Originally Posted By: Brad_C
Originally Posted By: Cujet
On the other hand, when the risk of dying "per race" is high, it's just not worth it.
This is where it gets murky, but when you say the risk isn't worth it, to whom are you referring?
I guess I was really thinking in percentages. From the point of view of a reasoning, fully self aware, sentient and sapient being, loss of life is catastrophic. That's not to say that risk should be avoided. Risk clearly has rewards. Really, I was thinking that if loss of life in a single race event approaches a certain percentage, the risk may excessive. Let's define that, or box it in, fully admitting I'm no expert in risk assessment.
For our discussion, let's say that a riders risk is properly assessed at 2% risk of death. 1 in 50 riders would be expected to perish. Would that be considered acceptable? My personal feeling is that a 2% risk per event is excessive and in light of that, steps should probably be taken to reduce that risk.
Race tracks have reduced risk over the years through various means. I don't think the racing has suffered because of those steps.