TT 2023

[John Wright]

7 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

I'm not talking about legality. I'm talking about morality. 

You didn’t make that clear, especially your use of the word blame.

The moral maze posed by your question is philosophical and the answer variable from person to person depending on their moral viewpoint.

You, as organiser, presumably thought it moral, and that you’d not be to blame in your organising the subsequent event scenario.

[Happier diner]

Just now, John Wright said:

You didn’t make that clear, especially your use of the word blame.

The moral maze posed by your question is philosophical and the answer variable from person to person depending on their moral viewpoint.

You, as organiser, presumably thought it moral, and that you’d not be to blame in your organising the subsequent event scenario.

I get that John and its a good point. I did say I was throwing it out there and I don't know the answer.

Saying that, if I had organised an event and 5 people died. I would feel deep moral accountability for their deaths. As you say, everyone has their own moral views. 

[NoTail]

2 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

 

That's a fair enough answer. So, I hold my event and 5 people are killed. 4 of them jumping off the same rock. The coroner rules misadventure and everybody says they were doing what they loved

This year I go through the same process and submit the same 'health and safety review'. I dont make any changes at all. I say it was just a coincidence. Would that, in your view, be acceptable? Would have no part in the blame for their deaths. 

No. Don't think that would be acceptable, because you had done nothing.  If for instance you put up a warning sign along the lines of 'jumping off this rock could cause harm' then you may get away with it.   The judge would be the coroner.

[WTF]

37 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

Well of course. But then neither would tobacco or alcohol. 

and mountain climbing, don't forget mountain climbing.

[Nellie]

7 hours ago, Kopek said:

In all my following of motorsports events i have not heard of ''coincidence'' as a mitigating factor nor of 'misadventure' as the official verdict.

 

You haven't been paying attention. 'Misadventure' has been the usual verdict in the vast majority, and possibly all, motorcycle racing accidents on the Isle of Man. It has been so since at least the 1950's.

I'm sure that @John Wrightcan advise on the legal meaning of this verdict. 

[John Wright]

Just now, WTF said:

and mountain climbing, don't forget mountain climbing.

Or changing the design and layout of the promenade and introducing “roundels”.

In spite  of all the scaremongering and moaning I don’t think there have been any serious accidents or fatalities, certainly no more than the previous layout.

Bit like the DBC bins, really, people don’t like change.

[John Wright]

4 minutes ago, Nellie said:

You haven't been paying attention. 'Misadventure' has been the usual verdict in the vast majority, and possibly all, motorcycle racing accidents on the Isle of Man. It has been so since at least the 1950's.

I'm sure that @John Wrightcan advise on the legal meaning of this verdict. 

Ordinary dictionary meaning really. To turn out badly, with no cause, fault, negligence or blame.

in legal speak death happening to/caused by a person accidentally while performing a legal act without negligence or intent to harm.

And this is where, as the lines move, and they are inexorably moving, the existence of the TT will be challenged. Courts, philosophy and morals will increasingly emphasise the ECHR “right to life” as trumping the wish to take part, the signing of waivers, any exclusion of liability, and will come to expect safety standards and protocols so high that they are practically impossible to comply with.

[P.K.]

14 hours ago, woolley said:

Without caring much either way, I've always thought it's entirely up to those who want to put their lives on the line. At the same time, I've long believed that difficulty insuring the risk is what will kill it, and we may not be far from that point. The fact that we've just bought the SPCo would be another reason for the house to collapse, knowing our luck judgement!

Fixed!

[Happier diner]

36 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

It’s not reluctance to change with the bins it’s the lack of planning, zero engagement, and unwillingness to listen and react to real deficiencies in the process they came up with that’s the issue. 

Oh no. Not on this thread too! @John Wright. What have you started 

[wrighty]

1 hour ago, Roxanne said:

Well of course. But then neither would tobacco or alcohol. 

Tobacco, maybe.  As far as I know it's not grown naturally in the British Isles, so presumably if Francis Drake had brought it back in 2023, knowing how dangerous it would be, it would be an illegal substance along the lines of cannabis, cocaine and opium (to name 3 other plant-based drugs)

But alcohol? Impossible to ban because it's too easy to find/make.  Grow a few apples, mash them up a bit, leave for a while - hey presto you have cider.  Alcoholic drinks have probably been around for the whole of human history.  

[CallMeCurious]

I see not only will the Mountain Road be shut for a month and half but the Ramsey to Douglas route via Sulby, Ballaugh and Michael will have a 40mph limit (where it's not already 30/40) for two months for TT works. From 1st March to 5th May.

 

 

 

 

[Happier diner]

17 minutes ago, wrighty said:

Tobacco, maybe.  As far as I know it's not grown naturally in the British Isles, so presumably if Francis Drake had brought it back in 2023, knowing how dangerous it would be, it would be an illegal substance along the lines of cannabis, cocaine and opium (to name 3 other plant-based drugs)

But alcohol? Impossible to ban because it's too easy to find/make.  Grow a few apples, mash them up a bit, leave for a while - hey presto you have cider.  Alcoholic drinks have probably been around for the whole of human history.  

I blame yeast for that problem. 

[Ringy Rose]

8 hours ago, Kopek said:

In all my following of motorsports events i have not heard of ''coincidence'' as a mitigating factor nor of 'misadventure' as the official verdict.

Misadventure is usually the verdict here, but in the UK it seems to vary more between misadventure and accident. So you've not really been paying attention.

 

1 hour ago, Happier diner said:

I think if TT didn't exist and had never existed, if someone came up with the idea now- there would be a snowballs chance in hell of it being accepted. 

You could say the same about all dangerous sports though, including all forms of motor racing, not just motorcycle road racing. 

I don't agree with the idea either- humans always want to push the envelope, whether it's bike racing or rallying or ultra-marathons or skiing or paragliding or basejumping or whatever.

[Asthehills]

For anyone who hasn’t seen it this is a very well produced series that is being released to YouTube and TT plus each week.

Episode one from three weeks ago has half a million views just on YouTube

Episode for which gives a fans perspective is below

https://youtu.be/O66D5Y2J8jI

[John Wright]

30 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said:

Misadventure is usually the verdict here, but in the UK it seems to vary more between misadventure and accident. So you've not really been paying attention

The English use of accident always confuses me.

Death by misadventure is the recorded manner of death for an accidental death caused by a risk taken voluntarily.

“Misadventure in English law, as recorded by coroners, and on death certificates, and associated documents, is a death that is primarily attributed to an accident that occurred due to a risk that was taken voluntarily. In contrast, when the manner of death is given as an accident, the coroner has determined that the decedent had taken no unreasonable willful risk”.

"Misadventure may be the right conclusion when a death arises from some deliberate human act which unexpectedly and unintentionally goes wrong."

Im not sure how someone who dies whilst racing can be described as not taking a wilful risk. The unreasonable is up for debate.