Albert Tatlock Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Freedom of choice and personal libert seem to be a misplaced argument. I'm afraid I can't see racing in the TT as a basic human freedom. I don't accept the argument that racers have some kind of right or entitlement to continue racing on the TT course. If it were cancelled forthwith and angry riders went to the European Court of Human Rights to argue their case they'd be laughed out of the door. There are no freedoms at stake here. No freedoms at stake? Read this, your own paragraph, to yourself a few times and think again. You mean your way - or the highway methinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 The reason modern F1 and MotoGP fatalities has dropped significantly is due mainly to modern circuit design, the TT course isn't much safer now than the day it was finally tarmaced And there's the rub. With all the incredibly hard road furniture about, it's difficult to see how the risk could be significantly reduced without reducing maximum speeds to, say 140mph and average speeds to, say under 100mph. Would that "kill the TT"? The TT as an institution faces many risks to its continued existence including the ageing of its support base and the cost of travelling to the event. It might also face a major risk from the evolving social attitude to risk taking and it's not difficult to envisage a situation where it was forced to take drastic action to survive in the face of significant public opposition to the dangers (despite the fact that it's been successful in avoiding such a scenario so far). If I was involved in the organisation of the event I would be very seriously thinking about what pre-emptive actions could be taken to give a more "acceptable" level of risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 The reason modern F1 and MotoGP fatalities has dropped significantly is due mainly to modern circuit design, the TT course isn't much safer now than the day it was finally tarmaced And there's the rub. With all the incredibly hard road furniture about, it's difficult to see how the risk could be significantly reduced without reducing maximum speeds to, say 140mph and average speeds to, say under 100mph. Would that "kill the TT"? The TT as an institution faces many risks to its continued existence including the ageing of its support base and the cost of travelling to the event. It might also face a major risk from the evolving social attitude to risk taking and it's not difficult to envisage a situation where it was forced to take drastic action to survive in the face of significant public opposition to the dangers (despite the fact that it's been successful in avoiding such a scenario so far). If I was involved in the organisation of the event I would be very seriously thinking about what pre-emptive actions could be taken to give a more "acceptable" level of risk. it may go the way of F1 and moto GP with reduced engine capacity, but they soon seem to overcome that?? the main reason the production was dropped a few years ago was that with standard suspension with the engines available could easily overtax the chassis on what passes for a road surface over here. odd how the slower classes 250 and 125 got axed, but i think that was an emmission thing. the whole point of 'racing' is to go fast as possible, if they suddenly say smaller engines and plain unleaded fuel, no one in my lifetime will be challenging the lap records ( until they remodel another corner and say it makes NO difference ) i reckon they will start using the new road at governors rather than the old one, got to be good for a few seconds?? as already said in a roundabout way, road racing can NEVER be the same regarding safety as a purpose built circuit with runoffs and kitty litter. roads will always have hedges and walls or rockfaces to stop your progress instead of air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgarian Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 The reason modern F1 and MotoGP fatalities has dropped significantly is due mainly to modern circuit design, the TT course isn't much safer now than the day it was finally tarmaced And there's the rub. With all the incredibly hard road furniture about, it's difficult to see how the risk could be significantly reduced without reducing maximum speeds to, say 140mph and average speeds to, say under 100mph. Would that "kill the TT"? The TT as an institution faces many risks to its continued existence including the ageing of its support base and the cost of travelling to the event. It might also face a major risk from the evolving social attitude to risk taking and it's not difficult to envisage a situation where it was forced to take drastic action to survive in the face of significant public opposition to the dangers (despite the fact that it's been successful in avoiding such a scenario so far). If I was involved in the organisation of the event I would be very seriously thinking about what pre-emptive actions could be taken to give a more "acceptable" level of risk. If you organised the TT, what would you do to reduce risk to riders and spectators? There are various measures you could implement but all might have a detrimental effect on the popularity of the racing among its fanbase, by removing or reducing the elements that make it appealing to them. You could increase the amount of 'road furniture' in an attempt to minimise the injuries of riders when they do crash. The problem is that the amount of bales and barriers has probably reached a practicable limit. They are expensive to buy and install, and you could cover every hedge and tree in air fences but with the speeds the riders are going it wouldn't make a great deal of difference. So you could limit the speeds of the bikes. That would be extremely unpopular with the fans and riders, and if the TT is to continue it needs