didn't just hop back on as soon as his feet touched the tarmac
> on the right side of the road, instead of crossing in front of a descending peloton?
>
> And no, "To get to the other side" isn't the answer I'm looking for.
>

Over a long winter of roller rides, I've watched this event MANY times. I think the answer is
threefold: 1) after jumping off of the embankment, he had momentum in that direction, 2) wanting to
mount the bike as fast as possible, he did so in the direction he had momentum, 3) The approaching
riders seemed to be favoring an inside line on the road, so his move to the outside allowed them to
pass safely.

FWIW, Bob C.

 

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 19:24:26 +0100 in rec.bicycles.racing, "trg"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> After his bit of cyclecross after Beloki's crash at last year's tour, with the peloton bearing
> down on him, Lance crossed the road before getting back onto his bike. Why do you think he didn't
> just hop back on as soon as his feet touched the tarmac on the right side of the road, instead of
> crossing in front of a descending peloton?
>
i went back and looked at the video. the peleton behind armstrong & beloki was all bunched on the
inside of the curve, so they were on the left hand side of the road. lance was trying to get out of
their way before mounting.

 

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 01:41:03 GMT in rec.bicycles.racing, Darrell
Criswell <[email protected]> wrote:

> I wondered about this occurrence; Isn't there some rule that you have to stay on the course. It
> seems that Armstrong should have gone back to where he went off the road. He took a shortcut, of
> course not one that he wanted to take.
>
the judges ruled that he took the most prudent action in an emergency to avoid hitting beloki, so
it was OK.

 

My question is "what are the rules about shortcutting the course." Obviously Lance didin't want this
to happen, but this is a sport. It seems to me he should have been disqualified for not following
the race course, even though the route he took was harder than the course..

On 28 Feb 2004 20:12:21 -0700, [email protected] (Michael Fuhr) wrote:

>Darrell Criswell <[email protected]> writes:
>> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 19:24:26 +0100, "trg" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >After his bit of cyclecross after Beloki's crash at last year's tour, with the peloton bearing
>> >down on him, Lance crossed the road before getting back onto his bike. Why do you think he
>> >didn't just hop back on as soon as his feet touched the tarmac on the right side of the road,
>> >instead of crossing in front of a descending peloton?
>> >
>> >And no, "To get to the other side" isn't the answer I'm looking for.
>>
>> I wondered about this occurrence; Isn't there some rule that you have to stay on the course. It
>> seems that Armstrong should have gone back to where he went off the road. He took a shortcut, of
>> course not one that he wanted to take.
>
>This shows that the race judges have a clue. Armstrong's shortcut was obviously something he didn't
>plan, couldn't avoid, and didn't benefit from. What would be the point of making him go back? It
>was nice to see a case where a judgement was based on the spirit of the law and not the letter.
>
>I'd wager that Armstrong would have waited for the group he was with if he'd gotten back onto the
>road ahead of them; not doing so would surely have resulted in a penalty.

 

Straight answer: Because he isn't a dumbass cat 4.

Note that he had the presence of mind to duck in front of the slowly oncoming motorbike and used
that as shelter to remount his bike. Had he stayed on the hill side of the road, he may have forced
the other riders into the motor traffic.

"trg" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> After his bit of cyclecross after Beloki's crash at last year's tour, with the peloton bearing
> down on him, Lance crossed the road before getting
back
> onto his bike. Why do you think he didn't just hop back on as soon as his feet touched the tarmac
> on the right side of the road, instead of crossing in front of a descending peloton?
>
> And no, "To get to the other side" isn't the answer I'm looking for.

 

trg wrote:
> No, you've missed the point of the question. I wasn't asking why Armstrong crossed the field. That
> was understandable and perfectly allowable, since he didn't benefit from it. But after he crossed
> the field, and jumped over the ditch, he ran across the road to the other side before getting on
> his bike. Why didn't he just mount up as soon as he got to the road, instead of crossing to the
> other side?
>
If he had gotten on his bike as soon as he got onto the road, he would have been in people's way.
Running across the road and remounting ensured that nobody would run into him. The road was winding
and the riders were all on one side of the road.

 

BryanB wrote:
> Straight answer: Because he isn't a dumbass cat 4.
>
> Note that he had the presence of mind to duck in front of the slowly oncoming motorbike and used
> that as shelter to remount his bike. Had he stayed on the hill side of the road, he may have
> forced the other riders into the motor traffic.

Thiat's my anaylsis too. He saw the motorcycle pretty much stopped, knew that the riders would have
to move to their left to avoid it, and used it as a shelter to remount.

 

trg <[email protected]> wrote:
> No, you've missed the point of the question. I wasn't asking why Armstrong crossed the field. That
> was understandable and perfectly allowable, since he didn't benefit from it. But after he crossed
> the field, and jumped over the ditch, he ran across the road to the other side before getting on
> his bike. Why didn't he just mount up as soon as he got to the road, instead of crossing to the
> other side?

Doesn't road etiquette demand starting from the right side of the road? That's what everyone in the
know who saw this told me.

