Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[STEMO]

Presumably there are also women who compete in the TT races, so to suggest that it is the macho male risk addiction that makes people participate is an affront.

Case in point... Senior floor manager at work says to a junior male colleague... 'Can I borrow you for a moment. I need a man to help move a sign board.' Obviously he obliged.

It’s the way we're wired as a species, and no amount of nonsense will change the fact.

An affront, eh? 

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

When Jackie Stewart started his safety campaign, it proved he had bigger balls than all the other drivers put together.
They all knew that they were being put in a position of taking too many unacceptable risks purely so organisers and circuit owners could maximise their profits. It was purely a matter of money being more important than drivers lives.
He had the guts to open his mouth, while all the others were too scared.
Nike Lauda then took over the campaign and did a fantastic job of it when Stewart retired.
As Lauda said at the time "Its motor racing and we all know its dangerous, all we are asking for that when something goes wrong, we have a chance. At the moment, we often have no chance at all".

The TT though (like the road races in Ireland) is a different thing altogether. Its not about skimping on sensible safety measures to make more money.
The length and nature of the course make serious safety measures impossible, no matter how much money you throw at it.
The riders know this, and make their own decision to take the risk for the thrill and the glory.
I have great respect for that.
I hope McGuiness calls it a day now. He has got away with it for a very long time, and probably not sensible to tempt fate any longer.
I worry about Michael Dunlop. He seems to have a chip on his shoulder and is determined to push the limits further than anyone else.
That a dangerous attitude on the roads.
I suspect he wants his uncle Joeys record of 26 wins (he is now on 20) because there was friction between the two sides of the family, and he wants the record for his side of the family. 
Having said that, he of all people is more aware of the risks than anyone else, and decides for himself how to approach it, so its up to him.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

When Jackie Stewart started his safety campaign, it proved he had bigger balls than all the other drivers put together.
They all knew that they were being put in a position of taking too many unacceptable risks purely so organisers and circuit owners could maximise their profits. It was purely a matter of money being more important than drivers lives.
He had the guts to open his mouth, while all the others were too scared.
Nike Lauda then took over the campaign and did a fantastic job of it when Stewart retired.
As Lauda said at the time "Its motor racing and we all know its dangerous, all we are asking for that when something goes wrong, we have a chance. At the moment, we often have no chance at all".

The TT though (like the road races in Ireland) is a different thing altogether. Its not about skimping on sensible safety measures to make more money.
The length and nature of the course make serious safety measures impossible, no matter how much money you throw at it.
The riders know this, and make their own decision to take the risk for the thrill and the glory.
I have great respect for that.
I hope McGuiness calls it a day now. He has got away with it for a very long time, and probably not sensible to tempt fate any longer.
I worry about Michael Dunlop. He seems to have a chip on his shoulder and is determined to push the limits further than anyone else.
That a dangerous attitude on the roads.
I suspect he wants his uncle Joeys record of 26 wins (he is now on 20) because there was friction between the two sides of the family, and he wants the record for his side of the family. 
Having said that, he of all people is more aware of the risks than anyone else, and decides for himself how to approach it, so its up to him.

Jackie Stewart was a great driver statistically winning one race in every four. However, for me, he was too passionless and risk averse. Stewart turned passion into a statistical spreadsheet of risk v financial reward.

The truly great drivers like Senna, Fangio and your hero  Gilles Villeneuve raced with a passion that Stewart (being a dour scot) just didn't possess.

You 'gotta have passion'.

[Lizzie Zoom]

I know these guys love their sport and know all about the risks.  That is what they do. We also live in a World where we all take various levels of risk, maybe by just driving our cars down the road, or simply going for a walk with a dog!

But, playing devils advocate and not really knowing the correct answer, is it time for increased safety measures with the TT when every year there is a death toll?

F1 racing was accepted as being very dangerous in the 1950’s, 60’s and even into the 70’s, with a growing list of famous drivers killed.  Then came along Jackie Stewart who led a campaign to make the sport, and certain race tracks, far safer to maybe not eliminate risk all together, but certainly reduce the death toll when drivers crashed.