their support. We must accept a degree of danger is inherent in road racing if it is to continue. Safety measures can only go so far before they impact on the appeal of the sport. What i'm interested in is the social attitudes to risk and death, and personal freedoms. Why do we find these deaths so unacceptable when the participants are fully aware of the risks involved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 The TT as an institution faces many risks to its continued existence including the ageing of its support base and the cost of travelling to the event. It might also face a major risk from the evolving social attitude to risk taking and it's not difficult to envisage a situation where it was forced to take drastic action to survive in the face of significant public opposition to the dangers (despite the fact that it's been successful in avoiding such a scenario so far). I think that there is a real mismatch between the OH&S attitude to risk taking and the public attitude as portrayed on television shows and reportage of events. Compared with when I was a kid people these days seem to revel in 'the greater the risk the better the entertainment' type attitudes - so IMO social attitude to risk, if measured by society not bureaucracy, is pushing towards greater and greater risk taking and more and more violence and graphical footage of this. I would therfeore query whether the evolving public attitude to risk you mention is towards less or towards more of it. While it is true that the TT may need to be proactive I suspect that this is little to do with the public attitude to danger and a lot to do with public service attitudes to danger. What is the bit people like about F1? Boring lap after lap of cars following each other, or 'the incidents' replayed in slow motion? Which F1 races are remembered, incident free or incident packed? And IF there is an 'evolving attitude to risk taking' and 'significant public opposition to the dangers' surely the first thing that should be done is to get bikes off the road because statistically they are exceptionally dangerous and kill in the UK on average 300 times the bikers that the TT does each year. I really don't mind what happens to the TT but I think when JR started quoting statistics and knocking everyone elses comments if he didn't agree with them, he would have been best focusing on the big fatality numbers and the maximum opportunity to save life. Otherwise it starts to smell of hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgarian Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I think that there is a real mismatch between the OH&S attitude to risk taking and the public attitude as portrayed on television shows and reportage of events. Compared with when I was a kid people these days seem to revel in 'the greater the risk the better the entertainment' type attitudes - so IMO social attitude to risk, if measured by society not bureaucracy, is pushing towards greater and greater risk taking and more and more violence and graphical footage of this. I would therfeore query whether the evolving public attitude to risk you mention is towards less or towards more of it. While it is true that the TT may need to be proactive I suspect that this is little to do with the public attitude to danger and a lot to do with public service attitudes to danger. I don't know about the trend in popular attitude towards greater risk taking. If it is happening it may be a reaction to the corporate/bureaucratic suppression of risk taking - OH&S and all that. It is clear though from the opinions of some people in this thread that risk taking is not totally acceptable socially, even for responsible adults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonnyrotten Posted August 13, 2009 Author Share Posted August 13, 2009 One important question: HOW MANY OF THE POSTERS TO THIS TOPIC HAVE COMPETED ON THE MOUNTAIN CIRCUIT? Finally, it is apparent that quite a few have moved to the Isle of Man from elsewhere in the UK, and to them I would say "If you don't want to play, then you shouldn't have joined" I think you must be the only person who's commented on this thread who thinks that in order to have a valid opinion on the TT you must have raced in it. And as for the "boat in the morning" chestnut - no-one seriously thinks that's a valid response in a debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonnyrotten Posted August 13, 2009 Author Share Posted August 13, 2009 So far you and I seem to be about the ONLY posters on on this thread who haven't claimed that I would like the TT banned. But it's quite clear that mentioning the undeniably awful safety record makes the most vociferous pro-TT fans lash out at whoever mentions it, mostly because they know it's indefensible as it is.. So JR I am a little puzzled as a bystander. You support the TT (well you must support it if you don't want it banned) but you attack people who disagree with you - and who also want to keep the TT. I understand that tourist trophy races were races that took place on public roads. This certainly is the tradition of the IOM TT and if you support the IOM TT, as you imply in your quote above, you are presumably supporting this style of racing, not something else that would not have the characteristics of genuine TT racing. Frankly I cannot see how it is possible to take a long road circuit on roads like ours and turn it into a completely safe circuit. So if you support public road races such as the TT you also recognise that dangers attach to this form of racing. Would it be possible for you to actually be positive and to be specific about what you envisage for the TT - rather than generalisations and negative comments if people don't conform to your views? First of all, I'm not aware of "attacking" anyone, or even their point of view. If I have, please show me where. Second, as I pointed