> Michael Fuhr wrote:
>> Darrell Criswell <[email protected]> writes:
>>> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 19:24:26 +0100, "trg" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> After his bit of cyclecross after Beloki's crash at last year's tour, with the peloton bearing
>>>> down on him, Lance crossed the road before getting back onto his bike. Why do you think he
>>>> didn't just hop back on as soon as his feet touched the tarmac on the right side of the road,
>>>> instead of crossing in front of a descending peloton?
>>>>
>>>> And no, "To get to the other side" isn't the answer I'm looking for.
>>>
>>> I wondered about this occurrence; Isn't there some rule that you have to stay on the course. It
>>> seems that Armstrong should have gone back to where he went off the road. He took a shortcut, of
>>> course not one that he wanted to take.
>>
>> This shows that the race judges have a clue. Armstrong's shortcut was obviously something he
>> didn't plan, couldn't avoid, and didn't benefit from. What would be the point of making him go
>> back? It was nice to see a case where a judgement was based on the spirit of the law and not the
>> letter.
>>
>> I'd wager that Armstrong would have waited for the group he was with if he'd gotten back onto the
>> road ahead of them; not doing so would surely have resulted in a penalty.

 

Clovis Lark wrote:
> trg <[email protected]> wrote:
>> No, you've missed the point of the question. I wasn't asking why Armstrong crossed the field.
>> That was understandable and perfectly allowable, since he didn't benefit from it. But after he
>> crossed the field, and jumped over the ditch, he ran across the road to the other side before
>> getting on his bike. Why didn't he just mount up as soon as he got to the road, instead of
>> crossing to the other side?
>
> Doesn't road etiquette demand starting from the right side of the road? That's what everyone in
> the know who saw this told me.
>
I wondered the same thing. Can someone confirm it?

 

"trg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > Doesn't road etiquette demand starting from the right side of the road? That's what everyone in
> > the know who saw this told me.
> >
> I wondered the same thing. Can someone confirm it?
>
>

It depends on the country. If the event is in the UK, Australia, Japan, et.al. road etiquette would
demand the _left_side.

 

I thought the same thing when I saw it- looked like a move that really put the descending peleton at
risk, when he could have stayed on the left side of the road, instead of crossing their path.

"trg" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> No, you've missed the point of the question. I wasn't asking why Armstrong crossed the field. That
> was understandable and perfectly allowable, since
he
> didn't benefit from it. But after he crossed the field, and jumped over
the
> ditch, he ran across the road to the other side before getting on his
bike.
> Why didn't he just mount up as soon as he got to the road, instead of crossing to the other side?
>
> Michael Fuhr wrote:
> > Darrell Criswell <[email protected]> writes:
> >> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 19:24:26 +0100, "trg" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> After his bit of cyclecross after Beloki's crash at last year's tour, with the peloton bearing
> >>> down on him, Lance crossed the road before getting back onto his bike. Why do you think he
> >>> didn't just hop back on as soon as his feet touched the tarmac on the right side of the road,
> >>> instead of crossing in front of a descending peloton?
> >>>
> >>> And no, "To get to the other side" isn't the answer I'm looking for.
> >>
> >> I wondered about this occurrence; Isn't there some rule that you have to stay on the course. It
> >> seems that Armstrong should have gone back to where he went off the road. He took a shortcut,
> >> of course not one that he wanted to take.
> >
> > This shows that the race judges have a clue. Armstrong's shortcut was obviously something he
> > didn't plan, couldn't avoid, and didn't benefit from. What would be the point of making him go
> > back? It was nice to see a case where a judgement was based on the spirit of the law and not the
> > letter.
> >
> > I'd wager that Armstrong would have waited for the group he was with if he'd gotten back onto
> > the road ahead of them; not doing so would surely have resulted in a penalty.

 

slower traffic keep to the right

"trg" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Clovis Lark wrote:
> > trg <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> No, you've missed the point of the question. I wasn't asking why Armstrong crossed the field.
> >> That was understandable and perfectly allowable, since he didn't benefit from it. But after he
> >> crossed the field, and jumped over the ditch, he ran across the road to the other side before
> >> getting on his bike. Why didn't he just mount up as soon as he got to the road, instead of
> >> crossing to the other side?
> >
> > Doesn't road etiquette demand starting from the right side of the road? That's what everyone in
> > the know who saw this told me.
> >
> I wondered the same thing. Can someone confirm it?

 

trg wrote:
> After his bit of cyclecross after Beloki's crash at last year's tour, with the peloton bearing
> down on him, Lance crossed the road before getting back onto his bike. Why do you think he didn't
> just hop back on as soon as his feet touched the tarmac on the right side of the road, instead of
> crossing in front of a descending peloton?

You can find a video segment for stage 9 at: http://www.olntv.com/tdf03/03tdfvideo.html

 

"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> trg wrote:
> > After his bit of cyclecross after Beloki's crash at last year's tour, with the peloton bearing
> > down on him, Lance crossed the road before getting back onto his bike. Why do you think he
> > didn't just hop back on as soon as his feet touched the tarmac on the right side of the road,
> > instead of crossing in front of a descending peloton?
>
> You can find a video segment for stage 9 at: http://www.olntv.com/tdf03/03tdfvideo.html
>
>
>

That clip pretty much explains everything except the OP's question. The motorcycle is a camera moto
who obviously stopped where he did to get a shot of Armstrong coming back onto the road. The natural
flow of the road would have the riders on the left side, except it is blocked by the motor, then
Armstrong himself, as the lead riders were only about three bike lengths behind Armstrong as he
crossed in front of them. Even so, the riders are more likely to be nearly single file going through
the section than bunched up and the right edge of the road remained clear. Armstrong isn't carrying
a lot of speed onto the road, so it isn't momentum. The only thing that comes to mind is that he
mounts the bike from the left side and he might have been concerned about hooking one of the riders
with his leg as he hopped on his bike.

Then again, maybe its a personal thing to be on the left side of the road, like on Luz Ardiden.

 

Its different because he was trying to avoid an accident.
Sort of like how in Nascar, drivers may fly through pit road at over 100mph to avoid a wreck just ahead of them on the front straightaway... and they don't get penalized.