So, it doesnt matter if you pay to watch, you are fair game?
That's not what I said. Stop twisting it.
Your argument is that people can choose to engage in risky activities.
These people did not.
Again, I ask, what risks does motor racing pose to people who are not racers, not employees at the track, not spectators, just ordinary people going about their daily business nearby?
^ yeah are are right. where do we stop. Shall we ban the Moto GP and the F1?
No, coz they don't pose an obvious risk to members of the public like aerobatics can
Motor racing poses much more of a risk to the public than aerobatics, see the 1955 Lemans disaster when 83 died and 120 were injured. All motor racing tickets have 'motor racing is dangerous' and other warnings printed on them, apparently this covers the organisers should a car or bike cartwheel into the crowd.
Human beings are made to take risks, I love bike racing and numerous times Ive seen bikes cartwheel over the safety fences, with the spectators legging it out of the way, its part and parcel of it. At the Isle of Man TT (the greatest motor sport) the bikes hurtle past spectators at no more then 3 foot away in places at 200mph, its a rush and should never be curtailed.....no matter what the risks are.
So the best example you found is from 1955, of which motor racing has made absolutely huge changes since?
Do you think that we are stupid? Yes i know that not what he means, but to say just because those killed were outside of the showground its even worse, is stupid in itself.
Is it less of a tragedy if those killed are inside the ground? No, a death is a death, and as pointed out, people have died in F1, both drivers and crowd. More people have died taking part in or watching motorsport that at airshows in the last 40 years, but no one is saying race in empty tracks or away from crowds. So why single out airshows?
It's a no brainer - Stop doing tricks in planes over roads and people.
Why would anyone want to see someone else hurt or killed in a situation that can simply be avoided?
So, how do you stop airshow specators who sit outside boundry of a airfield? Go and watch RIAT @ Fairford, you can not get within about 4 or 5 miles because of packed roads where people just park to watch the airshow. Almost every field within a couple of miles of the airfield is full of tents and caravans. What do you do about that? What about Duxford which is beside the M11 how do you stop people stopping in the motorway to watch?
Do you think that we are stupid? Yes i know that not what he means, but to say just because those killed were outside of the showground its even worse, is stupid in itself.
Is it less of a tragedy if those killed are inside the ground? No, a death is a death, and as pointed out, people have died in F1, both drivers and crowd. More people have died taking part in or watching motorsport that at airshows in the last 40 years, but no one is saying race in empty tracks or away from crowds. So why single out airshows?
You seem to be completely missing the point.
The people killed weren't at the air show. They were going about their daily business, and the air show impacted their lives. The point about F1, is that if there is an accident inside the race track, then the crowd have taken the risk of going to watch an event that could directly effect their safety. We see it in Nascar where debris ends up in the crowd. It's doesn't end up 2 miles down the road where someones on their way to the shop.
That's the difference. It's not a case of one life or death being more important than the other.
So, it doesnt matter if you pay to watch, you are fair game?
That's not what I said. Stop twisting it.
Your argument is that people can choose to engage in risky activities.
These people did not.
Again, I ask, what risks does motor racing pose to people who are not racers, not employees at the track, not spectators, just ordinary people going about their daily business nearby?
That is why it is a freak accident. Like other freak accidents that no amount of legislation will cover. The pilot may have been taken ill, we dont know at the moment.
Do you think that we are stupid? Yes i know that not what he means, but to say just because those killed were outside of the showground its even worse, is stupid in itself.
Is it less of a tragedy if those killed are inside the ground? No, a death is a death, and as pointed out, people have died in F1, both drivers and crowd. More people have died taking part in or watching motorsport that at airshows in the last 40 years, but no one is saying race in empty tracks or away from crowds. So why single out airshows?
You can start a motorsport thread if you want to discuss safety at motorsport events. This thread is about airshows. What you're doing here is called "whataboutery". It's a very weak argument style.
In any case, the lack of an answer from you makes my point for me. Motorsport (especially the likes of F1 and MotoGP) poses no risks to ordinary people going about their daily business, who are not attending or participating in the event.
If airshows can get to a point where they pose zero risks to ordinary people going about their daily business, not attending or participating in the event, then that would be a Good Thing. One easy way of doing this is by performing any stunts above an area where zero humans could be. The sea is one such location. Lakes would be another.
