Risk assessment must have to take into account context. What is acceptable on the ground is not when someone is working on a roof, but people have to work on roofs.
The TT, and other dangerous sports, are undertaken with an understanding of that. The risk assessment must then look at the unacceptable i.e. avoidable risks.
If context is not used then nothing is an acceptable risk. e.g this computer I am working on could, potentially, elecrocute me. (ask TTwebsite member "fly" about that!!)
However, it is insulated etc. If I were to go out to the nearby electricity substation, I could relatively easily arrange my electrocution, but signs both on the casing of my computer, and on the walls of the station warn me against those actions.I am expected to obey these.. and so in the context of racing etc.
So far we have not banned computers or electricity substations, but if context were not taken into account, we might find them unacceptably dangerous.
Of course, we have to ensure that the "insulation" and "signs" are accurate and fit for purpose.
(Whew... think I have been working too long this morning... that got a bit academic, eh?)

pat slinn Wrote:A few years ago the senior race was posponed because of the weather and was held on the Saturday morning. ( cant remember what year). As a lot of the marshalls had gone home there was a appeal on Manx radio for marshalls. A guy that I know was helping me with the TT Race Mission with his dad, it was his second visit to the TT and his dads first ever TT, they voluntered to be marshalls. They were given a bunch of flags and about 10 minuits training. Could this happen again?????

That was 1971, The 125 race was run in lashinf rain and and the mist was down from half way up the mountain mile to kates and seriously thick around the veranda up to guthries, Barry sheene fell on his backside at Quarter Bridge where the water was sreaming riding the ex Stuart Graham Suzuki twin, it was his first and only international TT race, he was lying third at the time, I took over third place until retiring at Glen Duff with crank trouble Johm Kiddie too third in whatwas the worst race for visibility I have ever ridden in.

The Senior was run on the Saturday morning in perfect conditions and I had a cracking start to fnish scrap with Len Williams except for the fatal accident of a newcomer at Rhencullen that I mentiomed previously, it was an unusual race with the lack of spectaors and very few marshalls scattered thinly particularly on the mountain.

Wet races in bad conditions were accepted in the 60s and 70s and even during practice it was considered by many of us essential to go out and get a few wet practice laps in even if we did not need them.

It would be madness to run races today in conditions that were once accepted as part of the challenge, of course one tyre for all seasons was the norm, now with slicks but on a course where one moment you can be racing on dry road all the way o Kirkmicheal and the is sudden down pour a rider on a 200 mph superbike on slicks is in big trouble. I had this experience in a productin race , bone dry at the 13th seriously soaking at Kirkmicheal the biggest sideways slide I have ever had, never know how I got away with it and that was on good grip TT100s if I had been on slicks I probably would not be here today.

There never was and never will be room for error with all the solid property on the TT course unless good fortune is with a rider and that risk in my opinion has been increase a hundredfold with the sheer brute performance and power of todays machines good job they do't have melting tar these days that could be even worse because you could not see it till you were on it despite the pre race warinng board "wet tar at so and so".

Risk assessments are a calculation based on
Non risk
low
medium
high
extreme
When all risks have been identified and graded that is is the assessment for control of risks, and its that control statment that is worked on. Its not rocket science, but I would say that the TT has quite a lot at thye top who have not got the brains to understand or carry out such assessments.

The risk assessment in use at the works being carried out at Governors Bridge is calculated that at certain times the road can be used by trafic at a controlled speed while workmen/woman are at a safe distance and that all trafic measures are in place and maned.
Its no difference from what is being asked when you look closely at what the inquest reports asks.

Im affraid to say that MR Moyle has idetified risks and some cant be controlled to the required standard, I wish it could, but now the door is open for legal action by others.

We do now have a young team at the helm of the TT but to ask them to take up every aspect of H&S on top of what already must be a heavy work load is not the way to go. The TT HAS to employ an independant outside contractor and this task will also be new who to ever is given the contract.

FC has some really good points on the RA deal and the TT would be well advised to set up a system to look at the course from a spectator and competitor point of view on a regular basis.
I do think however that any conventional modern risk assessment would result in non of the road races either at the TT or in Ireland being run. There is simply no way to reduce the risk down to anything that would be tolerated anywhere else in the world. If these races did not exist no one would be able to get them started today. I have only been to a couple of TTs but had the luxury of having a photo pass so I have been to dozens of the top viewing spots and all them have many dangers for spectators.

The TT is simply a dangerous event and there is a real limit on how safe it can actually be made. That said I think a better job needs to be done AND it sound like the group that has been running the TT for the last couple of years is moving in the correct direction.

davegess Wrote:<snip>
The TT is simply a dangerous event and there is a real limit on how safe it can actually be made. That said I think a better job needs to be done AND it sound like the group that has been running the TT for the last couple of years is moving in the correct direction.

