Jump to content


Photo

I hate people, Brands Hatch forced to keep quiet...


  • Please log in to reply
99 replies to this topic

#51 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,789 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 06 May 2008 - 11:22

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps


To bug people like yourself.


Ts-ts... is that gentlemanlike?

Live up to your own standards!

Advertisement

#52 Rich

Rich
  • Member

  • 11,918 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 06 May 2008 - 11:40

Originally posted by Fatgadget
Lets face it. When push comes to shove,we are all NIMBYs. ):


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.

This is the age of individual rights, not the age of motor racing history appreciation. You can't expect Joe Sixpack to put up with noise if he has no interest in the sport. Your passion for racing is not his concern, just as his passion for loud rave music is not your concern.

I love shooting as a hobby. I would love to set up a range in my backyard and fire off black powder muskets or target pistols to my heart's content. But I can understand why others in the neighbourhood wouldn't want me to do it, and why the law forbids me from doing it.

Likewise, I love fireworks. Every 5 Nov, I'd love to have a huge, bright and ultra-loud display in my garden. But I can understand why the SPCA is dead set against it, and why councils here have forbidden it.

It's not a question of who was there first. I was smoking in my local pub long before anti-smoking legislation came into being. That doesn't cut much ice with the people who make the laws. The common good is their concern, not who was doing what first.

Similarly, if they build a new housing estate on the shores of a lake, and residents get sick from pollution caused by a nearby factory dumping toxic pollutants into the water, the factory isn't exempt from liability simply because they were there first. Again, the common good is the final arbiter.

Yes, motor racing brings money into an area. But so does a factory that pollutes. Yes, motor racing is part of history. But so is Guy Fawkes Day. Motor racing is not going to get hit any more or any less than any other activity that is deemed to create an environmental hazard such as noise pollution. They'll cut airports and motorways some slack, because it is widely recognised that an orderly society requires mass transportation systems in order to function effectively. Motor racing, unfortunately, is a complete luxury, so there is no 'necessary evil' argument for exemption.

It's a problem that the sport is going to face more and more as time wears on. I'm not sure how they're going to deal with it, tbh. I might not like it, but I can certainly understand it. As Fatgadget says, we're all NIMBYs. If I was willing to put up with noise pollution to accommodate other people's interests, I'd expect others to accommodate my interests. But I'm not willing to do that. And 99% of the populace feels the same way. So there you go.

#53 Uwe

Uwe
  • Member

  • 706 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 06 May 2008 - 11:40

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
To bug people like yourself.

You can't bug me by reading this thread. You can't even bug me by writing in this thread.

Live up to your own standards!

Mr. Capps had those standards some time ago but he seems to have forgotten about them. Sad indeed.

#54 roadie

roadie
  • Member

  • 1,844 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 06 May 2008 - 11:41

I am looking at Brands Hatch on Google Maps at the moment, and there are houses within 20m of the GP circuit and 100m or so of the final bend. That's just silly really.

To those comparing tracks to airports, I don't think it is a fair comparison at all. Plane approaches vary with wind direction and the noise of jet engines overhead are not obscured by trees, buildings etc. like the noise coming from a track would be.

#55 Rich

Rich
  • Member

  • 11,918 posts
  • Joined: May 99

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.


Indeed. Air travel is essential to global trade, motor racing isn't. That is going to be the deciding factor.

#56 OssieFan

OssieFan
  • Member

  • 830 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 06 May 2008 - 12:43

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! :stoned:

#57 Josta

Josta
  • Member

  • 2,237 posts
  • Joined: October 07

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! :stoned:


No, the best approach is to go to each and every home nearby, and threaten to blow up their house if they object to the circuit. Sometimes a little bit of gangsterish intimidation can go a long way :D

#58 Dudley

Dudley
  • Member

  • 9,245 posts
  • Joined: March 00

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.


The difference is still, very simply, who was there first.

If they'd been playing rave music for 50 years you can't just move in there and stop them.

It's not a question of who was there first.


