Page 142 of 143 FirstFirst ... 4292132140141142143 LastLast
Results 1,411 to 1,420 of 1426
  1. #1411
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    19
    Like
    8
    Liked 18 Times in 7 Posts
    Fans standing in dangerous places is a problem of each and every rally. If Poland get kicked out of the calendar, make sure you kick out Mexico as well. Plenty of video footage showing people laying on the inside of the corners inches from passing rally cars. And let's not forget Monte and the death of a fan there. At least in Poland nobody has died in the past years. I'd personally love to see all you smart asses out there as stewards trying to contain a large group of people and see how well you do.

    I wouldn't mind Poland dropping out of the calendar. I think home countries of drivers / teams should have priority and it would be nice to see a rally in Estonia instead of Poland.
    Last edited by Kris82; 10th July 2017 at 05:14.

  2. Likes: sonnybobiche (10th July 2017)
  3. #1412
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    249
    Like
    1,426
    Liked 290 Times in 113 Posts
    You people are PRETENDING that there is such a thing as a 'safe' place to stand vs an 'unsafe' place, as if it's a completely binary distinction. That's ludicrous. You know as well as I do that some places are safer than others, but there's no way spectating a rally is as safe as watching it on TV. There is ALWAYS a possibility that a driver may lose control, or something breaks on the car, and the car is sent into an unexpected place. Hell, a rock can be kicked up an hit you in the head. I remember some spectators pushing Tanak out of some ruts a few years ago and Tanak hitting the gas, sending gravel spraying right into someone's head, just inches away. I was kind of amazed the guy didn't lose an eye, to be honest.

    You need to admit that motorsport is INHERENTLY dangerous. As in, there is no form of motorsport that is as safe as not having motorsport. Only then can we have a rational debate about what spectator behavior should be like. As of right now, you people are winning a debate by simply repeating a lie agreed upon by all.

  4. Likes: A FONDO (11th July 2017)
  5. #1413
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    382
    Like
    470
    Liked 216 Times in 105 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by sonnybobiche View Post
    You people are PRETENDING that there is such a thing as a 'safe' place to stand vs an 'unsafe' place, as if it's a completely binary distinction. That's ludicrous. You know as well as I do that some places are safer than others, but there's no way spectating a rally is as safe as watching it on TV. There is ALWAYS a possibility that a driver may lose control, or something breaks on the car, and the car is sent into an unexpected place. Hell, a rock can be kicked up an hit you in the head. I remember some spectators pushing Tanak out of some ruts a few years ago and Tanak hitting the gas, sending gravel spraying right into someone's head, just inches away. I was kind of amazed the guy didn't lose an eye, to be honest.

    You need to admit that motorsport is INHERENTLY dangerous. As in, there is no form of motorsport that is as safe as not having motorsport. Only then can we have a rational debate about what spectator behavior should be like. As of right now, you people are winning a debate by simply repeating a lie agreed upon by all.
    Don't be such a condescending idiot. People don't come on this forum to be spoken to like you are, grow up and show some respect. We are all (hopefully) here as we are fans of the greatest sport - Rallying.

    Everyone knows there is an element of risk in spectating, that's probably why it appeals to some people. But as a spectator everyone has a degree of responsibility to not stand somewhere stupid, like the outside of a corner, or at the end of a braking zone etc. I think you will find everyone agrees that there is inherent danger of being at a rally, and then there is just plain stupid.

    Some of the footage from Poland (plus the feedback from teams) showed people standing in stupid places, and more so than any other recent rallies. When combining that behaviour with the fact that they were already warned by the FIA previously about safety, it seems rational to conclude they stand a good chance of being dropped, due to being more dangerous than other rallies...

  6. Likes: OldF (10th July 2017),Rallyper (10th July 2017),[RMC]Pip (10th July 2017)
  7. #1414
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    19
    Like
    8
    Liked 18 Times in 7 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Munkvy View Post
    Don't be such a condescending idiot. People don't come on this forum to be spoken to like you are, grow up and show some respect. We are all (hopefully) here as we are fans of the greatest sport - Rallying.
    First calls a guy a condescending idiot and then tells him to grow up and show some respect. You, sir have issues and should focus on sorting those out before lecturing others. Best way to teach others is to lead by example.
    Last edited by Kris82; 10th July 2017 at 06:53.

