Isle of Man TT

[davyboy]

nihil, I think you may be twisting the perspective slightly on the responses Dani and I made. In this society most people are striving to minimize serious injury and death and not the opposite. For the safety of everyone, activities that carry an unacceptable risk are generally outlawed.

Shooting a firearm is permitted under controlled conditions of safety in this country. Does this mean that we should allow people 'of adequate skill' to shoot freely in public ? No.

Driving cars or bikes at very high speed is permitted under controlled conditions of safety. Does this mean that we should allow people 'of adequate skill' to do so freely on the public roads so that they can 'live life to the full' ? No.

Certain medicines are administered under prescription. Does that mean we should allow 'responsible people' to help themselves so that they can live life 'unburdened' ? No.

A good friend of mine suffered a massive stroke over the weekend and has very severe brain damage as a result. He's young with a 3 year old girl. His family are totally distraught - emotionally and economically - and things will never be the same again. The health service has a burden placed on it for 50 years or however long he remains alive. He was unfortunate and didn't knowingly do anything to arrive at this point. We should not allow activities that unduly add to this type of tragedy/misery/burden so that individuals can experience a very bizarre form of personal excitement when there are adequate and acceptable subsitutes.

Once again - bike racing at a circuit is a safer form of competition than road racing and the tested difference in racecraft is immaterial.

[nihil]

Sorry to hear to hear about your friend. I understand from a very personal perspective how such events change lives. Last year could well have been my final year. It wasn't, but I'm still dealing (for the foreseeable future) with some of the repercussions. In the same year, the ***** we call Fortune took away some others who were close to me. We play with the hand she deals us nevertheless...

I cannot accept the examples you offer as being relevant; riders at the TT are not "shooting freely in public".

Originally Posted by davyboy

We should not allow activities that unduly add to this type of tragedy/misery/burden so that individuals can experience a very bizarre form of personal excitement when there are adequate and acceptable subsitutes.

No, we should not allow the fear of death to rule our lives.

[davyboy]

There's a major difference between having the fear of death rule one's life and acting recklessly to court death. I'm referring to the latter not the former.

Thanks for your sympathies about my friend, we're going through quite a difficult time right now.

[jhansen]

Originally Posted by davyboy

There's a major difference between having the fear of death rule one's life and acting recklessly to court death. I'm referring to the latter not the former.

In my opinion, if someone wants to be reckless with their life then they are free to do so. As long as their reckless behavior does not endanger others. In the case of the TT, the spectators should be looked after.

[nihil]

Originally Posted by davyboy

Thanks for your sympathies about my friend, we're going through quite a difficult time right now.

One day at a time... Its a cliche, but it seriously helps if you know what needs to be done, just for that day. Finishing the day then feels like an achievement rather than an anxious prologue to the next day.

Its unlikely we'll see eye-to-eye on this subject, but I feel quite strongly about road racing. There are many reasons for this, but primarily its importance for me is down to road racing being a less distanced affair. There is less emotional and social distance in an event that requires the consent of a community. Roads need to be closed, routines are changed, the population of a town swells dramatically, so strangers become neighbours even if for the briefest of moments.

Much as I love circuit racing, there is probably much to be made of a comparison between out of town supermarkets and the race tracks exiled into the same peripheral space. Those industrial estates and retail parks suck the life out of our cities and towns, and I don't think the risks of road racing are so high that we should hesitate in returning a little bit of that life once a year.

[MGDavid]

"We should not allow activities that unduly add to this type of tragedy/misery/burden so that individuals can experience a very bizarre form of personal excitement when there are adequate and acceptable subsitutes."
davy who is this amorphous 'we' ?
Please allow me to live my life the way I want to, without breaking any laws.
What 'acceptable substitutes' did you have in mind? Hallucinogenic drugs ? ISTR a sci-fi film like this once.... Futureworld?

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by MGDavid

davy who is this amorphous 'we' ?

Civilized society.

Originally Posted by MGDavid

Please allow me to live my life the way I want to, without breaking any laws.

Of course. We are talking here about the imposition of reasonable laws, not of restricting the way people live their lives within them.

Originally Posted by MGDavid

What 'acceptable substitutes' did you have in mind? Hallucinogenic drugs ? ISTR a sci-fi film like this once.... Futureworld?

I mentioned earlier that bike racing on tracks is a perfectly good, and much safer, subsitute for bike road racing.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by nihil

One day at a time... Its a cliche, but it seriously helps if you know what needs to be done, just for that day. Finishing the day then feels like an achievement rather than an anxious prologue to the next day.

Its unlikely we'll see eye-to-eye on this subject, but I feel quite strongly about road racing. There are many reasons for this, but primarily its importance for me is down to road racing being a less distanced affair. There is less emotional and social distance in an event that requires the consent of a community. Roads need to be closed, routines are changed, the population of a town swells dramatically, so strangers become neighbours even if for the briefest of moments.