Of course it is. The pub analogy you use is stupid at best.

#59 Rich

Rich
  • Member

  • 11,918 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 06 May 2008 - 13:25

Originally posted by Dudley


The difference is still, very simply, who was there first.


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.

Originally posted by Dudley
If they'd been playing rave music for 50 years you can't just move in there and stop them.


You can. Refer Ossiefan's post about city live music venues being restricted or shut down. Again, the final arbiter is the common good, not who was there first. If a venue is creating what is deemed to be a public noise disturbance in a residential area, it will be restricted, whether it has been there since Shakespeare's time or not.

Advertisement

#60 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 2,113 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 06 May 2008 - 13:27

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.


#61 Maldwyn

Maldwyn
  • Member

  • 1,486 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 06 May 2008 - 13:42

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.

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.

However, you're right that times move on. You only have to look at the location of the likes of the Losail circuit in Qatar to see the direction they are moving in.

#62 Dudley

Dudley
  • Member

  • 9,245 posts
  • Joined: March 00

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.


And if they move in, with full knowledge the circuit is there, then complain. I have every right to consider them selfish, profiteering ****s.

The fact that a couple of people would defend them, on a motor racing board is mind boggling. If Brands constantly held 24hr events maybe I'd start to see it but they don't, they're always stopped earlyish anyway and only 1 in about 4 weekends is there anything more than road level noise anyway.

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.


And if a bit of noise that never went on late at night remotely compared to either you might have a point.

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. 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.

#63 Locoblade

Locoblade
  • Member

  • 99 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 06 May 2008 - 14:13

Rich

Your polluting the lake analogy is not really a good one IMHO, because waste discharge into waterways is a highly regulated thing. Either the factory is abiding by the law and dischaging within their limits (in which case they can carry on), or they aren't in which case they will get pummeled from a great height by the environment agency etc because they are clearly breaking the law.

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. In these circumstances there has to be some kind of prescedent whereby if the "polluter" is there first, new residents should not be able to complain about it assuming it doesn't get worse. 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? 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?

I know certain NIMBYs would contemplate complaining about all those things, but I don't think it should be entertained because if they didn't know of the "polluter's" existence before moving in or didn't take it into consideration, then they didn't sufficiently research their purchase so tough luck IMHO.

As a trackdayer in the UK, Im all too well aware of the noise pollution issue threatening the vast majority of our circuits, and virtually all of them seem to be having ever tightening restrictions on how much noise they can make. Donington as mentioned above is a prime example, which is right at the end of East Midlands Airport runway. You have 747's etc screaming overhead at very low altitude, yet the NIMBYs have targetted the circuit (because its an easy target) to the extent now that its one of the most restricted circuits in the UK for noise. Goodwood is another good example, the circuit has been there for 60+ years and has an active airfield in the middle with planes taking off fairly regularly, yet within a few years of a new housing estate being built in Lavant, the circuit is now restricted by the council to only a handful of "loud" days per year and has many restrictions on the number of cars on track at any one time, with several noise meters installed by the council around the perimeter to ensure it adheres to these restrictions.

#64 Rich

Rich
  • Member

  • 11,918 posts
  • Joined: May 99

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.


It might be "a bit of noise" to you because you are accustomed to it. The racing I have seen tends to be pretty loud. When the F1 cars tested at Kyalami, my brother could hear it from his house some 10km away. You can be darn sure that if my brother played his music so that people at Kyalami could hear it (however faintly), the cops would be knocking on his door in five minutes flat - even if it was in the middle of the day.

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.


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?

In any orderly society, minimum standards must apply. Tinned fish from Tesco should never make you ill, even if they give it away for free or even pay you to take it. If a landowner offers you a house in an area that he knows to be polluted with hazardous waste, he is not offering you "a fair deal, considering how cheaply you're getting the house". He is displaying criminal negligence. He is the one who is profiteering, not you.

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.


How do you know they all want to sell their houses off? Maybe they just want a neighbourhood that enjoys the same peace and quiet (and the same land values, incidentally) as neighbourhoods that don't have a racing circuit nearby?