^ yeah are are right. where do we stop. Shall we ban the Moto GP and the F1?
No, coz they don't pose an obvious risk to members of the public like aerobatics can
Motor racing poses much more of a risk to the public than aerobatics, see the 1955 Lemans disaster when 83 died and 120 were injured. All motor racing tickets have 'motor racing is dangerous' and other warnings printed on them, apparently this covers the organisers should a car or bike cartwheel into the crowd.
Human beings are made to take risks, I love bike racing and numerous times Ive seen bikes cartwheel over the safety fences, with the spectators legging it out of the way, its part and parcel of it. At the Isle of Man TT (the greatest motor sport) the bikes hurtle past spectators at no more then 3 foot away in places at 200mph, its a rush and should never be curtailed.....no matter what the risks are.
So the best example you found is from 1955, of which motor racing has made absolutely huge changes since?
And the last non pilots to be killed at airshows in the UK was 1952. And no motor racing has not made huge changes, at all as I mentioned earlier the TT is exactly the same as it was 50 years ago except the bikes are hitting over 200mph, and lets hope they dont change it. The only changes F1 have made is to the cars themselves carbon fibre monoque protection for the drivers, not much has changed for the safety of the crowd.
Do you think that we are stupid? Yes i know that not what he means, but to say just because those killed were outside of the showground its even worse, is stupid in itself.
Is it less of a tragedy if those killed are inside the ground? No, a death is a death, and as pointed out, people have died in F1, both drivers and crowd. More people have died taking part in or watching motorsport that at airshows in the last 40 years, but no one is saying race in empty tracks or away from crowds. So why single out airshows?
You can start a motorsport thread if you want to discuss safety at motorsport events. This thread is about airshows. What you're doing here is called "whataboutery". It's a very weak argument style.
In any case, the lack of an answer from you makes my point for me. Motorsport (especially the likes of F1 and MotoGP) poses no risks to ordinary people going about their daily business, who are not attending or participating in the event.
If airshows can get to a point where they pose zero risks to ordinary people going about their daily business, not attending or participating in the event, then that would be a Good Thing. One easy way of doing this is by performing any stunts above an area where zero humans could be. The sea is one such location. Lakes would be another.
But like the TT, airshow fans want to be under the planes when they do the stunts or at least as close as possible, for the adrenaline rush. It was a one off freak accident.
Performing over the sea is not necessarily safer for the aircrew. On a hazy or overcast day it is very easy to lose sight of the horizon and with far fewer reference points available over a blue/grey sky/sea performing an accurate display routine becomes a lot more difficult.
Do you think that we are stupid? Yes i know that not what he means, but to say just because those killed were outside of the showground its even worse, is stupid in itself.
Is it less of a tragedy if those killed are inside the ground? No, a death is a death, and as pointed out, people have died in F1, both drivers and crowd. More people have died taking part in or watching motorsport that at airshows in the last 40 years, but no one is saying race in empty tracks or away from crowds. So why single out airshows?
You can start a motorsport thread if you want to discuss safety at motorsport events. This thread is about airshows. What you're doing here is called "whataboutery". It's a very weak argument style.
In any case, the lack of an answer from you makes my point for me. Motorsport (especially the likes of F1 and MotoGP) poses no risks to ordinary people going about their daily business, who are not attending or participating in the event.
If airshows can get to a point where they pose zero risks to ordinary people going about their daily business, not attending or participating in the event, then that would be a Good Thing. One easy way of doing this is by performing any stunts above an area where zero humans could be. The sea is one such location. Lakes would be another.
But like the TT, airshow fans want to be under the planes when they do the stunts or at least as close as possible, for the adrenaline rush. It was a one off freak accident.
Air show regulations already ban displays from taking place above the airshow fans.
Move the stand to the beach or lakeside, perform the stunts out at sea/lake. Reduces the risks for people who are not attending or participating in the airshow.
Do you think that we are stupid? Yes i know that not what he means, but to say just because those killed were outside of the showground its even worse, is stupid in itself.
