Wout Van Aert’s recent idea to introduce gear ratio limits in professional races might seem odd at first glance, but it brings a positive aspect: someone is finally putting the spotlight on the urgent need to seriously address safety in cycling.
It’s a topic that has been discussed for years, yet real progress has been scarce.
If we look at motorsport as an example, it’s clear how far they’ve come: safer tracks with larger run-off areas, advanced protective gear for drivers, life-saving technologies like the Halo system, and finely detailed regulations.
Some rules might seem excessive, like banning jewelry or forbidding overtaking in the pit lane even during practice, but they are part of a systematic approach that, numbers in hand, has delivered real results.
And what about cycling? The comparison is ruthless.
Officials worry about sock height while bike regulations often seem more focused on generating profits (think of certification stickers) rather than truly protecting athletes.
The only ones who have made genuine improvements recently are the motorbike marshals and Asa personnel, who have developed a serious, professional protocol.
Meanwhile, the UCI — the body that should be leading the change — shows little real interest in rider safety, and sadly, many riders reflect this attitude.
With his proposal, Van Aert at least had the merit of shining a light once again on an issue that is too often ignored.
But is limiting gear ratios really an effective solution?
The answer is no. Even with shorter gears, the average speed would barely drop. In fact, paradoxically, it could make the peloton even tighter, forcing riders to race fast in cramped spaces — a recipe for even more crashes.
There are ideas I’ve personally been advocating for years, which unfortunately seem to fall on deaf ears.
In my opinion, the two key areas to work on are:
-
Route supervision, led by someone with actual racing experience who can identify potential dangers well before race day;
-
Serious oversight on bikes and equipment.
Current rules mainly focus on frame geometry and minimum weight, but these aspects have little real impact on safety.
The real issues are wheels and tires — but here, we run into major commercial interests.
Right now, the safety of professional bikes is largely controlled by the big manufacturers who heavily influence the UCI.
And this is the crucial point riders must understand: only they have the strength to challenge the system and demand tougher, truly independent rules.
Van Aert’s proposal, while debatable in content, has the great merit of reigniting a crucial discussion.
Professional cycling urgently needs a shift in mindset: it needs rules that protect athletes, not commercial interests.
It will be a long, complicated road.
But it’s the only way to ensure a real, safe future for our sport.