Nobody's lives or livelihoods need to be ruined. It is entirely possible to have racing machinery that makes much less noise. Of course, it would be a compromise that would disappoint the purists. But the ban on private fireworks displays also disappointed fireworks fanatics. Welcome to the age of civil liberties, where other people's rights need to be upheld too. It's the price of progress and human rights. Motorsports has to live with it and adapt.

#65 Josta

Josta
  • Member

  • 2,237 posts
  • Joined: October 07

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?



That analogy would only hold true if you KNEW that the tin of fish was half price because it contained botulism. When these people bought their houses, they knew it was next to a race track which would be noisy, but chose to buy anyway because it was cheap.

#66 Rich

Rich
  • Member

  • 11,918 posts
  • Joined: May 99

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.


And who makes that judgement? If the police knock on your door and tell you to turn the music down because your neighbours have complained, what are you going to do? Challenge them to produce decibel meter readings?

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?


Yes. Johannesburg used to suffer the occasional 'rotten egg' sulphur smell from Sasol's coal gasification plant at Secunda. Sasol is a key strategic entity for the country, their operations are deemed to be in the national interest. That doesn't mean that a city of 3 million people have to walk around holding their noses and grimacing when the wind blows in the wrong direction.

They couldn't shut Sasol down and they couldn't shut Joburg residents up. So they adopted a compromise, did several studies, and found out that inserting a certain type of anaerobic bacteria into the sulphur ponds at Sasol completely eradicated the whiff. Win-win.

Nobody lost their jobs, Sasol's production output wasn't compromised, everybody is happy again. If the people of Joburg had just accepted that Sasol's operations caused the occasional odour, nothing would ever have been done about it and we'd still be suffering from it.

Sometimes, complaining is the first step towards progress. In fact, complaining is almost always the first step towards progress. Do you think we'd have restricted public smoking now if nobody had ever complained about it?

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?


Which is more relevant in terms of the public good and the national interest - a farmer producing food to feed the nation, or you not suffering from hayfever?

#67 Rich

Rich
  • Member

  • 11,918 posts
  • Joined: May 99

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.


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"?

#68 djellison

djellison
  • Member

  • 1,726 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 06 May 2008 - 15:42

I'm reminded of the complaint phone call I took whilst in the office of a gliding club playing host to a large gliding competition. There was a lot of light aircraft activity (for which full planning permission had been applied for and approved). I guy phoned up moaning about the noise. The usual response is to offer a free glider flight and an invite to see the racing finish of the gliding competition as a sort of appeasement. On taking his address.. 'Airfield Cottage' - I could barely contain my laughter.

You live next to a circuit, you expect noise. You live next to an airport, you expect noise. You live next to the coast, you expect waves. You live on a hill, you expect wind. You live in a city, you expect car horns. You live in the country, you expect the smell of cow poo. Don't like it....move.

Doug

#69 Locoblade

Locoblade
  • Member

  • 99 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 06 May 2008 - 15:45

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.

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. Of those, probably less than 10 actually complained about the noise but it was enough for the council to act. The noise restrictions now applied 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?

The comment about Kyalami is a valid one, but we're not talking about running unsilenced F1 cars at any of these venues. My kit car meets noise requirements for the road and 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!

#70 Locoblade

Locoblade
  • Member

  • 99 posts
  • Joined: April 06

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"?


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! :wave:

#71 Rich

Rich
  • Member

  • 11,918 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 06 May 2008 - 15:47

You live in the south-eastern United States, expect hurricanes. That doesn't stop everybody and his dog tearing Bush a new one for not doing enough about it - before and after Katrina.

"If you don't like it, move" is not a solution to the world's problems. There are millions of starving and penniless Zimbabweans who don't like Robert Mugabe's leadership. You want them to move, fine. Is your country going to accept them?

#72 Locoblade

Locoblade
  • Member

  • 99 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 06 May 2008 - 15:52

People who live in Zimbabwe don't necessarily have a choice where they live. People who buy a house alongside a race track do. :drunk:

#73 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 10,074 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 06 May 2008 - 15:57

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???

#74 Locoblade

Locoblade
  • Member

  • 99 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 06 May 2008 - 15:59

Anyhow, its not a case of "don't like it then move", its a case of "don't like it then don't buy a house there!".

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, just as the person buying the country house wouldn't expect to be as close to the shops and have as good access to public transport as the house in the city. At the end of the day, the world isn't perfect, wherever you live you have to accept certain pitfalls in the location, so why should this be any different for those moving in next to race circuits!

#75 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 2,113 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 06 May 2008 - 16:08

@ Atreiu . Yep. I guess that is how things will go. I was watching a Prius gliding down the road the other day eerily silent. :eek: The omens are we all have to get used to it.

#76 Rich

Rich
  • Member

  • 11,918 posts
  • Joined: May 99

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.


Then it is up to the local council to decide what is more important to them - the farm or the housing estate. That is the basis of democratic politics. Society must deal with conflicts of interest in an equitable manner, and one which will appeal to the majority of their voters.

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?


Loud noise is not classified as being essential to good health, not by any health agency. I'm pretty sure that the experts will tell you that loud noise is a stressor that can affect wellbeing. So satisfying racing fans' desire for loud noise is not inherently healthy. In the same way that satisfying an alcoholic's craving for alcohol is not necessarily healthy. It may make him happy. But that doesn't mean that it is in the public good.

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!


And the more aggressive racing fans become in their reaction to broader society on the noise issue, the more restrictive those limits will become. You might feel that calling them profiteering morons will make them see your side of the story and give in to your interests. But I wouldn't count on it.

Regardless of what names people can think up for the complaining brigade, it's not going to change some facts: they're still not going to like loud noises, they're still not going to accept them, and they're still going to complain about them. And the nanny state/Commie/terrorist-supporting/right-wing religious nutjob/radical Green/neocon/corrupt and incompetent/US puppet [delete whichever is not applicable] government is going to agree with them. And you will get regulated and restricted.

That is the reality, and no amount of whining or name-calling will change it. Now racing has to deal with it.

#77 Rich

Rich
  • Member

  • 11,918 posts
  • Joined: May 99

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, ...


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?

#78 Rich

Rich
  • Member

  • 11,918 posts
  • Joined: May 99

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???


I don't see why not.

Unless society determines that racing is too dangerous and that participants should not be allowed to do it, even if they volunteer of their own free will. I believe some posters here will point you to the Spanner case as a precedent.

#79 kismet

kismet
  • Member

  • 7,068 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 06 May 2008 - 16:52

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.

Advertisement

#80 Elspeth

Elspeth
  • Member

  • 2,733 posts
  • Joined: July 99

Posted 06 May 2008 - 17:34

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.

#81 fer312t

fer312t
  • Member

  • 817 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 06 May 2008 - 17:45

I'd pay to have racecar noises wafting through my backyard...

This kind of stuff is always very depressing to hear...

#82 blackhand2010

blackhand2010
  • Member

  • 293 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 06 May 2008 - 17:50

As was mentioned above, it's perception. People know they need/want air travel for their own purposes or those of their country.
However, racing could be percieved to be a rich mans (or womans) hobby which is nothing but a noise nuisance and an air polluter. After all, they just go round in circles, don't they? (I'm playing Devil's Advocate, btw).
I think silencers is probably the only way to go. I haven't heard them myself, but I've read the Le Mans diesel cars are particularly quiet, so perhaps that's the way other engine formulas need to go.
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.

#83 Rich

Rich
  • Member

  • 11,918 posts
  • Joined: May 99

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! :wave:


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?

We know because we are fans. But the average person who has not attended a Grand Prix or even a race meeting in person will always be surprised at how loud it is. If TV is their only reference, it can be very misleading. Try shooting a handgun or rifle, then see if you think that TV movies do justice to how loud it is when it is actually in your hands.

It wouldn't surprise me if many buyers were aware that a track was nearby. But, unless a meeting was in full swing when they went to inspect the house before buying, they'd probably be surprised by the noise levels. For most people who aren't fans, 'motor racing' is something that happens once a year when the Grand Prix rolls around. And very few would be anything other than completely startled if you stood them next to a racing car and then cranked it up. They just don't expect it to be that loud.

You have a million things to think of when inspecting a house before buying. The noise potential from a nearby racetrack isn't really top of your priorities. And you can bet your bottom dollar that estate agents don't mention it unless the potential buyer asks specifically.

#84 Spunout

Spunout
  • Member

  • 12,351 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 06 May 2008 - 18:00

Rich, good points. However...if you plan to buy house near racetrack, I´d say using TV as (only) reference is pretty dumb. All these people have to do is check out when race is on, and walk around their future estate. Takes something like 15 minutes of their time, before spending huge pile of money for place they´ll call home for years or decades.

It really isn´t too much to ask IMHO.

The noise potential from a nearby racetrack isn't really top of your priorities.



Hmm...I have to disagree. In this case it is - or should be - top priority :)

#85 Rich

Rich
  • Member

  • 11,918 posts
  • Joined: May 99

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.


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.

#86 Rich

Rich
  • Member

  • 11,918 posts
  • Joined: May 99

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.


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.

#87 Spunout

Spunout
  • Member

  • 12,351 posts
  • Joined: April 01

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.


Hmm. While I cannot call shooting my "hobby", I have fair experience of it. Almost without exception first-timers are smart enough to use earplugs - and the exceptions are young boys who want to play tuff. So my experiences are very different from yours. This applies to shooting courses, casual hunting and Finnish Army.

I do understand your point; not all people are F1 fans or Sunday racers. Nevertheless, I cannot imagine anobody I know buying house near major race track without checking out how loud it really is. Or maybe I´m getting old? Perhaps young couples of 2008 assume they don´t have to know or think anything unless it´s on TV.

It could also be Finland is last safe haven for common sense :)

#88 Josta

Josta
  • Member

  • 2,237 posts
  • Joined: October 07

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"?


So you are suggesting that people who live nowhere near, nor have any intention of living anywhere near a track, should complain about the noise for the good of the people who bought their houses knowing that noise would be a problem? Sorry, but you are fighting a losing battle here, and sounding increasingly rediculous.

#89 Spunout

Spunout
  • Member

  • 12,351 posts
  • Joined: April 01

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.


Exactly. I have no idea where this "tin of fish & botulism" scenario came from. 100% of the adult people I know are well aware of the fact that aeroplanes, handguns, airports and race cars are loud.

If you buy house near airport, train station or race track...yep, be prepared to deal with noise. Where the hell these places are supposed to exist anyway, if any citizen can have them closed down because he/she didn´t know? If you spill hot coffee on your pants...guess what, it´s actually hot. Don´t fall from 5-meter ladder of put your cat in microwave oven. I am wondering how these people (who move close to well known race track and complain about noise) manage to tie their shoelaces? I guess they fail to do it, trip and sue everybody for the fact that their new Adidas sports thingies didn´t have at least 20 warning stickers. How could they know? Stuff like that never happens on TV.

#90 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 2,113 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 06 May 2008 - 19:12

30 year ago there was no such thing as 'acceptable noise levels' Race cars didnt have silencers.Hell if you mentioned race car and silencer in the same sentence you would have been derided.Those days are long gone and people that hanker for them will like dinosaurs and dodos soon be extinct. The future is less noise,less fuel consumption, environmental friendliness, better start getting used to it.

#91 djellison

djellison
  • Member

  • 1,726 posts
  • Joined: September 04

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.



Yes - because the noise from a race circuit annoying someone idiotic enough to move next to a race circuit if they don't like the sound of cars...is a real 'world problem'.

Doug

#92 Two Jags

Two Jags
  • Member

  • 75 posts
  • Joined: March 00

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.


