14 ms·

Safety consciousness really started only in the 70s. I think Jackie Stewart was a big proponent. He often was accused of being a wimp because real men embrace

Safety consciousness really started only in the 70s. I think Jackie Stewart was a big proponent. He often was accused of being a wimp because real men embrace risking their lives. Then it started picking up more steam in the 80s with carbon fiber chassis and then more in the 90s when Senna died. Rallye stopped the insanity when Henri Toivonen burnt to death. I feel environmental regulation is going the same path. There is a lot of resistance against improving things just because. Only when something really bad happens, people wake up. But even often nothings happens.

Jtsummers 2y ago
> I feel environmental regulation is going the same path. There is a lot of resistance against improving things just because. Only when something really bad happens, people wake up. But even often nothings happens. And then a generation or two later they forget that we had so much pollution in our rivers that they occasionally caught fire. "Why do we need these protections?" Protections get weakened, problems recur. It happens everywhere, we forget why we do things a particular way, fail, and then re-learn the lessons (the hard way).
- pwg 2y ago
  > It happens everywhere, we forget why we do things a particular way, fail, and then re-learn the lessons (the hard way). https://theknowledge.io/chestertons-fence-explained/ https://theknowledge.io/chestertons-fence-explained/
- dylan604 2y ago
  When I was a kid the pollution was so bad in the US, we learned about acid rain. They made changes that nobody liked, but the acid stopped failing from the sky and people accepted it was a better situation. Change takes energy to implement. It is much easier to not make the change, and for the most part people are just lazy. It takes a determine group to decide to expend the energy to get the changes started.
  - bamboozled 2y ago
    Still the forgetting part in the danger, the complacency. I think that’s why the US is in the state it’s in politically. Too good for too long means people are willing to let it get silly again.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    I remember this, but it's been decades since I last heard someone mention "acid rain". Young adults today have probably never heard of it. Forgetting the past (or never learning about it in the first place) is a great way to repeat it.
leoc 2y ago
For example, in the 1967 F1 Grand Prix (the subject of the legendary cult-favourite racing sim Grand Prix Legends https://www.pcgamer.com/why-i-loved-hardcore-racing-sim-grand-prix-legends/ https://www.pcgamer.com/why-i-loved-hardcore-racing-sim-gran... ) two drivers died, and apparently half of the drivers would eventually die in motor accidents over the course of their careers.
- sokoloff 2y ago
  I have very fond memories of working at Papyrus (1995-1997, including the very start of GPL; some of my code probably lived on in the telemetry recording and replay system, though I left early enough to not be in the credits [correctly so, IMO].) The iRacing crew has a large overlap of ex-Papyrus, unsurprisingly.
naming_the_user 2y ago
The problem I think is that if you take the two extremes/limits - e.g. the "do as little as possible until we absolutely have to" and the "do everything that could feasibly make sense" sides, in the absence of an existential event, the former outcompetes the latter both in the short and long term because if you regulate _everything_ then you end up in absurd situations that kill progress. What we really need is a time machine. With the benefit of a time machine we could implement a bunch of safety mechanisms, many of which would be inconvenient and retard progress, and then go back in time and tell people which ones made sense and which ones didn't make sense.
- do_not_redeem 2y ago
  I think time machines would be used to opposite effect if they existed. If something bad happens, you just rewind a few minutes and say "hey Jim, be careful on that ladder, eh?"
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    There are at least two timelines, one where Jim falls off the ladder and one where he doesn't. The time machine would not change that.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      Depending on what you mean by "at least", the warning could still be a very effective safety mechanism, or we might realize there's no point in trying to be safe at all, or something else entirely. I think the implications need to be nailed down before a convincing argument can be made.
- wat10000 2y ago
  You don’t need a time machine. Smart people are pretty good at figuring out the costs and benefits. What you need is to cultivate an environment where safety is a priority, but it’s recognized that it also has a cost and tradeoffs, and there’s a sweet spot that isn’t “maximum safety at all costs.” The American FAA is a pretty good example. They’ve made air travel extremely safe while also allowing it to become very cheap. Their safety record has become essentially perfect but that doesn’t come from preferring safety at all costs. They put a dollar figure on each life to determine if a safety requirement is actually worth the cost. And they recognize when unintended consequences result in a worse overall outcome. For example, child safety seats are not required on airliners despite clear evidence that they would save lives in the event of a crash. Why? Because the expense and inconvenience would push some parents to drive to their destination instead of fly. Driving is much more dangerous. They ran the numbers and found that requiring child safety seats would cost lives on net. The FAA is far from perfect and they seem to have been slipping in recent years. But they’re a good example of how this can be done. The hard part is getting people to allow it to be done. A lot of people will insist on spending a billion dollars to save one life. Or insist on focusing on one particular area and saving lives there, ignoring a loss of life caused elsewhere. This can be resisted but it takes a lot of work.
masklinn 2y ago
> Rallye stopped the insanity when Henri Toivonen burnt to death. Alone it probably would not have done it, but the sanity of Group B (or lack thereof) had been in question for a while: earlier in the same season Joaquim Santos lost control of his car after avoiding a group of spectators (who'd routinely play chicken with cars) resulting in 3 deaths and 30 injuries. And the previous season Bettega had died on the same course Toivonen and Cresto lost their lives on, and Vatanen was gravely injured in Argentina.
- andrepd 2y ago
  Tbh Group B had a problem of crowd control, not with the cars themselves. Those Lancias hnnng
  - macshome 2y ago
    While that was a problem, the larger one was that the cars were too fast for the tires and safety equipment of the time. In a 13 month period there were three fatal accidents that were down to drivers losing control and crashing on their own. The last two coming in successive months. The repeated accidents killed off Group B and the nascent Group S that was supposed to replace it. Modern WRC cars much higher cornering speeds than the Group B cars because of advances in tire technology. They aren’t as fast in a straight line, but they are massively safer in the event of a crash.
  - masklinn 2y ago
    Group B absolutely had a cars problem, 3 of the 4 accidents mentioned were not crowd related, there was literally no close witness (only a video from far away) to Toivonen and Cresta's accident. The Lancias were some of the worst offenders to the cars issue, but not the only one: many drivers complained that the cars had gotten way too powerful to be safe in Corsica. And safety equipment was lacking and not consistently applied, for instance fuel tank skid plates were usually left off on asphalt tracks like corsica, which is likely how Toivonen's lancia instantly caught fire when it went off the road.
- dylan604 2y ago
  > who'd routinely play chicken with cars I've never seen this, but can only imagine the stupidity of these spectators. To solve that, I'd have been in favor of awarding bonus points to drivers not avoid these "chickens"
joshu 2y ago
this is why i am afraid to drive my 1962 lemans racer in actual race conditions…
- jcgrillo 2y ago
  that's what a 1992 lemons racer is for ;)
  - joshu 2y ago
    lemons and le mans are very different things
pushedx 2y ago
increased severity of disease from new pathogens is one result of climate change
- nradov 2y ago
  Really? More severe than, let's say, HCoV-OC43 or "Spanish" flu? https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lpm.2022.104111 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lpm.2022.104111
  - lazyasciiart 2y ago
    Yes, much more severe. Covid alone had a higher fatality rate than Spanish flu. 2012 MERS had a 30% fatality rate. Ebola strains in Zaire and Sudan have had fatality rates over 50%.
    - nradov 2y ago
      Nope, much less severe. COVID-19 had an infection fatality rate way lower than 1%. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.114655 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.114655 As for those other diseases there is zero evidence that climate change has made them more severe. It's not impossible but we simply have no reliable evidence of a causal relationship one way or the other.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    You can't cherry pick a single century-old example and use that to prove the opposite. That's not how logic and reasoning work.
    - nradov 2y ago
      You can't claim that global warming is making diseases more severe without hard evidence. That's not how logic and reasoning work.
wkat4242 2y ago
> I feel environmental regulation is going the same path. There is a lot of resistance against improving things just because. Well no not just because. I really care about the environment but it is getting a bit exhausting. In Holland everyone has to move away from natural gas meaning everyone has to buy hugely expensive heat pumps and insulate their houses more to deal with the lower heat output. ICEs are getting banned from city centers so you need to buy an EV which is messy to charge if you live in a flat, we have to drag all our empty plastic bottles back to the shop now and can't even crush them to save bag space. New environmentally friendly paints scratch much easier. Lead free solder causes solder joints to break earlier meaning more frequent purchases. Plastic bottles now have their caps attached in an awkward way. Prices are constantly rising due to environment levies making it more expensive for citizens but companies are still raking it in and producing stuff they know it's harmful like PFAS. Housing is super expensive because environmental impact reviews limit the amount of new construction and the government put even more on hold due to too much nitrogen compounds. All these things are just expensive and more hassle and I can imagine people are getting a bit frustrated. It's like it's never enough. It's with good reason sure but I can understand people feel like they're getting the short end of the stick. I personally don't even own or need a car and I live somewhere now where I don't really need heating and we can still just dump our bottles in the plastic bin in the street here. So I'm pretty ok with everything. But yeah I feel people's pain.
- afh1 2y ago
  None of it matters when China is burning coal like crazy and 99% of all ocean plastic comes from Asia.[1] Europe is mostly costly virtue signaling. [1] https://www.weforum.org/stories/2018/06/90-of-plastic-polluting-our-oceans-comes-from-just-10-rivers/ https://www.weforum.org/stories/2018/06/90-of-plastic-pollut...
  - cherryteastain 2y ago
    Measures like ICE bans still improve the local air quality.
    - 2y ago
justin66 2y ago
> He often was accused of being a wimp because real men embrace risking their lives. By whom? I bet that's not true (although to be fair, sports commentators can routinely be pretty spectacularly stupid). As a three-time world champion who won his first one in 1969, I don't think there were any people who could call Jackie Stewart a "wimp" without appearing ridiculous. I think there were one or two incidents nearer the end of his career when he refused to race for safety reasons and some others (Jacky Ickx?) went out. Those guys are friends and I think everyone concerned understood the importance of safety, so it's... complicated.
gosub100 2y ago
What about the false alarms that are done in the name of environmentalism? Why is there no accountability for, say, plastic straw hysteria, or recycling programs that emit more CO2 than just throwing it away? You can't criticize anything done in the name of the environment even if it's blatantly wrong. Why is that? Why isn't bringing manufacturing jobs back home part of the "green" strategy?
- MoreMoore 2y ago
  > Why isn't bringing manufacturing jobs back home part of the "green" strategy? It often is. Then you have the coal/gas lobbies fighting against it, as well as any and every politician whose constituency includes jobs in these industries. Germany used to subsidise solar, then it stopped, which wiped out the solar industry in Germany overnight. It's no different in the US. This isn't a problem with environmentalism, it's a problem with nascent industries fighting change with tooth and nail. And paying the media to convince people like you that it's the environmentalists' fault. Do you even remember what the infrastructure bill recently in the US even did to invest in green energy and manufacturing/jobs for green energy? Stop falling for it. Stop falling for the lies and propaganda. There are people trying to make real change for the better, and they're not the ones fighting against green energy. Why aren't you able to recognize it?
- kasey_junk 2y ago
  You just did. You weren’t censored or pariahed. In the US the incoming president denies climate change and is preparing to gut environmental regulation. The new Congress is likely to reverse tax breaks for green initiatives while simultaneously cutting taxes for the most wealthy and dramatically raising the deficit. The judiciary has already knee capped the regulatory agencies and is now set to do the same for any corporate policy that acknowledges environmental issues as a shareholder issue. The idea that the green agenda is ascendant and dominating strains credibility to the point that I can only assume you are trolling.
  - gosub100 2y ago
    If you think I'm trolling that proves my point: there is no room to criticize or question anything the far left does. Double the trucks on the road? Fine. Send "recycled" plastic back to china to dump it in a landfill? Fine. Try to stop it? You're a monster who denies climate change. Life is easy when you force everything in two bins: "you're either with us [environmentalists] or you're against us [trolling]". Which president said that again? You have more in common with conservatives than you realize.
tzs 2y ago
> I feel environmental regulation is going the same path. There is a lot of resistance against improving things just because. Only when something really bad happens, people wake up. But even often nothings happens. Also after something gets improved there is eventually pressure to roll it back. Similar thing with financial regulation: something bad happens, then there is bipartisan legislation to try to keep it from happening again, and then maybe a decade later that legislation is repealed or weakened...and the cycle starts all over. I'm kind of fed up with it. My current job is slowly winding down and I'll probably retire when it ends, but if I decide not to retire I'm going to be way more open to jobs that in the past I would have ruled out over ethical concerns. For once I'd like to see what it's like on the side providing the screwing instead of the side getting screwed. So as long as I don't have to do anything that is actually illegal, I'm paid well enough that whatever havoc the work causes in the economy won't interfere with my lifestyle, and I'm far enough from the front lines that the I won't have to do things like testify in front of Congress and won't have to worry about angry mobs showing up at my house then no problem.
- andrepd 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - tzs 2y ago
    I don't have kids. I'm not sure it would make a difference if I did though. Keep in mind that my reasoning that jobs I would have previously considered unethical (because I thought they made the world a worse place in general) would maybe be acceptable to take is based on the observation that whenever we actually accomplish making such jobs illegal or at least regulate them to mitigate the harm a few years later people elect representatives that reverse those protections. After enough cycles of that it is hard to avoid concluding that voters are nowhere near figuring out that they should stop electing those people. And its only getting worse due to people getting more and more of their information from less and less reliable sources. If I had kids then my planning would be based on the idea they are growing up in a world where there will be lots of businesses doing things that will destabilize the economy or lead to recessions or depressions, lots of people pushing questionable investments and questionable health products, even lots of outright scams, and no realistic prospects that government will do anything to curb that. The kids would have the best chance if I taught them how to avoid personally falling for those things and left them enough wealth that they will have an easier time getting through the recessions/depressions.
KennyBlanken 2y ago
Senna gets a lot of credit for protesting the lack of safety, but he was a supreme hypocrite. He was more than happy to ram his competitors off the track, bullying them so everyone would get out of his way for fear of blowing their budget fixing crash damage - and he'd get clean laps. FIA could have shut it down at any point but likely didn't because of how many F1 fans he brought in from Brazil and South America.
paganel 2y ago
Motor-sports safety-related regulations only affected some pilots and the people following those races (or the percent of those followers that were in for the roughness of it all, not the safety aspect). On the other hand, environment-related regulations are affecting people on a global scale, without too much recourse (apart from trying to vote in populists/extremists, when that is allowed of us). That difference in scale matters. Also, rallye as a sport is pretty much dead now, it has been dead since the late ‘90s, give or take, and those safety regulations were a big part of why it is now dead.
- Cumpiler69 2y ago
  >those safety regulations were a big part of why it is now dead Well yeah, most people (men specifically) watch certain sports for the high risks/stakes. If you remove those stakes, then it's not worth watching as much. Imagine how boxing would fare if the gloves had enough padding to not hurt the opponent.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
randomcarbloke 2y ago
A book: The Limit: Life and Death on the 1961 Grand Prix Circuit by Michael Cannell, is superb and details much of the racing of the era but primarily focusing on Phil Hill and Wolfgang von Tripps, it is especially eye-opening for those that have grown up on the (by comparison) relatively coddled contemporary racing, there are more deathless pages than not, of course the ending is especially upsetting even if you know what is coming.

Jtsummers 2y ago

> I feel environmental regulation is going the same path. There is a lot of resistance against improving things just because. Only when something really bad happens, people wake up. But even often nothings happens. And then a generation or two later they forget that we had so much pollution in our rivers that they occasionally caught fire. "Why do we need these protections?" Protections get weakened, problems recur. It happens everywhere, we forget why we do things a particular way, fail, and then re-learn the lessons (the hard way).

pwg 2y ago
> It happens everywhere, we forget why we do things a particular way, fail, and then re-learn the lessons (the hard way). https://theknowledge.io/chestertons-fence-explained/ https://theknowledge.io/chestertons-fence-explained/
dylan604 2y ago
When I was a kid the pollution was so bad in the US, we learned about acid rain. They made changes that nobody liked, but the acid stopped failing from the sky and people accepted it was a better situation. Change takes energy to implement. It is much easier to not make the change, and for the most part people are just lazy. It takes a determine group to decide to expend the energy to get the changes started.
- bamboozled 2y ago
  Still the forgetting part in the danger, the complacency. I think that’s why the US is in the state it’s in politically. Too good for too long means people are willing to let it get silly again.
- kelnos 2y ago
  I remember this, but it's been decades since I last heard someone mention "acid rain". Young adults today have probably never heard of it. Forgetting the past (or never learning about it in the first place) is a great way to repeat it.

leoc 2y ago

For example, in the 1967 F1 Grand Prix (the subject of the legendary cult-favourite racing sim Grand Prix Legends https://www.pcgamer.com/why-i-loved-hardcore-racing-sim-grand-prix-legends/ https://www.pcgamer.com/why-i-loved-hardcore-racing-sim-gran... ) two drivers died, and apparently half of the drivers would eventually die in motor accidents over the course of their careers.

sokoloff 2y ago
I have very fond memories of working at Papyrus (1995-1997, including the very start of GPL; some of my code probably lived on in the telemetry recording and replay system, though I left early enough to not be in the credits [correctly so, IMO].) The iRacing crew has a large overlap of ex-Papyrus, unsurprisingly.

naming_the_user 2y ago

The problem I think is that if you take the two extremes/limits - e.g. the "do as little as possible until we absolutely have to" and the "do everything that could feasibly make sense" sides, in the absence of an existential event, the former outcompetes the latter both in the short and long term because if you regulate _everything_ then you end up in absurd situations that kill progress. What we really need is a time machine. With the benefit of a time machine we could implement a bunch of safety mechanisms, many of which would be inconvenient and retard progress, and then go back in time and tell people which ones made sense and which ones didn't make sense.

do_not_redeem 2y ago
I think time machines would be used to opposite effect if they existed. If something bad happens, you just rewind a few minutes and say "hey Jim, be careful on that ladder, eh?"
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  There are at least two timelines, one where Jim falls off the ladder and one where he doesn't. The time machine would not change that.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    Depending on what you mean by "at least", the warning could still be a very effective safety mechanism, or we might realize there's no point in trying to be safe at all, or something else entirely. I think the implications need to be nailed down before a convincing argument can be made.
wat10000 2y ago
You don’t need a time machine. Smart people are pretty good at figuring out the costs and benefits. What you need is to cultivate an environment where safety is a priority, but it’s recognized that it also has a cost and tradeoffs, and there’s a sweet spot that isn’t “maximum safety at all costs.” The American FAA is a pretty good example. They’ve made air travel extremely safe while also allowing it to become very cheap. Their safety record has become essentially perfect but that doesn’t come from preferring safety at all costs. They put a dollar figure on each life to determine if a safety requirement is actually worth the cost. And they recognize when unintended consequences result in a worse overall outcome. For example, child safety seats are not required on airliners despite clear evidence that they would save lives in the event of a crash. Why? Because the expense and inconvenience would push some parents to drive to their destination instead of fly. Driving is much more dangerous. They ran the numbers and found that requiring child safety seats would cost lives on net. The FAA is far from perfect and they seem to have been slipping in recent years. But they’re a good example of how this can be done. The hard part is getting people to allow it to be done. A lot of people will insist on spending a billion dollars to save one life. Or insist on focusing on one particular area and saving lives there, ignoring a loss of life caused elsewhere. This can be resisted but it takes a lot of work.

masklinn 2y ago

> Rallye stopped the insanity when Henri Toivonen burnt to death. Alone it probably would not have done it, but the sanity of Group B (or lack thereof) had been in question for a while: earlier in the same season Joaquim Santos lost control of his car after avoiding a group of spectators (who'd routinely play chicken with cars) resulting in 3 deaths and 30 injuries. And the previous season Bettega had died on the same course Toivonen and Cresto lost their lives on, and Vatanen was gravely injured in Argentina.

andrepd 2y ago
Tbh Group B had a problem of crowd control, not with the cars themselves. Those Lancias hnnng
- macshome 2y ago
  While that was a problem, the larger one was that the cars were too fast for the tires and safety equipment of the time. In a 13 month period there were three fatal accidents that were down to drivers losing control and crashing on their own. The last two coming in successive months. The repeated accidents killed off Group B and the nascent Group S that was supposed to replace it. Modern WRC cars much higher cornering speeds than the Group B cars because of advances in tire technology. They aren’t as fast in a straight line, but they are massively safer in the event of a crash.
- masklinn 2y ago
  Group B absolutely had a cars problem, 3 of the 4 accidents mentioned were not crowd related, there was literally no close witness (only a video from far away) to Toivonen and Cresta's accident. The Lancias were some of the worst offenders to the cars issue, but not the only one: many drivers complained that the cars had gotten way too powerful to be safe in Corsica. And safety equipment was lacking and not consistently applied, for instance fuel tank skid plates were usually left off on asphalt tracks like corsica, which is likely how Toivonen's lancia instantly caught fire when it went off the road.
dylan604 2y ago
> who'd routinely play chicken with cars I've never seen this, but can only imagine the stupidity of these spectators. To solve that, I'd have been in favor of awarding bonus points to drivers not avoid these "chickens"

joshu 2y ago

this is why i am afraid to drive my 1962 lemans racer in actual race conditions…

jcgrillo 2y ago
that's what a 1992 lemons racer is for ;)
- joshu 2y ago
  lemons and le mans are very different things

pushedx 2y ago

increased severity of disease from new pathogens is one result of climate change

nradov 2y ago
Really? More severe than, let's say, HCoV-OC43 or "Spanish" flu? https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lpm.2022.104111 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lpm.2022.104111
- lazyasciiart 2y ago
  Yes, much more severe. Covid alone had a higher fatality rate than Spanish flu. 2012 MERS had a 30% fatality rate. Ebola strains in Zaire and Sudan have had fatality rates over 50%.
  - nradov 2y ago
    Nope, much less severe. COVID-19 had an infection fatality rate way lower than 1%. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.114655 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.114655 As for those other diseases there is zero evidence that climate change has made them more severe. It's not impossible but we simply have no reliable evidence of a causal relationship one way or the other.
- kelnos 2y ago
  You can't cherry pick a single century-old example and use that to prove the opposite. That's not how logic and reasoning work.
  - nradov 2y ago
    You can't claim that global warming is making diseases more severe without hard evidence. That's not how logic and reasoning work.

wkat4242 2y ago

> I feel environmental regulation is going the same path. There is a lot of resistance against improving things just because. Well no not just because. I really care about the environment but it is getting a bit exhausting. In Holland everyone has to move away from natural gas meaning everyone has to buy hugely expensive heat pumps and insulate their houses more to deal with the lower heat output. ICEs are getting banned from city centers so you need to buy an EV which is messy to charge if you live in a flat, we have to drag all our empty plastic bottles back to the shop now and can't even crush them to save bag space. New environmentally friendly paints scratch much easier. Lead free solder causes solder joints to break earlier meaning more frequent purchases. Plastic bottles now have their caps attached in an awkward way. Prices are constantly rising due to environment levies making it more expensive for citizens but companies are still raking it in and producing stuff they know it's harmful like PFAS. Housing is super expensive because environmental impact reviews limit the amount of new construction and the government put even more on hold due to too much nitrogen compounds. All these things are just expensive and more hassle and I can imagine people are getting a bit frustrated. It's like it's never enough. It's with good reason sure but I can understand people feel like they're getting the short end of the stick. I personally don't even own or need a car and I live somewhere now where I don't really need heating and we can still just dump our bottles in the plastic bin in the street here. So I'm pretty ok with everything. But yeah I feel people's pain.

afh1 2y ago
None of it matters when China is burning coal like crazy and 99% of all ocean plastic comes from Asia.[1] Europe is mostly costly virtue signaling. [1] https://www.weforum.org/stories/2018/06/90-of-plastic-polluting-our-oceans-comes-from-just-10-rivers/ https://www.weforum.org/stories/2018/06/90-of-plastic-pollut...
- cherryteastain 2y ago
  Measures like ICE bans still improve the local air quality.
  - 2y ago

justin66 2y ago

> He often was accused of being a wimp because real men embrace risking their lives. By whom? I bet that's not true (although to be fair, sports commentators can routinely be pretty spectacularly stupid). As a three-time world champion who won his first one in 1969, I don't think there were any people who could call Jackie Stewart a "wimp" without appearing ridiculous. I think there were one or two incidents nearer the end of his career when he refused to race for safety reasons and some others (Jacky Ickx?) went out. Those guys are friends and I think everyone concerned understood the importance of safety, so it's... complicated.

gosub100 2y ago

What about the false alarms that are done in the name of environmentalism? Why is there no accountability for, say, plastic straw hysteria, or recycling programs that emit more CO2 than just throwing it away? You can't criticize anything done in the name of the environment even if it's blatantly wrong. Why is that? Why isn't bringing manufacturing jobs back home part of the "green" strategy?