Has the TT reached this point?

Just interested to know what the men on here think, knowing that it is usually them who engage in high risk sports, like climbing mountains!

Not his finest hour and many of the drivers of the time thought Stewart was being 'a bit of an old woman' when it came to safety.

Great driver though from a period in time when both balls and sideburns were big.

Maybe.  Being again controversial, but  does that not fit in with the male sub-conscious physiological belief, that to be truly masculine, a proper man, you must face danger in the face? Not be weak and effeminate, fight risk and get victory?

That has of course advanced mankind, gained the achievements we have witnessed over centuries.  But it led to a poor perspective on keeping the individual safe. In Victorians times thousands were killed by unsafe practices that the common man just went along with as that was conceived to be the way a true man should act. Then in the First World War, a true man should not winge  about going over the top and being machined gunned en mass, with 10,000 dying in the morning, and another 9,700 in the afternoon, with 40,000 wounded, on 1st July 1916, only to have to repeat the exercise the following day.

We may have become too safety conscious and have allowed our society (the younger generations) to be wrapped in cotton wool. But the families of those 5 who have now been killed at the TT maybe would argue not enough has been done to avoid a waste of precious lives.

It is a tough one.  Yes, we all have to die, and a time, place, date, has already been set for us to depart, to live on in the spirit world. But should we all, especially our men folk, just accept that and take the losses?

I do not think there is an easy answer to that

We have. Covid has turned us into frightened children.

You're a historian Lizzie. If you'd told the poor people of Victorian England  there was a virus going around that would kill one in every hundred (mainly old) people they'd laugh and  tell you they have far more important things to worry about.....like consumption, the work house, and starvation.

They'd probably already lost 3 of their 7 children to one disease or another.

No, not me and many, many others. All the younger generations around me did not worry at all about it, with groups of them still socialising at it’s peak.  COVID was certainly no worse than many pandemics / plagues of the past, and there was an over reaction to it, but the Government could not do anything else than it did with the vaccine programme a master stroke.

As for Victorian Britain, yes life expectancy was short for the working classes due to so many factors.  Indeed, so many just accepted the risks to life in many of their occupations.  But it does not justify why the people of 2022 should sit back and watch when human beings die uneccesarily just because in history things were much worse for them.  That is why we have acts of Parliament to help protect workers, and everyone else.

The big question is though, in the context of this thread, when should authority intervene when people are killed participating in the sports they love.  In this case it is the question regarding sports motorcyclist, but it could be a question for footballers damaging their brains when heading footballs, or boxers hitting each other around their heads.  When is it right for H&S to intervene or not?

As I said, I do not believe there is a simple answer when men, yes and women, do what they love doing and know the risks for doing so

[Doctor Gollum]

Not going any further down this rabbit hole, but...

It’s exciting to watch and something else entirely to be a part of. (if it's your bag).

And it is a challenge of mastering the road and racing the clock. The only way to make it safer would be to cancel it.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

When Jackie Stewart started his safety campaign, it proved he had bigger balls than all the other drivers put together.
They all knew that they were being put in a position of taking too many unacceptable risks purely so organisers and circuit owners could maximise their profits. It was purely a matter of money being more important than drivers lives.
He had the guts to open his mouth, while all the others were too scared.
Nike Lauda then took over the campaign and did a fantastic job of it when Stewart retired.
As Lauda said at the time "Its motor racing and we all know its dangerous, all we are asking for that when something goes wrong, we have a chance. At the moment, we often have no chance at all".