That is such a good post - reminds me so much of how I came to love this sport :up:

#93 Locoblade

Locoblade
  • Member

  • 99 posts
  • Joined: April 06

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?


Of course it doesn't mean they don't have the right to complain about it and Im not saying nothing should be done about it, but the difference is regardless of how many people protested, its unlikely the council would do anything about it. In contrast, with many cases like Castle Coome for example, it appears that it only takes a handful of NIMBYs to complain in order to get the council jumping up and down in agreement, even if the majority of the locals do not actually support the complaint! I guess what Im getting around to is that its not just the NIMBYs that are to blame, its the councils for entertaining the complaints seemingly regardless of how many people it actually effects, and how many people actually complain. IF (its a big IF) the majority of the surrounding population agrees, and IF (another big IF) they have no real vested interest in getting the noise lowered (to increase house value etc) then fair enough, but from what Ive seen, that very often is not the case at all.

The trouble is, motorsport, track driving and indeed driving as a whole has become an easy target for the increasingly environmental biased (and often misguided) government policies, if its not the noise then they'll start using the polluting motor vehicle argument too, so despite trackdays/racing almost certainly having a positive effect on the way many people drive / ride (no longer looking for their thrills on the road and throwing themselves at the roadside scenery) and is an activity that has most likely saved lives indirectly because of that, councils refuse to take their blinkers off and just see the noisy racetrack as an opportunity to weild the environmental axe without recrimination and jump on the circuits like a ton of bricks.

I don't disagree that times are changing and we all have to adapt to a certain degree, but the track noise issue has been taken far too far. I can completely understand the desire to prevent unsilenced 130db race cars from running all day every day because they would certainly be a nuisance to many, and Im sure even the most enthusiastic of track owners would agree, but we're not talking anything like F1 levels of noise here. In many cases completely standard road cars can't be used on certain UK circuits because they're too noisy! Surely that says that either the road legal noise limit is far too high, or councils are over-reacting when looking at circuit noise levels.

#94 philhitchings

philhitchings
  • Member

  • 18,239 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 06 May 2008 - 20:27

Dr. J. is trying to maintain the circuit to keep racing going at one of the best places to watch racing in the world.

MSV have reduced the number of GP events to a very small number each year; this reduces the proximity of cars and bikes passing so close to the residential part of West Kingsdown. They still manage to put on over 30 weekends per season to provide racing for the racers and entertainment for the fans.

One of the biggest issues the village residents face is the continued disturbance of traffic to and fro from the track. I live relatively close to the circuit, 10 mins or so by car. However some weekends it can take me a hell of a lot longer to get in let alone get out of the track. I know people who live in West Kingsdown and they have said for the headline events WSBK A1GP BSB BTCC etc. they move out for the weekend. I even camp for the biggies as it's such an irritation to get in and out of the place!!

The reason people do leave the area for a few days each year isn't because they don't like the circuit, they simply want to be able to have a normal weekend. Heck, I see some of them using their free passes to go see the "less busy" club events. It's the difficulty ingetting back and forth that annoys them.

I agree that newbies to the area are often naiive to the real disturbance that living in the area can cause. I don't condone them when they wake up for the 10th weekend in a row and say "That's it I want this to stop!" however I can understand people who think "It'll be ok, I like watching on TV" then realise how much more live sound is.

I also accept that the race fans need to bite the bullet on this and accept that to still have 90+ days of race action a year at Brands, not to mention track days, tests etc. requires a certain element of negotiation with the locals residents. Church on Sunday, end of racing by a set time, Silence during the Rememberance ceremony each armistice weekend makes a difference. Free passes to locals, extra events just for them also helps. I see this as part of the next step.


I don't want to see guys and gals racing each weekend with heavily silenced cars and bikes. However, I'd much rather see racing than none at all, which if the die hards have their way is possibly going to be the case.

