When Skies Are Grey Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 Has anyone mentioned Everest yet....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey boy Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 Well these threads all start the same. State sponsored death is not justified. I give examples of other state sponsored death which are then written off as "that's different". It's easy to see how I could reach the conclusion that Death or state is far from the only consideration in the criticism of the event - which it clearly isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhumsaa Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 Nobody comes here to witness death and destruction, nor is anyone encouraged to, and on top of that very few actually do. It seems that it's not the death you object to so much or the perceived public funding of it but that it occurs during a tourist event rather than a political power struggle. I disagree that people are not encouraged to. If you see all the videos and articles about it the consistent angle and phrase is danger. Ballascarey..... how long has it been known as that? Conor Cummins' crash and Guy Martin's crash were the defining end to "Closer to the Edge", not the victory. Everyone is quick to glorify the people who die on the course like an ancient religion and you can never have a discussion about the deaths being an issue without people reacting in a frothing rage and throwing Mt Everest statistics at you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted June 7, 2016 Author Share Posted June 7, 2016 Well these threads all start the same. State sponsored death is not justified. I give examples of other state sponsored death which are then written off as "that's different". It's easy to see how I could reach the conclusion that Death or state is far from the only consideration in the criticism of the event - which it clearly isn't. No they don't. Not in my case anyway. I don't have a problem with the event per see (as I said above) but I do have an issue with us investing further into it and growing it; as its an emerging PR disaster that is going to sink millions to allow the world to witness more death linked to the IOM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thommo2010 Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 Life is dangerous you can get hit by a bus walking out your front door, it is a shame people die on the open roads but in terms of the racing these guys know the risks and as long as they are willing to continue to race and people continue to watch then it will continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey boy Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 The IOM needs to pay for defence. That's a fact. it's hardly like we can conduct our own is it? There is no link to death whatsoever in this context. It's a really poor analogy. Defence from what? We pay the UK £3M annually for defence despite the fact we haven't needed defending from anything for hundreds of years. a majority of that £3M goes to the UK armed forces who due to UK foreign policy have been involved in conflicts pretty much every year in living memory causing many times more deaths each year that the TT has in over a hundred. No analogy needed death is death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gettafa Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 MTP = Bernard Moffat? (not seen much of MTP these days, where's e' bin? Down the beer tent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryPotter Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 On the track the issue now is technology which has advanced at a rate that has left behind all but about 20% of the riders. When i was younger as bigger a risk (if not more so) was not the speed it was the bikes. They regularly seized, blew up etc. But now we've reached an era where mechanically most of the bikes are bullet proof. And the guy setting off last has a bike that Hutchy, Dunlop and co can put around the course at near course record speeds. This has to be a recipe for disaster given the limited riding skills of most of the field. And of course there is no real stepping stone anymore in Road Racing. A 600 can lap at nearly 130mph these days. Road racing has always been dangerous. It always will be. But as each year goes by the speed at which people crash is increasing and there does not appear to be an answer to it. I agree. Also if they can put a tricked out scooby round and average 128mph then it does ask questions about technical limits for the future as we must be right on the technical limits of what is possible for either cars or bikes. I remember the year ('86?) that Toivenen put a Delta S4 around the Portuguese GP track and theoretically qualified for a place on the front grid. Later that year he was dead. This year has done it for me. I don't have an issue with the event per see; but don't think we should be investing millions of taxpayer money growing it, or investing into further licensing a death franchise. It's a colossal emerging PR liability. I think there probably some parallels with the old Group B situation and technical limits. The technology is just too good and too quick now that the margin for errors must be almost non existent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey boy Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 Well these threads all start the same. State sponsored death is not justified. I give examples of other state sponsored death which are then written off as "that's different". It's easy to see how I could reach the conclusion that Death or state is far from the only consideration in the criticism of the event - which it clearly isn't. No they don't. Not in my case anyway. I don't have a problem with the event per see (as I said above) but I do have an issue with us investing further into it and growing it; as its an emerging PR disaster that is going to sink millions to allow the world to witness more death linked to the IOM. Ah I wondered when we'd get to the crux of it - you don't actually mind the death, it's the bad PR that bothers you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted June 7, 2016 Author Share Posted June 7, 2016 Well these threads all start the same. State sponsored death is not justified. I give examples of other state sponsored death which are then written off as "that's different". It's easy to see how I could reach the conclusion that Death or state is far from the only consideration in the criticism of the event - which it clearly isn't. No they don't. Not in my case anyway. I don't have a problem with the event per see (as I said above) but I do have an issue with us investing further into it and growing it; as its an emerging PR disaster that is going to sink millions to allow the world to witness more death linked to the IOM. Ah I wondered when we'd get to the crux of it - you don't actually mind the death, it's the bad PR that bothers you. No I have an issue with death. Why would anyone want to invest into creating more death? It's like saying that rather than investing to find a cure for cancer, you want to raise money to invest into more people getting more cancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 Defence from what? We pay the UK £3M annually for defence despite the fact we haven't needed defending from anything for hundreds of years. This guy sure knows his history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhumsaa Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 Well these threads all start the same. State sponsored death is not justified. I give examples of other state sponsored death which are then written off as "that's different". It's easy to see how I could reach the conclusion that Death or state is far from the only consideration in the criticism of the event - which it clearly isn't. No they don't. Not in my case anyway. I don't have a problem with the event per see (as I said above) but I do have an issue with us investing further into it and growing it; as its an emerging PR disaster that is going to sink millions to allow the world to witness more death linked to the IOM. Ah I wondered when we'd get to the crux of it - you don't actually mind the death, it's the bad PR that bothers you. I personally do find it hard to witness the big smiles and back slapping of a successful TT and the money involved etc while they simultaneously ignore the death and serious injury involved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey boy Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 You really cannot compare the two. Armed Forces personnel going to any conflict is part of the paid job. It's what Forces people sign up in the knowledge of. I certainly did and I know everyone I served with felt the same. Where as TT riders receive no financial recompense & have no knowledge that lapping the TT course is in any way dangerous. What bollocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey boy Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 Well these threads all start the same. State sponsored death is not justified. I give examples of other state sponsored death which are then written off as "that's different". It's easy to see how I could reach the conclusion that Death or state is far from the only consideration in the criticism of the event - which it clearly isn't. No they don't. Not in my case anyway. I don't have a problem with the event per see (as I said above) but I do have an issue with us investing further into it and growing it; as its an emerging PR disaster that is going to sink millions to allow the world to witness more death linked to the IOM. Ah I wondered when we'd get to the crux of it - you don't actually mind the death, it's the bad PR that bothers you. I personally do find it hard to witness the big smiles and back slapping of a successful TT and the money involved etc while they simultaneously ignore the death and serious injury involved Who's ignoring it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 Life is dangerous you can get hit by a bus walking out your front door, it is a shame people die on the open roads but in terms of the racing these guys know the risks and as long as they are willing to continue to race and people continue to watch then it will continue. House! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.