Today is the start of the
100th Isle of Man TT Races. The TT is something of an anomaly, these days, in our increasingly risk-averse society, and it's with that in mind that I want to talk about it.
Every year at the TT, a couple of people die. Many more are seriously injured. This inevitably leads to calls for it to be ceased, banned, done away with. Yet everyone who participates in the TT, and every one of the spectators, knows that they are at a higher risk of fatality than average just by being there. They know this, and they go anyway. A gentleman on radio four this morning was talking about his son who died racing at a recent TT, and he said "my boy might be dead now, but he died living his dream, and how many of us can say that?"
Risk is something that is increasingly taboo in modern Britain. If you ride the Mountain at the TT, hell, even if you ride a motorcycle in every day life, you are looked at askance by many people. There's an impression that everybody thinks you're a little bit mad. The term "nanny state" tends to be brought out at this point, but I don't think that it's necessarily the state that's the driving force behind this. Yes, our present government
seems intent on drafting in even more measures to protect us from the nebulous risk of terrorism, but my view is that's more about power-grabbing than Nanny Statism. Motoring Journalists continually bemoan the prominence of the "health and Safety Nazi", but I don't believe that the humble Health and Safety worker is at fault here either. I think it's us.
For some reason we appear to be going down the road of trying to eliminate risk. I make no bones that I don't understand this. I have said before on numerous occasions that I can't understand how the times we are living in now merit the kind of response that those in power are giving us, but the majority of the country and the media seem to think that this is not only acceptable, but laudable. I know that I'm in the minority in thinking this, but it's WEIRD. In the seventies and eighties we actually WERE getting blown up by the IRA on a fairly regular basis. One of the few things that I agreed with the arch-demon Thatcher's stance on was that this was not pleasant, but that to change policy because someone threatens you with a bomb allows the person with the bomb threat to win. The day after
the Brighton Bombing, the day after she was herself almost killed by a terrorist, she said "the fact we are gathered here, now, shocked but composed and determined, is a sign not only that this attack has failed, but that all attempts to destroy democracy by terrorism will fail."
That kind of attitude from a British PM seems odd now, in these days of
control orders and
Belmarsh prison and the
Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act. And it's not just the big freedoms which are being eroded in the current climate. We've all heard the stories of children playing conkers being forced to wear safety goggles by schools who live in terror of being sued by parents of injured children, for example. And then there is also
the proposal to prosecute the parents of under-sixteen year olds who drink alcohol. A lot of the things which I did myself as a child would be viewed with horror by modern parents. Climbing thirty foot trees without a rope or a care; shooting empty cans off the back wall with my dad's air rifle (without ear defenders!); being dropped off at school of the back of my dad's motorbike; being allowed, nay, encouraged to drink my dad's home-brewed beer... These things would lead to accusations of irresponsible parentage these days.
I don't think that my parents were irresponsible. I think my parents were the model of responsibility. They recognised that the elimination of risk is not only impossible, but undesirable. Just as one doesn't make an omelette without breaking eggs, just as one doesn't prevent terrorists from changing one's way of life by changing one's way of life in fear of them, one doesn't learn to judge and deal with risk without experiencing it. Risk is
necessary. If we don't take risks, as a species, we stagnate. If the Wright Brothers had thought that the prospect of injury from their Heath Robinson contraption was too great and had decided not to take the risk, well, the environment would probably be a lot better off, but I'd have never met
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
missdiane.
From the smoking ban to the nebulous prevention of terrorism measures, every day in this country choice is being taken away from me, freedom is being taken away from me, in the name of eliminating risk. As a (fairly) responsible adult, I see this as patronising in the extreme. I am quite capable of researching the risks of a given activity and deciding for myself whether or not that risk is acceptable to me. So, today, I celebrate the TT. One hundred years of sticking two fingers up at those who deem that risk in the pursuit of fun is unacceptable. One hundred years of throwing yourself around the tiny roads of a tiny island at impossible speeds, just for the thrill and joy and exuberance and adrenaline of it. I'm there in spirit, if not in person.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small}
Do you think that gay people ought to be legally prevented from having sex, like 24% of Britons? Or that monogamy is natural and polyamory is unnatural like 70% of Britons? Do you think that men who sleep around are studs who deserve to be lauded, but women who do so are slags to be condemned?
busy
rushed
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/syndicated.gif){kind=small}
grateful
8 (80.0%)
contemplative
cold
ranty
cheerful