out in the original post, all racing was once Tourist Trophy style on public roads, but over the years the level of danger has been deemed unacceptable and all great races have adapated, improved - and survived. The Le Mans 24 Hours is still the Le Mans 24 Hours, for example, and attracts many more spectators than the TT, a large percentage of them British. So I don't think we need to be afraid of change, but it seems a lot of people are. As for what I envisage - don't ask me for specifics, because I'm not a circuit designer. But when was the last time the organisers employed a circuit racing safety officer and what were the suggestions made? How much did we spend on a symphony orchestra this year, and how much Airfence would that money have bought? Why does the helicopter fund exist? Shouldn't ALL essential safety services be paid for by the organisers? Is the reason there's no aftercare and financial aid for injured riders simply because an insurance company has told the organisers it could be seen as an admission of responsibility, and must be avoided? In any case, are we happy that injured riders depend on the plastic bucket brigade? Is there a case for restricting maximum engine size to 600cc? Will it make racing safer? Will it help develop better, more fuel-efficient 600s for road use, and isn't that the sort of thing racing is meant to be about? And please don't think that just because I haven't got a handy basket full of answers the original post is therefore invalid. Highlighting a problematic situation does not also require posession of a solution, nor mean the problem doesn't exist. As for conforming to my views - as I keep saying, I've just set out the numbers, and pointed out the inescapable conclusion that this is a very dangerous place and we as a nation haven't done anything very much to improve that, and that as race organisers our government is morally and ethically obliged to carry the can for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonnyrotten Posted August 13, 2009 Author Share Posted August 13, 2009 ... IF there is an 'evolving attitude to risk taking' and 'significant public opposition to the dangers' surely the first thing that should be done is to get bikes off the road because statistically they are exceptionally dangerous and kill in the UK on average 300 times the bikers that the TT does each year. I really don't mind what happens to the TT but I think when JR started quoting statistics and knocking everyone elses comments if he didn't agree with them, he would have been best focusing on the big fatality numbers and the maximum opportunity to save life. Otherwise it starts to smell of hypocrisy. The whole thing about bikes on the roads has been raised before in this thread. I still don't see it as a vaild argument, mainly because daily travel is a necessity and also because we do everything in our power to make that as safe as possible. Road racing is a hobby, not a necessity and as I pointed out, what we quite clearly haven't done is make it any safer than it ever was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonnyrotten Posted August 13, 2009 Author Share Posted August 13, 2009 Freedom of choice and personal libert seem to be a misplaced argument. I'm afraid I can't see racing in the TT as a basic human freedom. I don't accept the argument that racers have some kind of right or entitlement to continue racing on the TT course. If it were cancelled forthwith and angry riders went to the European Court of Human Rights to argue their case they'd be laughed out of the door. There are no freedoms at stake here. No freedoms at stake? Read this, your own paragraph, to yourself a few times and think again. You mean your way - or the highway methinks. No Albert, I haven't got a "way", just a set of statistics which make doleful reading and OUGHT to provoke concern. And I still can't see that anyone trying to assert their right to race at the TT as some kind of basic human liberty has any merit in such a claim. It's a sporting activity, that's all it is. I've already said that as long as it exists people have a right to take part. But anyone who suggests that it ought to go on as is because it's some kind of personal liberty is running out of reasons for its continuation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Interesting that the issue of Human Rights has been raised. Article 1 All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Article 2 Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Article 3 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 4 No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Article 5 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 6 Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. Article 7 All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. Article 8 Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. Article 9 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Article 10 Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. Article 11 1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. 2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed. Article 12 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. Article 13 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. 2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including their own, and to return to their country. Article 14 1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. 2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Article 15 1. Everyone has the right to a nationality. 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. Article 16 1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. 2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. 3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. Article 17 1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. Article 18 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. Article 19 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Article 20 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. 