answered question
-1
Votes
Votes
10
Answers
Answers
M$1.00
What possible justification is there for legal Auto Racing in the the 21st century?
Auto racing wastes fuel, encourages bad driving habits, and even sometimes kills or maims participants and spectators. Shouldn't auto racing be made illegal, just as the past barbaric sports of dog fighting, cock fighting, fox hunting, etc have been? The best arguments for banning auto racing or not banning auto racing will be the best answer. Take one side only.
answers (9)
Well "Auto Racing" is much too broad. So I'm going to just defend F1/Indycar.
F1/Indycar racing is the equivalent of NASA. On the surface it wastes fuel, and even sometimes kills or maims participants and spectators. But the innovations that come out of it more than justify the risk and expense. Some would argue they didn't create anything and they may have not been the originator of things like anti-lock breaks. But they did perfect them.
Tire pressure sensors, crumple zones, tire tread compounds, on board sensor technology, traction control, and active suspension on cars are just a few things that auto racing has created/perfected. And that's just on the car itself. Then you have things like barrier design on tracks for reducing crash impacts and road surface design.
I say this and I don't even like auto racing. It's loud and mostly boring to watch. Competition between car companies on the performance side has spurred innovation and made safer, fuel efficient, and reliable vehicles both on the track and at your house. In the case of road design they have helped make safer roads and ones that last longer.
F1/Indycar racing is the equivalent of NASA. On the surface it wastes fuel, and even sometimes kills or maims participants and spectators. But the innovations that come out of it more than justify the risk and expense. Some would argue they didn't create anything and they may have not been the originator of things like anti-lock breaks. But they did perfect them.
Tire pressure sensors, crumple zones, tire tread compounds, on board sensor technology, traction control, and active suspension on cars are just a few things that auto racing has created/perfected. And that's just on the car itself. Then you have things like barrier design on tracks for reducing crash impacts and road surface design.
I say this and I don't even like auto racing. It's loud and mostly boring to watch. Competition between car companies on the performance side has spurred innovation and made safer, fuel efficient, and reliable vehicles both on the track and at your house. In the case of road design they have helped make safer roads and ones that last longer.
source(s):
http://www.motorsportsetc.com/info/f1_innov.htm
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/82941-has-formula-one-ever-originated-an...
Last section of this article "Active everything" http://cars.uk.msn.com/News/Top_ten_article.aspx?cp-documentid=580071
Probably the best one talking about everything that has been tried or tested in F1 http://www.globalmotorsport.net/f1/car-histories/
http://www.motorsportsetc.com/info/f1_innov.htm
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/82941-has-formula-one-ever-originated-an...
Last section of this article "Active everything" http://cars.uk.msn.com/News/Top_ten_article.aspx?cp-documentid=580071
Probably the best one talking about everything that has been tried or tested in F1 http://www.globalmotorsport.net/f1/car-histories/
| Asker's rating: |
The sources seem to be discussing whether F1 really introduced innovations or not, and are biased motor sports publications rather than university or traffic safety ones. I am not convinced. But your answer was better than the others, which seemed to be trying to prove stereotypes by example.
I think all the fuel wasted by all auto racing everywhere in the world today can't exceed the waste of human life energy and natural resources perpetuated by the bureaucracy that is the United States Government.
Hide
Coming from a very American conservative viewpoint, things don't need a justification to be legal. Rather a justification must be made to render them illegal. The government should step in only when the sport's existence violates the rights of the public to a greater degree than the rights of advocates of the sport would be violated by it's being banned.
1. Waste - All sports waste something if only space and time
2. Bad driving habits - This is why in most countries racing is allowed only on designated tracks and is otherwise prohibited. (The public safety overwhelmed the right to race anywhere at any time)
3. Danger - believe it or not people have a right to place themselves in danger in the course of doing something. All sports are dangerous. Walking out of your front door incurs a certain amount of danger. However, in the case of sports being placed in danger is voluntary, you don't have to race or go watch it.
I find racing to be boring, but I can see no reason to call it barbaric.
1. Waste - All sports waste something if only space and time
2. Bad driving habits - This is why in most countries racing is allowed only on designated tracks and is otherwise prohibited. (The public safety overwhelmed the right to race anywhere at any time)
3. Danger - believe it or not people have a right to place themselves in danger in the course of doing something. All sports are dangerous. Walking out of your front door incurs a certain amount of danger. However, in the case of sports being placed in danger is voluntary, you don't have to race or go watch it.
I find racing to be boring, but I can see no reason to call it barbaric.
