TT 2022 ??

[ellanvannin2010]

15 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

I think someone might try it though in the right (obviously wrong really) circumstances, and you could see why they might.

Say someone travelled over the mountain, maybe a 45 year old local woman taking her 78 year old dad to something in Douglas, something they do every week, but during TT the road has been specifically made one way, and a biker causes an accident while travelling at 120mph in which the ladies dad dies.

Someone who found themselves the bereaved in a situation like this may well try to make the case that that change to the road from its normal state is absolutely a failure of all kinds of duty of care stuff. 

Being a legal bod I'm sure you're right and DFs suggestion is probably wrong, but you can certainly see how and why someone might try, and feel completely justified in doing so.

How many accidents on the Mountain Road per year (no speed limit)?

How many accidents outside Ballakermeen school per year ( where there is a campaign to introduce control measures and a lower limit)?.

Seems inconsistent standards to me.

I would rather see the Mountain be two way in the TT period with a strictly enforced low speed limit on it, say 30mph.

 

Edited March 25, 2022 by ellanvannin2010

[John Wright]

6 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

I think someone might try it though in the right (obviously wrong really) circumstances, and you could see why they might.

Say someone travelled over the mountain, maybe a 45 year old local woman taking her 78 year old dad to something in Douglas, something they do every week, but during TT the road has been specifically made one way, and a biker causes an accident while travelling at 120mph in which the ladies dad dies.

Someone who found themselves the bereaved in a situation like this may well try to make the case that that change to the road from its normal state is absolutely a failure of all kinds of duty of care stuff. 

Being a legal bod I'm sure you're right and DFs suggestion is probably wrong, but you can certainly see how and why someone might try, and feel completely justified in doing so.

 

1 minute ago, Passing Time said:

Changes to the traffic direction are signposted and clear. If the car driver has ignored this and headed the wrong way then I don't see how they can blame anybody but themselves

Well, an accident at 120mph, on an open road, even one way, would probably attract death by reckless. And the state can’t control the actions of the rider going too fast. Where’s the state safeguarding of someone vulnerable?

I can’t see it.

Theres a recentish appeal case that examines the relationship and obligation of the state to intervene to preserve life before art. 2 can be engaged. It’s really difficult to cross the threshold.

R (on the application of Muriel Maguire) (Appellant) v HM Senior Coroner for Blackpool & Fylde (Respondent), United Response, North West Ambulance Service, Blackpool Victoria Teaching Hospital, Dr Safaraz Adam, Dr Susan Fairhead, Blackpool City Council, Care Quality Commission (Interested Parties) [2020] EWCA Civ 738.

[Max Power]

2 hours ago, wrighty said:

Hope is not really a fully thought through safety strategy, although it seems to be what we have. 
 

When it comes to trauma, everyone from the health minister down seems to focus on the races. The racers are not the problem! They crash, and tend to be either ok, or dead. Most trauma that needs intensive work and takes up bed space in Aintree and Nobles are visitors. Having plenty of marshals for racing is not going to help that. 

I personally don't think a speed limit on the Mountain would deter visiting bikers, except the idiots we could do without anyway. It may in fact encourage more people to come on their motorcycles if the roads were safer. I think the world is growing out of the irresponsible attitude that you can blitz the roads here without consequences.

[snowman]

I'm expecting more accidents in open roads this year due to pent up frustrations and excitement. Edit to add. And dickheads unleashed

 

 

 

 

Edited March 25, 2022 by snowman

[Boris Johnson]

3 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

The state's positive obligation to protect life. 

The current way that route is operated during TT foes not fulfil that requirement.

I am sure the way that road operates during TT would not comply with bike or car insurance policy's either if someone went to town on it. legally.

Its like a race track and if your insurance company knew do you think they would not want a premium rate for covering you to ride on it during that period?

I would if I was an insurance underwriter.

Edited March 25, 2022 by Boris Johnson

[Two-lane]

4 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

Someone who found themselves the bereaved in a situation like this may well try to make the case that that change to the road from its normal state is absolutely a failure of all kinds of duty of care stuff. 

During TT, for a year or so before the one-way system was installed, the police put a blue traffic notice  at Governor's Bridge saying (along the lines of ) "Police advise that you do not travel north-bound over the mountain, because it is too damn dangerous".

I was surprised, because it was a clear admission by the police that they knew the road was dangerous but that they had no intention of doing anything about it. I was relatively new to the island at the time, and assumed it was just another way in which the island is "different".

[Not to mention the problem with notices in recent years that cyclists should not use the mountain road -  but walkers crossing the road from, say Snaefell to North Barrule, that's ok]

[Derek Flint]

14 hours ago, John Wright said:

 

 

An Article 2 inquest is held in cases where an individual has died whilst in the custody or close supervision or care of the state. Often this will be an inmate in a prison; a person detained under the Mental Health Act, or, in some cases, where a person is an informal patient within a psychiatric hospital.

Under Article 2(2) of the European Convention of Human Rights, the State has an obligation to refrain from the intentional killing and use of force which results in loss of life. Additionally, there is an obligation to take steps to safeguard the life of vulnerable individuals, especially where there is a recognised risk of suicide or harm to others. For these purposes the ‘State’ will also extend to organisations such as NHS hospitals, Trusts, and local authorities.

Where an individual has died and there are questions surrounding the involvement of the State and the lack of appropriate safeguarding for that individual, the Coroner will need to consider whether an Article 2 inquest is necessary.

Where an Article 2 inquest is held, the Coroner must carry out an enhanced investigation and look at the wider circumstances surrounding the death, rather simply determining when, where and how a person died. Specifically it will need to be considered whether the death was caused by any institutional or systemic failures, rather than an individual act of negligence or neglect.

 

So, to answer the question “who decides”? The coroner will decide. 

However, to address Del, I can’t see an article 2 inquest ever arising in the circumstances of the TT. Competitors aren’t vulnerable individuals, whose safeguarding and preservation of life has been taken on by the state. Your Art 2 suggestion appears misconceived in legal terms.

 

13 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

I think someone might try it though in the right (obviously wrong really) circumstances, and you could see why they might.

Say someone travelled over the mountain, maybe a 45 year old local woman taking her 78 year old dad to something in Douglas, something they do every week, but during TT the road has been specifically made one way, and a biker causes an accident while travelling at 120mph in which the ladies dad dies.

Someone who found themselves the bereaved in a situation like this may well try to make the case that that change to the road from its normal state is absolutely a failure of all kinds of duty of care stuff. 

Being a legal bod I'm sure you're right and DFs suggestion is probably wrong, but you can certainly see how and why someone might try, and feel completely justified in doing so.

 

13 hours ago, ellanvannin2010 said:

How many accidents on the Mountain Road per year (no speed limit)?

How many accidents outside Ballakermeen school per year ( where there is a campaign to introduce control measures and a lower limit)?.

Seems inconsistent standards to me.

I would rather see the Mountain be two way in the TT period with a strictly enforced low speed limit on it, say 30mph.

 

@John Wright I’m specifically talking about the configuration of the open road. Having a one-way, derestricted system which is in fact so dangerous they have to ban cyclists, and close the road down immediately in the event of a collision is not conducive to the Safe management of an ordinary line of communication.

The concept runs against virtually every facet of the National Road Safety Strategy, bar the incongruous statement that ‘derestrIction is a culture thing. 

I really do think it is only a matter of time before the Coroner identifies a causal link and holds an Art.2 inquest. Consider this case, and it doesn’t take a massive leap to get there. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-60621122

[Derek Flint]

11 hours ago, Boris Johnson said:

I am sure the way that road operates during TT would not comply with bike or car insurance policy's either if someone went to town on it. legally.

Its like a race track and if your insurance company knew do you think they would not want a premium rate for covering you to ride on it during that period?

I would if I was an insurance underwriter.

Some policies do exclude sections of road that are used for racing. Nurburgring for example.

the Mountain Road during TT, as a one way system is nothing other than a fairground ride.

[John Wright]

47 minutes ago, Derek Flint said:

 

 

@John Wright I’m specifically talking about the configuration of the open road. Having a one-way, derestricted system which is in fact so dangerous they have to ban cyclists, and close the road down immediately in the event of a collision is not conducive to the Safe management of an ordinary line of communication.

The concept runs against virtually every facet of the National Road Safety Strategy, bar the incongruous statement that ‘derestrIction is a culture thing. 

I really do think it is only a matter of time before the Coroner identifies a causal link and holds an Art.2 inquest. Consider this case, and it doesn’t take a massive leap to get there. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-60621122

Where is the vulnerability giving rise to a heightened duty of the state to take care. They’ve covered what they need by banning push bikes.

[Happier diner]

13 hours ago, Boris Johnson said:

I am sure the way that road operates during TT would not comply with bike or car insurance policy's either if someone went to town on it. legally.

Its like a race track and if your insurance company knew do you think they would not want a premium rate for covering you to ride on it during that period?

I would if I was an insurance underwriter.

It's still a public road. All laws still apply. Your insurance company would still have to pay out. It is not a racing circuit unless the road is closed and there is a race. It's just a one way street with a national speed limit. 

[Happier diner]

15 hours ago, Max Power said:

I personally don't think a speed limit on the Mountain would deter visiting bikers, except the idiots we could do without anyway. It may in fact encourage more people to come on their motorcycles if the roads were safer. I think the world is growing out of the irresponsible attitude that you can blitz the roads here without consequences.

I think you are only kidding yourself. Why does everybody fight for places to get their bikes over? To go over the mountain at 30mph?

I dont think so.

Yes some riders do ride around sensibly on their touring bikes. Many dont and it's a big motivation for many to come here. I think you are a bit out of touch with reality. Sorry.

[wrighty]

Just now, Happier diner said:

It's still a public road. All laws still apply. Your insurance company would still have to pay out. It is not a racing circuit unless the road is closed and there is a race. It's just a one way street with a national speed limit. 

There was some noise a few years ago that insurance companies judged it to be a ‘track day’ situation, so I wouldn’t be so certain that they’d have to pay out. I’m sure if they could get out of doing so they would. 

[Happier diner]

3 minutes ago, wrighty said:

There was some noise a few years ago that insurance companies judged it to be a ‘track day’ situation, so I wouldn’t be so certain that they’d have to pay out. I’m sure if they could get out of doing so they would. 

Its definitely not a track day situation. A track day is on a circuit or a closed road. They might try it on, but I dont think they would be successful as it's still an open public road. 

[WTF]

40 minutes ago, wrighty said:

There was some noise a few years ago that insurance companies judged it to be a ‘track day’ situation, so I wouldn’t be so certain that they’d have to pay out. I’m sure if they could get out of doing so they would. 

thats just cunt insurance companies being cunt insurance companies looking for a get out.    there are no fees, no marshals, no dedicated medical cover, no clerk of the course, so no track day.  its the old you we don't think you can afford to take us to court where we'd lose so fuck off routine.

Edited March 26, 2022 by WTF

[Derek Flint]

2 minutes ago, WTF said:

thats just cunt insurance companies being cunt insurance companies looking for a get out.    there are no fees, no marshals, no dedicated medical cover, no clerk of the course, so no track day.

All of which increases risk in these circs. 

I’vel Long been an advocate of shutting it for the fortnight and running it like the Ring.