Tourist Trophy
Comments
-
No, you simply have a particular dangerous segment taken off the total time, so it matters not how fast you go through it… they do it on the Glandon descent at the Marmotte sportive, I seem to remember… it’s not rocket sciencePross said:
Not from my memory of being over there. Admittedly it is over 20 years since my last trip (which, appropriately, was when I was designing a new highway scheme in Douglas). I don't know the statistics but I suspect most of the collisions are in the built-up areas. You'd be demolishing houses and ultimately the main purpose of these roads is to link the communities on the island.ugo.santalucia said:I am sure with a bit of investment they could work out a safer course… maybe you can look at the ten most dangerous spots and have them non-timed, surely the technology is there to cut and paste bits together
left the forum March 20230 -
Top strawman-ing 👍pinno said:155 fatalities in 115 editions of the TT.
Some say unacceptable but then we live in a world where elf n safety (or at least the interpretation of the rules) has stifled our existences from the Egg and spoon race to a fireman who climbed down a cliff to rescue an 11 year old girl from a cliff edge (successfully) and faced a disciplinary because he didn't follow protocol.
So many facets of life have been sanitised. On top of this, you can get injury compensation and there's this pervading culture of blame or, it's someone's responsibility.
Then you have the TT. Every competitor knows they are risking their lives. You won't see the Marquez's and the Rossi's or the Biaggi's at the TT but the guys who do it have balls and skill.
Who are we to say that the TT is too risky and by that token we remove those consenting competitors the right to risk their own lives in the pursuit of a TT win (in whatever class)?
Because we, the death fearing square pants middle classes decide it's too dangerous?
Mountain climbing is dangerous but no one has said people are not allowed to climb K2 or Everest or the Eiger or freeclimb some sheer rock face somewhere.
Rugby has amongst the highest number of paralysis and the highest proportionately than in any other sport.
Let's ban or sanitise Rugby? (It's got worse since turning pro).
Live. Stop merely existing.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
Half of the TT is a dangerous segment and the type of person who does the IOM TT almost certainly isn't going to pootle through Ballaugh just because the stopwatch is paused.0
-
Disappointed that you didn't manage to include phrases like 'lefty snowflake' or 'woke' into that banal bingo card rant.pinno said:155 fatalities in 115 editions of the TT.
Some say unacceptable but then we live in a world where elf n safety (or at least the interpretation of the rules) has stifled our existences from the Egg and spoon race to a fireman who climbed down a cliff to rescue an 11 year old girl from a cliff edge (successfully) and faced a disciplinary because he didn't follow protocol.
So many facets of life have been sanitised. On top of this, you can get injury compensation and there's this pervading culture of blame or, it's someone's responsibility.
Then you have the TT. Every competitor knows they are risking their lives. You won't see the Marquez's and the Rossi's or the Biaggi's at the TT but the guys who do it have balls and skill.
Who are we to say that the TT is too risky and by that token we remove those consenting competitors the right to risk their own lives in the pursuit of a TT win (in whatever class)?
Because we, the death fearing square pants middle classes decide it's too dangerous?
Mountain climbing is dangerous but no one has said people are not allowed to climb K2 or Everest or the Eiger or freeclimb some sheer rock face somewhere.
Rugby has amongst the highest number of paralysis and the highest proportionately than in any other sport.
Let's ban or sanitise Rugby? (It's got worse since turning pro).
Live. Stop merely existing.
Talk about sanitising rugby - wait til you hear about some of the rules changes they've brought in over the last few years, designed to improve player safety. Shocking.0 -
Yes the Marmotte lends itself to that because the Glandon descent constitutes most of the technical descending on the entire route so busier with other riders.
I suppose you could argue everyone signs up knowing the risks.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
I'm not sure who you are arguing with, as far as I can tell people have been questioning how things can be improved to reduce the number of deaths. No-one has mentioned blame or compensation. As far as I'm aware there is no-one actively putting on events to encourage people to climb Everest or 'freeclimbing' sheer rock faces (as far as I'm aware freeclimbing allows ropes to protect against falls so isn't a good example anyway - did you mean free-solo / soloing?). Rugby is constantly changing its laws to protect against head and neck injuries.pinno said:155 fatalities in 115 editions of the TT.
Some say unacceptable but then we live in a world where elf n safety (or at least the interpretation of the rules) has stifled our existences from the Egg and spoon race to a fireman who climbed down a cliff to rescue an 11 year old girl from a cliff edge (successfully) and faced a disciplinary because he didn't follow protocol.