Much as I love circuit racing, there is probably much to be made of a comparison between out of town supermarkets and the race tracks exiled into the same peripheral space. Those industrial estates and retail parks suck the life out of our cities and towns, and I don't think the risks of road racing are so high that we should hesitate in returning a little bit of that life once a year.

Cheers for all the support nihil... I appreciate it.

I know there are many people who passionately believe in road racing and they will always disagree with my views... and passionate as I am about all forms of motorsport, I feel I just can not stand by and accept something that claims so many lives per race mile.

[jhansen]

Civil sounds too much like a legal term.

Ban the consumption of alcohol. That surely cannot be civilized. And many people are not responsible with it.

Maybe I shouldn't be allowed to ride my motorcycle anymore. Someone in my area just died because they "failed to negotiate a curve at 55 miles per hour." We should save people like this from themselves.

Before long, we will all lead sedentary useless lives. And so it goes...

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by jhansen

Civil sounds too much like a legal term.

Ban the consumption of alcohol. That surely cannot be civilized. And many people are not responsible with it.

Maybe I shouldn't be allowed to ride my motorcycle anymore. Someone in my area just died because they "failed to negotiate a curve at 55 miles per hour." We should save people like this from themselves.

Before long, we will all lead sedentary useless lives. And so it goes...

All of the things you're quoting are no way near as dangerous as bike road racing... there's just no comparison.

[Knowlesy]

It's motor racing. These folk aren't being sent out to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Let them do it. Spectators, marshalls, riders....they know the risks.

The risk is what makes it such a spine tingling event.

[jhansen]

Originally Posted by davyboy

All of the things you're quoting are no way near as dangerous as bike road racing... there's just no comparison.

Not dangerous? Riding a motorcycle is dangerous business. I would wager that the odds of being killed on a motorcycle on public roads is comparable to a racer losing their life at the TT.

As for alcohol, how many people per year lose their life due to drunk driving?

If you're going to go down the road of logic you're taking where do you stop?

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by jhansen

Not dangerous? Riding a motorcycle is dangerous business. I would wager that the odds of being killed on a motorcycle on public roads is comparable to a racer losing their life at the TT.

As for alcohol, how many people per year lose their life due to drunk driving?

If you're going to go down the road of logic you're taking where do you stop?

In the UK, there are 120 serious injuries of deaths per 100 million public road miles travelled on bikes every year. The US is not dissimilar. How many racing miles were travelled during the TT races over the last 10 years and how many serious injuries or deaths were there ? There is absolutely no comparison between the danger of riding a motorcycle on the public roads and racing on the TT.

[chunder]

Its always been the way on the Island, but the tracks in Ulster are even more dangerous.

I ahve a video of the Irish road racing season and the circuits have to be seen to be believed, theya re so tight and fast, and far more bumpy than any part of teh Island.

Its all part of what makes people heroes in my eyes. I am not really that fussed about the TT, its so specialised that there are only a few people who can realistically win races there and they are usually on the best bikes coz the makers covet the win so much.

Danger wise I think now that a lot of the danger has been taken away by making the course less bumpy and more of a racetrack in places. THis has the added danger of actually making it faster.
I remember hearing an interview with Shaun Harris where he said he didnt believe in them doing this as it was making it faster, it takes away some of the skills of a Joey or a McCallen who knew all the bumps and cambers.
I think experiemce still counts for a lot, but not as much as it did 10 years ago.

As for teh riders, it is totally their call, someone is always gonna complain and say it should be banned and done away with, but the danger is the drug for those riders, mastering it is the addiction

[Dutton]

It just comes down to the risk posed to non-consenting things that live. This includes all living things on Earth. In the case of humans, it would be young children, or anyone else with some issue(s) that leaves them unable to express (non-communicable consent, thus unknowable), or possibly unable to formulate, consent to the risk posed by any thing in question.

What we do then is all about what is considered justified effects (collateral damage, if you will).

We often decide that our desire to implant structures on Earth that help our lives has more importance than the other living creatures on Earth. Sometimes not, but that is kind of unusual. We judge these living things to be not on our mental level, thus it is alright to ignore their needs (in unusual instances this is paramount).

We generally frown upon murdering each other since we are the same creatures in person-to-person terms, but officially sanctioned mass death is considered acceptable with great ease by many (from the POV of the aggressors that is).

I am somewhat losing my thoughts processes here, so I will stop.

The point I was trying to get at is that we seem to treat local and global issues differently. Appeals to the notion of "we" as a civilisation means to be framing the discussion in global terms. It its thus that appeals to the effects on individual families is not really relevant in this context. That is not to say the effects are anything other than hurrendous, but that would be so irrespective of how someone is hurt.

