It might seem counterintuitive in a sport built around speed, but the world governing body for competitive cycling wants to slow elite riders down.

Worried about high-speed crashes during pro-racing events, the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) has proposed a cap on the gear size riders can use. The idea is to lower the possible top speed bikes can achieve.

The risks are real, too. At the recent Tour Down Under Men’s Classic in Australia, a high-speed multi-rider crash on the final corner sent bikes into the barriers and into the crowd, badly injuring a spectator.

In August this year, champion British rider Chris Froome crashed while training in France, suffering a collapsed lung, broken ribs and a spinal fracture.

But would restricting gear size prevent these kinds of high-speed crashes? Certainly, not everyone thinks so.

Earlier this month, a Belgian court paused the rule change after teams and a major cycle component maker argued the safety case was not proven. While slower bikes might sound safer, they argue, the evidence tells a different story.

What the evidence tells us

The proposed rule would limit the largest gear size to 54 teeth on the front chainring and 11 on the rear sprocket. The idea is simple: lower the top gear to reduce top speed and, in theory, cut risk.

But while speed clearly matters when it comes to crashes, it is only one part of how they happen in a tightly packed peloton (the main pack of riders in a road race).

Our recent review of 18 studies of race speed and crash risk found two clear patterns:

• higher speed makes injuries worse once a crash occurs
• but the link between speed and the chance of crashing is weaker and depends on context.

Injury rates in the UCI WorldTour have climbed even though average race speeds have been steady. So, something else is at work.

We also examined the proposed gear cap itself. Based on our analysis, we argue any rule change should be evidence-based rather than simply a reaction to pressure after high-profile incidents.

Understanding why crashes occur is central to this. Essentially, they are about people and space, and happen for a number of reasons:

• when riders fight for position as they enter a narrowing corner
• when sprint “trains” (riders in the same team lining up for aerodynamic efficiency) cross wheels
• or when road “furniture” appears too late to be avoided.

In this year’s Paris–Nice race, for example, Mattias Skjelmose struck a traffic island at speed and abandoned the race. Reports described it as a poorly marked obstacle.

Course design, peloton density and inconsistent rule enforcement often play a bigger role than a few extra kilometers per hour.

Why a gear limit won’t help much

On hill descents, where many serious injuries occur, riders freewheel in a tucked body position. Gravity and aerodynamics set the speed—gearing does not.

When riders are actually pedaling in a sprint, a 54×11 gear at high “cadence” (around 110–120 revolutions per minute) gives a speed of roughly 65 kilometers per hour (km/h). The very fastest finishes in elite men’s races reach about 75 km/h—the absolute peak speed.

A cap on gearing would trim roughly 5–10 km/h from the top-end, bringing the fastest sprints down to around 65–70 km/h. But most sprint pileups start below those speeds and are triggered by contact or line changes.

Lowering everyone’s top speed could even bunch the field more tightly and raise the risk of contact. The pro-cycling world already knows what helps:

These steps match what other high-speed sports have done to reduce injuries. Motor sports redesign the environment rather than just limit speed, with NASCAR and IndyCar having adopted energy-absorbing barriers to cut wall-impact forces.

And alpine skiing manages risk with course design, as well as nets and airbag protection to control speed and crash severity.

Similar approaches to safety are used in aviation, mining and health care. The aim is to focus on the environment and behavior, measure exposure, fix the hotspots and share what works to keep improving safety.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

After months of deployments by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the National Guard across American cities, federal agents have been preparing to descend into San Francisco.

Local resistance groups have been coordinating with activists in other cities across the country that have been besieged by federal law enforcement. Thousands of volunteers, coordinating through Signal group chats, Zoom calls, and social media posts, planned protests and spread the word that federal troops are on their way to San Francisco. Even though they aren’t—yet.

On Thursday morning, SF mayor Daniel Lurie posted on Instagram and X to announce that he had spoken with President Donald Trump and convinced him to call off the federal agents that had planned to go to San Francisco this Saturday. Trump confirmed that on Truth Social shortly thereafter, writing, “Great people like Jensen Huang, Marc Benioff, and others have called saying that the future of San Francisco is great. They want to give it a ‘shot.’ Therefore, we will not surge San Francisco on Saturday. Stay tuned!”

Activists and San Francisco residents are not exactly convinced, and so the organizing continues.

Early this week, a contingent of around 100 federal law enforcement agents converged on Coast Guard Island, a small base in Alameda, just across the Bay from San Francisco that federal officials say is being used as a staging area for upcoming immigration raids. Only one road leads to and from the island, and once word spread about the deployment, agents were quickly boxed in. Around 200 protesters showed up Thursday morning to try to disrupt their movements, resulting in clashes.

On Wednesday night, a group called Bay Resistance held an educational webinar that drew a massive turnout; due to the limitations of the group’s Zoom subscription, it had to cap the call at 5,000 attendees. Hundreds more viewed a recording afterwards.

“The Bay is not going to sit quietly,” Emily Lee, a Bay Resistance organizer, said on the mobilization call. “We are definitely going to be standing up together against this administration.”

Throughout the call, organizers spoke in English with Spanish translations, sharing plans for upcoming actions across the Bay. They talked about lessons learned from their direct communications with organizers in Los Angeles who mobilized against the ICE raids and federal troop deployments there, and the importance of taking the tack of Portland’s protesters, who relied on humor and inflatable animals to counter ICE actions and protest Trump’s claims of the city being a “war ravaged” hellhole.

“If there’s a camera that knows the cards, there is always some kind of underlying threat. Customers are gonna be essentially at the mercy of the person setting up the machine,” poker player and card house owner Doug Polk previously told WIRED. “If you’re showing up in a private game and there’s a shuffler, I would say you should run for the hills.”

Hacking the Deckmate 2, according to prosecutors, was only one of several cheating techniques the mobsters allegedly used, albeit the one that’s described in the most detail in the indictment. The charging document also claims that they used invisibly marked cards, electronic poker chip trays, phones that could secretly read cards’ markings, and even specially designed glasses and contact lenses.

While the details of those schemes weren’t spelled out by prosecutors, they’re all well known in the casino security world, says Sal Piacente, a professional cheating consultant and the president of UniverSal Game Protection. Cards can, for instance, have hidden bar codes on their edges—printed invisibly, such as with infrared ink—that can be deciphered by a reader hidden in a chip tray or in a phone case laid on the table. In other cases, cards are similarly marked on their backs with ink that’s only visible with special glasses or contacts.

“This kind of equipment is being used more than you would think,” Piacente says. “When you go to a private game, there’s no regulation, no commission, no rules. Anything goes.”