Is it less of a tragedy if those killed are inside the ground? No, a death is a death, and as pointed out, people have died in F1, both drivers and crowd. More people have died taking part in or watching motorsport that at airshows in the last 40 years, but no one is saying race in empty tracks or away from crowds. So why single out airshows?
You can start a motorsport thread if you want to discuss safety at motorsport events. This thread is about airshows. What you're doing here is called "whataboutery". It's a very weak argument style.
In any case, the lack of an answer from you makes my point for me. Motorsport (especially the likes of F1 and MotoGP) poses no risks to ordinary people going about their daily business, who are not attending or participating in the event.
If airshows can get to a point where they pose zero risks to ordinary people going about their daily business, not attending or participating in the event, then that would be a Good Thing. One easy way of doing this is by performing any stunts above an area where zero humans could be. The sea is one such location. Lakes would be another.
But like the TT, airshow fans want to be under the planes when they do the stunts or at least as close as possible, for the adrenaline rush. It was a one off freak accident.
Air show regulations already ban displays from taking place above the airshow fans.
Move the stand to the beach or lakeside, perform the stunts out at sea/lake. Reduces the risks for people who are not attending or participating in the airshow.
Or at least as close as possible. Imagine how we, as football fans would have felt, if after Heysel, or Hillsborough, that the authorities said that, OK people have died you cant go to football you have to just watch it on TV? You dont seem to be taking the airshow fans into consideration. Also who's to say that while flying at sea the pilot does noy have a hearty and the plane turns back towards the shore, what then???
Do you think that we are stupid? Yes i know that not what he means, but to say just because those killed were outside of the showground its even worse, is stupid in itself.
Is it less of a tragedy if those killed are inside the ground? No, a death is a death, and as pointed out, people have died in F1, both drivers and crowd. More people have died taking part in or watching motorsport that at airshows in the last 40 years, but no one is saying race in empty tracks or away from crowds. So why single out airshows?
You can start a motorsport thread if you want to discuss safety at motorsport events. This thread is about airshows. What you're doing here is called "whataboutery". It's a very weak argument style.
In any case, the lack of an answer from you makes my point for me. Motorsport (especially the likes of F1 and MotoGP) poses no risks to ordinary people going about their daily business, who are not attending or participating in the event.
If airshows can get to a point where they pose zero risks to ordinary people going about their daily business, not attending or participating in the event, then that would be a Good Thing. One easy way of doing this is by performing any stunts above an area where zero humans could be. The sea is one such location. Lakes would be another.
But like the TT, airshow fans want to be under the planes when they do the stunts or at least as close as possible, for the adrenaline rush. It was a one off freak accident.
Air show regulations already ban displays from taking place above the airshow fans.
Move the stand to the beach or lakeside, perform the stunts out at sea/lake. Reduces the risks for people who are not attending or participating in the airshow.
What if the pilot loses control, as is suspected at Shoreham, and cannot direct the plane towards the lake or sea? It has already been mentioned that if the stunt is actually to be seen, the plane will need to be close enough to the shore so that if the plane lost control it could possibly hit the crowd instead. Depending on the altitude of the plane when it loses controls, it could potentially crash miles away from the point it lost control.
Do you think that we are stupid? Yes i know that not what he means, but to say just because those killed were outside of the showground its even worse, is stupid in itself.
Is it less of a tragedy if those killed are inside the ground? No, a death is a death, and as pointed out, people have died in F1, both drivers and crowd. More people have died taking part in or watching motorsport that at airshows in the last 40 years, but no one is saying race in empty tracks or away from crowds. So why single out airshows?
You can start a motorsport thread if you want to discuss safety at motorsport events. This thread is about airshows. What you're doing here is called "whataboutery". It's a very weak argument style.
In any case, the lack of an answer from you makes my point for me. Motorsport (especially the likes of F1 and MotoGP) poses no risks to ordinary people going about their daily business, who are not attending or participating in the event.
If airshows can get to a point where they pose zero risks to ordinary people going about their daily business, not attending or participating in the event, then that would be a Good Thing. One easy way of doing this is by performing any stunts above an area where zero humans could be. The sea is one such location. Lakes would be another.
But like the TT, airshow fans want to be under the planes when they do the stunts or at least as close as possible, for the adrenaline rush. It was a one off freak accident.
