WTF Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 thanks for the clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 If the DOT/Race Organisers feel that a certain part of private land should be made a prohibited area, then they will approach the landowner and ask if they can make it a prohibited area. There is a form/contract that is signed along with a plan of the area showing which area is prohibited. This then makes it a prohibited area and accountable under the law. If the Landowner changes, then a new form/contract has to be signed to keep the area prohibited otherwise the prohibited area ceases to be one. The form/contract doesn't become part of the house deeds. People know the TT and MGP happen for four weeks of the year, and since it has all been going for over a hundred years knew it when they bought or moved into such property. There is a great deal of commonsense required to be involved in this, and not the nanny state, and anyone stupid enough to stand or allow their family to stand in a dangerous area whether it's on their property or not, needs their bumps felt IMO. The same commonsense approach stands for people who have sea cliffs at the bottom of their land - where on a windy day they might have the right to stand on the edge of the cliff - most wouldn't - but some may be obstreperous and stupid enough to do so. The law is perfectly clear on road closures, but if people, despite good advice, don't heed it even on their own property that's up to them - but once advised I can't see why they should expect a claim to be settled related to such stupidity. By definition 'Restricted Area' means restricted not 'forbidden', which reflects the rights of the property owner, and protects visitors and locals watching - but does not legislate for the level of commonsense of the property owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Latest from MRMr McKay said the road was covered in debris and fluid, but the race wasn't stopped. Indeed, when the helicopter touched down at the nearest suitable location, across the road, people had to wait until the coast was clear before taking the casualties across, by stretcher. One couldn't make this stuff up. It's a little like a Laurel and Hardy script other than the deadly seriousness of the reality. Does the failure to stop the race show just how cheaply we regard life to be on the island, particularly in the area of motorbike racing? It is rare to stop a race when incidents happen during the TT/MGP unless the road is completely blocked. The riders would be under waved yellow flags indicating that they have to slow to around 30mph and they would then see anything on the road. The helicopter landing site is right next to the road and only big enough for one helicopter. As it was, the first one landed, dropped the doctors off and then took off again so that the noise from the helicopter didn't disturb them. The same with the second helicopter. Once people were on stretchers, they landed again and picked them up. I very much doubt that much of a delay was caused trying to cross the road - and the same thing happens at every other incident where the helicopter site is on the other side of the road...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 If the DOT/Race Organisers feel that a certain part of private land should be made a prohibited area, then they will approach the landowner and ask if they can make it a prohibited area. There is a form/contract that is signed along with a plan of the area showing which area is prohibited. This then makes it a prohibited area and accountable under the law. If the Landowner changes, then a new form/contract has to be signed to keep the area prohibited otherwise the prohibited area ceases to be one. The form/contract doesn't become part of the house deeds. This is why I believe the TT is amateurish with regard to safety in that safety should be paramount and that if on the grounds of safety land it is deemed that an area should be restricted or prohibited then basically that should apply. That is whether it is private or public property. If the owner of the land disagrees then they should sign the appropriate form with the appropriate disclaimers and confirming that if an individual gets hurt or injured in that area then it is the land owners responsibility and they have the appropriate insurance in place to cover such eventuality. This is not because I want to punish private landowners but that I wish it to be made clear to third parties, which might include myself, that an area is deemed to be especially dangerous. At present on the rules you outline the chances are I could be standing in somebody’s garden at their invite and not aware that ideally it should be classified a prohibited area as it is unlikely I would be informed. If the onus is moved onto the landlord then the chances are I will be informed and I can make my own decision. To me that should be what it all comes down to, notifying the public of the risks. What they do with that information is up to them. From what you describe the current system does not do that and that in my view is atrocious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 It is rare to stop a race when incidents happen during the TT/MGP unless the road is completely blocked. The riders would be under waved yellow flags indicating that they have to slow to around 30mph and they would then see anything on the road. The helicopter landing site is right next to the road and only big enough for one helicopter. As it was, the first one landed, dropped the doctors off and then took off again so that the noise from the helicopter didn't disturb them. The same with the second helicopter. Once people were on stretchers, they landed again and picked them up. I very much doubt that much of a delay was caused trying to cross the road - and the same thing happens at every other incident where the helicopter site is on the other side of the road...... Three people lying dead at the roadside. Another two in a state of near death. Everyone else in a state of shock. One can only imagine the horror of this bloodfest. But the race has to continue? What is so important about this race that it must go on in circumstances such as these? I'll never be convinced that it is that important. And it isn't just a point of helicopter/medical access and the removal of casualties. It's a matter of common decency and respect for the (newly) dead. I don't like coarse language, but for want of a better phrase it's a fucking disgrace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Three people lying dead at the roadside. Another two in a state of near death. Everyone else in a state of shock. One can only imagine the horror of this bloodfest. But the race has to continue? What is so important about this race that it must go on in circumstances such as these? I'll never be convinced that it is that important. And it isn't just a point of helicopter/medical access and the removal of casualties. It's a matter of common decency and respect for the (newly) dead. I don't like coarse language, but for want of a better phrase it's a fucking disgrace. That's a very unfair thing to say. Go right back to just after this happened, and remember that it took days for what exactly happened to come