I just don't think there is anything wrong with people taking severe risks as long as the public is protected from it as much as is reasonably possible. Spectators and marshals I shall include in under the term public. The non-consenting public should be safe. People who have no interest in the thing in question should not be put at risk; the spectators and marshals take their chances, but their safety should also be paramount: it is just what is acceptable for the different groups will be different. I also think medical facilities should be paramount. The more advanced the medical support able to be realistically provided at an event the better.

I just don't think that the deaths-under-consent caused by this kind of thing denies the right of existence.

[davyboy]

Why did they make seatbelts legally mandatory in cars ? Why do they make helmets mandatory on motorcycles ? Surely those who chose not to wear them do so knowing the risks. Often the law is in place to protect people irrespective whether they are consenting or not.

[jhansen]

Exactly, and I think they are useless laws. Common sense does not need to be made into a law. Helmets are required, but leather jackets, boots, gloves etc. are not. Yet I wear them all, even when it's 95 degrees. Why? Well duh!

Why do I wear a seatbelt? I'd rather not travel through the windshield at a high rate of speed in an accident. Do I need a law to know this? Heck no!

But hey, the law makers look like they care and they can really get things done.

[Taz Q2]

Like everything else in life that has become mandatory in cars & bikes Davy, I am guessing the seat belt was introduced into cars for insurance purposes associated with third party claims in accidents, & i wonder if the same was applied for RBT, & helmets on bikes.

No good about you're mate bloke, hang in there hey.

[Dutton]

Yes, dabyboy, those laws are good. It is in just the same ways that laws ensure the likes of the TT is held on closed roads and such.

These laws are there to limit the risk of a given activity: seatbelts and the like are forced in order to minimise the danger of that activity; the safety measures at race events exist to try and minimise the danger of said activity. There will always be initial resistance, but as time goes on it helps create a shift-change in attitudes (like seatbelts being bad to being taken as commonsense). In these respects such things can be very beneficial.

Nobody has proposed banning the use of civilian indivual transport (i.e. denying us the right to have personal vehicles for the road) because it is a grave danger to our health (which it is), but there has been an ever increasing insistence-on/expectation-of improving safety standards focused on minimising risks/effects .

The advances that mean drivers have to be wearing suitable protective stuff, and so on, intended to minimise the risk in the event of something going wrong are to be applauded; in the same way, advances in civilian road/vehicle safety must be applauded: this is the effects of the same underlying process - that of intense focus on minimising the effects of things going wrong.

Prohibition is extreme, and often counter-productive.

[nihil]

Originally Posted by jhansen

Helmets are required, but leather jackets, boots, gloves etc. are not.

LOL! That's an interesting one... A near proof that laws in general are little more than symbolic attempts at engaging with reality, moreover that they symbolise a vested interest rather than an existential fact.

I had this conversation a while ago: which bit of kit do you feel most vulnerable without? For both of us it was gloves; take away anything else and I feel fine on a bike, but without my gloves I feel naked (I could be naked and ride a bike happily... except I'd have to be wearing gloves... Ok, sorry for introducing that image to you... )

Why? Because I know that even if I'm stationary and, for whatever reason, I fall over... My hands are likely to be the first thing to touch the tarmac.

That's a law I live by from experience, not one that's forced on me. Imposing a law that prohibits road racing, would be to ignore a body of hard won experience, in the interests of an abstract group of non-participants.

Now, we could call this group "civilians", and I agree that injuring civilians is not a "good thing". Indeed, "collateral damage" is one of the many social and political problems that I would be overjoyed to eradicate, but I have to say that I am content that road racing is sufficiently well controlled as it is to limit such risks to the realms of the "unlikely".

The risk competitors take is significantly greater than the risk to spectators, which is significantly greater again when compared to someone who is not involved in any way. Given that the first two groups consent to those risks, I really can't see a reasonable case for prohibition.

[davyboy]

At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, I guess I'm gonna have to resign myself to agree to differ with the majority of people on this thread. The 2007 TT will be remembered with great sadness for me and I know that people will be killed on the 2008 event. Still life moves on I guess.

[jhansen]

Davyboy, the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few. In this case, the few are making a choice to race in the TT. Why go against their will? Many other people out there are facing far worse in situations they did not chose to be in. With that, I've said what I can say.

My thoughts go out to you and your friend and his family.

[davyboy]

Thanks so much for your thoughts and those of everyone on the formum regarding my friend. The doctors aren't giving much hope for a recovery, so its really about moving on now. We're trying to help his wife sort out power of attorney documents etc... so that she can wade through the bureacratic mess at the moment.

... sorry for the off-topic bit there.

[Nivola]

Im stuck in Sepang so have missed alot of this thread.

Davyboy I wish your friends family good luck in this time mate.