Air show regulations already ban displays from taking place above the airshow fans.
Move the stand to the beach or lakeside, perform the stunts out at sea/lake. Reduces the risks for people who are not attending or participating in the airshow.
Or at least as close as possible. Imagine how we, as football fans would have felt, if after Heysel, or Hillsborough, that the authorities said that, OK people have died you cant go to football you have to just watch it on TV? You dont seem to be taking the airshow fans into consideration.
Not sure if you are being serious or not.
We were banned from live football in Europe for many years after Heysel - our presence was considered a danger, as a is a plane doing stupid stuff above an A road.
Do you think that we are stupid? Yes i know that not what he means, but to say just because those killed were outside of the showground its even worse, is stupid in itself.
Is it less of a tragedy if those killed are inside the ground? No, a death is a death, and as pointed out, people have died in F1, both drivers and crowd. More people have died taking part in or watching motorsport that at airshows in the last 40 years, but no one is saying race in empty tracks or away from crowds. So why single out airshows?
You can start a motorsport thread if you want to discuss safety at motorsport events. This thread is about airshows. What you're doing here is called "whataboutery". It's a very weak argument style.
In any case, the lack of an answer from you makes my point for me. Motorsport (especially the likes of F1 and MotoGP) poses no risks to ordinary people going about their daily business, who are not attending or participating in the event.
If airshows can get to a point where they pose zero risks to ordinary people going about their daily business, not attending or participating in the event, then that would be a Good Thing. One easy way of doing this is by performing any stunts above an area where zero humans could be. The sea is one such location. Lakes would be another.
But like the TT, airshow fans want to be under the planes when they do the stunts or at least as close as possible, for the adrenaline rush. It was a one off freak accident.
Air show regulations already ban displays from taking place above the airshow fans.
Move the stand to the beach or lakeside, perform the stunts out at sea/lake. Reduces the risks for people who are not attending or participating in the airshow.
Or at least as close as possible. Imagine how we, as football fans would have felt, if after Heysel, or Hillsborough, that the authorities said that, OK people have died you cant go to football you have to just watch it on TV? You dont seem to be taking the airshow fans into consideration.
Not sure if you are being serious or not.
We were banned from live football in Europe for many years after Heysel - our presence was considered a danger, as a is a plane doing stupid stuff above an A road.
Airshow fans ?
Point missed, Banned for good, all fans only watching on TV, you wouldn't fancy that, would you.
Airshow fans ? Yep there are loads, its a big world out there, and doesn't start and end with football.
Do you think that we are stupid? Yes i know that not what he means, but to say just because those killed were outside of the showground its even worse, is stupid in itself.
Is it less of a tragedy if those killed are inside the ground? No, a death is a death, and as pointed out, people have died in F1, both drivers and crowd. More people have died taking part in or watching motorsport that at airshows in the last 40 years, but no one is saying race in empty tracks or away from crowds. So why single out airshows?
You can start a motorsport thread if you want to discuss safety at motorsport events. This thread is about airshows. What you're doing here is called "whataboutery". It's a very weak argument style.
In any case, the lack of an answer from you makes my point for me. Motorsport (especially the likes of F1 and MotoGP) poses no risks to ordinary people going about their daily business, who are not attending or participating in the event.
If airshows can get to a point where they pose zero risks to ordinary people going about their daily business, not attending or participating in the event, then that would be a Good Thing. One easy way of doing this is by performing any stunts above an area where zero humans could be. The sea is one such location. Lakes would be another.
But like the TT, airshow fans want to be under the planes when they do the stunts or at least as close as possible, for the adrenaline rush. It was a one off freak accident.
Air show regulations already ban displays from taking place above the airshow fans.
Move the stand to the beach or lakeside, perform the stunts out at sea/lake. Reduces the risks for people who are not attending or participating in the airshow.
Or at least as close as possible. Imagine how we, as football fans would have felt, if after Heysel, or Hillsborough, that the authorities said that, OK people have died you cant go to football you have to just watch it on TV? You dont seem to be taking the airshow fans into consideration. Also who's to say that while flying at sea the pilot does noy have a hearty and the plane turns back towards the shore, what then???
