TT 2022 ??

[Banker]

25 minutes ago, 0bserver said:

I mean if we're saying deaths are fine because they know the risk, maybe we should throw up a coliseum and allow extreme cage fighting to the death? 

That would be popular.

Maybe with you & bandits , that would be very popular 😂

[0bserver]

13 minutes ago, Hoops said:

I take it you want boxing banned as well - people die doing that and the objective of the participant is to hurt his rival?

And then we have the issues of footballers heading the ball, and god knows what harm the collisions in rugby cause.

For sure, they need to have a long and serious look at what has happened in this years races, and what can be learnt, both the facilitators and the competitors. But how risk adverse do you want society to be? How many die from drinking, smoking or even swimming, etc etc.

We have to be allowed a level of personal choice, I guess it's where you draw the line, and who draws the line.

In the meantime, we could leave the hyperbole out of it.

You're conflating day to day activities with those run for commercial gain. The two are very different 

[P.K.]

Every TT the same circular arguments get trotted out.

When famous climber George Mallory was asked the question why did he want to climb Everest he replied "Because it's there..." now the three most famous words in mountaineering. He died in the attempt in June 1924 leaving behind a wife and three children.

When you are young you are, of course, completely invulnerable. The "It always happens to someone else" syndrome. However Mallory survived the Battle of the Somme where it always happens to someone else until it's your turn...

Put simply taking on an extreme sport knowing full well it has a high risk of injury or death is an extremely selfish act if you have massive responsibilities like a family. That's the backdrop with which to view the competitors in the TT. If they kill themselves other folks will have to live with the fallout of human misery and regret.

You could argue, as many do, that the TT itself gives these people an opportunity to kill themselves. But as long as the organisers do everything they can to minimise the risks the only people to blame for the fatalities are the competitors.

Because nobody can protect them from themselves...

[Newsdesk]

18 minutes ago, P.K. said:

You could argue, as many do, that the TT itself gives these people an opportunity to kill themselves. But as long as the organisers do everything they can to minimise the risks the only people to blame for the fatalities are the competitors.

Because nobody can protect them from themselves...

And yet arguably we have spent that last 2 years destroying the entire global economy to protect people from both themselves and other people. All so we can now go back to normal and assert peoples individual freedom to die in a 150 mph fireball. It seems odd to many I’m sure. 

[P.K.]

6 minutes ago, Newsdesk said:

And yet arguably we have spent that last 2 years destroying the entire global economy to protect people from both themselves and other people. All so we can now go back to normal and assert peoples individual freedom to die in a 150 mph fireball. It seems odd to many I’m sure. 

Only because they can't figure out why folks die in extreme sports. More of which appear all the time. Tombstoning, Wingsuiting, Basejumping etc.

Throwing yourself off something is getting more and more popular. Totally unregulated of course...

[Banker]

https://www.energyfm.net/cms/news_story_726062.html

[WTF]

24 minutes ago, Banker said:

https://www.energyfm.net/cms/news_story_726062.html

what does raises one lap mean ?

[HeliX]

1 hour ago, 0bserver said:

I mean if we're saying deaths are fine because they know the risk, maybe we should throw up a coliseum and allow extreme cage fighting to the death? 

That would be popular.

Your inability to find quality comparisons never ceases to amaze.

[HeliX]

49 minutes ago, Newsdesk said:

And yet arguably we have spent that last 2 years destroying the entire global economy to protect people from both themselves and other people. All so we can now go back to normal and assert peoples individual freedom to die in a 150 mph fireball. It seems odd to many I’m sure. 

For £100 per hour I will rent out my services to write comparisons for people who struggle to make sensible ones.

Do you think there might be some minor difference in scale between almost the entire planet being a risk to almost the entire planet, and a hundred or so motorcycle racers being risks mainly to themselves? Answers on a postcard.

[Newbie]

2 hours ago, 0bserver said:

I mean if we're saying deaths are fine because they know the risk, maybe we should throw up a coliseum and allow extreme cage fighting to the death? 

That would be popular.

Out of interest, would you also like to ban attempts at climbing Mount Everest (over 300 deaths since 1922), or wingsuit flying (Approximately 1 death per 500 jumps attempted)? To be consistent you probably ought to, along with a number of other extreme sports. What level of risk of death do you consider acceptable for human activity before we consider banning it?

[0bserver]

8 minutes ago, Newbie said:

Out of interest, would you also like to ban attempts at climbing Mount Everest (over 300 deaths since 1922), or wingsuit flying (Approximately 1 death per 500 jumps attempted)? To be consistent you probably ought to, along with a number of other extreme sports. What level of risk of death do you consider acceptable for human activity before we consider banning it?

I'm not Nepalese, Everest is their issue. 

But well done on trotting out a new one (wingsuits) alongside the old whatabouTTery classic of Everest. 

[WTF]

12 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

I actually thought you were commenting on my picture there WTF. 

I must admit I had a sizeable ass in those days. 😀

nothing at all wrong with that ass girl.   

[manxman1980]

33 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

Forgive me if I’ve mixed you up with someone else but weren’t you the one who all through covid (at some length) told us that deaths were to be expected among the elderly and that it would be the survival of the fittest at play. (Expected in the sense that we knew the risks involved and had to become used to accepting them.) 

You had quite a laissez faire attitude to it all but now you seem to have gone all protective of others who are involved in taking those risks knowing that there’s a chance they might die  

 

I did think about going back and checking the anti-TT posters to see what their attitude towards the COVID-19 measures were...

I rather suspect that those who were in favour of individual liberty during the pandemic may well include a lot of people who are suddenly opposed to individual liberty when it comes to the TT.

[0bserver]

30 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

Forgive me if I’ve mixed you up with someone else but weren’t you the one who all through covid (at some length) told us that deaths were to be expected among the elderly and that it would be the survival of the fittest at play. (Expected in the sense that we knew the risks involved and had to become used to accepting them.) 

You had quite a laissez faire attitude to it all but now you seem to have gone all protective of others who are involved in taking those risks knowing that there’s a chance they might die  

 

Nope not me. I only blew in about January 

[Newbie]

8 minutes ago, 0bserver said:

I'm not Nepalese, Everest is their issue. 

But well done on trotting out a new one (wingsuits) alongside the old whatabouTTery classic of Everest. 

I think that the Everest example is trotted out because it is a very valid comparison. The number of people attempting to climb Everest annually is of a similar order to the number of people that compete on the Mountain Course (hundreds rather than thousands or tens of thousands), and the number of deaths over the last 100 years or so is similar. 

If you are going to call for something to be banned on the grounds that the risk of death is too high, there has to be a yardstick against which that risk is measured.