The TT though (like the road races in Ireland) is a different thing altogether. Its not about skimping on sensible safety measures to make more money.
The length and nature of the course make serious safety measures impossible, no matter how much money you throw at it.
The riders know this, and make their own decision to take the risk for the thrill and the glory.
I have great respect for that.
I hope McGuiness calls it a day now. He has got away with it for a very long time, and probably not sensible to tempt fate any longer.
I worry about Michael Dunlop. He seems to have a chip on his shoulder and is determined to push the limits further than anyone else.
That a dangerous attitude on the roads.
I suspect he wants his uncle Joeys record of 26 wins (he is now on 20) because there was friction between the two sides of the family, and he wants the record for his side of the family. 
Having said that, he of all people is more aware of the risks than anyone else, and decides for himself how to approach it, so its up to him.

Jackie Stewart was a great driver statistically winning one race in every four. However, for me, he was too passionless and risk averse. Stewart turned passion into a statistical spreadsheet of risk v financial reward.

The truly great drivers like Senna, Fangio and your hero  Gilles Villeneuve raced with a passion that Stewart (being a dour scot) just didn't possess.

You 'gotta have passion'.

I agree with that entirely. Having said that, I still think the work he did on safety was badly needed. They were dropping like flies in those days, and most people involved (especially those making money out of it) just shrugged their shoulders and said "thats motor racing.
I also think that its gone to far the other way now. Its so safe it allows dangerous thugs like Schumacher and Verstappen to drive in a way that has litle regard for other drivers safety.

[BazaJT]

There are indeed lady competitors in the TT both in the solo classes and the sidecar class. Years ago[into the early/mid '70's I believe]the TT was part of the World Championship[what is now MotoGP]and with so few rounds in the championship at the time a rider had to go to the TT if he wanted to be world champion.The great Agostini was in part responsible for having the TT removed from the championship calendar on safety grounds.I'm sure the organisers do all they can safety wise and learn lessons from each tragedy but there is only so much that can be done when the racing goes through towns/villages and every rider knows the risks.Attempts have been made in the past to have it cancelled/banned but still the riders/teams turn up to take part.
Michael Dunlop certainly lives up to his nickname of Raging Bull especially when you watch his riding style compared to such as Peter Hickman and how close to the limit he's prepared to push himself and his machine.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

I know these guys love their sport and know all about the risks.  That is what they do. We also live in a World where we all take various levels of risk, maybe by just driving our cars down the road, or simply going for a walk with a dog!

But, playing devils advocate and not really knowing the correct answer, is it time for increased safety measures with the TT when every year there is a death toll?

F1 racing was accepted as being very dangerous in the 1950’s, 60’s and even into the 70’s, with a growing list of famous drivers killed.  Then came along Jackie Stewart who led a campaign to make the sport, and certain race tracks, far safer to maybe not eliminate risk all together, but certainly reduce the death toll when drivers crashed.

Has the TT reached this point?

Just interested to know what the men on here think, knowing that it is usually them who engage in high risk sports, like climbing mountains!

Not his finest hour and many of the drivers of the time thought Stewart was being 'a bit of an old woman' when it came to safety.

Great driver though from a period in time when both balls and sideburns were big.

Maybe.  Being again controversial, but  does that not fit in with the male sub-conscious physiological belief, that to be truly masculine, a proper man, you must face danger in the face? Not be weak and effeminate, fight risk and get victory?

That has of course advanced mankind, gained the achievements we have witnessed over centuries.  But it led to a poor perspective on keeping the individual safe. In Victorians times thousands were killed by unsafe practices that the common man just went along with as that was conceived to be the way a true man should act. Then in the First World War, a true man should not winge  about going over the top and being machined gunned en mass, with 10,000 dying in the morning, and another 9,700 in the afternoon, with 40,000 wounded, on 1st July 1916, only to have to repeat the exercise the following day.

We may have become too safety conscious and have allowed our society (the younger generations) to be wrapped in cotton wool. But the families of those 5 who have now been killed at the TT maybe would argue not enough has been done to avoid a waste of precious lives.

It is a tough one.  Yes, we all have to die, and a time, place, date, has already been set for us to depart, to live on in the spirit world. But should we all, especially our men folk, just accept that and take the losses?

I do not think there is an easy answer to that

We have. Covid has turned us into frightened children.

You're a historian Lizzie. If you'd told the poor people of Victorian England  there was a virus going around that would kill one in every hundred (mainly old) people they'd laugh and  tell you they have far more important things to worry about.....like consumption, the work house, and starvation.

They'd probably already lost 3 of their 7 children to one disease or another.

No, not me and many, many others. All the younger generations around me did not worry at all about it, with groups of them still socialising at it’s peak.  COVID was certainly no worse than many pandemics / plagues of the past, and there was an over reaction to it, but the Government could not do anything else than it did with the vaccine programme a master stroke.

As for Victorian Britain, yes life expectancy was short for the working classes due to so many factors.  Indeed, so many just accepted the risks to life in many of their occupations.  But it does not justify why the people of 2022 should sit back and watch when human beings die uneccesarily just because in history things were much worse for them.  That is why we have acts of Parliament to help protect workers, and everyone else.

The big question is though, in the context of this thread, when should authority intervene when people are killed participating in the sports they love.  In this case it is the question regarding sports motorcyclist, but it could be a question for footballers damaging their brains when heading footballs, or boxers hitting each other around their heads.  When is it right for H&S to intervene or not?

As I said, I do not believe there is a simple answer when men, yes and women, do what they love doing and know the risks for doing so

If people are adults then the answer is the government should keep out of it provided their actions are not overtly detrimental to others.

I like government to be small and keep out of my life.  Government overreach tends to infantilize people and make them unable to fend for themselves.

If you can help yourself you should.

If you are unable then the government should step in to help through the rough patch.......but not to the point of making you dependent.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

When Jackie Stewart started his safety campaign, it proved he had bigger balls than all the other drivers put together.
They all knew that they were being put in a position of taking too many unacceptable risks purely so organisers and circuit owners could maximise their profits. It was purely a matter of money being more important than drivers lives.
He had the guts to open his mouth, while all the others were too scared.
Nike Lauda then took over the campaign and did a fantastic job of it when Stewart retired.
As Lauda said at the time "Its motor racing and we all know its dangerous, all we are asking for that when something goes wrong, we have a chance. At the moment, we often have no chance at all".

The TT though (like the road races in Ireland) is a different thing altogether. Its not about skimping on sensible safety measures to make more money.
The length and nature of the course make serious safety measures impossible, no matter how much money you throw at it.
The riders know this, and make their own decision to take the risk for the thrill and the glory.
I have great respect for that.
I hope McGuiness calls it a day now. He has got away with it for a very long time, and probably not sensible to tempt fate any longer.
I worry about Michael Dunlop. He seems to have a chip on his shoulder and is determined to push the limits further than anyone else.
That a dangerous attitude on the roads.
I suspect he wants his uncle Joeys record of 26 wins (he is now on 20) because there was friction between the two sides of the family, and he wants the record for his side of the family. 
Having said that, he of all people is more aware of the risks than anyone else, and decides for himself how to approach it, so its up to him.

Jackie Stewart was a great driver statistically winning one race in every four. However, for me, he was too passionless and risk averse. Stewart turned passion into a statistical spreadsheet of risk v financial reward.

The truly great drivers like Senna, Fangio and your hero  Gilles Villeneuve raced with a passion that Stewart (being a dour scot) just didn't possess.

You 'gotta have passion'.

I agree with that entirely. Having said that, I still think the work he did on safety was badly needed. They were dropping like flies in those days, and most people involved (especially those making money out of it) just shrugged their shoulders and said "thats motor racing.
I also think that its gone to far the other way now. Its so safe it allows dangerous thugs like Schumacher and Verstappen to drive in a way that has litle regard for other drivers safety.

'Tis true. The pictures of Fangio and Ascari racing in a short sleeve shirt is hard to believe now. OK, so the cars were not so fast 150-170MPH back in the fifties but when you think they were constructed from old cornflakes boxes and egg boxes the drivers were incredibly brave.

[Raeturbo]

I know these guys love their sport and know all about the risks.  That is what they do. We also live in a World where we all take various levels of risk, maybe by just driving our cars down the road, or simply going for a walk with a dog!

But, playing devils advocate and not really knowing the correct answer, is it time for increased safety measures with the TT when every year there is a death toll?

F1 racing was accepted as being very dangerous in the 1950’s, 60’s and even into the 70’s, with a growing list of famous drivers killed.  Then came along Jackie Stewart who led a campaign to make the sport, and certain race tracks, far safer to maybe not eliminate risk all together, but certainly reduce the death toll when drivers crashed.

Has the TT reached this point?

Just interested to know what the men on here think, knowing that it is usually them who engage in high risk sports, like climbing mountains!

Not his finest hour and many of the drivers of the time thought Stewart was being 'a bit of an old woman' when it came to safety.

Great driver though from a period in time when both balls and sideburns were big.

Maybe.  Being again controversial, but  does that not fit in with the male sub-conscious physiological belief, that to be truly masculine, a proper man, you must face danger in the face? Not be weak and effeminate, fight risk and get victory?

That has of course advanced mankind, gained the achievements we have witnessed over centuries.  But it led to a poor perspective on keeping the individual safe. In Victorians times thousands were killed by unsafe practices that the common man just went along with as that was conceived to be the way a true man should act. Then in the First World War, a true man should not winge  about going over the top and being machined gunned en mass, with 10,000 dying in the morning, and another 9,700 in the afternoon, with 40,000 wounded, on 1st July 1916, only to have to repeat the exercise the following day.

We may have become too safety conscious and have allowed our society (the younger generations) to be wrapped in cotton wool. But the families of those 5 who have now been killed at the TT maybe would argue not enough has been done to avoid a waste of precious lives.

It is a tough one.  Yes, we all have to die, and a time, place, date, has already been set for us to depart, to live on in the spirit world. But should we all, especially our men folk, just accept that and take the losses?

I do not think there is an easy answer to that

We have. Covid has turned us into frightened children.

You're a historian Lizzie. If you'd told the poor people of Victorian England  there was a virus going around that would kill one in every hundred (mainly old) people they'd laugh and  tell you they have far more important things to worry about.....like consumption, the work house, and starvation.

They'd probably already lost 3 of their 7 children to one disease or another.

No, not me and many, many others. All the younger generations around me did not worry at all about it, with groups of them still socialising at it’s peak.  COVID was certainly no worse than many pandemics / plagues of the past, and there was an over reaction to it, but the Government could not do anything else than it did with the vaccine programme a master stroke.

As for Victorian Britain, yes life expectancy was short for the working classes due to so many factors.  Indeed, so many just accepted the risks to life in many of their occupations.  But it does not justify why the people of 2022 should sit back and watch when human beings die uneccesarily just because in history things were much worse for them.  That is why we have acts of Parliament to help protect workers, and everyone else.

The big question is though, in the context of this thread, when should authority intervene when people are killed participating in the sports they love.  In this case it is the question regarding sports motorcyclist, but it could be a question for footballers damaging their brains when heading footballs, or boxers hitting each other around their heads.  When is it right for H&S to intervene or not?

As I said, I do not believe there is a simple answer when men, yes and women, do what they love doing and know the risks for doing so

If people are adults then the answer is the government should keep out of it provided their actions are not overtly detrimental to others.

I like government to be small and keep out of my life.  Government overreach tends to infantilize people and make them unable to fend for themselves.

If you can help yourself you should.

If you are unable then the government should step in to help through the rough patch.......but not to the point of making you dependent.

                  Yes well said. Definitely 👍

[Olympia5776]

Here , lighten up ......

Just finishing this and it's worthy of a read . Light and non complex but uplifting .
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Frank-Stans-Bucket-List-Races/dp/1985302136/ref=asc_df_1985302136/?tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=310873579562&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=3253568071199462350&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=20483&hvtargid=pla-562242807262&psc=1&th=1&psc=1