http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/riders-cry-foul-at-tour-de-f...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/motorbike-driver-ejected-fro...
A minor motorcycle bump would also be quite recoverable, not much different from contact with a peer which is a routine occurrence in racing, far from being inevitably followed by a crash. A "minor drone buzzing"? I don't think so.
And still, moto/cyclist crashes happen and replacing them with drone/cyclist would be worse.
The motorcycles are an eyesore, they interfere with the race, and they emit noxious gasses for the athletes to breathe. Replacing them with drones seems like the thing to do.
Also, the low hanging fruit would not be getting rid of the very few TV motos, it would be reducing the high number of mostly redundant photojournalism motos.
Actually, I'd argue differently. I'd imagine the greatest risk of injury from a drone would be it failing and falling from a significant height (i.e. similar shots as provided by helicopters). However, I'd envisage they could do a great job providing images/video from (say) 15-20 metres away - close enough to replace the video motorbikes and not present a great risk in the unlikely event of failure, but far enough to not interfere - and probably interfere less than the motorbikes currently do.
> Also, the low hanging fruit would not be getting rid of the very few TV motos, it would be reducing the high number of mostly redundant photojournalism motos. Agree; but it can't be beyond the wit of man to outfit a drone to take decent quality stills?