GD4ELI Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Have I said I want it banned or stopped? You implied this in your first posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF 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. would that be the TT riders or the smokers you refer to?? or both?? i think both myself, there can't be anybody riding or smoking that doesn't realise there are possible fatal consequences. but neither group do it to deliberately to end up dead ( except for beagles ofcourse ) if you wanted to save lives you would ban smoking long before motorsport Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Have I said I want it banned or stopped? By your inferences - yes, I assume you do want to ban it. If I had seen a list of suggested improvements alongside your argument, then by inference I'd assume you didn't want it banned and were willing to join those working at making it as safe as it possibly could be. You are certainly arguing against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonnyrotten Posted August 11, 2009 Author Share Posted August 11, 2009 If I had seen a list of suggested improvements alongside your argument, then by inference I'd assume you didn't want it banned and were willing to join those working at making it as safe as it possibly could be. You are certainly arguing against it. Allow me to refer you to post #32. And I'm not arguing anything. Just stating the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slieau dhoo Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 well said Albert, agree 100% the arrogance of some people in this life is quite astounding. I would not dream of telling ANYONE how to live their lives- racing motorbikes or otherwise, regardless of my personel feeling towards their activities. I suspect the same people who complain about the TT being too dangerous, are the same people who in the very next sentence launch into a tirade about the restrictive nature of our "health and safety" society. This is simply another "i hate the TT thread"- well thats fair enough- its not for everyone, and for what its worth, i have a degree of sympathy with the "inconveience to everyday life argument" against the TT. However by taking some moral pro-life stance, and saying its our responsibility to stop them from endangering themselves is unbelievably arrogant. And may i also say a very typically British thing to do!!!!(not a manx- vs english argument btw, just a typically british thing to do- i would have thought that after hundreds of years of this policy exported round the world, they/we would have realised that it rather rubs people up the wrong way) Any other small nation similar to us, would literally "kill"(poor choice of word i know), for an event like the TT. It is unique, it is the pinnacle in its field,its hugely marketable, its a huge draw for many thousands of people and to be honest, im sure many other nations would make alot more of the "road racing capital of the world" tag, than the IOM currently does. Like it or not, along with offshore banking, kippers and tailess cats it is what the IOM is known for. If the "do-gooders" get their way- i wonder what their next target will be? sea fishing(irish sea is terribly rough you know)? the walking festival?(some of them hills are mighty steep- not good for the old dicky ticker)? the bowling festival (all them OAP's exposed to the sun for so long- recipe for disaster)? or will they just put their feet up, sip their wine(non-alcoholic of course)- and continue to watch emmerdale omibus, grinning smuggly, content in the knowledge that their moral crusade as saved the life of hundreds of madcap bikers....... Oh what a wonderful free world we live in! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 If I had seen a list of suggested improvements alongside your argument, then by inference I'd assume you didn't want it banned and were willing to join those working at making it as safe as it possibly could be. You are certainly arguing against it. Allow me to refer you to post #32. And I'm not arguing anything. Just stating the facts. My original point is that while other sports with an international profile have indeed done everything possible to minimise the risks, the TT hasn't, largely because it's not possible. That's why other forms of sport have abandoned road courses. That's where you are wrong. It has done much to minimise the risk, as the challenge increases. As I said fatacs might have been 170 if it hadn't. OK there's always more to be done to make it safer. What's difficult about doing that for short circuit where the challenge always remains the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I would not dream of telling ANYONE how to live their lives- racing motorbikes or otherwise, regardless of my personel feeling towards their activities. This is getting a bit insane. When precisely, did having the chance to race motorbikes in one particular high profile commercial competition become a fundamental human right? In all of human history, with all its great struggles for liberty and terrible sacrifices in the name of freedom "the TT", even if we accept that freedom is what this is all about, has to be the weakest one there, the one that makes all the other noble causes and fights shuffle into the next room just so they don't suffer the indignity of being associated with it. This freedom/rights thing is every bit as shonky and mawkish as its "think of the children" counterpart. Whenever it's applied to the TT, the image conjoured up is that of some frowny face bikers fizzing and getting red faced about how oppressed and persecuted, their complaints drowning out the sound of a nearby TV broadcast of mass arrests and state sponsored brutality in some far off country. However by taking some moral pro-life stance, and saying its our responsibility to stop them from endangering themselves is unbelievably arrogant. Why? The government supports the TT and the people support the government. That gives everyone the right, nay, the [braveheart]FRRREEEEDOM[/braveheart] to object to it on whatever basis or criteria they see fit. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 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. 