Mustang accident

Originally Posted by Sammi79

question was 'what' not 'why' but then you have been evading the majority of my questions.

You have demonstrated that you don't know how dangerous air racing is. You say you understand, but when I put the Reno numbers in context you make it clear that you really don't understand.

[Sammi79]

Originally Posted by IamNotDavid

You have demonstrated that you don't know how dangerous air racing is. You say you understand, but when I put the Reno numbers in context you make it clear that you really don't understand.

And when I put them in context you deny my interpretation although by taking more data into account it is more precise than yours... and you say you are a statistician?

I understand that if I go to an air racing (substitute any extreme sport here) event I may be injured or killed, people near me may be injured or killed. If I decide to accept the risks, which are slight, this does not mean I do not understand them.

You continue to insult everyone involved with the Reno races and people like me who would not mind going once to see it, pilots, crews, and spectators and victims alike. What did any of these people do to make you want to deny them their passion? Thankfully no one gave you the power.

I will stop feeding the troll now.

Originally Posted by Sammi79

And when I put them in context you deny my interpretation although by taking more data into account it is more precise than yours... and you say you are a statistician?

Let me know when you find a source that says there are 46 races at Reno every day. Until then you're not using more precise data than mine, you're pulling data out of your butt.

[Sammi79]

Originally Posted by IamNotDavid

Let me know when you find a source that says there are 46 races at Reno every day. Until then you're not using more precise data than mine, you're pulling data out of your butt.

BINGO! which is exactly what you do every time you say there would be 400 deaths per year in F1 if the death rate was the same, or any of your other arbitrary multiplications. At least my method takes into account the existence of extra data which would be necessary to make meaningful comparisons to other dangerous activities. How about you let me know when you find a source that states that in 7-10 days at Reno they have only a few hours of racing (therefore being comparable to 1 race in F1) until then, well, like you said...

Pylon racing is dangerous due to the speed and low altitude, but neither of these things can be compromised without destroying the event, like has happened in F1. Things could be made safer but only to a point. You could move the spectator stands a mile back, but then, at 500mph an aircraft will cover that distance in under 15 seconds. In F1 after several particularly bad years regarding fatal accidents, the drivers got together to force the teams and tracks to provide for their safety, started boycotting races deemed too dangerous etc. Until the pilots who race at Reno start feeling seriously worried for their own safety and therefore stop racing out of a healthy desire to remain alive, no-one has any right to tell them to stop what they do because it is too dangerous - they know the dangers and they accept it, they are not demanding that anyone else subject themselves to it. The same goes for the spectators. Nobody in their right mind wants to see people hurt or killed for love of their sport, and maybe as a result of this some people will decide not to attend in the future for safety reasons. That is their choice and I fully support them. But if they still want to watch? that is their choice and I support them in that too, to want to deny them is some sort of authoritarian ego thing I find particularly repulsive. Part of what is wrong with our culture today. Perhaps you were bullied at school and now you'd like to get your own back?

@Madfish - The Red Bull races are a very sanitized form of air racing with as many safety controls as you can think of, like F1 where safety has been taken to the extreme that it has utterly destroyed the sport. There must be as you say some middle ground, but this comes with a price, and folks like David need to remember that absolutely nothing can be made perfectly safe, least of all extreme motor sports. Anyway in terms of safety, how about - armored spectator stands - ejector seats and parachutes as standard?

P.S. I know I said I'd stop, but since David is so vehement I am again compelled to defend my position.

Originally Posted by Sammi79

BINGO! which is exactly what you do every time you say there would be 400 deaths per year in F1 if the death rate was the same, or any of your other arbitrary multiplications. At least my method takes into account the existence of extra data which would be necessary to make meaningful comparisons to other dangerous activities. How about you let me know when you find a source that states that in 7-10 days at Reno they have only a few hours of racing (therefore being comparable to 1 race in F1) until then, well, like you said...

You didn't make use of additional data, you made $@!^ up. My comparison is perfectly valid. One F1 event is approximately equivalent to 1 Reno event. The timespan is roughly the same. You certainly have not demonstrated otherwise.

Originally Posted by Sammi79

Pylon racing is dangerous due to the speed and low altitude, but neither of these things can be compromised without destroying the event, like has happened in F1.

Then they should not be doing it.

Originally Posted by Sammi79

That is their choice and I fully support them. But if they still want to watch? that is their choice and I support them in that too, to want to deny them is some sort of authoritarian ego thing I find particularly repulsive. Part of what is wrong with our culture today. Perhaps you were bullied at school and now you'd like to get your own back?

People don't get to act recklessly just because they want to. I suspect the good folks at Reno are going to be reminded of that when they see their insurance rates next year.

It's not like there is a small problem here. The death rate at Reno is appalling.

[mustang137]

Originally Posted by IamNotDavid

Then they should not be doing it.

People don't get to act recklessly just because they want to. I suspect the good folks at Reno are going to be reminded of that when they see their insurance rates next year.

It's not like there is a small problem here. The death rate at Reno is appalling.

Anyone got a face palm pic!!

[AWL_Spinner]

[Sammi79]

Originally Posted by IamNotDavid

You didn't make use of additional data, you made $@!^ up. My comparison is perfectly valid. One F1 event is approximately equivalent to 1 Reno event. The timespan is roughly the same. You certainly have not demonstrated otherwise.

No, it isn't. One race in F1 including free practice and qualifying totals less than a few hours, Reno which is at least a week long event, has displays as well as racing, however you look at, it totals a lot more than that, so by insisting that the fact it happens only once a year makes no difference and we should measure the time in events, I say why not measure it in days or even hours, if its the time per year that is so important, and we come to different conclusions. My point is, the issue is not as cut and defined as you would have it, clear comparisons cannot be made, and some activities are proven to be more dangerous even than Reno. Why do any of these activities carry on? It is not that people are stupid or that they don't understand the risk. It is something somewhat harder to define.

Reckless, maybe. Reckless is normally associated with youth but in many of these sports you'll notice the competitors are a lot older, due to the fact it takes a considerable amount of experience as well as skill to be able to pass the entrance requirements, let alone qualify or be competitive. Especially so in the case of aircraft racing it would seem. If you truly were reckless there is almost no way you could have survived to take part. No matter though, who they are or how skilled, experienced, young or old, people sometimes get things wrong, whilst doing a great many different things. Sometimes a machine part fails leading to a sequence of events that cannot be averted from that moment forward. Sometimes a sequence of small events over an extended period of time conspire to make a dangerous situation lethal.

People like to go fast is the most obvious simplification of why these dangerous activities continue. People also like to admire the machines that help them achieve it, from inside and out. People like to compete with each other to see, who is the fastest? Whose machine is best, practically, aesthetically, audibly? Is it really important? Maybe not. But the interested mind poses these questions automatically and seeks an answer. Why do people climb Everest? for every 15 that summit 1 dies. People want to push the boundaries and see how far, how fast, and maybe go that little bit further. Its an evolutionary necessity that cannot be permanently subdued.

I realise that my position might seem to imply that I am in some way unfeeling or uncaring about the recent accident, I assure you that I am not. Every single death is a tragedy, from which I hope people will recover with as much haste and ease as is possible. I am sure you are correct in your assessment of the insurance companies direction, David. That is their business after all. I have said all I can say on the matter.

Originally Posted by Sammi79

No, it isn't. One race in F1 including free practice and qualifying totals less than a few hours, Reno which is at least a week long event, has displays as well as racing, however you look at, it totals a lot more than that, so by insisting that the fact it happens only once a year makes no difference and we should measure the time in events, I say why not measure it in days or even hours, if its the time per year that is so important, and we come to different conclusions. My point is, the issue is not as cut and defined as you would have it, clear comparisons cannot be made, and some activities are proven to be more dangerous even than Reno. Why do any of these activities carry on? It is not that people are stupid or that they don't understand the risk. It is something somewhat harder to define.

If you think the time spent racing/qualifying/practicing at Reno is significantly different from an F1 race, post something to support it. So far all you've got is BS.

Originally Posted by Sammi79

Reckless, maybe. Reckless is normally associated with youth but in many of these sports you'll notice the competitors are a lot older, due to the fact it takes a considerable amount of experience as well as skill to be able to pass the entrance requirements, let alone qualify or be competitive. Especially so in the case of aircraft racing it would seem. If you truly were reckless there is almost no way you could have survived to take part.

Lots of them don't survive. That's the problem. The only reason the "sport" can continue is because they only race 1 week a year.