bluemonday Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Expanding some thoughts in this topic. If Modern day Gladiators were allowed to fight. To the death. In public. Would people come forward to sign up? And Would wannabees, camp followers or however you want to define enthusiastic supporters. Pay to watch such contests? And Would one day a year be given over for wannabees to run around with swords fighting and killing other wanabees? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KMC Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Expanding some thoughts in this topic. If Modern day Gladiators were allowed to fight. To the death. In public. Would people come forward to sign up? And Would wannabees, camp followers or however you want to define enthusiastic supporters. Pay to watch such contests? And Would one day a year be given over for wannabees to run around with swords fighting and killing other wanabees? That example is so ridiculous, that it's laughable The problem here is that you cannot compare like for like when you include the TT/MGP in the equation. It's not all about comparisons, but whether or not you agree with the level of risk involved, And to me, that decision is down to the competitor and nobody else!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 And you are a competitor? As for That example is so ridiculous, that it's laughable. Why? The comparison was rightly or wrongly raised earlier and it would be interesting to compare the moral and ethical issues alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Expanding some thoughts in this topic. If Modern day Gladiators were allowed to fight. To the death. In public. Would people come forward to sign up? i woulden but i bet there would be a lot that would Would wannabees, camp followers or however you want to define enthusiastic supporters.Pay to watch such contests? prob beats eastenders on a weeknight Would one day a year be given over for wannabees to run around with swords fighting and killing other wanabees? just 1 day a year!!! thought it be screened 5 nights a week on prime time tv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
queenie Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 There will always be risk takers and thrill seekers in society - surely that is how the human race has progressed this far? You can't switch that instinct off just because it interferes with your delicate sensibilities. Is it not better for this instinct to be channelled into something like motorsport rather than criminal activities? IMO the increase in 'youth crime' coincides with the world becoming 'safer'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Without the government sponsorship and prize money, the event wouldn't happen. So it's my view that the government holds some responsibility for the safety, or lack of it. The events needs financial support and the government acts as the facilitator for the event, but I don't think it does necessarily engender responsibility. Maybe I am missing something that you are seeing. I am not quite sure where you stand Slim, is it simply that you would not want to contribute to this event or do you actually think it should be stopped (or even banned)? What exactly is it that 'bothers' you about it? Is it simply that you don't like that fact that people participate in dangerous sports? Or dislike government involvement? Just trying to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KMC Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 And you are a competitor? No, but I do know a lot of them, and they all decide for themselves whether to race or not. Prior to TT 2009, a few newcomers were announced as taking part, only to then decide that they were either not ready for the event, or that they considered it too dangerous. Again, it is down to personal choice, and this cannot be taken away from anyone who has that right. I don't like the tragic events that we have seen of late any less than anyone else, but who am I or anyone else to dictate to these individuals what they can and can't do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KMC Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 And you are a competitor? As for That example is so ridiculous, that it's laughable. Why? The comparison was rightly or wrongly raised earlier and it would be interesting to compare the moral and ethical issues alone. The answer was in my full post, but in the main, the reason being that this was regarding the TT and not Gladiators, and I couldn't see the connection or relevance to your comparison. However, if you would like my response to your question, then I cannot ever see it taking off, as the odds of dying are to high at 50%, and the one day a year free for all would be unacceptable due to the possibility of innocent people getting caught up in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 No I don't understand the probability and statistical inference in your argument. Be good enough to explain them so we can ALL follow your reasoning... There was a clue in: Well think it out. Given the racing conditions and safety features of the 50s and 60s - what do you think the figure for the 50s and 60s would have been, if someone had suddenly come up with technology to double the lap speed to over 130mph? And as I keep saying, there's a difference between freedom of choice and an organised event like the TT. Just because we've been doing it for a hundred years and it's now a fine old Manx tradition doesn't mean it's STIlLL a good idea, or that if it is we should go on doing it in the same old way. I wouldn't ride in the TT - my choice. I guess you wouldn't either - your choice. The whole point is, if those people involved want to carry it on, and are not harming you or I, then it's their freedom of choice - not yours or mine. If you want to feel guilty about it - go to confession. 60 plus died in the 50s/60s, 70 since 1991. There were actually many more accidents in the 50s and 60s than there are now. The major difference now is that the average speeds are no longer so forgiving and give a higher probability of a fatality per accident. You are trying to make the point it's actually become more dangerous, I am saying you are wrong, I am saying that it has become less dangerous, because if the track and safety features were the same as the 50s/60s for instance, the figure would probably not be 70 since 1991 but with the increase in speed maybe 170. The only thing I would concede is, and based only on the probability of dying riding in any given TT, is it is just as risky in that respect. But that's because that Freedom of choice has pushed safety, track surfaces, speed, technology, courage and underpants technology to new highs every year, and the TT still remains an ongoing and evolving challenge. People wouldn't want the TT if it didn't represent that challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Yes the Isle of Man has the right to give freedom of choice Isn't this stretching the principle of freedom of choice to a point where it becomes meaningless? Usually when people talk of freedom of choice it's in reference to the idea of being able to live your life and conduct everyday business in whatever manner you deem appropriate and without too great an interference from the state (within the boundaries of the law