Whatever the distance is currently on land could be the distance from the shore.
I don't understand your heartattack argument. Is it that heartattacks are more likely when a pilot is performing stunts over the sea than when performed over land?
Do you think that we are stupid? Yes i know that not what he means, but to say just because those killed were outside of the showground its even worse, is stupid in itself.
Is it less of a tragedy if those killed are inside the ground? No, a death is a death, and as pointed out, people have died in F1, both drivers and crowd. More people have died taking part in or watching motorsport that at airshows in the last 40 years, but no one is saying race in empty tracks or away from crowds. So why single out airshows?
You can start a motorsport thread if you want to discuss safety at motorsport events. This thread is about airshows. What you're doing here is called "whataboutery". It's a very weak argument style.
In any case, the lack of an answer from you makes my point for me. Motorsport (especially the likes of F1 and MotoGP) poses no risks to ordinary people going about their daily business, who are not attending or participating in the event.
If airshows can get to a point where they pose zero risks to ordinary people going about their daily business, not attending or participating in the event, then that would be a Good Thing. One easy way of doing this is by performing any stunts above an area where zero humans could be. The sea is one such location. Lakes would be another.
But like the TT, airshow fans want to be under the planes when they do the stunts or at least as close as possible, for the adrenaline rush. It was a one off freak accident.
Air show regulations already ban displays from taking place above the airshow fans.
Move the stand to the beach or lakeside, perform the stunts out at sea/lake. Reduces the risks for people who are not attending or participating in the airshow.
Or at least as close as possible. Imagine how we, as football fans would have felt, if after Heysel, or Hillsborough, that the authorities said that, OK people have died you cant go to football you have to just watch it on TV? You dont seem to be taking the airshow fans into consideration.
Not sure if you are being serious or not.
We were banned from live football in Europe for many years after Heysel - our presence was considered a danger, as a is a plane doing stupid stuff above an A road.
Airshow fans ?
Point missed, Banned for good, all fans only watching on TV, you wouldn't fancy that, would you.
Airshow fans ? Yep there are loads, its a big world out there, and doesn't start and end with football.
Are you referring to porn, beer and Adidas classics ?
Do you think that we are stupid? Yes i know that not what he means, but to say just because those killed were outside of the showground its even worse, is stupid in itself.
Is it less of a tragedy if those killed are inside the ground? No, a death is a death, and as pointed out, people have died in F1, both drivers and crowd. More people have died taking part in or watching motorsport that at airshows in the last 40 years, but no one is saying race in empty tracks or away from crowds. So why single out airshows?
You can start a motorsport thread if you want to discuss safety at motorsport events. This thread is about airshows. What you're doing here is called "whataboutery". It's a very weak argument style.
In any case, the lack of an answer from you makes my point for me. Motorsport (especially the likes of F1 and MotoGP) poses no risks to ordinary people going about their daily business, who are not attending or participating in the event.
If airshows can get to a point where they pose zero risks to ordinary people going about their daily business, not attending or participating in the event, then that would be a Good Thing. One easy way of doing this is by performing any stunts above an area where zero humans could be. The sea is one such location. Lakes would be another.
But like the TT, airshow fans want to be under the planes when they do the stunts or at least as close as possible, for the adrenaline rush. It was a one off freak accident.
Air show regulations already ban displays from taking place above the airshow fans.
Move the stand to the beach or lakeside, perform the stunts out at sea/lake. Reduces the risks for people who are not attending or participating in the airshow.
Or at least as close as possible. Imagine how we, as football fans would have felt, if after Heysel, or Hillsborough, that the authorities said that, OK people have died you cant go to football you have to just watch it on TV? You dont seem to be taking the airshow fans into consideration. Also who's to say that while flying at sea the pilot does noy have a hearty and the plane turns back towards the shore, what then???
Whatever the distance is currently on land could be the distance from the shore.
I don't understand your heartattack argument. Is it that heartattacks are more likely when a pilot is performing stunts over the sea than when performed over land?
Do you think that we are stupid? Yes i know that not what he means, but to say just because those killed were outside of the showground its even worse, is stupid in itself.
