Jump to content

Ghost Ship

Regulars
  • Posts

    425
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ghost Ship

  1. I'm not making any assumptions about you - stupid or otherwise. All I know about you is what you've written in your post that I quoted. The relevant bit being that a couple of your friends have died racing in the TT and that neither family holds a grudge against the event or organisers. I'm sure there are lots of people - like you - who know the surviving families of riders who have died at the TT.
  2. Did I say that it was the only reasonable conclusion? And what named person have I speculated about?
  3. I'm not "accusing" anybody of anything. I'm putting forward a suggestion that it's just possible that when the relatives of riders who have been killed in the TT say that their loved one "died doing what they loved" or that they have no hard feelings at all against the event or its organisers, that it's just possible that they might be subconsciouly misleading both themselves and their audience. I understand that "denial" of uncomfortable or unpleasant realities is quite a well recognised psychological phenomenon. I don't think it necessarily indicates any problem with a person's "mental faculties" or in their mental functioning. Some people do things all the time - both consciously and subconsciously - that make little sense if you analyse them. Some people hold all manner of irrational beliefs. None of these things necessarily affects their ability to think clearly, or their other mental faculties. And neither is it necessarily a criticism of those people. It's just what people do. I think all that is perfectly possible. You apparently believe it is not.
  4. "Mental faculties"?
  5. What I'm wondering is - when somebody like @Passing Time talks to the surviving family members of somebody who has died racing at the TT - whether the surviving relatives saying that they hold no grudge against the event is necessarily reliable. I suppose it's possible that they are expressing their true feelings and that they do hold no grudges against the event. Or I suppose it is also just possible that they are presenting what I understand is a recognised psychological phenonemon where people, when challenged in their beliefs, display increased conviction in believing something which might appear irrational to others. Whether you want to call that "mentally compromised" is up to you, but I don't believe it is necessarily "abnormal" behaviour - it's part of the human condition. It's not a criticism of the family. Or I suppose a third possibility is that the relatives already know what @Passing Time believes so they tell him what he wants to hear. Or they just don't want an argument with him. I don't know. Do you?
  6. Have you considered that it might just be possible that - having lost a loved one to the event - relatives and close family members might actually find it difficult to be critical of the event? Perhaps they might just see it as being in some way disloyal to their memory of the person who made the choice to race and died doing so.
  7. It was the Gene McDonnell incident that marked the beginning of my change in attitude to the TT. It was a stupid and ridiculous accident. I was pretty much born and bred on the TT course, and from the first 18 years of my life some of my earliest memories are of watching the racing from the foot of our garden. My father and my older brother had some involvement in the event and I was a great supporter of it. I was also a Guardian reader in the late 70s and 80s so I had very split loyalties when it came to their annual TT bashing. But I was defiantly pro-TT. I also introduced my (non-Manx) wife to the TT in the early 80s and she absolutely loved all of it. The noise, the spectacle, the rows and rows and rows of bikes on the prom - everything. But the Gene McDonnell death left a really bad taste in both our mouths, and neither of us have ever been back to watch the races. Interestingly, my father and brother pretty much just shrugged it off as another unfortunate TT death. My wife and I still watched it on TV and bought the DVDs each year, but we just gradually came more and more to the view that the cost - in terms of the loss of life - just wasn't acceptable or sustainable. I think the two incidents that finally made me think none of it was really worth it were the spectator deaths at the 26th milestone and the Mercer collision. I couldn't even tell my wife about the latter as she told me "I don't want to know!" And the obsession with ever faster and faster lap speeds just seems childish and tasteless to me...
  8. Thanks. That's an honest and sincere answer to a difficult question. (I meant to quote this post of yours in my previous post, but quoted the wrong one!)
  9. [Edited: Wrong post quoted] Unfortunately I think a lot of riders simply don't understand the risks and/or think the risks don't apply to them. I'm not suggesting they're stupid or anything, just that I think there's a natural tendency for people to underestimate the dangers and risks inherent in activities that they enjoy. Unfortunately it's not possible to ask those riders who didn't survive whether it was worth it. I also sometimes wonder - and I know this is going to sound awful to many people - whether riders who have survived accidents (or surviving relatives of riders who have been killed in accidents) unconsciously have a greater emotional investment in the event and are therefore more likely to continue supporting it than the evidence justifies. (Although I'd have to say Max Power's views on all this are actually very balanced and are obviously sincerely held.)
  10. Perhaps I'm misreading the regulations, but if I understand them correctly, then the "certain level of insurance" could barely be described as sufficient, let alone adequate. Are the levels of benefit referred to in sections 4.1 and 4.7 the only cover for death or disablement that a rider needs in order to be allowed to compete? If so, then the amounts seem wholly inadequate and I'd be inclined to agree with Chinahand that the races are being run with insurance cover that woefully understates the potential true costs of the risks being run. Am I completely misunderstanding the minimum insurance cover requirement? (I had wondered if riders might be covered by the ACU's third party public liability insurance, but looking at the ACU Handbook I don't think they are?)
  11. They're quick enough to announce a new lap speed record. They should be equally quick to announce that news that they are less comfortable with - but which is apparently just as much a part of the TT. They shouldn't make it look like it's embarrassing news they'd rather ignore.