  8. Likes: A FONDO (11th July 2017)
  9. #1415
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    249
    Like
    1,426
    Liked 290 Times in 113 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Munkvy View Post
    Some of the footage from Poland (plus the feedback from teams) showed people standing in stupid places, and more so than any other recent rallies. When combining that behaviour with the fact that they were already warned by the FIA previously about safety, it seems rational to conclude they stand a good chance of being dropped, due to being more dangerous than other rallies...
    First of all, you're claiming, again, a binary distinction between a 'stupid' place to stand and a 'not stupid' place to stand. I don't think that is really accurate. Some people are willing to tolerate more risk than others. Many people would not be willing to stand along a fast straight, for example, but others would be comfortable there. Risk assessment is a personal thing. The organization can dictate whether certain risks are permissible or not, but is dishonest to pretend that it is anything other than an arbitrary distinction.

    Second of all, one of the big complaints made by the media refers to spectators standing too close to the road, period. I'm thinking of this quote from David Evans' autosport piece "Crews were incensed at safety breaches on the stages, with spectators overpowering the marshals to stand just inches away from cars passing at competitive speeds." Yes, david, if by inches you mean feet, and if you ignore the fact that this was along a straight, then that sounds really dangerous. But it probably wasn't too too dangerous, as evidenced by the fact that no one was hit by a car.

    I read this piece, again by evans, and I'm left wondering what was so dangerous about the spectators' behavior. https://www.motorsport-news.co.uk/co...-rally-poland/

    Looking at Evans' own pictures, the crowd was like 10 feet back at first, and after seeing three or four cars pass at competitive speeds, the crowd collectively came to the conclusion that they were stupidly far away and came to within 3 or 4 feet of the cars. And still, no one was hurt. What is the problem with this? Why is 10 feet back and behind the trees considered "safe", but 3-4 feet away from the road considered an unacceptable danger? I suspect it's because there's a group of people that want to replace Rally Poland with something else, presumably NZ.

    Now, I wouldn't have a problem with making some arbitrary distinction between acceptable and unacceptable places to stand if I thought the rules would stay the same from now on. But it's clear that there's a push from the ruling class of motorsport and governments to make things safer and safer, and I think there's no limiting principle to that. It used to be that standing a few feet away was acceptable. Now it's behind the trees. Eventually there will be no spectating allowed. And not long after that, I think there won't be any rallying allowed, period. You have to have some principles. Arbitrarily deciding what is considered too dangerous today is not a principle.
    Last edited by sonnybobiche; 10th July 2017 at 08:53.

  10. Likes: MDSP (10th July 2017)
  11. #1416
    Senior Member Lundefaret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    658
    Like
    332
    Liked 887 Times in 277 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by sonnybobiche View Post
    You people are PRETENDING that there is such a thing as a 'safe' place to stand vs an 'unsafe' place, as if it's a completely binary distinction. That's ludicrous. You know as well as I do that some places are safer than others, but there's no way spectating a rally is as safe as watching it on TV. There is ALWAYS a possibility that a driver may lose control, or something breaks on the car, and the car is sent into an unexpected place. Hell, a rock can be kicked up an hit you in the head. I remember some spectators pushing Tanak out of some ruts a few years ago and Tanak hitting the gas, sending gravel spraying right into someone's head, just inches away. I was kind of amazed the guy didn't lose an eye, to be honest.

    You need to admit that motorsport is INHERENTLY dangerous. As in, there is no form of motorsport that is as safe as not having motorsport. Only then can we have a rational debate about what spectator behavior should be like. As of right now, you people are winning a debate by simply repeating a lie agreed upon by all.
    Jumping of a cliff is INHERENTLY dangerous. Thats why the people who spend their past time doing it wears a parachute. This brings the risk down to an acceptable level for them.

