Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
To bug people like yourself.
Ts-ts... is that gentlemanlike?
Live up to your own standards!
Posted 06 May 2008 - 11:22
Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
To bug people like yourself.
Advertisement
Posted 06 May 2008 - 11:40
Originally posted by Fatgadget
Lets face it. When push comes to shove,we are all NIMBYs.
Posted 06 May 2008 - 11:40
You can't bug me by reading this thread. You can't even bug me by writing in this thread.Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
To bug people like yourself.
Mr. Capps had those standards some time ago but he seems to have forgotten about them. Sad indeed.Live up to your own standards!
Posted 06 May 2008 - 11:41
Posted 06 May 2008 - 12:00
Originally posted by roadie
To those comparing tracks to airports, I don't think it is a fair comparison at all.
Posted 06 May 2008 - 12:43
Posted 06 May 2008 - 12:46
Originally posted by OssieFan
This reminds of pubs in the cities withdrawing live music because people move into the freshly built apartments next door. Seems unfair that the established venue has to give in.
Perhaps we can form a group to eventually buy out all the neighbouring houses so these circuits can run all year round!
Posted 06 May 2008 - 12:57
Originally posted by Rich
Exactly. If a group of rave fans moved into your neighbourhood and started playing rave music at 120dB, you'd complain. And they'd call you an ignorant moron who doesn't understand what rave is all about or appreciate the rich history behind it. And you wouldn't care, and neither would the council when they ordered the ravers to keep it down.
It's not a question of who was there first.
Posted 06 May 2008 - 13:25
Originally posted by Dudley
The difference is still, very simply, who was there first.
Originally posted by Dudley
If they'd been playing rave music for 50 years you can't just move in there and stop them.
Advertisement
Posted 06 May 2008 - 13:27
Posted 06 May 2008 - 13:42
They certainly don't have to follow suit, but then again they have the choice not to move in there either. Having done so, in full knowledge that there is a racing circuit next door which may be 'rather noisy' at weekends I am rather lacking in sympathy if they complain about the noise.Originally posted by Fatgadget
Come on Dudley. The 'Iwas here first argument' does not hold sway any more. Times move on. Fact that the original residents around tolerated the bark of racing engines back in the day, does not mean new arrivals have to follow suit.
Posted 06 May 2008 - 13:44
Originally posted by Fatgadget
Come on Dudley. The 'Iwas here first argument' does not hold sway any more. Times move on. Fact that the original residents around tolerated the bark of racing engines back in the day, does not mean new arrivals have to follow suit.
So, in your view, the factory that has been polluting the lake for the last century has no liability in terms of the new housing estate residents who get sick, simply because the factory was there first?
The law is based on what is deemed to be the common good, not on who was there first. If an activity is deemed to be a public health hazard or nuisance (as smoking in pubs, for example, now is), then it doesn't matter how long people have been doing it. It will be regulated and possibly restricted.
Posted 06 May 2008 - 14:13
Posted 06 May 2008 - 14:41
Originally posted by Dudley
And if a bit of noise that never went on late at night remotely compared to either you might have a point.
Originally posted by Dudley
Even so if people got their houses cheap because the factory was known to be there, then yes, they shouldn't have a liability to them in the same way that if I buy something near best before from tesco they won't swap it immediately for one with 3 weeks on it.
Originally posted by Dudley
You paid that price because of the circumstance, complaining to try and sell your house for a profit off ruining the lives and livelihoods of hundreds is indefensible.
Posted 06 May 2008 - 14:50
So if you bought a half-price tin of fish from Tesco and got botulism from it, you would have no complaint against the company? Hey, it was half-price - there has to be a reason for that, surely?
Posted 06 May 2008 - 14:59
Originally posted by Locoblade
With noise pollution the same doesn't apply, there's no set limit, its not a direct health hazard (unless ludicrously loud) and is all rather subjective as to what is acceptable and what is not.
Originally posted by Locoblade
If you moved in next to a pig farm or a sewage works for example, should you be entitled to complain about the occasional wiff when the wind is blowing in the wrong direction that has occured for the last 50 years?
Originally posted by Locoblade
If you moved into a house next to a wheat field and found you suffered from Hayfever, should you be able to stop the farmer growing crops in that field because it causes you discomfort?
Posted 06 May 2008 - 15:08
Originally posted by Josta
That analogy would only hold true if you KNEW that the tin of fish was half price because it contained botulism.
Posted 06 May 2008 - 15:42
Posted 06 May 2008 - 15:45
Posted 06 May 2008 - 15:47
Originally posted by Rich
And if you knew the tin of fish contained botulism, what is your best course of action as a responsible citizen? To try and get the whole shipment withdrawn from the shelves (even if it's never going to make you ill personally), or to leave it be under the mindset that "hey, I don't have to buy it or eat it, so no problem"?
Posted 06 May 2008 - 15:47
Posted 06 May 2008 - 15:52
Posted 06 May 2008 - 15:57
Posted 06 May 2008 - 15:59
Posted 06 May 2008 - 16:08
Posted 06 May 2008 - 16:28
Originally posted by Locoblade
All this "the greater public good" thing is nonsense IMHO. The wheat field example could equally be a complete housing estate alongside it with several hundred hayfever sufferers, and it be oil seed rape or something else which is not "feeding the nation", but hey ho.
Originally posted by Locoblade
If we take Goodwood as an example again, the noise from the circuit probably affects no more than 50 houses in the area, all which were built in the last 10-15 years and all which were sold in plain view of the circuit. The noise restrictions on the circuit will stop many more people enjoying the circuit than those affected by the noise, so by your reckoning the greater good should prevail and people should be able to enjoy the circuit?
Originally posted by Locoblade
I can happily buzz through towns and villages like Lavant without breaking any laws, yet my car cannot meet the noise requirements for a "quiet" trackday at Goodwood because the restrictions are so tight!
Posted 06 May 2008 - 16:33
Originally posted by Locoblade
A reasonable person wouldnt buy a cheap run-down house in the middle of a crime ridden inner city council estate and expect the environment to be as crime, vandal, and grafitti free as a similar sized house down a country lane in the middle of the countryside, ...
Posted 06 May 2008 - 16:37
Originally posted by Atreiu
So, if F1 adopts a techology which reduces the engine noises to ringtone levels and is not harmful to the environment, will it be able to race and test there at will???
Posted 06 May 2008 - 16:52
Advertisement
Posted 06 May 2008 - 17:34
Posted 06 May 2008 - 17:45
Posted 06 May 2008 - 17:50
Posted 06 May 2008 - 17:51
Originally posted by Locoblade
To make it relevent to this thread, you'd need to buy it knowing full well it will make you ill, eat it, fall ill, then complain about it!
Posted 06 May 2008 - 18:00
The noise potential from a nearby racetrack isn't really top of your priorities.
Posted 06 May 2008 - 18:03
Originally posted by blackhand2010
I realise purists will complain about diluting the sport, but if we thought like that, then F1 drivers would still be wearing silk helmets, driving around the old Nurburgring, at 200mph, in cars barely different from a Lotus 18 (and yes, I know to some that will sound like fun. Hell, it sounds fun to me).
I'm afraid time moves on and we as fans, and the sport, needs to move with it.
Posted 06 May 2008 - 18:15
Originally posted by Spunout
Rich, good points. However...if you plan to buy house near racetrack, I´d say using TV as (only) reference is pretty dumb.
Posted 06 May 2008 - 18:28
Originally posted by Rich
Spoken like a true fan. You know that it's louder than it appears on TV. Why would they think so?
I have taken numerous people shooting. All of them arrive with a perception of how loud handguns are, based on what they have seen on TV. When I hand them the earmuffs, they are like wtf? What do I need these for? I've heard gunshots on TV, and they're not loud.
When they let off their first shot, they suddenly get a new perspective on things.
Posted 06 May 2008 - 18:38
Originally posted by Rich
And if you knew the tin of fish contained botulism, what is your best course of action as a responsible citizen? To try and get the whole shipment withdrawn from the shelves (even if it's never going to make you ill personally), or to leave it be under the mindset that "hey, I don't have to buy it or eat it, so no problem"?
Posted 06 May 2008 - 18:52
Originally posted by Elspeth
It's like buying a house near an airport - the noise is already there. Or like people who build homes next to natural areas and then complain about the coyote eating their poodle.
Posted 06 May 2008 - 19:12
Posted 06 May 2008 - 19:19
Originally posted by Rich
"If you don't like it, move" is not a solution to the world's problems.
Posted 06 May 2008 - 19:52
Originally posted by Rich
Exactly. The first GP I attended at Kyalami, a British pound bought you a pit pass. And a pit pass meant that you could stop and chew the fat with drivers, sit in the cars, etc. My dad sat in the cockpit of Henri Pescarolo's car and took a photo looking over the steering wheel. And that was about ten minutes before Friday practice started. Can you imagine Ron or Norbert letting a casual fan (that they'd never met or even seen before) sit in Lewis' car and fiddle around with the steering wheel ten minutes before a practice session today?
I used to sit on the inside of the barriers at Crowthorne Corner during practice, and watch the drivers' bulging eyes through the visor as they came flying past. Emo Fittipaldi passed so close that I could have leaned out and smacked him on the helmet as he came by. And that's the problem. If fans were allowed that close these days, they would lean out and smack drivers on the helmet as they came past. That is how stupid and irresponsible people have become, and how tightly everything has to be controlled now.