  12. Well I don't know because I don't do Twatter or Faceache. All the more reason to announce it (whether it's good news or bad news) officially and in a timely manner.
  13. I'm unaware of that, but if it is true that that happened then it was wholly unacceptable behaviour by the police...
  14. But if somebody has been killed it's an inevitable consequence of it happening at a public sporting event that the news is going to leak out through social media. It's going to happen. All the more reason to announce officially what has happened sooner rather than later - without necessarily identifying any particular rider. Just say "A rider was killed during the XXX race earler today", don't make it look like you are trying to avoid something you'd prefer to ignore.
  15. I don't know why they can't just say: "There's been a racing incident. A rider/riders have been taken to hospital." Or even "There's been a racing incident. A rider has died" (As long as they don't say that a rider has "passed away"). I can understand that if somebody has been killed that they don't want to identify the rider before family has been informed, but what is the point of withholding information that a rider has been injured or been killed? You can state that fact without identifying them. Not doing so just encourages ill-founded speculation. It probably does more harm than good in that it reinforces the idea that the organisers don't want to accept that the TT is very dangerous and it is almost ineveitable that each year at least a couple of riders will end up being killed. Edit: Even looking at the what I presume is the official TT website now, there is nothing to indicate that anything has happened, or a denial that anything has happened.
  16. There's a sort of high street full of shops just round the corner from where I live. It's not pedestrianised but it's had various traffic calming features installed over the last few years. A couple of the features include areas where the road surface has been raised to the same level as the pavement, but there's no tactile paving at the (non-existent) kerb. A few months ago I was driving along that road at around 7am on a Sunday morning. Fortunately there was no other motor traffic that early on a Sunday. I watched a blind pedestrian - I assume he was blind, he was using a white stick - wander off the pavement and into the road because he couldn't tell from his stick where the pavement ended and the road began. Fortunately for him a nearby pedestrian realised what was happening and guided him back to the pavement before he ended up in the middle of the road. A lot of these "clever" ideas are fine in theory or in a perfect world, but we don't live in a perfect world and you have to assume that if anything can possibly go wrong it will go wrong. So the sensible thing to do is to minimise the things that can go wrong from the outset.
  17. Yes. If I were responsible for designing a road layout the last thing I would be doing is reckelssly taking risks with other peoples' lives by using a design that I hoped might encourage people to take greater individual reponsibility rather than using one that worked. everybody understood. [Edited for clarity] Better to keep it safe, simple and idiot proof.
  18. Thanks. Doesn't seem to cover the situation where some riders complete the requisite number of laps but others do not. "11.27. SILVER REPLICAS 11.27.1. Will be awarded to the competitors finishing within 105% of the winner’s time. 11.28.BRONZE REPLICAS 11.28.1. Will be awarded to the competitors finishing within 110% of the winners time but not qualifying for a silver replica."
  19. Thanks. So you can still qualify for a bronze replica on two laps? Is that based on the winner's time completing two laps or some other formula?
  20. This is probably a really stupid question (too early in the week for me) but what does the column headed "Time" mean in the race results? Looking at Supersport Race 1, Michael Dunlop has won in 53:31.593, Dean Harrison second in 53:37.571 etc etc. But from position 30 to 31 the time decreases from 58:52.582 to 38:54.197, and all the lower positions range from 38 minutes up to 41 minutes for position 49. What is that meant to be telling me? At first I thought it must be riders who haven't completed the full three laps, but that wouldn't explain why the times are increasing as you go lower down the finishing positions, and wouldn't explain why some of them are getting replicas... (It's not a typo is it?)
  21. I think you're right. I'm in the UK and I'm listening to Manx Radio. After the first race today I missed that there'd been a red flag towards the end. I came back to the radio about an hour ago and learned that there'd been a red flag and that they expected to hand back to the grandstand at 12:45. (I also learned that the roads would be closed until 11pm tonight and that Michael Dunlop had "broken a new lap record" - but let's skip over that.) Then all you get is "there have been no more updates from the grandstand" and no indication at all of what is happening. I don't particularly blame MR for that, but surely the organisers can be a bit more forthcoming - even if just to say that there will be a further update at such and such a time? (Say every 15 or 30 minutes). Even if it's just to say. "No further news at this time. There will be a further update at..." ). I also see that the official(?) schedule here still hasn't been updated even though it's clearly been superseded by events. Isle of Man TT Races© - 2022 Schedule (iomttraces.com)
  22. But some people like the new crossing layouts as they put greater individual responsibility on both motorised road users and pedestrians alike. That might be a good thing in theory (as perhaps in the deluded towers of the DoI) but whether it's a sensible approach when both sets of road users are relatively unfamiliar with how those layouts are meant to operate and when the consequences of somebody making a simple mistake might be life changing, is not so clear.
  23. Yeah! I didn't exactly give very recognisable descriptions, did I? 😄 However, it's been really annoying me that I couldn't remember the name of the guy who read out loud from the Norse Sagas. But I thought I could remember a very old thread on here talking about teachers at Ballakermeen and St Ninians, and I think @Max Power identified the chap in question as "Mr Samwell, a very scary man!" Unfortunately, I don't think he identified "the other guy", although he was quite scary too. But he did remind me of some other teachers I'd forgotten over the years. School Teachers... Your Memories... - Page 6 - General Chat - Manx Forums - A Discussion Board & Classifieds for the Isle of Man [Max's post 3rd November 2011 on page 11]
  24. They aren't Zebra crossings at all. Not just technically.
×
×
  • Create New...