and various social mores). The TT is an example of an opportunity that's provided in return for a share of the income and publicity, not of a fundamental human freedom. You could just as easily argue that fox hunting is an example of freedom of choice, and that every year the government should bring over a couple of foxes and put on a big show just so wankers who want to pretend they're living in the 19th century can enjoy such a freedom. Or how about Monster truck shows, the world Tizer drinking championships, or competitive underwater snooker? In this way, to argue that the TT should be enshrined as a principle of liberty kind of makes a nonsense of both the issues surrounding the debate, and those same principles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 but riders know the risks given it is their area of expertise and the awareness of the dangers of the course. They may "know the risks" but do they really believe that those risks apply to themselves. I would part a large amount of money on the fact that the majority of riders whilst they may "know" the risks do not believe that they apply to themselves in that they will have a view that in the main the ones who get badly injured and killed are the less skilled riders, the ones who push to hard, the ones who do not ride within their capability. That is not to belittle the riders but it is a natural trait to believe that you are somehow less vulnerable than others and probably applies to most activities in which there is a risk of being hurt if only midly If they really knew and accepted the risks reminding them forcefully shortly before going out should not affect them but i suspect it is the last thing they would want to hear because at that point you have detached yourself from such thoughts Risks :- A little like smokers who every time they reach for a cigarette must also see the health warnings sprawled all over the packet. Do they take any notice of this? No, they carry on, because it won’t happen to them!!! I see the point you are making, but it is not what I am getting at. They have an awareness of the risks, if they want to bury they head in the sand then that is up to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Yes the Isle of Man has the right to give freedom of choice Isn't this stretching the principle of freedom of choice to a point where it becomes meaningless? Usually when people talk of freedom of choice it's in reference to the idea of being able to live your life and conduct everyday business in whatever manner you deem appropriate and without too great an interference from the state (within the boundaries of the law and various social mores). The TT is an example of an opportunity that's provided in return for a share of the income and publicity, not of a fundamental human freedom. IMO the TT is a perfect example of freedom of choice by that description. And yes it also represents an opportunity - few racers make any money doing it, many other people usually ride off the back of them each year, and the general population benefits from the opportunity income in one form or another. Fox hunting affects the wellbeing of others (foxes!), cruelty laws, and social mores. Tiddlywinks, Tizer drinking and the TT do not (far more people want the TT than don't). The argument about freedom of choice about the TT comes in when someone (i.e. Johnnyrotten) thinks he has the right to ban it and take away that freedom of choice (for that is what it is), simply because he personally does not accept the risk that others willingly wish to accept - when this does not affect his well being, risk of dying etc. etc. It is that continual erosion in many areas of our everyday life and business - what we take or previously took for granted as 'freedom of choice' - that is the problem. Whenever there is risk, we seem to have governments, lobby groups and numerous sanctimonious individuals that seek to minimise it and make people live life their way - all at the expense of freedom of choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonnyrotten Posted August 11, 2009 Author Share Posted August 11, 2009 No I don't understand the probability and statistical inference in your argument. Be good enough to explain them so we can ALL follow your reasoning... There was a clue in: Well think it out. Given the racing conditions and safety features of the 50s and 60s - what do you think the figure for the 50s and 60s would have been, if someone had suddenly come up with technology to double the lap speed to over 130mph? Ah. A clue... Well, I think this is the point I have been trying to make. As the statistics demonstrate, while safety at closed circuit racing has evolved and circuit racing has become SAFER, safety at road course like the TT has not evolved to anything like the same extent and the death rate continues unabated. So now the TT is exactly the kind of time capsule you were referring to - what we have is a circuit with 50's and 60's standards of safety, and race bikes with new-millennium technology, power and speed. Which is pecisely why in the last 19 years there have been 70 deaths in racing on the mountain and only 2 in GP. To say that these deaths are acceptable in pursuit of some obscure freedom to kill yourself at public expense is nonsense. That argument is fallacious in the light of a clear and evident reluctance or refusal on the part of race organisers to make the circuit as safe as it can be. Whether you like the TT or not makes no difference. It is entirely possible to be a supporter of the TT and yet to believe that safety is only a marginal issue for race organisers. Ask the marshals, who have to beg for equipment from a Government that spends more money on parties and symphony orchestras than it does on safety in any given year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonnyrotten Posted August 11, 2009 Author Share Posted August 11, 2009 The argument about freedom of choice about the TT comes in when someone (i.e. Johnnyrotten) thinks he has the right to ban it and take away that freedom of choice (for that is what it is), simply because he personally does not accept the risk that others willingly wish to accept - when this does not affect his well being, risk of dying etc. etc. You appear to be putting words into my mouth at worst, making assumptions at best. I've said the TT has a deplorable safety record, and has not matched any other form of motorsport when it comes to making progress in matters of rider and spectator safety. Have I said I want it banned or stopped? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 No I don't understand the probability and statistical inference in your argument. Be good enough to explain them so we can ALL follow your reasoning... There was a clue in: Well think it out. Given the racing conditions and safety features of the 50s and 60s - what do you think the figure for the 50s and 60s would have been, if someone had suddenly come up with technology to double the lap speed to over 130mph? Ah. A clue... Nope...do not pass go, do not collect £200 and go back to post #69 Ask the marshals, who have to beg for equipment from a Government that spends more money on parties and symphony orchestras than it does on safety in any given year. I just asked myself, and I disagreed with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.