Your question assumes that things need to be "justified" by more than the market for entertainment. I'm not sure if you apply that measure to all forms of entertainment (reality shows) or just those you deem barbaric (as per your list). If "barbaric" is you standard, then the list you provide has this in common: unwilling animals/participants are raised and trained in order to kill/harm each other. Fox hunting doesn't meet this criteria, on the other hand I don't believe it has been made illegal, certainly not in Virginia.
Anyway, auto racing does not share these qualities. The participants are more than willing, and are paid well. The purpose is certainly not to harm or kill anyone. There are many other activities that are wasteful in the other ways you describe, but probably wouldn't make your list of "barbaric sports". Swimming leads to many deaths every year (over 800,000 according to the link below). Swimming pools are wasteful uses of water, and environmentally problematic as well. Maintaining beaches certainly interferes with the natural course of the environment. Then there's all the destruction to coral reefs, etc. Many other sports and activities would show similar problems.
Anyway, auto racing does not share these qualities. The participants are more than willing, and are paid well. The purpose is certainly not to harm or kill anyone. There are many other activities that are wasteful in the other ways you describe, but probably wouldn't make your list of "barbaric sports". Swimming leads to many deaths every year (over 800,000 according to the link below). Swimming pools are wasteful uses of water, and environmentally problematic as well. Maintaining beaches certainly interferes with the natural course of the environment. Then there's all the destruction to coral reefs, etc. Many other sports and activities would show similar problems.
It is hard to tell what kind of reaction or response you were looking to generate with your own predetermined answer to your "question", but your assumptions are simply wrong.
Racing, as all sports, is justified purely through the entertainment value it provides spectators and the enjoyment it provides participants. Even if absolutely no one paid to see racing, it would still take place.
The amount of fuel consumed during a race is minuscule compared to the fuel used to transport any sports team (including racing) to the various venues. How many football (soccer) teams are, at this very moment, flying across continents for matches?
I cannot think of an athletic contest where the participants are not in physical danger of some sort, very often it can be lethal. Anyone serious about auto racing spends as much money on safety equipment and preparation as they probably do on any other single element. Starting with the car design and ending with the crews at the event. Nothing is overlooked and racing vehicles experience far, far fewer deaths per mile traveled than any road going vehicle. As for participants, I am positive that over any 5 year period of time, more fans are killed by idiots football matches than at an auto racing venue.
Finally you say it promotes "bad driving habits". If you mean that precision car control, situational awareness and practiced reflexes are "bad" then I suppose we have nothing to talk about. These athletes are symphony conductors on a razors edge of control, completely focused on what they are doing. Think about that the next time you are eating your pastry and dreaming about your weekend on the commute to work. Every driver in the world could learn many good habits from racing drivers.
Racing, as all sports, is justified purely through the entertainment value it provides spectators and the enjoyment it provides participants. Even if absolutely no one paid to see racing, it would still take place.
The amount of fuel consumed during a race is minuscule compared to the fuel used to transport any sports team (including racing) to the various venues. How many football (soccer) teams are, at this very moment, flying across continents for matches?
I cannot think of an athletic contest where the participants are not in physical danger of some sort, very often it can be lethal. Anyone serious about auto racing spends as much money on safety equipment and preparation as they probably do on any other single element. Starting with the car design and ending with the crews at the event. Nothing is overlooked and racing vehicles experience far, far fewer deaths per mile traveled than any road going vehicle. As for participants, I am positive that over any 5 year period of time, more fans are killed by idiots football matches than at an auto racing venue.
Finally you say it promotes "bad driving habits". If you mean that precision car control, situational awareness and practiced reflexes are "bad" then I suppose we have nothing to talk about. These athletes are symphony conductors on a razors edge of control, completely focused on what they are doing. Think about that the next time you are eating your pastry and dreaming about your weekend on the commute to work. Every driver in the world could learn many good habits from racing drivers.
By promoting "bad driving habits" I meant that it encourages the audience to value fast driving and passing and changing lanes, as opposed, for example, to a contest to get the best mileage. This encourages many in the general populace to drive too fast. That causes fuel waste, deaths, and injury several orders of magnitude greater than what happens at the tracks.
Entertainment value is a justification but it can be trumped, otherwise we would still have gladiator fights to the death.
I asked the question in part to see if someone would present justifications supported by sources that would either support or trump my personal opinions. For example, there could be surveys out there that show whether or not people who watch auto racing regularly drive better or worse than people who don't. I see a lot of NASCAR stickers on the cars of folks driving like maniacs during my commute; but, that's only anecdotal evidence.
Entertainment value is a justification but it can be trumped, otherwise we would still have gladiator fights to the death.
