2017 Gold Cup Scrapped....

[dilligaf]

But lightning never strikes twice in the same place..............

[guzzi]

'Motorsport is Dangerous'. It says so on each ticket you buy at racing circuits, and from memory on the race programme for the TT (been years since I bought one).

There have been spectator injuries and deaths for years, at the TT, and of course elsewhere. Le Mans 1955 (83 killed), Monza 1961 (15 killed), IoM TT 2007 (2 killed), Jim Clark Rally (as previously posted), Charlotte Indy Car Race 1999 (3 killed), Michigan Motor Speedway 1998 (3 killed) ... and so on.

My view is that if you choose to spectate, you accept the risk of death or injury.  Clearly, you do not expect to be killed or injured, just as you don't expect it when you drive to the shops or take a flight to somewhere sunny. But it does happen.

Obviously, all reasonable precautions need to be taken by organisers, but it is a high energy situation with large heavy objects going by as fast as they possibly can.  You cannot eliminate all risk.

 

[woody2]

the no go areas at the mini tt are extensive, someone chucking a bike at the crowd is never going to end well, just hope it doesn't lead to changes at the track.....

[Albert Tatlock]

On 9/24/2017 at 5:09 PM, Pale Rider said:

Dear oh dear, do you ever post about anything else?

 

It has a direct line to the Devil.

[joebean]

7 hours ago, guzzi said:

'Motorsport is Dangerous'. It says so on each ticket you buy at racing circuits, and from memory on the race programme for the TT (been years since I bought one).

There have been spectator injuries and deaths for years, at the TT, and of course elsewhere. Le Mans 1955 (83 killed), Monza 1961 (15 killed), IoM TT 2007 (2 killed), Jim Clark Rally (as previously posted), Charlotte Indy Car Race 1999 (3 killed), Michigan Motor Speedway 1998 (3 killed) ... and so on.

My view is that if you choose to spectate, you accept the risk of death or injury.  Clearly, you do not expect to be killed or injured, just as you don't expect it when you drive to the shops or take a flight to somewhere sunny. But it does happen.

Obviously, all reasonable precautions need to be taken by organisers, but it is a high energy situation with large heavy objects going by as fast as they possibly can.  You cannot eliminate all risk.

 

It is nice to read your view. However it is completely invalid. The defence of voluntary acceptance of risk is no defence at all. Road Racing has to be run properly and professionally with proper risk assessment and mitigation procedures. Yes, it will always be dangerous but we don't live in a world any longer where you can injure or kill people with impunity.

[guzzi]

11 hours ago, joebean said:

It is nice to read your view. However it is completely invalid. The defence of voluntary acceptance of risk is no defence at all. Road Racing has to be run properly and professionally with proper risk assessment and mitigation procedures. Yes, it will always be dangerous but we don't live in a world any longer where you can injure or kill people with impunity.

I didn't choose to use contemporary management jargon, but I believe that is what '... all reasonable precautions need to be taken by the organisers ...' rehydrates to. Where did I suggest injuring and killing anyone with impunity?

[joebean]

2 hours ago, guzzi said:

I didn't choose to use contemporary management jargon, but I believe that is what '... all reasonable precautions need to be taken by the organisers ...' rehydrates to. Where did I suggest injuring and killing anyone with impunity?

I was referring to your view expressed earlier in your post in which you infer that if you choose to spectate you accept the risk. This is the defence of "volenti non fit injuria" which any organiser would find very difficult to rely upon in the event of spectator death of injury. You are, of course completely correct when you say what you say about reasonable steps. However, reasonable steps would probably involve more than putting a sign up saying "motorsport is dangerous" which is why organisers  including those at the TT have to create restricted areas which so many object to. The alternative is to risk tragic incidents which not only kill spectators, but the sport itself. You may realise this already and I accept that.

 

[guzzi]

10 minutes ago, joebean said:

I was referring to your view expressed earlier in your post in which you infer that if you choose to spectate you accept the risk. This is the defence of "volenti non fit injuria" which any organiser would find very difficult to rely upon in the event of spectator death of injury. You are, of course completely correct when you say what you say about reasonable steps. However, reasonable steps would probably involve more than putting a sign up saying "motorsport is dangerous" which is why organisers  including those at the TT have to create restricted areas which so many object to. The alternative is to risk tragic incidents which not only kill spectators, but the sport itself. You may realise this already and I accept that.

 

 I stand by that. If you attend a motorsport event as a spectator, you should clearly understand that it is not a risk-free activity, regardless of any risk reduction measures the organisers may take. Clearly, you can and should expect that all reasonable measures have been taken to protect your safety, but as you recognise, you cannot eliminate all risk. For a start, the organisers can't be responsible for spectator behaviour around the course.  Despite the creation of more prohibited areas, the risk to spectators at an event like the TT (I've never been to Oliver's Mount) is quite obviously much higher than at a dedicated motor racing circuit, with large run off areas and gravel traps, as well as continuous fencing around the track. 

As an aside, was any legal action taken against the organisers as a result of the tragic deaths in 2007, or the incident at the bottom of Bray Hill a few years back?

[woody2]

prohibited areas are extensive...

[joebean]

4 hours ago, guzzi said:

 I stand by that. If you attend a motorsport event as a spectator, you should clearly understand that it is not a risk-free activity, regardless of any risk reduction measures the organisers may take. Clearly, you can and should expect that all reasonable measures have been taken to protect your safety, but as you recognise, you cannot eliminate all risk. For a start, the organisers can't be responsible for spectator behaviour around the course.  Despite the creation of more prohibited areas, the risk to spectators at an event like the TT (I've never been to Oliver's Mount) is quite obviously much higher than at a dedicated motor racing circuit, with large run off areas and gravel traps, as well as continuous fencing around the track. 

As an aside, was any legal action taken against the organisers as a result of the tragic deaths in 2007, or the incident at the bottom of Bray Hill a few years back?

I am not aware of any. However, it's not always about legal action as the costs of this would make recourse to the courts a matter of last resort. Insurers will usually settle before this is necessary. I suspect that the insurance liability as a result of these incidents was considerable and the premiums payable will reflect that. Case law suggests that voluntary assumption of risk is unlikely to be a good defence against liability in motorsport incidents and, ultimately organisers will have to consider whether they can fund the insurance cover required and/or mitigate the risks sufficiently. I don't think anyone could suggest that spectating at road racing events could be entirely risk free, but organisers will be expected to mitigate risks that are foreseeable. Those that complain about restrictions in spectator points and the measures that should be in place to enforce them are taking a view that would make the sport unsustainable.

[La Colombe]

Stable doors, bolted horses? Again. ACU boss to review safety at Oliver's Mount after crashes.