So many facets of life have been sanitised. On top of this, you can get injury compensation and there's this pervading culture of blame or, it's someone's responsibility.
Then you have the TT. Every competitor knows they are risking their lives. You won't see the Marquez's and the Rossi's or the Biaggi's at the TT but the guys who do it have balls and skill.
Who are we to say that the TT is too risky and by that token we remove those consenting competitors the right to risk their own lives in the pursuit of a TT win (in whatever class)?
Because we, the death fearing square pants middle classes decide it's too dangerous?
Mountain climbing is dangerous but no one has said people are not allowed to climb K2 or Everest or the Eiger or freeclimb some sheer rock face somewhere.
Rugby has amongst the highest number of paralysis and the highest proportionately than in any other sport.
Let's ban or sanitise Rugby? (It's got worse since turning pro).
Live. Stop merely existing.
Is it unreasonable to query why other roads races manage to operate with fewer deaths and serious injuries? The answer seems to just be 'it's the TT, that's what it is all about and has always been the same'.0 -
Maybe they do, but that's not really the point being discussed. First there's the (to my mind mistaken) idea that the deaths don't have any effect outside immediate relatives. Second there's a conflict between the resistance to any kind of change and the denial that the number of fatalities is part of what makes the race what it is.DeVlaeminck said:Yes the Marmotte lends itself to that because the Glandon descent constitutes most of the technical descending on the entire route so busier with other riders.
I suppose you could argue everyone signs up knowing the risks.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Yes, nothing makes you feel alive like early onset dementia.pinno said:
Wrong end of stick.Pross said:No-one has mentioned blame or compensation..
It was in the context of sanitising life.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
I don't think that the number of fatalities make it what it is - nobody prefers a year when more people die and I'm sure that the years without fatalities were no less exciting to watch.
There's no doubting the danger does make it what it is though, in the same way that a tightrope walk over the grand canyon is always going to be more exciting than over a stream. That's not to say that you shouldn't be looking at the possibility of giving the grand canyon guy a parachute, or even just grippier shoes.rjsterry said:
Maybe they do, but that's not really the point being discussed. First there's the (to my mind mistaken) idea that the deaths don't have any effect outside immediate relatives. Second there's a conflict between the resistance to any kind of change and the denial that the number of fatalities is part of what makes the race what it is.DeVlaeminck said:Yes the Marmotte lends itself to that because the Glandon descent constitutes most of the technical descending on the entire route so busier with other riders.
I suppose you could argue everyone signs up knowing the risks.3 -
I don't think anyone wants to eliminate danger completely... let's say if every other year there was one casualty, that would be an improvement and yet would retain the halo of the real race for the Steve McQueen wannabes.
Things can always be improved upon, it's only luddites that don't want things to improve.left the forum March 20230 -
Banal?imposter2.0 said:
Disappointed that you didn't manage to include phrases like 'lefty snowflake' or 'woke' into that banal bingo card rant.pinno said:155 fatalities in 115 editions of the TT.
Some say unacceptable but then we live in a world where elf n safety (or at least the interpretation of the rules) has stifled our existences from the Egg and spoon race to a fireman who climbed down a cliff to rescue an 11 year old girl from a cliff edge (successfully) and faced a disciplinary because he didn't follow protocol.
So many facets of life have been sanitised. On top of this, you can get injury compensation and there's this pervading culture of blame or, it's someone's responsibility.
Then you have the TT. Every competitor knows they are risking their lives. You won't see the Marquez's and the Rossi's or the Biaggi's at the TT but the guys who do it have balls and skill.
Who are we to say that the TT is too risky and by that token we remove those consenting competitors the right to risk their own lives in the pursuit of a TT win (in whatever class)?
Because we, the death fearing square pants middle classes decide it's too dangerous?
Mountain climbing is dangerous but no one has said people are not allowed to climb K2 or Everest or the Eiger or freeclimb some sheer rock face somewhere.
Rugby has amongst the highest number of paralysis and the highest proportionately than in any other sport.
Let's ban or sanitise Rugby? (It's got worse since turning pro).
Live. Stop merely existing.
Early onset dementia from heading a football as a career?rjsterry said:
I don't know what point you are trying to make.
Paris Roubaix almost cost Museeuw first his life and then his leg but the nature of the risks in PR is part of what makes the race iconic.
Here's an interesting page:
https://www.procyclingstats.com/statistics/start/injuries
That's just injuries in the last 14 days. None of them fatal (but it has happened). From the list (note: concussions), do we take the view that Pro cycling is too dangerous and we need to put a max speed on sections, descents, sprints?