Is it less of a tragedy if those killed are inside the ground? No, a death is a death, and as pointed out, people have died in F1, both drivers and crowd. More people have died taking part in or watching motorsport that at airshows in the last 40 years, but no one is saying race in empty tracks or away from crowds. So why single out airshows?
You can start a motorsport thread if you want to discuss safety at motorsport events. This thread is about airshows. What you're doing here is called "whataboutery". It's a very weak argument style.
In any case, the lack of an answer from you makes my point for me. Motorsport (especially the likes of F1 and MotoGP) poses no risks to ordinary people going about their daily business, who are not attending or participating in the event.
If airshows can get to a point where they pose zero risks to ordinary people going about their daily business, not attending or participating in the event, then that would be a Good Thing. One easy way of doing this is by performing any stunts above an area where zero humans could be. The sea is one such location. Lakes would be another.
But like the TT, airshow fans want to be under the planes when they do the stunts or at least as close as possible, for the adrenaline rush. It was a one off freak accident.
Air show regulations already ban displays from taking place above the airshow fans.
Move the stand to the beach or lakeside, perform the stunts out at sea/lake. Reduces the risks for people who are not attending or participating in the airshow.
Or at least as close as possible. Imagine how we, as football fans would have felt, if after Heysel, or Hillsborough, that the authorities said that, OK people have died you cant go to football you have to just watch it on TV? You dont seem to be taking the airshow fans into consideration.
Not sure if you are being serious or not.
We were banned from live football in Europe for many years after Heysel - our presence was considered a danger, as a is a plane doing stupid stuff above an A road.
Airshow fans ?
Point missed, Banned for good, all fans only watching on TV, you wouldn't fancy that, would you.
Airshow fans ? Yep there are loads, its a big world out there, and doesn't start and end with football.
Are you referring to porn, beer and Adidas classics ?
Standing was removed from UK football following the Heysel/Hillsborough disasters along with stadium re-designs, different policing efforts. Yet you guys are against the effort to make it more safe for innocent bystanders by allowing stunts over land.
Standing was removed from UK football following the Heysel/Hillsborough disasters along with stadium re-designs, different policing efforts. Yet you guys are against the effort to make it more safe for innocent bystanders by allowing stunts over land.
Yes I am, the same as the non standing rule was completely ridiculous following Heysel/Hillsborough disasters. There was no need for it.
Comments
Your argument is that people can choose to engage in risky activities.
These people did not.
Again, I ask, what risks does motor racing pose to people who are not racers, not employees at the track, not spectators, just ordinary people going about their daily business nearby?
Is it less of a tragedy if those killed are inside the ground? No, a death is a death, and as pointed out, people have died in F1, both drivers and crowd. More people have died taking part in or watching motorsport that at airshows in the last 40 years, but no one is saying race in empty tracks or away from crowds. So why single out airshows?
Why would anyone want to see someone else hurt or killed in a situation that can simply be avoided?
The people killed weren't at the air show. They were going about their daily business, and the air show impacted their lives. The point about F1, is that if there is an accident inside the race track, then the crowd have taken the risk of going to watch an event that could directly effect their safety. We see it in Nascar where debris ends up in the crowd. It's doesn't end up 2 miles down the road where someones on their way to the shop.
That's the difference. It's not a case of one life or death being more important than the other.
The pilot may have been taken ill, we dont know at the moment.
In any case, the lack of an answer from you makes my point for me. Motorsport (especially the likes of F1 and MotoGP) poses no risks to ordinary people going about their daily business, who are not attending or participating in the event.
If airshows can get to a point where they pose zero risks to ordinary people going about their daily business, not attending or participating in the event, then that would be a Good Thing. One easy way of doing this is by performing any stunts above an area where zero humans could be. The sea is one such location. Lakes would be another.
It was a one off freak accident.
Move the stand to the beach or lakeside, perform the stunts out at sea/lake. Reduces the risks for people who are not attending or participating in the airshow.
We were banned from live football in Europe for many years after Heysel - our presence was considered a danger, as a is a plane doing stupid stuff above an A road.
Airshow fans ?
Airshow fans ? Yep there are loads, its a big world out there, and doesn't start and end with football.
I don't understand your heartattack argument. Is it that heartattacks are more likely when a pilot is performing stunts over the sea than when performed over land?