    Rallying is not conducted in a vacuum, and the acceptable risk level is set by several parties. So even though it's impossible to remove all risk for spectators, whit out removing them from the stages like in Japan, risk management is very possible, but it's also very, very difficult. And it's a difficult balance between keeping the spectators safe, and letting them take part in the action.
    And I understand what you are trying to say, because if we remove to much of the risk, we are at risk of removing to much of the experience.

  12. Likes: OldF (10th July 2017),pantealex (10th July 2017),tommeke_B (10th July 2017)
  13. #1417
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    3,585
    Like
    1,913
    Liked 3,476 Times in 1,016 Posts
    Seems like an endless discussion here. @sonnybobiche, your argument that "it probably wasn't too dangerous, as evidenced by the fact that no one was hit by a car" is rubbish... In the group B era there were many events that didn't involve accidents, that doesn't mean they were always safe... Your point of view (that you should rely on people's own common sense, and if they are wrong, bad for them) is wrong in every way. Remember that in big sports events there are always people attending who are new to the sport and cannot estimate the risks. I think both Sweden and Finland are quite good with their public areas, they are very safe, and have a good point of view. And there's one of the major issues in Poland, on many places, if you are behind the tape the organizers have put, you don't have a good view anymore. So it's more tempting for spectators to ignore those rules. A second big problem in Poland is that they use very inexperienced marshalls. Many young people (around 20 years old) who have never seen a rally in real life. How can they estimate what's dangerous and what's not? And moreover, how can they take charge of all those spectators, being so inexperienced? If I'm right, in Finland, every stage is organized by a smaller organization, for example from a local rally. On every place I've ever been in Finland the marshalls seemed to be more experienced and they knew how to handle situations. I think Poland could be a great event, and thanks to the large open fields I'm sure you could combine both good spectator experience and safety. On some places we were 15 to 20 meters in a field, but we had a great view. With some investment in some better (sometimes more reasonable) public areas/better taping, cutting long grass if needed etc. they could have the best WRC event.

  14. Likes: br21 (10th July 2017),dimviii (10th July 2017),Mirek (10th July 2017),OldF (10th July 2017),pantealex (10th July 2017),PLuto (10th July 2017)
  15. #1418
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    249
    Like
    1,426
    Liked 290 Times in 113 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by tommeke_B View Post
    Seems like an endless discussion here. @sonnybobiche, your argument that "it probably wasn't too dangerous, as evidenced by the fact that no one was hit by a car" is rubbish... In the group B era there were many events that didn't involve accidents, that doesn't mean they were always safe...
    I mean, either they were extremely improbably lucky for several years, or the danger was slightly overstated. When you hear Group B talked about these days, they make it sound like someone was dying every two or three events. But as far as I'm aware, between 1982 and 1986 there was only ever one fatal incident involving spectators. Three spectators were killed in Portugal 86. And they would have been killed just the same today had a 2017 car gone off and they'd been standing in the same place. More to the point, I don't think the spectator behavior was markedly different from what you would see 10 or 15 years later. Look at that famous stage from Portugal 1997. Road completely thick with spectators. Yet in all those years there was just one other fatal incident-- Finland 1996, where the spectators were placed well back. Accidents happen, as they did in 1986, or in 1996, or in 2017. Motorsport is inherently dangerous. It can either be dangerous for the drivers only (as is mostly the case in circuit racing, or it can be dangerous for drivers and spectators, as it is with a spectator participation sport like rally.) But if a spectator chooses to attend a rally, he is implicitly accepting that risk.




    Quote Originally Posted by tommeke_B View Post
    Your point of view (that you should rely on people's own common sense, and if they are wrong, bad for them) is wrong in every way. Remember that in big sports events there are always people attending who are new to the sport and cannot estimate the risks.
    I think, generally speaking, people are pretty good at estimating their own level of risk exposure. They can sometimes get it wrong (in either direction) if they're not informed, but that's why it's the duty of other, more informed spectators to educate them.