Life and living is a dangerous event, potentially. I'd love to see a risk assessment for giving birth in an isolated rural community. There is potential for danger in getting out of bed. I agree with you that there are addressable issues on safety values but the TT in itself embraces a dangerous challenge, that's what it's all about.

To label it a "dangerous event" engenders a different value construct. "An event with potential extreme dangers but with the payoff of enhancement of self-esteem amongst like-minded peers" is the best I can come up with.

Let's hope that the knee-jerk response that is sure to follow does not kick too many folk in the nethers. 2much2 hope I no.

I think everyone has kind of slipped off the valid points the Mr Moyle has pointed out. It isn't the fact that a risk assessment is immediately required, just that one needs to be done. Risk assessments form part of the ACU applications for course licenses. So one needs to be done every time there is a change to the course. So why has this not happened since 2004 is the real point.

As balin points out, risk assessments are a part of every day living. Pulling out of a junction, crossing the road, a quick risk assessment is done by everyone before we do this. It is also just as important, getting hit by a big red bus because you took a risk is one of the results of a failed risk assessment in everyday life.

As for the rain soaked TT's never happening again, well I seem to remember loads of people slating Neil Hanson for his decisions. Yes I know maybe they should be made quicker, but as everyone knows the weather over here can change so fast you might as well have a quick skeet to se if the cows are standing up or sitting down to get a real idea of what is going to happen. He was obviously making his own valid risk assessments.

A few thoughts on danger:

"Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. Security does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than exposure."
Helen Keller (1880 - 1968)

"The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding, go out to meet it."
Thucydides (471 BC - 400 BC)

"Believe me! The secret of reaping the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment from life is to live dangerously! "
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)

Not to discount for one minute that everything possible should be done to minimise death or injury at the TT, but the very reason that the TT exists is, that it is not just a fun fortnight, but it is a very, very serious event for both the riders and those around the course.
The organisers, the riders and the marshals certainly take it seriously as do a large percentage of spectators.
It is not wrong to rake over the ashes and try to learn from any mistakes but we cannot change the fundamental reason for the event being held in the first place.
It is a challenge which the riders take up personally and one which is shared vicariously by everyone else involved.
If we thought too long about anything in life we wouldn't do it.

I agree that a certain amount of danger is inevitable - or even desirable - in motor sport. What gets at me is the blissful ignoring of how "improvements" have drastically increased this danger. Speed was controlled by the road surface and shape in many places - for example along the Cronk-y-Voddy straight the bumps slammed your back and at times gave me double vision (!) but now it is like a billiard table, so the rider arrives at the next bend going faster, so that gets smoothed...and so on. Quarry Straight used to be Quarry Bends, with bumps, sticking-out kerbs, a bit of off-camber and had to be treated with respect i.e. roll off the throttle a bit. There are many other parts of the course that have been spoilt in this way. Couple this with the massive increase in power of the modern bike, where anyone can buy from any dealer a standard sports machine with much higher performance potential than a full-blown works machine of only a few years ago and the skill level required needs to be similarly higher than that shown by such greats as Hailwood, Ago, Duke et al. Look at the speedtrap results for a few years back and compare them to today and you will see what I mean.
There does come a point when the odds on the probability of a crash become unacceptably high - read the accounts by the aces of how such-and-such a power increase "added four more corners" to a section, yet no move has been made to restrict power output, or weight. There is a point when a rider no longer has control - and by control I mean the ability to change direction or speed - because of the inertia generated by this combination of weight and speed, and an out-of-control motorcycle can be a lethal weapon.
I do not know what could be done to start reversing this increased danger - restrict tyres to one set, treaded, have a weight limit/power output/lower capacity limit - but the worrying thing to me is that there is no discussion about if anything should be done.
The days of "send the 125s out and see how many get killed so we know if we can start the 500s" may be gone, but there must be some serious decisions made - and soon - if the event is to survive.
I forgot to just, with respect, take Señor Loughbridge to task re Barry Sheene - whilst a real fan of this man, the truth is that he (maybe rightly) had never wanted to race the TT and felt forced into it by the desire for World Championship points, did not have the time or inclination to go through the essential 2-3 year apprenticeship before being competitive, and in any case had only travelled from the start to Quarter Bridge before finding the first safe bail-out spot, so could hardly be honestly in third place! If he had only let me take over his ride on the Suzuki.............

Don.
As I have come to expect of you, a great use of words to make valid points.
You have also said what many people have no doubt thought, but NOT voiced!
Its a real dilemma for many of us.
Being involved if "only" as a specator means we ARE "condoning" the event which IS so dangerous.
Am I unusual in thinking this way?

