to think that motorbike racer who died racing was unfair on his DCs?

[TheEpilator]

Watched a film with DH the other night about the Isle of Man TT motorbike race and couldn't believe the ludicrous risks the racers took to partake in this event, during which it seems several people die each year.

Some of them (including one of the racers who died) had young DCs and I said that their fun shouldn't be at the expense of their families' happiness.

DH thinks I am unreasonable and used the old line "he could get hit by a bus tomorrow, at least he died doing what he loved". I think the guy who died (and anyone taking part in such dangerous pursuits for fun) was being quite selfish to deprive his DCs of their dad just so that he could have the thrill of the race. DH asked me to canvas your opinions.

Whose side are you on - mine or his?!...

There's risk and there's risk though. (by the way I'm not sure how I feel about it)
Noone has died in formula one in the last 15 years (I think) yet people would consider it a more dangerous sport
More die is Nascar but even though it's only one every coupld of years.
The TT is incredibly dangerous. It's a good thing it's only two weeks really at the rate people die.

Is there a tipping point? For me I think TT is a step too far, the risk is too high but I don't have such a problem with other dangerous sports. I mean I love Rugby and that can be pretty dangerous just not on the level of the TT

OK bronze, so if you exclude the bus drivers and passengers that's about roughly 100 deaths by bus impact on a population of, (conservatively) 40 million people who travel along roads with buses on, over the course of a year. A risk of something like 1/400,000 per annum (as a part of your overall accidental death risk per year which is of the order of 1/10,000 - higher for men, lower for women).

The problem with the comparison is that I can't find a value for the number of people who ride the TT course during that weekend - it's actually pretty high, (much much higher than the 20 odd who drive F1) so
getting your relativities is tricky.

Or less because that will included cars that have driven into buses etc.

I tried to find the amount of riders too. I know how many races there are but of course some people ride a few. Even 1/1000 per two weeks is way higher though

There have 237 deaths in a hundred and two years on the TT course, including races and practices in both the TT and the Manx grand prix.

Okay, let's do some maths shall we? Using wikipedia as a source.

Of 237 competitors killed on the TT Mountain Course, 101 were in the Manx Grand Prix. As this is a separate event, Im not including these for the purposes of this example. I'm also not including deaths of officials, in unofficial timed events, parade laps and the two spectators.

So that gives 136 deaths in 100 years of the Mountain Course. So, 1.36 deaths per year. Given that the course is 37.733 miles long, that gives 3.63077412 deaths per mile. And 0.03630774 deaths per mile over 100 years.

Given the number of competitors overall (around 50 to 80 in average solo classes nowadays), the number of laps done (again, for anyone who didn't read my earlier post, this ranges from 3 to 6 laps of the 37.733 mile course) over the 5 solo and 2 sidecar (i.e. rider and passenger) events over the course of race week, not to mention a week of practices - the event does not deserve it's "bloodbath island" reputation.

Maybe someone better at maths than me can work this out in more detail as it's too many averages for me to calculate on my phone.

Now, don't get me wrong; it is a very very difficult course to learn and has unique dangers. But again, I stress, no racer lines up to leave the start without knowing the risks and dangers. They will have worked hard to gain enough "signatures" to be allowed to race the TT. Their wives and girlfriends (and yes - husbands and boyfriends!) will have had to come to the acceptance of their partners choice.

Yes, ultimately, it is a selfish act. But, so are lots of other choices - to choose to smoke or drink for example.

I know my brother died because of his selfish choice - he never saw his daughter born because he chose to race in the TT. But do I believe he had that right? Damn right I do.

Thanks for the stats Peppy. To play devil's advocate many of them will be fans and amateurs having a go when there isn't a race on, the 'real' racers, probably only make up around 1/3 of that number.

However, out of the 102 years it is actually only around 204 weeks (is it 2 weeks a year?) so if there was constant racing all year the figure would be more like 50+ deaths per year. How that compares to buses/rugby etc, I don't know.

Trying to put it all in perspective as there are so many good comments that have made me think about my opinions on it.

x-post Floydie, but your maths is more complex than mine!

The smoking thing is totally relevant as I wouldn't be able to marry a smoker either! Maybe I'm just a bit fussy, and for all my DH's strange foibles I should be glad I found him

I don't know, in 2010 there were 2 actual rider deaths and 2011 three. I'm not sure how far we can go back because of how much slower the bikes were when the course was established. We're talking less than 40mph.