MoreMoore 2y ago
> Why isn't bringing manufacturing jobs back home part of the "green" strategy? It often is. Then you have the coal/gas lobbies fighting against it, as well as any and every politician whose constituency includes jobs in these industries. Germany used to subsidise solar, then it stopped, which wiped out the solar industry in Germany overnight. It's no different in the US. This isn't a problem with environmentalism, it's a problem with nascent industries fighting change with tooth and nail. And paying the media to convince people like you that it's the environmentalists' fault. Do you even remember what the infrastructure bill recently in the US even did to invest in green energy and manufacturing/jobs for green energy? Stop falling for it. Stop falling for the lies and propaganda. There are people trying to make real change for the better, and they're not the ones fighting against green energy. Why aren't you able to recognize it?
kasey_junk 2y ago
You just did. You weren’t censored or pariahed. In the US the incoming president denies climate change and is preparing to gut environmental regulation. The new Congress is likely to reverse tax breaks for green initiatives while simultaneously cutting taxes for the most wealthy and dramatically raising the deficit. The judiciary has already knee capped the regulatory agencies and is now set to do the same for any corporate policy that acknowledges environmental issues as a shareholder issue. The idea that the green agenda is ascendant and dominating strains credibility to the point that I can only assume you are trolling.
- gosub100 2y ago
  If you think I'm trolling that proves my point: there is no room to criticize or question anything the far left does. Double the trucks on the road? Fine. Send "recycled" plastic back to china to dump it in a landfill? Fine. Try to stop it? You're a monster who denies climate change. Life is easy when you force everything in two bins: "you're either with us [environmentalists] or you're against us [trolling]". Which president said that again? You have more in common with conservatives than you realize.

tzs 2y ago

> I feel environmental regulation is going the same path. There is a lot of resistance against improving things just because. Only when something really bad happens, people wake up. But even often nothings happens. Also after something gets improved there is eventually pressure to roll it back. Similar thing with financial regulation: something bad happens, then there is bipartisan legislation to try to keep it from happening again, and then maybe a decade later that legislation is repealed or weakened...and the cycle starts all over. I'm kind of fed up with it. My current job is slowly winding down and I'll probably retire when it ends, but if I decide not to retire I'm going to be way more open to jobs that in the past I would have ruled out over ethical concerns. For once I'd like to see what it's like on the side providing the screwing instead of the side getting screwed. So as long as I don't have to do anything that is actually illegal, I'm paid well enough that whatever havoc the work causes in the economy won't interfere with my lifestyle, and I'm far enough from the front lines that the I won't have to do things like testify in front of Congress and won't have to worry about angry mobs showing up at my house then no problem.

andrepd 2y ago
[flagged]
- tzs 2y ago
  I don't have kids. I'm not sure it would make a difference if I did though. Keep in mind that my reasoning that jobs I would have previously considered unethical (because I thought they made the world a worse place in general) would maybe be acceptable to take is based on the observation that whenever we actually accomplish making such jobs illegal or at least regulate them to mitigate the harm a few years later people elect representatives that reverse those protections. After enough cycles of that it is hard to avoid concluding that voters are nowhere near figuring out that they should stop electing those people. And its only getting worse due to people getting more and more of their information from less and less reliable sources. If I had kids then my planning would be based on the idea they are growing up in a world where there will be lots of businesses doing things that will destabilize the economy or lead to recessions or depressions, lots of people pushing questionable investments and questionable health products, even lots of outright scams, and no realistic prospects that government will do anything to curb that. The kids would have the best chance if I taught them how to avoid personally falling for those things and left them enough wealth that they will have an easier time getting through the recessions/depressions.

KennyBlanken 2y ago

Senna gets a lot of credit for protesting the lack of safety, but he was a supreme hypocrite. He was more than happy to ram his competitors off the track, bullying them so everyone would get out of his way for fear of blowing their budget fixing crash damage - and he'd get clean laps. FIA could have shut it down at any point but likely didn't because of how many F1 fans he brought in from Brazil and South America.

paganel 2y ago

Motor-sports safety-related regulations only affected some pilots and the people following those races (or the percent of those followers that were in for the roughness of it all, not the safety aspect). On the other hand, environment-related regulations are affecting people on a global scale, without too much recourse (apart from trying to vote in populists/extremists, when that is allowed of us). That difference in scale matters. Also, rallye as a sport is pretty much dead now, it has been dead since the late ‘90s, give or take, and those safety regulations were a big part of why it is now dead.

Cumpiler69 2y ago
>those safety regulations were a big part of why it is now dead Well yeah, most people (men specifically) watch certain sports for the high risks/stakes. If you remove those stakes, then it's not worth watching as much. Imagine how boxing would fare if the gloves had enough padding to not hurt the opponent.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

randomcarbloke 2y ago

A book: The Limit: Life and Death on the 1961 Grand Prix Circuit by Michael Cannell, is superb and details much of the racing of the era but primarily focusing on Phil Hill and Wolfgang von Tripps, it is especially eye-opening for those that have grown up on the (by comparison) relatively coddled contemporary racing, there are more deathless pages than not, of course the ending is especially upsetting even if you know what is coming.