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. It may be the prefect example of freedom of choice but society has a whole just as I am sure you does not advocate a total freedom of choice. Rightly in my view there are laws about racial and sexual hated. I can not set up and run a crack house brothel in the UK let alone say from No.22 Arcadia Avenue. Nor could I set up a night club, strop club, gaming house in No.22 Arcdia House. In many aspects of life there is not a freedom of choice as it impinges on other members of society. I am generally all for the Freedom of choice within certain boubdaries. I am all for people riding motor bikes within the laws around the IoM in whatever numbers they like. Where I am have concerns is whether we as a society should be activily encouraging such a dangerous sport for participants and one where it is expected participants will either die, loose limbs or end up as "cabages" each year and nobody bats an eye. I respect your opinion that you believe Governments are too quick and probably should not interfere in the level of risk we are allowed to incur. But if you believe they should not interfere and control then surely they should not interefre postively by putting on high risk event. Presently I do believe the power of machines has outgrown the event and unless it can be made safe it should be stopped. We could all argue about what the definition of safe is. Alterntively I think I might have greater support for the event tham I presently do if it was made less safe and all the bales, protectors etc were removed. This may seem perverce but I think I have as big an issue with the pretence that we are running a safe event when in my view we are not and if we are not then lets actually admit it and make it bloody obvious. I think the statement that the general population benefits in one form or another. I know many who certainly feel they do not but equally many who do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Presently I do believe the power of machines has outgrown the event and unless it can be made safe it should be stopped. We could all argue about what the definition of safe is. Alterntively I think I might have greater support for the event tham I presently do if it was made less safe and all the bales, protectors etc were removed. This may seem perverce but I think I have as big an issue with the pretence that we are running a safe event when in my view we are not and if we are not then lets actually admit it and make it bloody obvious. By that 'definition', then the power of machines had outgrown the event after the first TT fatality in 1911. Would you have banned cars because the power of the machines had outgrown people's ability to drive or control them after the first road fatality - or mountain climbing because the power of gravity was more outgrown than a bloke dressed in woolly thermals and hiking boots flapping his arms as he fell 2000ft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 one where it is expected participants will either die, loose limbs or end up as "cabages" each year and nobody bats an eye. And also one where post accident funding for those injured seems obliged to rely in the main or indeed purely on amateur fund raising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 What's the problem - are we not permitted to kill ourselves anymore? Only in Switzerland..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Presently I do believe the power of machines has outgrown the event and unless it can be made safe it should be stopped. We could all argue about what the definition of safe is. Alterntively I think I might have greater support for the event tham I presently do if it was made less safe and all the bales, protectors etc were removed. This may seem perverce but I think I have as big an issue with the pretence that we are running a safe event when in my view we are not and if we are not then lets actually admit it and make it bloody obvious. By that 'definition', then the power of machines had outgrown the event after the first TT fatality in 1911. Would you have banned cars because the power of the machines had outgrown people's ability to drive or control them after the first road fatality - or mountain climbing because the power of gravity was more outgrown than a bloke dressed in woolly thermals and hiking boots flapping his arms as he fell 2000ft? No because I did not define safe. Everything has a level of risk, virtually nothing is a 100% safe. I believe organised events should all have a degree and level of safety which may be different per event and expectation. Having defined what an acceptable level of safety for an event should be then I would only not be in favour if it could not meet that agreed level. The TT and MGP currently can not meet what I believe to be an acceptable level for an organised event thus I am not in favour. Other believe they are at acceptable levels and so have the contrary view point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slieau dhoo Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 VinnieK, I could equally apply your arguments about the "insaneness" of this debate, to the mass -hysteria of TT danger, i see in this thread What affect does the death of a competitor unaquainted with yourself, have on your everyday life? Likely to be nil i would assume. Therefore is it not unreasonable to say, of what business is it of yours? (not a personel attack Vinnie) You have not lost anything, not been hurt or inconveienced, it has had zero consequence on YOUR life.Harsh maybe, but true i read of people dying every week in the manx papers, some known to me, some not. Their passing, and the manner of it is ultimately no business of mine, regardless of my personel feelings on how they died and the lifestyle they led. It is THEIR LIFE, not mine, i have no right to preach about it. I suspect the arguments here that the TT should be stopped on moral grounds are a conveinent mask for the real reasons, the reasons that affect people personally. Those of the inconveience of road closures, traffic and general congestion, general dislike of bikes, wreckless riding on OPEN public roads, spending of taxpayers money on an event that doesnt interest the individual themselves, and dare i say it, the fact that many people are enjoying themselves, when the indvidual themselves are stuck in work/the house. I fancy that the the competitor deaths are a conveient truth for the anti TT brigade, as it gives them a justifiable cause, rather than the same old (percieved?) selfish reasons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 ^^ nice post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KMC Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 VinnieK, I could equally apply your arguments about the "insaneness" of this debate, to the mass -hysteria of TT danger, i see in this thread What affect does the death of a competitor unaquainted with yourself, have on your everyday life? Likely to be nil i would assume. Therefore is it not unreasonable to say, of what business is it of yours? (not a personel attack Vinnie) You have not lost anything, not been hurt or inconveienced, it has had zero consequence on YOUR life.Harsh maybe, but true i read of people dying every week in the manx papers, some known to me, some not. Their passing, and the manner of it is ultimately no business of mine, regardless of my personel feelings on how they died and the lifestyle they led. It is THEIR LIFE, not mine, i have no right to preach about it. I suspect the arguments here that the TT should be stopped on moral grounds are a conveinent mask for the real reasons, the reasons that affect people personally. Those of the inconveience of road closures, traffic and general congestion, general dislike of bikes, wreckless riding on OPEN public roads, spending of taxpayers money on an event that doesnt interest the individual themselves, and dare i say it, the fact that many people are enjoying themselves, when the indvidual themselves are stuck in work/the house. I fancy that the the competitor deaths are a conveient truth for the anti TT brigade, as it gives them a justifiable cause, rather than the same old (percieved?) selfish reasons An excellent post, and one that sums it up 100% in my book Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.