178 fatalities in pro cycling (from what I can gather), including training. I have no idea what the numbers are for career ending injuries, injuries that resulted in disability and/or brain damage but I expect that the numbers would be very high.
Jacobsen's crash was horrific. Do we ban sprinting at the end of a stage?
Yes, I know that the participation numbers in Pro cycling are probably far greater.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
You were moaning about 'sanitising' rugby and how we should 'live' rather than merely existing. I was just mocking that.pinno said:
Banal?imposter2.0 said:
Disappointed that you didn't manage to include phrases like 'lefty snowflake' or 'woke' into that banal bingo card rant.pinno said:155 fatalities in 115 editions of the TT.
Some say unacceptable but then we live in a world where elf n safety (or at least the interpretation of the rules) has stifled our existences from the Egg and spoon race to a fireman who climbed down a cliff to rescue an 11 year old girl from a cliff edge (successfully) and faced a disciplinary because he didn't follow protocol.
So many facets of life have been sanitised. On top of this, you can get injury compensation and there's this pervading culture of blame or, it's someone's responsibility.
Then you have the TT. Every competitor knows they are risking their lives. You won't see the Marquez's and the Rossi's or the Biaggi's at the TT but the guys who do it have balls and skill.
Who are we to say that the TT is too risky and by that token we remove those consenting competitors the right to risk their own lives in the pursuit of a TT win (in whatever class)?
Because we, the death fearing square pants middle classes decide it's too dangerous?
Mountain climbing is dangerous but no one has said people are not allowed to climb K2 or Everest or the Eiger or freeclimb some sheer rock face somewhere.
Rugby has amongst the highest number of paralysis and the highest proportionately than in any other sport.
Let's ban or sanitise Rugby? (It's got worse since turning pro).
Live. Stop merely existing.
Early onset dementia from heading a football as a career?rjsterry said:
I don't know what point you are trying to make.
Paris Roubaix almost cost Museeuw first his life and then his leg but the nature of the risks in PR is part of what makes the race iconic.
Here's an interesting page:
https://www.procyclingstats.com/statistics/start/injuries
That's just injuries in the last 14 days. None of them fatal (but it has happened). From the list (note: concussions), do we take the view that Pro cycling is too dangerous and we need to put a max speed on sections, descents, sprints?
178 fatalities in pro cycling (from what I can gather), including training. I have no idea what the numbers are for career ending injuries, injuries that resulted in disability and/or brain damage but I expect that the numbers would be very high.
Jacobsen's crash was horrific. Do we ban sprinting at the end of a stage?
Yes, I know that the participation numbers in Pro cycling are probably far greater.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Did something change about the August event different to the June event in 2016? Looks like there has been a reduction in deaths in the August one since 2015 (only two in four years), but not in the June one. Or is there just going to be a reversion to the mean?0
-
[Pedantry alert]rjsterry said:
You were moaning about 'sanitising' rugby and how we should 'live' rather than merely existing. I was just mocking that.pinno said:
Banal?imposter2.0 said:
Disappointed that you didn't manage to include phrases like 'lefty snowflake' or 'woke' into that banal bingo card rant.pinno said:155 fatalities in 115 editions of the TT.
Some say unacceptable but then we live in a world where elf n safety (or at least the interpretation of the rules) has stifled our existences from the Egg and spoon race to a fireman who climbed down a cliff to rescue an 11 year old girl from a cliff edge (successfully) and faced a disciplinary because he didn't follow protocol.
So many facets of life have been sanitised. On top of this, you can get injury compensation and there's this pervading culture of blame or, it's someone's responsibility.
Then you have the TT. Every competitor knows they are risking their lives. You won't see the Marquez's and the Rossi's or the Biaggi's at the TT but the guys who do it have balls and skill.
Who are we to say that the TT is too risky and by that token we remove those consenting competitors the right to risk their own lives in the pursuit of a TT win (in whatever class)?
Because we, the death fearing square pants middle classes decide it's too dangerous?
Mountain climbing is dangerous but no one has said people are not allowed to climb K2 or Everest or the Eiger or freeclimb some sheer rock face somewhere.
Rugby has amongst the highest number of paralysis and the highest proportionately than in any other sport.
Let's ban or sanitise Rugby? (It's got worse since turning pro).
Live. Stop merely existing.
Early onset dementia from heading a football as a career?rjsterry said:
I don't know what point you are trying to make.