The other thing that I have thought long and hard about is the vexed subject of risk assessment.
As a safety officer in industry, I was sort of criticised (a little tongue in cheek I think) by fellow
managers BECAUSE I chose to go to the TT every year!
It did make it difficult for me to persuade some people to adopt safe practices when they knew
about my "strange hobby!"
This may seem a bit bizarre at first but not when you think about it more.
The fact is that if risk assessments on the TT races were carried out to the letter, then the event
would probably be stopped. As somebody here has already said. If the TT was proposed as a new
event, it almost certainly not get off the ground!
However, I feel that Don has put his finger on the most important point here.
Lets make every effort to reduce the risk of accident or of the consequences therof but not
lose sight of the fact that the inherent danger is a real part of the challenge.
Well said Don

Don Simons Wrote:A few thoughts on danger:

"Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. Security does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than exposure."
Helen Keller (1880 - 1968)

"The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding, go out to meet it."
Thucydides (471 BC - 400 BC)

"Believe me! The secret of reaping the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment from life is to live dangerously! "
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)

Not to discount for one minute that everything possible should be done to minimise death or injury at the TT, but the very reason that the TT exists is, that it is not just a fun fortnight, but it is a very, very serious event for both the riders and those around the course.
The organisers, the riders and the marshals certainly take it seriously as do a large percentage of spectators.
It is not wrong to rake over the ashes and try to learn from any mistakes but we cannot change the fundamental reason for the event being held in the first place.
It is a challenge which the riders take up personally and one which is shared vicariously by everyone else involved.
If we thought too long about anything in life we wouldn't do it.

So eloquently worded Don, I agree with your every word.

"As soon as there is life, there is danger”

just like to add my bit to the debate

Sensible risk management is about:
providing overall benefit to society by balancing benefits and risks,

Enabling individuals to understand that as well as the right to protection, they also have to exercise responsibility

Sensible risk management is not about:

Creating a totally risk free society
Generating useless paperwork mountains
Scaring people by exaggerating or publicising trivial risks
Stopping important recreational activities for individuals where the risks are managed


the above was taken from the hse website and the quote below is from the chair of the h & s commission

"My clear message is that if you are using health and safety to stop everyday activities – get a life and let others get on with theirs."

the law does not expect you to eliminate all risk but to protect people as far as is "reasonably practicable" which i personally think is acheived at the tt .
the problems come from insurance companys or licenceing bodies who demand over complicated r a`s to cover themselves
the hse are trying to get us all to cut down on needless r a`s as even they think it has got out of hand. the link below sets out their position
http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/statement.htm

lets just hope common sense prevails and we can all enjoy the tt for many years to come

Good post by Don and Peter who describes racing on the course years ago exactly as it was. Thirty years ago Easter Monday at Oulton Park I had a conversation with others and Kenny Roberts about the benefit of having a Maxton framed OW31 for Charlie Williams as opposed to the standard TZ750 all of our 250s and 350s were convertd straigt out of the crates.

Roberts made the comment that "it does not matter what you do to them they are so fast there are only half a dozen people in the world who can use all the power and ride one to use all the power".

The OW31 was used at the NW200 but not at the TT Charlie would not race it and opted for the 350 Maxton Yamaha in the 1000 Classic finishing 2nd behind Grant on the 750 Kawasaki.

Now we encouraging indeed even pursuing newcomers with little or no roads experience and very little practice by comparison with years ago to lap at 110mph to qualify, the pressure to go 100% and far beyond their course knowledge and ability from their first practice lap must be immense on 200mph Superbikes even the best top riders are almost shaking out of control on some parts of the course.

With the amount of practice years ago the first three or four sessions were used by most to build up speed get 'roads fit' and set up machines and the time for fast laps came midweek or Thursady afternoon.

There also seems to be an obsession thhat new faster lap records are an obsession ad must be set at all costs when the it used to be goo sense to win at the slowest possible speed, now we are in a position race laps are reduced from six to four because of the mortality rate when not so long ago the prouction race was ten laps.

There has to be a lmit as to how much power can b put down on thethe ro and speeds that can be safely achieved on public roads and in recent years newcomers appear to me to be the ones most vulnerable.

I know I have said it before but I remain convinced the gateway to the TT s through the MGP.

I have to say,that in all these discussions,and the inquest,That I believe that the marshals should ONLY be responsible for looking after the welfare of the competitors ie. correct flag signals and dealing with all incidents involving competitors,including clearing debris from the course.They should NOT be responsible for checking signs and should only advise spectators from standing at potentially dangerous vantage points.This should be done by the main organisers and the police.They get paid for doing their jobs.With regard to "prohibited areas", how can marshals move the public from these areas when they are not supposed to be in those areas themselves,or are they??Are marshals realy permitted to stand in prohibited areas,or not? This question has yet to be clarified as far as I can see.If an area is not safe for the public,then it is not safe for a marshal.I,for one,would not stand in a prohibited area again

The dabate about machine capacity is not as straightforward as it seems. Over the last decade we have lost a host of Ireland's top riders, many of whom were on lightweight 2 stroke machines at the time. On the mountain also there have been many unfortunate accidents involving Classic Bikes. This might be in part due to riders trying to carry more corner speed on the wee bikes. It's not actual speed which causes death but rapid deceleration. It is estimated that Richard Britton was only travelling at 30-40mph when he crashed.

Hilary you raise an interesting point and I can answer it..........

A prohibited area is a place where NO ONE should be.... no exceptions

I know Larry will agree with me on that.

So far as I am aware it is the intention for the TT and presumably the Manx GP that there will be.........."restricted areas" within a prohibited area where marshals can be.
IMHO that is a complete nonsense and is an extremely dangerous thing to do...........

Larry will also find himself in agreement with that.

Effectively what it does is imply there is safe area for marshals to stand and preform their duties.................no such area exsists that can be called safe.
Very dangerous to imply or suggest that there is a safe area to be.

And once again Larry will agree with my logic

Surely a restricted area should be safe, but only for the use of marshals and officilas. If there is no area assigned to them, they would be part of the crowd. I agree prohibited means everyone.
Excellent post from Lockman.. hope the powers that be raed the website

Re Phil Windrum's point: unless I am much mistaken, none of the crashes he mentions have killed anyone other than the rider? Risks to "outsiders" are surely reduced when it is something much less than a 200kg Superbike involved - less speed, less weight = less distance travelled and therefore less consequential damage. If you could choose to be hit by a Vespa scooter or a 40-ton juggernaut, which would you pick?
The Isle of Man has been woefully negligent for years IMHO in not providing purpose-built marshall posts, carefully positioned to afford the optimum view (using CCTV if necessary) with state-of-the-art communication facilities built in. There could be a telephone point on the outside, like the old police boxes had, where the public could quickly contact a central control point (wherever the present 999 calls are routed to?) in the event of emergency situations all year round, thus showing that the races can actually contribute to Island life.
It seems to come as a total surprise that each year some people turn up to race round, on motorcycles, cycles, rally cars........this is not the 1920s!
As for his other comment - speed has never killed anyone, it is only when the speed is stopped by a stationary object that damage results!

Hilary M Wrote:I have to say,that in all these discussions,and the inquest,That I believe that the marshals should ONLY be responsible for looking after the welfare of the competitors ie. correct flag signals and dealing with all incidents involving competitors,including clearing debris from the course.They should NOT be responsible for checking signs and should only advise spectators from standing at potentially dangerous vantage points.This should be done by the main organisers and the police.They get paid for doing their jobs.With regard to "prohibited areas", how can marshals move the public from these areas when they are not supposed to be in those areas themselves,or are they??Are marshals realy permitted to stand in prohibited areas,or not? This question has yet to be clarified as far as I can see.If an area is not safe for the public,then it is not safe for a marshal.I,for one,would not stand in a prohibited area again

Hillary I totally agree with you But a Marshall has to sign on and is issued with a warrent card or used to, does it not say in the marshalls pack that the job required a marshall to look after the safety of the riders and spectators alike. Could be wrong many year since i marshalled

Thank you Cargo,but I am still unclear about prohibited areas and restricted areas.From what I am aware,there are only prohibited area signs now,or at least last year,and no such thing as a restricted area,or at least,no signs stating such.It is still unclear,or am I more thick than most people think
Colin,from what I recall,I only had an armband,which I suppose acts as your warrant,but I agree that marshals have to look after both competitors and spectators and they should be in as safe a place as possible. So many of you have given a great deal of thought to your suggestions and I sincerely hope some of them are taken on board by the organisers.The "ordinary" marshals should be consulted as much as possible as they are the ones who stand in the firing line.So much has changed over the years,machines are so fast,tyres allow such grip and angles of lean,that posts and signs have to be moved further from the edge of the road.True,stone walls can't be moved, but they are more visible at 180mph than a small,unpainted post.None of us want to see such changes that the TT no longer becomes the ultimate challenge, but the organisers have to move with the times

Your warrant card is the card in your armband, and it has on it the terms and duties of a marshal, space to record your sessions, your details etd. I find the actual armband a nuisance as it slips off my arm, but I have been told that cutting the armband and sewing the holder to your tabard is not allowed... why don't we get credit card sized credentials like the ACU ones? Much handier, and maybe in the long term chipped.
I advocated this for licences, so they could be chipped and then record your races for, say, 5 years, removing the need for the silly 6 qualifying races rule... all places, and also misdemeanors would be recorded at every race (internationally?)
In the case of marshals you could build up a credit... like your Tesco card (not mine, I hate 'em, but that's another story!).
Come on... it's the 21st century now...