The purist days are long gone. The sport has had to move with the times, and this is just the next step.
Posted 06 May 2008 - 20:09
Originally posted by Rich
So does that mean that if he cannot afford a better house and has to move into the inner city, he should not be allowed to complain to the authorities about the high levels of crime and vandalism, and lobby to have matters improved?
If inner cities are dens of vice and crime, should we just leave them untouched and not do anything about it, under the logic that it's a free country and nobody is forced to live there?
Why can't inner city residents have access to shops and public transport as well as low crime and a clean environment?
Posted 06 May 2008 - 20:27
Posted 06 May 2008 - 20:52
Originally posted by Josta
Sorry, but you are fighting a losing battle here, ...
Posted 06 May 2008 - 21:02
Originally posted by Rich
I'm not fighting any battle, I also wish things didn't have to change. Standing on the old Dunlop bridge over the main straight at Kyalami, and having Chris Amon's V12 Matra come past below at full banshee wail, was one of the most unforgettable experiences of my life. The sonic wave alone almost knocked me over. I had to cling on to the bridge struts for support.
However, that was then and this is now. I also accept that, as thrilling as it was for me as a nine year old back then, it could be equally annoying for someone who had no interest in racing. There are many people for whom racing is nothing more than a criminally dangerous, dirty, loud, polluting, wasteful, oily, smelly pastime practised by grease-smeared boys who never grew up into responsible adults. As wrong as you may consider them to be, you can't stop them having that opinion. And, in today's ultra-environmentally conscious society, you can't stop governments from agreeing with them.
The world is different today. I'm not saying that I applaud councils for slapping restrictions on tracks. I'm just pointing out how civil society and individual rights operate. If you think motorsports can somehow be divorced from the realities of the rest of modern society, then good luck. The ever-increasing restrictions placed on racing circuits should tell you how wrong you are.
Whining about it to a bunch of fellow racing fans isn't going to solve anything. In that sense, Don nailed it. You're preaching to the converted. You need to be convincing councils and governments of your views, not fellow racing fans.
Posted 06 May 2008 - 21:15
Posted 06 May 2008 - 21:33
Originally posted by kismet
In theory, I'm with the "Quit complaining. The track was there first, you should've known what you were getting yourself into" camp. However, a caveat: if the noise levels have gone up drastically - in quality and/or quantity - since new residential areas were built near the track, or people bought their houses, or whatever, then I don't think it's all that unreasonable for pissed off residents to complain about the change in circumstances.
"If you don't like it, move" is not a solution to the world's problems.
The purist days are long gone. The sport has had to move with the times, and this is just the next step.
I've been having second thoughts about it, all the circuit owners would have to do is give the locals some kind of open use of the track when its not in use on specified days
Do people know about it, though? If you're buying right next to the track which is in plain view of the house, fair enough. But if the track is a few streets away, would the average buyer be expected to know:
1) How loud racing is? and
2) How often meetings take place?
Posted 06 May 2008 - 22:02
Originally posted by Rich
I'm not fighting any battle, I also wish things didn't have to change. Standing on the old Dunlop bridge over the main straight at Kyalami, and having Chris Amon's V12 Matra come past below at full banshee wail, was one of the most unforgettable experiences of my life. The sonic wave alone almost knocked me over. I had to cling on to the bridge struts for support.
However, that was then and this is now. I also accept that, as thrilling as it was for me as a nine year old back then, it could be equally annoying for someone who had no interest in racing. There are many people for whom racing is nothing more than a criminally dangerous, dirty, loud, polluting, wasteful, oily, smelly pastime practised by grease-smeared boys who never grew up into responsible adults. As wrong as you may consider them to be, you can't stop them having that opinion. And, in today's ultra-environmentally conscious society, you can't stop governments from agreeing with them.
The world is different today. I'm not saying that I applaud councils for slapping restrictions on tracks. I'm just pointing out how civil society and individual rights operate. If you think motorsports can somehow be divorced from the realities of the rest of modern society, then good luck. The ever-increasing restrictions placed on racing circuits should tell you how wrong you are.
Whining about it to a bunch of fellow racing fans isn't going to solve anything. In that sense, Don nailed it. You're preaching to the converted. You need to be convincing councils and governments of your views, not fellow racing fans.
Advertisement
Posted 06 May 2008 - 22:17
Do people know about it, though? If you're buying right next to the track which is in plain view of the house, fair enough. But if the track is a few streets away, would the average buyer be expected to know:
1) How loud racing is? and
2) How often meetings take place?