Paris Roubaix almost cost Museeuw first his life and then his leg but the nature of the risks in PR is part of what makes the race iconic.
Here's an interesting page:
https://www.procyclingstats.com/statistics/start/injuries
That's just injuries in the last 14 days. None of them fatal (but it has happened). From the list (note: concussions), do we take the view that Pro cycling is too dangerous and we need to put a max speed on sections, descents, sprints?
178 fatalities in pro cycling (from what I can gather), including training. I have no idea what the numbers are for career ending injuries, injuries that resulted in disability and/or brain damage but I expect that the numbers would be very high.
Jacobsen's crash was horrific. Do we ban sprinting at the end of a stage?
Yes, I know that the participation numbers in Pro cycling are probably far greater.
I was not moaning about Rugby. I was simply using it as an example of risks in sport.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Banal = 'so lacking in originality as to be obvious and boring'. Your earlier post was just an exercise in meaningless and predictable 'whataboutery' - and the above is just more of the same.pinno said:
Banal?imposter2.0 said:
Disappointed that you didn't manage to include phrases like 'lefty snowflake' or 'woke' into that banal bingo card rant.pinno said:155 fatalities in 115 editions of the TT.
Some say unacceptable but then we live in a world where elf n safety (or at least the interpretation of the rules) has stifled our existences from the Egg and spoon race to a fireman who climbed down a cliff to rescue an 11 year old girl from a cliff edge (successfully) and faced a disciplinary because he didn't follow protocol.
So many facets of life have been sanitised. On top of this, you can get injury compensation and there's this pervading culture of blame or, it's someone's responsibility.
Then you have the TT. Every competitor knows they are risking their lives. You won't see the Marquez's and the Rossi's or the Biaggi's at the TT but the guys who do it have balls and skill.
Who are we to say that the TT is too risky and by that token we remove those consenting competitors the right to risk their own lives in the pursuit of a TT win (in whatever class)?
Because we, the death fearing square pants middle classes decide it's too dangerous?
Mountain climbing is dangerous but no one has said people are not allowed to climb K2 or Everest or the Eiger or freeclimb some sheer rock face somewhere.
Rugby has amongst the highest number of paralysis and the highest proportionately than in any other sport.
Let's ban or sanitise Rugby? (It's got worse since turning pro).
Live. Stop merely existing.
Early onset dementia from heading a football as a career?rjsterry said:
I don't know what point you are trying to make.
Paris Roubaix almost cost Museeuw first his life and then his leg but the nature of the risks in PR is part of what makes the race iconic.
Here's an interesting page:
https://www.procyclingstats.com/statistics/start/injuries
That's just injuries in the last 14 days. None of them fatal (but it has happened). From the list (note: concussions), do we take the view that Pro cycling is too dangerous and we need to put a max speed on sections, descents, sprints?
178 fatalities in pro cycling (from what I can gather), including training. I have no idea what the numbers are for career ending injuries, injuries that resulted in disability and/or brain damage but I expect that the numbers would be very high.
Jacobsen's crash was horrific. Do we ban sprinting at the end of a stage?
Yes, I know that the participation numbers in Pro cycling are probably far greater.
Not sure how much of the thread you actually bothered to read before wading in, but it's already been mentioned that digging up higher comparative injury rates in other sports/activities is entirely missing the point. Maybe go back and read the thread properly.0 -
Cycling is actually a pretty good example of how 'lessons have been learned'. With Jacobsen's crash there was a lot of talk about the wrong type of barriers being used. Cycling has reacted to deaths e.g. helmet use being made compulsory in races (the riders argued they knew best and were the ones taking the risk then too but eventually it got pushed through and now it is just accepted), barriers have been redesigned in finish areas to get rid of the feet that caused a few serious crashes. Races get neutralised, often to the dismay of fans, when conditions are dangerous on descents, they are even finally taking head injuries in crashes seriously. It's a bit ingenuous to include training deaths but even then 178 across all pro cycling races and training vs 155 in a single motorcycle event sort of proves the point a bit.pinno said:
Banal?imposter2.0 said:
Disappointed that you didn't manage to include phrases like 'lefty snowflake' or 'woke' into that banal bingo card rant.pinno said:155 fatalities in 115 editions of the TT.
Some say unacceptable but then we live in a world where elf n safety (or at least the interpretation of the rules) has stifled our existences from the Egg and spoon race to a fireman who climbed down a cliff to rescue an 11 year old girl from a cliff edge (successfully) and faced a disciplinary because he didn't follow protocol.
So many facets of life have been sanitised. On top of this, you can get injury compensation and there's this pervading culture of blame or, it's someone's responsibility.
Then you have the TT. Every competitor knows they are risking their lives. You won't see the Marquez's and the Rossi's or the Biaggi's at the TT but the guys who do it have balls and skill.
Who are we to say that the TT is too risky and by that token we remove those consenting competitors the right to risk their own lives in the pursuit of a TT win (in whatever class)?
Because we, the death fearing square pants middle classes decide it's too dangerous?
Mountain climbing is dangerous but no one has said people are not allowed to climb K2 or Everest or the Eiger or freeclimb some sheer rock face somewhere.
Rugby has amongst the highest number of paralysis and the highest proportionately than in any other sport.
Let's ban or sanitise Rugby? (It's got worse since turning pro).
Live. Stop merely existing.
Early onset dementia from heading a football as a career?rjsterry said:
I don't know what point you are trying to make.
Paris Roubaix almost cost Museeuw first his life and then his leg but the nature of the risks in PR is part of what makes the race iconic.
Here's an interesting page:
https://www.procyclingstats.com/statistics/start/injuries
That's just injuries in the last 14 days. None of them fatal (but it has happened). From the list (note: concussions), do we take the view that Pro cycling is too dangerous and we need to put a max speed on sections, descents, sprints?
178 fatalities in pro cycling (from what I can gather), including training. I have no idea what the numbers are for career ending injuries, injuries that resulted in disability and/or brain damage but I expect that the numbers would be very high.
Jacobsen's crash was horrific. Do we ban sprinting at the end of a stage?
Yes, I know that the participation numbers in Pro cycling are probably far greater.
There is still a lot more that can be done obviously, approaches to sprint finishes in big races often lead a lot to be desired as the people paying for the race to finish in their town obviously want it in the centre and not some obscure bypass on the edges.
If one or two riders were dying each year racing in P-R do you think it would be allowed to continue in its current form? Also, would you keep watching it if it did?
0 -
Mods: please re-instate Milemuncher's account so that it gives Imposter something to do.seanoconn - gruagach craic!2
-
No, of course I wouldn't and I don't even know why you asked the question.Pross said:
Cycling is actually a pretty good example of how 'lessons have been learned'. With Jacobsen's crash there was a lot of talk about the wrong type of barriers being used. Cycling has reacted to deaths e.g. helmet use being made compulsory in races (the riders argued they knew best and were the ones taking the risk then too but eventually it got pushed through and now it is just accepted), barriers have been redesigned in finish areas to get rid of the feet that caused a few serious crashes. Races get neutralised, often to the dismay of fans, when conditions are dangerous on descents, they are even finally taking head injuries in crashes seriously. It's a bit ingenuous to include training deaths but even then 178 across all pro cycling races and training vs 155 in a single motorcycle event sort of proves the point a bit.pinno said:
Banal?imposter2.0 said:
Disappointed that you didn't manage to include phrases like 'lefty snowflake' or 'woke' into that banal bingo card rant.pinno said:155 fatalities in 115 editions of the TT.
Some say unacceptable but then we live in a world where elf n safety (or at least the interpretation of the rules) has stifled our existences from the Egg and spoon race to a fireman who climbed down a cliff to rescue an 11 year old girl from a cliff edge (successfully) and faced a disciplinary because he didn't follow protocol.
So many facets of life have been sanitised. On top of this, you can get injury compensation and there's this pervading culture of blame or, it's someone's responsibility.
Then you have the TT. Every competitor knows they are risking their lives. You won't see the Marquez's and the Rossi's or the Biaggi's at the TT but the guys who do it have balls and skill.
Who are we to say that the TT is too risky and by that token we remove those consenting competitors the right to risk their own lives in the pursuit of a TT win (in whatever class)?
Because we, the death fearing square pants middle classes decide it's too dangerous?
Mountain climbing is dangerous but no one has said people are not allowed to climb K2 or Everest or the Eiger or freeclimb some sheer rock face somewhere.
Rugby has amongst the highest number of paralysis and the highest proportionately than in any other sport.
Let's ban or sanitise Rugby? (It's got worse since turning pro).
Live. Stop merely existing.
Early onset dementia from heading a football as a career?rjsterry said:
I don't know what point you are trying to make.
Paris Roubaix almost cost Museeuw first his life and then his leg but the nature of the risks in PR is part of what makes the race iconic.
