Originally posted by Atobe:
[b]Do we want to encourage mindless
risk taking?
If we allow bungee jumping, we might as well legalise motor racing
in Singapore. At present, the thrill seekers choose to do so in the
middle of the night on public roads, creating a danger to others
who do not choose to be risk takers.
I am a risk taker myself, but one who carefully studies the risks
before undertaking an endeavour. Before going on a hike, I study
the terrain and weather, calculate the hours of daylight and assess
my fitness level and I balance these against the scenery, the
physical challenge and the peace of getting away from
humanity.
In short, I strongly support encouraging calculated risk taking,
but I am against mindless risk taking.
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR LEE WEI LING
This was taken from the Straits Times Forum, 25 July 2003 :
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/forum/story/0,4386,201411,00.html?
[/b]
As a participant in legal motorsports (i.e. on closed circuits)
and not illegal street racing, I think what she is saying is very
unfair. What does she mean by "we might as well legalise motor
racing in Singapore."? She makes it sound as if it is a bad thing.
Motorsports is afterall a sport no less compared to soccer.
Participants have to be fit to withstand the long hours of racing,
having to stay on the mental edge for the whole race, is no easy
task, both psychologically and physically. Anyone who do not
believe this, simply go and try out go-karting. A go-kart is the
simplest form of motorsports, but try driving one for 10 minutes
and u can see how much u are sweating already by the end of 10
minutes... and that is just moderate driving. Come down to jurong
where our only go-kart circuit is located, look at ANY of the pro
drivers after we finish a 30 lap practice pushing at tenth tenths,
and see how wet with our own sweat we are.
I do not see her rationale for speaking against motorsports like a
bad thing. Afterall, like she said if we legalise motorsports it
would encourage more people who choose to race on the streest to
race on the circuits instead, surely that is a good thing. Granted
we cannot wipe out all illegal racing but then again, promoting
football here doesn't erradicate people playing soccer in the void
decks of HDB blocks. I agree with her totally about how thrill
seekers who race on the streets pose an unneccessary danger to
other innocent road users. I can tell you this attitude is shared
by many of my peers on the track. This is the difference between
people who are in the professional racing circle and the ones in
the illegal racing circle. If we can legalise motorsport, wouldn't
it be encouraging more people to "go-pro" and basically learn to
have a correct view of how racing should be conducted? I peronsally
used to think street racing was cool but after joining the
pro-racing circle I found it to be a very enriching and educational
experience. We learn a lot of things from rules and regulations to
racing etiquette and being resposible for my own life and that of
others. We emphasise heavily on responsible racing and i believe
that it has also taught us about more gracious driving on the roads
and about when risks should be taken and when they should not, and
this has helped me to realise that street racing is not something
we should be doing.
The 3rd point is that she claims that "I am a risk taker myself,
but one who carefully studies the risks before undertaking an
endeavour." If she can feel this way, then there is no basis for
her to be against motorsports. Does she think that any one of us
who race professionally do not know of the risks we are taking? We
all know very well the risks of our very fringe sport(in Singapore.
Internationally it is one of the biggest sports there is TV
viewership-wise, F1 viewership alone is 3rd behind the
olympics(1st) and world cup(2nd but while these 2 are once in 4
years events, F1 has the 3rd highest TV viewership 16 times a
year!) and we choose to take the risks because we have studied the
risks and have decided that we are able to accept it as, just as
she calculates the risks against the gains, so do we. And we go a
step further by ensuring that the most stringent safety measures
are strictly adhered to.
Our safety equipment is one of the most comprehensive of any
sports. Helmet must be approved by a recognised safety board such
as SNELL. Our suits are FIA/CIK approved. So are our gloves, racing
boots, and even the underwear. Rib protectors, neck protectors,
must all be FIA/CIK certified. In fact, many of us make sure we go
beyond the minimum standards required. For example, our gloves must
be FIA/CIK approved but not fire-proof for go-karts, but many of us
use Nomex gloves. I personally switched to nomex gloves because i
believe in getting the best protection for what we choose to do. My
helmet is SNELL K95 approved but many people i know are using SNELL
2000 standard helmets. Our suits need to be minimum Level 1 suits
but there are a lot of people wearing level 2 or even 3 suits. And
that is not to say that level 1 suits are no good. Take a look at
the thickness of my Sparco level 1 suit and u will see what i mean.
As for the undergarments, I wear nomex undergarments as i believe
that since my suit is only level 1 then i should have some fire
protection. I think that such a attitude of no compromise towards
safety is a positive thing. From this i have learned that no matter
what i want to do i should always have the proper equipment for it.
And in having a strong view of safety, I feel that while i am
taking a calculated risk, it is not a mindless one as ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR LEE WEI LING has suggested.
I hope that she can see my point and not be biased against any one
sport. Sportpeople are all taking calculated risks and for all the
hardships we endure, I think it is manifestly unfair to suggest any
one sports is just "mindless risk taking". There are different
levels of calculated risk taking and i hope that while she is not
on a higher level of risk taking, she will not view others higher
up on the risk scale as foolish mindless risk takers just because
they are above her own limits of "calculated-risk" defination.