One final point to make (ATM) DR. J. may be using the "contact us" if you want to complain about the noise, is also saying, OK! we'll keep a record of all the complaints you make and at the end of the season we'll have evidence to do a detailed analysis. It might turn out that there are 3 people complaining each weekend, they just happen to complain 27 times a day. Alternatively, they might find that they get 27 complaints 3 times a weekend. Either way, I'm sure it will influence the future for Brands, and their relationship with the community and the local politicos.


.... finger crossed!

#95 Rich

Rich
  • Member

  • 11,918 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 06 May 2008 - 20:52

Originally posted by Josta
Sorry, but you are fighting a losing battle here, ...


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.

#96 Josta

Josta
  • Member

  • 2,237 posts
  • Joined: October 07

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.


Once again, all of that is fine, but if you think that way, you DON'T BUY A HOUSE NEXT TO A TRACK. Quite simple really. When you buy a house next to a race track, you KNOW IT WILL BE NOISY!! If you don't like the noise of a track, then quite simply don't buy a house next to a race track.

I live next to a train station, and about 10 miles away from Zurich Airport. I knew it would be noisy, but I didn't give a crap which is why I got the house. It is enourmous for the price because the Swiss don't like noise. The idea of me suddenly complaining about the noise that I knew would exist before I moved in is rediculous. I just have very good double glazing.

At the end of the day there exists choice. If you want a quiet location, you buy a house in a quiet location. If someone decides to build a race track in that quiet location then you have every reason to complain. If you buy a house that is built next to a noisy race track, train station, airport or anything else noisy, then it is your own problem for buying it in the first place.

#97 Juan Kerr

Juan Kerr
  • Member

  • 2,685 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 06 May 2008 - 21:15

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 or let them suggest 2 relatives or friends and there will be too much pressure on them then from racing fans within their own circles to object.
There is a certain amount of control over the situation involving the track owners, its not out of their hands.

#98 Dudley

Dudley
  • Member

  • 9,245 posts
  • Joined: March 00

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.


At Brands it hasn't. 20 years ago they had F1, nothing currently that loud runs on the GP loop (which is the one with the houses). The nearest would be A1GP, which runs for a total of about 5 hours a year.

"If you don't like it, move" is not a solution to the world's problems.


It isn't. "If you don't like it, don't deliberately move closer to it" is a pretty good start though.

The purist days are long gone. The sport has had to move with the times, and this is just the next step.


And that future is in places like Bahrain, not here.

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


Good thinking, but if the complaining selfish ***** cared in the slightest about an offer like that, they wouldn't be the kind of people complaining about the noise in the first place.

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?


Anyone that doesn't undertake the most basic of research before making the biggest purchasing decision of their lives is too stupid to live, let alone be pitied for the results of their lazyness.

#99 Spunout

Spunout
  • Member

  • 12,351 posts
  • Joined: April 01

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.


Personally, I didn´t participate this discussion to "make a difference" or anything like that.

I gave an opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. In most countries, There is enough room for everyone. If you move close to race track, there will be noise. If there are people who don´t get it, I cannot see them being intelligent enough to open doors let alone picking up their cell phones to complain about Brands Hatch. I know we live in an era when people aren´t supposed to understand anything unless it´s printed on dozen warning stickers or advertised in TV (preferably Oprah or Dr. Phil), but still...I´d like to live in this illusion that some degree of common sense exists. Somewhere.

When it comes to reality, local councils demand less noise. Why? Because they can. Not because the houses lacked 200 warning stickers saying "Race Tracks Can Generate Annoying Noise"...simply because they represent the politically correct, nice working citizens group vs evil racers who destroy the planet with evil race cars.

It is pretty easy to guess who wins this battle.

Advertisement

#100 Spunout

Spunout
  • Member

  • 12,351 posts
  • Joined: April 01

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?


In this case (Brands Hatch is major track), average buyer should know or find out (!!!) about these things. We are talking about something like one hour of their time. If that is too much to ask, there is no way such people can survive in their own house. They need to buy groceries, wash up laundry, fix some stuff, and so on. All far too challenging tasks for residents who cannot figure out the connection between race tracks and noise.