Here's an interesting page:
https://www.procyclingstats.com/statistics/start/injuries
That's just injuries in the last 14 days. None of them fatal (but it has happened). From the list (note: concussions), do we take the view that Pro cycling is too dangerous and we need to put a max speed on sections, descents, sprints?
178 fatalities in pro cycling (from what I can gather), including training. I have no idea what the numbers are for career ending injuries, injuries that resulted in disability and/or brain damage but I expect that the numbers would be very high.
Jacobsen's crash was horrific. Do we ban sprinting at the end of a stage?
Yes, I know that the participation numbers in Pro cycling are probably far greater.
There is still a lot more that can be done obviously, approaches to sprint finishes in big races often lead a lot to be desired as the people paying for the race to finish in their town obviously want it in the centre and not some obscure bypass on the edges.
If one or two riders were dying each year racing in P-R do you think it would be allowed to continue in its current form? Also, would you keep watching it if it did?
And I am sure that there have been safety measures put into place in the TT plus technological improvements in communication, helmets, gear etc etc, however, the speeds involved, the street furniture and the lack of run off areas like a race track, means that the TT will always be very dangerous.
11 died in 2005 which is 17 years ago and the race still goes on. So what people in here want will be at odds as to what will happen.
Therefore, the moral question is entirely hypothetical.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
He never bothered to read threads properly before replying, either...pinno said:Mods: please re-instate Milemuncher's account so that it gives Imposter something to do.
0 -
I suspect what 'people in here' want is a TT with fewer predictable annual deaths. In that sense, I don't think the 'people in here' are any different to 'people not in here'.pinno said:11 died in 2005 which is 17 years ago and the race still goes on. So what people in here want will be at odds as to what will happen.
Therefore, the moral question is entirely hypothetical.
0 -
The August/september events format changed in mid 2000's to split out the classic bikes but I can't remember the exact details - may be just the way it is reported that now covers fewer classes?kingstongraham said:
Did something change about the August event different to the June event in 2016? Looks like there has been a reduction in deaths in the August one since 2015 (only two in four years), but not in the June one. Or is there just going to be a reversion to the mean?
0 -
seanoconn - gruagach craic!1 -
Just looking at this list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Isle_of_Man_TT_Mountain_Course_fatalitiesmonkimark said:The August/september events format changed in mid 2000's to split out the classic bikes but I can't remember the exact details - may be just the way it is reported that now covers fewer classes?
kingstongraham said:Did something change about the August event different to the June event in 2016? Looks like there has been a reduction in deaths in the August one since 2015 (only two in four years), but not in the June one. Or is there just going to be a reversion to the mean?
0 -
You even went to the trouble of saving a copy to edit and re-post. Is everything ok..?pinno said:0 -
Already posted on page 1. This thread may have run its course...kingstongraham said:
Just looking at this list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Isle_of_Man_TT_Mountain_Course_fatalitiesmonkimark said:The August/september events format changed in mid 2000's to split out the classic bikes but I can't remember the exact details - may be just the way it is reported that now covers fewer classes?
kingstongraham said:Did something change about the August event different to the June event in 2016? Looks like there has been a reduction in deaths in the August one since 2015 (only two in four years), but not in the June one. Or is there just going to be a reversion to the mean?
0 -
Reading this, there might be a stronger case for restricting access to Mont Blanc. Maybe 100 deaths a year.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/why-is-mont-blanc-one-of-the-worlds-deadliest-mountains/260143/
But if people really know the risks and are happy to take them, then crack on.
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
...0
-
It's not even particularly good trolling.pinno said:Reading this, there might be a stronger case for restricting access to Mont Blanc. Maybe 100 deaths a year.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/why-is-mont-blanc-one-of-the-worlds-deadliest-mountains/260143/
But if people really know the risks and are happy to take them, then crack on.0 -
Because I said what I was using as the basis for a question when someone mentioned reporting differences?imposter2.0 said:
Already posted on page 1. This thread may have run its course...kingstongraham said:
Just looking at this list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Isle_of_Man_TT_Mountain_Course_fatalitiesmonkimark said:The August/september events format changed in mid 2000's to split out the classic bikes but I can't remember the exact details - may be just the way it is reported that now covers fewer classes?
kingstongraham said:Did something change about the August event different to the June event in 2016? Looks like there has been a reduction in deaths in the August one since 2015 (only two in four years), but not in the June one. Or is there just going to be a reversion to the mean?
I guess you also don't know the answer then.0