2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association. Article 21 1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of their country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. 2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in their country. 3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. Article 22 Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. Article 23 1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. 2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. 3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. 4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. Article 24 Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. Article 25 1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. 2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection. Article 26 1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. 2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. 3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. Article 27 1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. Article 28 Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized. Article 29 1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. 2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. 3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Article 30 Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. Perhaps JW might indicate where the issues regarding the TT could be fitted in as regards 'Human Rights' But of course, the IOM doesn't even have Disability Discrimination Legislation does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Regarding the speed issue, to use an analogy, I would maintain that no-one really cares that much if/when lap records are broken in F1 races - the key is in the race itself, not the speed of the cars. There have been numerous "reset" events when F1 vehicle specification has been changed in order to bring about various changes, including reducing cornering speed to reduce the accident risk. This has affected lap times and top speeds but with little detrimental effect on the popularity of the sport. I suppose the difference is, the TT is a time trial, not a race. The lap times are central to the competition, which isn't the case in F1. HOW MANY OF THE POSTERS TO THIS TOPIC HAVE COMPETED ON THE MOUNTAIN CIRCUIT? There we have it. The pinnacle of intelligent debate from a TT fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KMC Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 HOW MANY OF THE POSTERS TO THIS TOPIC HAVE COMPETED ON THE MOUNTAIN CIRCUIT? There we have it. The pinnacle of intelligent debate from a TT fan. To be honest Slim, I do believe this poster has competed in the MGP and the TT if it's who I think it is!! As regards this debate in general, we now have a few angles to go at, and I'm now not sure which direction we are going in. Is it a case of:- 1. The TT circuit is out of date and needs amending - Impossible IMO due to the fact it’s an open Road 48 weeks out of 52! 2. The TT circuit needs more safety measures implemented along it's entire 37.7 miles to protect the competitors - This is ongoing, and was looked at very stringently after the TT2007 incident up on the Mountain. Improvements were made to not only protect the competitor, but also the spectators. 3. The TT should be stopped because it's dangerous - Who actually decides this one. Mass public opposition might sway certain decisions, but undoubtedly, it will more likely be Health and Safety! 4. The TT should be stopped because the two weeks its run causes so much disruption to my daily life - Most people that are affected have been brought up with this tradition, and if not, then they are new to the island and should have taken this into consideration when choosing to move and where to reside if on the course. 5. The machines should be restricted to reduce speed and thus serious injury and possible death – This was carried out with MotoGP, and yet the speeds are now just the same as before. Also, and as has just been pointed out, the TT is a big “Time Trial” and as such, reducing the speed of the machinery will take away the challenge to compete. I honestly don’t know what the answer is. You either want the TT to remain, and remain in its current form. Or you want it stopped, or at best altered to the extent that it will lose its appeal and die a slow but sure death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossils Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 One important question: HOW MANY OF THE POSTERS TO THIS TOPIC HAVE COMPETED ON THE MOUNTAIN CIRCUIT? Finally, it is apparent that quite a few have moved to the Isle of Man from elsewhere in the UK, and to them I would say "If you don't want to play, then you shouldn't have joined" I think you must be the only person who's commented on this thread who thinks that in order to have a valid opinion on the TT you must have raced in it. And as for the "boat in the morning" chestnut - no-one seriously thinks that's a valid response in a debate. Again...........When faced with opposition to his mind-fix, he simply dismisses it as irrelevant. Does anyone else regard johnnyrotten's "thinking" as blinkered, prejudiced, one-sided, bigotted and discriminatory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 JRs topic is headed SAFETY An issue that rightly should be of concern and the subject of debate. As for 'If you don't like it,' I don't regard the 'boat expression' as feck all but the last resort of someone with a blinkered, prejudiced, one-sided, bigotted and discriminatory mindest. It just demonstrates a total failure to be able to debate anything rationally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.