    However, most people are also generally willing to accept a higher level of risk than would be considered rational by an outside observer. A big part of that is because the outside observer is not getting the benefit of the experience. All they see is the risk, and they think "that's crazy." Much like if people watch a video of someone skydiving, to most people it looks really dangerous and stupid, and they say "I would never do that." Probably a lot of them think "that should be banned." But should those people be able to decide what level of risk others should be permitted to expose themselves to?

    I don't see how that ends in anything but misery. As soon as government and quasi-government organizations get to decide what risks are acceptable for us, we've started down a road that ends in no smoking, no trans fats, eventually no tanning beds, no drinking, no skydiving, and really no genuine freedom. And certainly no motorsports.

    We are fans of an inherently risky activity. If government bureaucrats are allowed to have their way, they will get rid of us completely (as they have recently come close to doing in the UK, and will probably manage eventually). We have to draw firm lines based on real principles, not just react to cultural and governmental pressure.

  16. #1419
    Senior Member Rallyper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Östhammar, Sweden
    Posts
    8,073
    Like
    5,620
    Liked 2,832 Times in 1,606 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by sonnybobiche View Post
    First of all, you're claiming, again, a binary distinction between a 'stupid' place to stand and a 'not stupid' place to stand. I don't think that is really accurate. Some people are willing to tolerate more risk than others. Many people would not be willing to stand along a fast straight, for example, but others would be comfortable there. Risk assessment is a personal thing. The organization can dictate whether certain risks are permissible or not, but is dishonest to pretend that it is anything other than an arbitrary distinction.

    Second of all, one of the big complaints made by the media refers to spectators standing too close to the road, period. I'm thinking of this quote from David Evans' autosport piece "Crews were incensed at safety breaches on the stages, with spectators overpowering the marshals to stand just inches away from cars passing at competitive speeds." Yes, david, if by inches you mean feet, and if you ignore the fact that this was along a straight, then that sounds really dangerous. But it probably wasn't too too dangerous, as evidenced by the fact that no one was hit by a car.

    I read this piece, again by evans, and I'm left wondering what was so dangerous about the spectators' behavior. https://www.motorsport-news.co.uk/co...-rally-poland/

    Looking at Evans' own pictures, the crowd was like 10 feet back at first, and after seeing three or four cars pass at competitive speeds, the crowd collectively came to the conclusion that they were stupidly far away and came to within 3 or 4 feet of the cars. And still, no one was hurt. What is the problem with this? Why is 10 feet back and behind the trees considered "safe", but 3-4 feet away from the road considered an unacceptable danger? I suspect it's because there's a group of people that want to replace Rally Poland with something else, presumably NZ.

    Now, I wouldn't have a problem with making some arbitrary distinction between acceptable and unacceptable places to stand if I thought the rules would stay the same from now on. But it's clear that there's a push from the ruling class of motorsport and governments to make things safer and safer, and I think there's no limiting principle to that. It used to be that standing a few feet away was acceptable. Now it's behind the trees. Eventually there will be no spectating allowed. And not long after that, I think there won't be any rallying allowed, period. You have to have some principles. Arbitrarily deciding what is considered too dangerous today is not a principle.
    There are stupid places, and more stupid places. And safe places. In rallies in Sweden, Finland and everywhere. Spectators watching stages on stupid places seems to be more common in the Polish round. Don´t argue against that if you want to be seriously respected on this forum.
    "Reis vas pät pat kaar vas kut"
    Tommi Mäkinen, back in the years...

  17. Likes: OldF (10th July 2017)
  18. #1420
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    249
    Like
    1,426
    Liked 290 Times in 113 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Rallyper View Post
    There are stupid places, and more stupid places. And safe places. In rallies in Sweden, Finland and everywhere. Spectators watching stages on stupid places seems to be more common in the Polish round. Don´t argue against that if you want to be seriously respected on this forum.
    The truly "safe" places are hundreds of feet back, farther than what anyone would consider necessary today. Key word being today.

    As for "stupid" places, is it "stupid" to be 3-4 feet away from the cars on a fast straight? Because that was called out as stupid by Evans and others in the media.

    I don't much care for respect, but I do ask to be logically debated on the merit of the arguments, not how seemingly nice or popular an argument is.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •