RIP IOM TT rider Adam Lyon

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
6,567
Location
the canyons
He was a rookie at the TT this year. Course knowledge is everything at the TT, I was told that doesn't happen for at least three years of running there, so if in doubt, slow down a bit till you get your bearings. It's impossible to know if that was a factor, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Condolences to his family and friends.

TT rider killed at Isle of Man TT
 
I was watching that last night. Sad. It is crazy how those guys average 120 plus mph on that course with all the turns and bumps. I'd be scared to even try it. Dunlop broke the lap record, that guy is not human. It's crazy how he can run that fast.
 
I'm conflicted about the deaths. On one hand, the skill and capability of riders and machines are amazing. Those skills and abilities are taught to others and humankind in general. On the other hand, when the risk of dying "per race" is high, it's just not worth it.
 
Last edited:
I saw that yesterday and it was a real gut punch. I know someone with that same last name, obviously it wasn't him but incredibly sad. It also hits hard when they are younger than me.
 
I'm right with you. On the one hand, I think it's awesome that in this day and age, when you can't even smoke a cigarette in a bar in my town, men can still race on public roadways. On the other hand, is it worth it? Like F1 in the late 60s/early 70s, the probability of death just seems too high (to me). I marvel at it, but I don't know...
 
Since 1907 about 150 participants have been killed. Add spectators and the number grows to about 250. The most dangerous motor sport event in the world. Crazy man!
 
Originally Posted By: gman2304
Since 1907 about 150 participants have been killed. Add spectators and the number grows to about 250. The most dangerous motor sport event in the world. Crazy man!


Definitely crazy ... one small mistake and you're dead. They try to put up barriers where it's obviously dangerous if you go off the road, but there's still probably 70% of the road that is unforgiving if you go off course. RIP Adam.
 
Originally Posted By: CT8
It is a Mans sport.


Manliness isn't taking needless deadly risks...like the guy who jumped from a plan into a net without a chute
 
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?

The riders obviously think it's worth it or they wouldn't be out there taking the risk. The spectators who stand on the side of the road must think it's worth the risk to them or they'd have stayed at home and watched it on TV.

Oddly enough, most often when a rider gets killed on a race track their families aren't out with picket signs reading "Ban racing". They more often than not let it pass with a "well, they died doing something they loved".

People keep calling for legislating against risk, but the reality life is full of risk. It's learning how to do your own risk assessments and weigh that up vs the consequences that helps us develop and grow.

Don't get me wrong, I feel for those left behind but at the end of the day nobody gets out alive.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
Have spent the last month reading Taleb's "Skin in the Game"

When talking of this particular (style of) topic it would be declared irrational.

If the risk of ruin or death is a realistic, probabilistic one, then no measurable upside makes it worth the risk.

e.g. Russian Roullette for a family guy with $1M for not dying is not a rationally arguable risk to take.

Similarly 100 people going to a Casino to blow $10k means that x number make it out profitably, and y (much lower number) go broke, and another number have middling results around the plump part of the bell curve.

Send the same guy with $10k to the Casino 100 times, then he goes bust every time the sequence is played.

You can't rationalise this type of risk in what we all do (risk/reward), it comes down to what floats your boat, and makes you happy/driven
 
Originally Posted By: Cujet
On the other hand, when the risk of dying "per race" is high, it's just not worth it.


At what point do the risks become worth it ?
 
Originally Posted By: NGRhodes
Originally Posted By: Cujet
On the other hand, when the risk of dying "per race" is high, it's just not worth it.


At what point do the risks become worth it ?


See my post above.

You can't do a traditional cost benefit risk analysis...you have to factor in your personal wants and justify it on those.
 
Those old time motorcyle races on the oval wood board tracks were very dangerous and killed a lot of racers. The sport eventually faded away and stopped. Racers probably decided it wasn't worth doing anymore due to high risk.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top