out. During the race, as far as the organisers were concerned it was an incident being dealt with, the road wasn't blocked and it was judged safe for others to carry on using the circuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 That's a very unfair thing to say. Go right back to just after this happened, and remember that it took days for what exactly happened to come out. During the race, as far as the organisers were concerned it was an incident being dealt with, the road wasn't blocked and it was judged safe for others to carry on using the circuit. Your post just reinforces the argument that the TT is unmarshable* (I just made that up - I hope you know what i mean) and therefore untenable. *Edit - unmarshallable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 and remember that it took days for what exactly happened to come out. During the race, as far as the organisers were concerned it was an incident being dealt with, the road wasn't blocked and it was judged safe for others to carry on using the circuit. It did not take days for what had exactly happened to come out. I am not a TT race fan but I heard pretty much most of the detail with in a few hours. The current hearing confirms much of what I heard. I think if you look back at this sight there was some comment very quickly although many held back out of common decency. It is not often I agree with Keyboarder and whilst it may have been safe to carry on racing etc etc to the non TT or motor racing fan and the rest of the world how does this reflect on the IoM. Probably much as Keyboarder says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 That's a very unfair thing to say. Go right back to just after this happened, and remember that it took days for what exactly happened to come out. During the race, as far as the organisers were concerned it was an incident being dealt with, the road wasn't blocked and it was judged safe for others to carry on using the circuit. Your post just reinforces the argument that the TT is unmarshable (I just made that up - I hope you know what i mean) and therefore untenable. No it doesn't - I refer to the detail of what happened OFF-circuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 At present on the rules you outline the chances are I could be standing in somebody’s garden at their invite and not aware that ideally it should be classified a prohibited area as it is unlikely I would be informed. If the onus is moved onto the landlord then the chances are I will be informed and I can make my own decision. To me that should be what it all comes down to, notifying the public of the risks. What they do with that information is up to them. From what you describe the current system does not do that and that in my view is atrocious.How old are you? I am sure that you are capable of making your own "risk assessment" - something you do subconsciously hundreds of times a day e.g Shall I cross the road whilst there is a car driving down it - no, as I might get run over. If you are standing in a front garden of a house and a bike races past fast, then you have to be able to make a decision "is this safe". If it isn't then you stand further back and re-evaluate it again. Do you have to wait until some person in a suit, sat in a Govt office somewhere says that you are not allowed? How about if they dropped a note through the letter box of every house on the TT Course saying "Motorsport is dangerous - if you are watching the racing from your own land, please be aware that accidents do happen.". Would that make you feel better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 No it doesn't - I refer to the detail of what happened OFF-circuit. I don't follow I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 That's a very unfair thing to say. Go right back to just after this happened, and remember that it took days for what exactly happened to come out. During the race, as far as the organisers were concerned it was an incident being dealt with, the road wasn't blocked and it was judged safe for others to carry on using the circuit. Your post just reinforces the argument that the TT is unmarshable* (I just made that up - I hope you know what i mean) and therefore untenable. *Edit - unmarshallable. The precedent seems to be in Motorsport, rightly or wrongly, that racing will continues even in light of a fatality Senna - Imola 94 Paolo Ghilimberti - Marshall - killed Monza 2000 Track Marshall - killed Australia 2001 Also the Allan McNish and Emanuele Naspetti crash at Donnington Park from some years back where flying debris took out a spectator (the video is all over the net) the list goes on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 How old are you? I am sure that you are capable of making your own "risk assessment" - something you do subconsciously hundreds of times a day e.g Shall I cross the road whilst there is a car driving down it - no, as I might get run over. Which begs the question - why have any restricted areas, if people can work it out themselves? If you are standing in a front garden of a house and a bike races past fast, then you have to be able to make a decision "is this safe". If it isn't then you stand further back and re-evaluate it again. And if isn't safe, be thankful that you're still able to re-evaluate it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 How old are you? I am sure that you are capable of making your own "risk assessment" - something you do subconsciously hundreds of times a day e.g Shall I cross the road whilst there is a car driving down it - no, as I might get run over. Which begs the question - why have any restricted areas, if people can work it out themselves? Exactly. If areas have been designated as high risk and warrant been designated at restricted or prohibited areas they should be marked as such. You either designate and mark all or you do not mark any. What you do not in my opinion is designate such areas and then mark some and not others. This gives the clear indication that those areas not marked may have a level of risk attached to them as any area will it has not been attributed a higher level of risk. In my opinion if an area has been so attributed their is a duty to inform and let the recepient make a decision based on that opinion Since Andrew asked with regard to my age if it is of any relevance I am in my 40's and yes I make subconsciously risk assessment decisions hundreds of times a day, but if I see two apparently identicle situations one with a warning sign and one without, e.g. about swimming from a beach, I judge each accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 The precedent seems to be in Motorsport, rightly or wrongly, that racing will continues even in light of a fatality Senna - Imola 94 Paolo Ghilimberti - Marshall - killed Monza 2000 Track Marshall - killed Australia 2001 Also the Allan McNish and Emanuele Naspetti crash at Donnington Park from some years back where flying debris took out a spectator (the video is all over the net) the list goes on I do not know about the otherincidents but with regard to Imola and Senna was not the race stopped? OK it might have restarted later but the actual race was stopped whilst the incident was dealt with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.