If we're getting pedantic about it Floydie it's 136 deaths in 200 weeks, which is 136 deaths in almost 4 years, which equates to 34 deaths per year in a 37 mile stretch of road, ie almost one death per mile. Once you think of it that way the comparison becomes a bit meaningless - if there was an ordinary 37 mile stretch of road in some village that was claiming 34 lives a year there'd understandably be uproar.

2 deaths in two weeks for one stretch of road is a very high number. If every 37 mile stretch of road claimed two people every two weeks the death toll would be astronomical.

with your DH on this one

most people are vogon!

Judging risk is always going to be equivocal because everyone has their own thoughts about what is an acceptable risk and what is not.

The kind of people who race the TT are the people they are because they have the intense desire, focus, and self-belief that is needed to sit on a 200mph bike and ride it as fast as they can over a very demanding course. These are the same kind of people as those who enter the Dakar rally or who find a big mountain to climb.

If you stop them doing what they live to do then you cut out a very big part of who they are. Someone entering into a relationship with a driven person like this very quickly become aware of what they are like and how important these activities are to them.

Yes but callin it's over a hundred years. And you can't equate it to some random bit of country road - they are going very fast on some pretty dangerous roads (narrow, twisty, slippery etc). If you could compare against a notorious accident blackspot - again over 100 years - then could could have some comparison.

I'm not disputing it's dangerous! Im just saying it's all relative.

Oh, and I'd rather be racing on an empty track where I've been advise of the weather conditions, and know no dickhead car drivers are around. To me, its far more dangerous going out on my bike (yes, I ride myself) or pillion with DP (and he goes a damn sight faster than I do!) around idiots who don't look out for bikes.

To me being bike aware every day is far more important. If anyone takes anything from this thread - make it that! Everyday bike riders are so vulnerable on the roads and most accidents are caused my car drivers not paying enough attention.

Its meant to be dangerous, thats one reason people do it, so it is meaningless to compare risk levels with ordinary driving on ordinary roads.

Although I do get your point in adding the weeks up callin, I still think it's a bit daft to compare it to regular roads. Like comparing the Grand National to pony trekking.

I'm aware it's over a hundred years Floydie, but the TT hasn't been running every day for a hundred years, that was my point. You were equating the kill rate with an ordinary road, which has traffic on it all day every day, and I was pointing out that that comparison doesn't work unless you take into account how long the TT actually runs for which is two weeks per year for a hundred years which equates to nearly four years. In fact the comparison would be more accurate if you calculated how long each race runs for, but that's going a bit far.

I agree comparing it to regular roads doesn't make much sense. I was basing my post off your post of 11:59, talking about deaths per year.

Yanbu. Having lost my mum to cancer when I was 15, which could probably have been avoided if she hadn't been a smoker, I do think it is selfish of parents to take part in particularly high risk activities. One of the most important things you can do for your children is to stay alive long enough to see them well into adulthood, if you possibly can.

Everyone is going to have a different idea of what is too risky and what is not. People who have the personality to race for a living can rarely just decide to switch that part of themselves off.

Just come back to this. Floydie, thankyou for some superb posts. Condolences, too, for your DBrother.

Not sure there is much more I can say.

Maybe by preserving 'life' at any cost, we are missing out on part of it, due to treating it with such reverence?

Halcyon, sorry about your mum. Maybe that's one of the things that makes us less likely to take risks then. Plenty of people who are pro-dangerous sports do have experience of losing loved ones, but accept that this is part of the thrill.

Saying that, I'm overweight and if I die of a coronary I hope my DCs won't blame me for not stepping away from the cake!

Thanks, the Epilator. I was never really one for dangerous sports anyway. I wouldn't say I blame my mum as such but, parents, especially mothers tend to be criticised for having a very unhealthy lifestyle, heavy drinking or smoking or being extremely overweight as it might mean they wouldn't live to see their children grow up. I don't see things like TT racing or climbing K2 as any different really. Of course you can't remove every risk in life and I'm certainly not averse to a bit of cake or a glass of wine, but I wouldn't sleep easily at night if I was to start smoking 60 a day (I used to smoke buy had already stopped before I got pregnant) or if I was to take part in certain sports. The kind of thing that increases your life insurance premiums.

Although I've never been one for risky sports, I certainly used to be less conscious of my personal safety before having children, such as getting drunk and walking home on my own late at night on the odd occasion, which I wouldn't do now.