I asked the question in part to see if someone would present justifications supported by sources that would either support or trump my personal opinions. For example, there could be surveys out there that show whether or not people who watch auto racing regularly drive better or worse than people who don't. I see a lot of NASCAR stickers on the cars of folks driving like maniacs during my commute; but, that's only anecdotal evidence.
Most major racing formulas today already include a fuel consumption component. In some cases it is a maximum amount of fuel allowed for the given distance and in others it is a tank capacity which penalizes consumption by requiring additional stops. These engines need to, in fact, be far more "efficient" than road going engines when efficiency is considered in a broader context including weight, package size, power requirements, etc.
I see a lot of Obama stickers on the cars of folks driving like maniacs during MY commute, but that is also only anecdotal and to imply causality is reckless.
Gladiators were slaves. This is a straw man argument.
I see a lot of Obama stickers on the cars of folks driving like maniacs during MY commute, but that is also only anecdotal and to imply causality is reckless.
Gladiators were slaves. This is a straw man argument.
Auto Racing should be kept because it keeps getting safety advancements. Those safety advancements are then put on highways and help people stay alive. Banning auto racing is like banning football for giving people long term injuries.
Give an example, with sources.
Football has produced safety items like helmets and padding; but, no one wears them except while playing football. How do race car safety inventions, if any, help passenger cars?
Auto racing seems to me to just invent ways to go faster (followed by banning the improvements as unfair).
Football has produced safety items like helmets and padding; but, no one wears them except while playing football. How do race car safety inventions, if any, help passenger cars?
Auto racing seems to me to just invent ways to go faster (followed by banning the improvements as unfair).
There are these special safety walls
So instead of simply giving money to the auto industry to develop new safety technology to save lives, we'll risk peoples lives and waste oil like there's no tomorrow? Sorry, but racing to get technological improvement is like killing humans with ebola to develop immunity to it.
No, it most certainly should not.
The fuel is not "wasted". It is used for exactly the purpose the people or companies that bought it intended it to be used for. I don't want ANY piece of government telling me what I can and can't spend my money on, or what I can and can't do with products that I've spent my money on.
Racers know what they're getting into. The government does not have a right to "protect me from myself" at the expense of my free will and decision-making.
Spectators who sit in the green middle know what they're getting into, and sign a waiver to prove it. See above.
Cockfights and Dogfights are banned to protect those who CANNOT protect themselves, due to less intelligence and less rights. Human being who CHOOSE not protect themselves by engaging in potentially unsafe activities are not subject to government oversight of their decisions.
Following your logic, all of the following should be outlawed:
* Vacation travel - the fuel is "wasted" and not serving a purpose
* Fast food - it kills people
* Movies and TV shows- they frequently show people with bad driving habbits
The fuel is not "wasted". It is used for exactly the purpose the people or companies that bought it intended it to be used for. I don't want ANY piece of government telling me what I can and can't spend my money on, or what I can and can't do with products that I've spent my money on.
Racers know what they're getting into. The government does not have a right to "protect me from myself" at the expense of my free will and decision-making.
Spectators who sit in the green middle know what they're getting into, and sign a waiver to prove it. See above.
Cockfights and Dogfights are banned to protect those who CANNOT protect themselves, due to less intelligence and less rights. Human being who CHOOSE not protect themselves by engaging in potentially unsafe activities are not subject to government oversight of their decisions.
Following your logic, all of the following should be outlawed:
* Vacation travel - the fuel is "wasted" and not serving a purpose
* Fast food - it kills people
* Movies and TV shows- they frequently show people with bad driving habbits
You are clearly in favor of continuing auto racing; but, you have not provided any justifications in your answer. Other things are worse is not a justification. My reasons for asking are just background. Examples of justifications given in other answers were "entertainment value" and "encouraging technical innovation". I was not at all convinced by either but that is what I am looking for in an answer. In other words " What possible justification is there for legal Auto Racing in the the 21st century?" I don't want to hear about other issues or philosophies of government.
1) I am not "in favor of continuing auto racing". I am in favor the government keeping its unwanted nose out of my business without sufficient cause.
2) I have provided all the justification that is necessary: Put simply - there is no justification for banning it. That is the ONLY justification needed for not banning something.
In a free society, you do not need justification to make something legal. You need justification to make something ILLEGAL. The "burdon of proof" is on you, not me.
2) I have provided all the justification that is necessary: Put simply - there is no justification for banning it. That is the ONLY justification needed for not banning something.
In a free society, you do not need justification to make something legal. You need justification to make something ILLEGAL. The "burdon of proof" is on you, not me.
I bet the 70,000 people that show up for a football game use more gas than is used during a car race, particularly when they sit in the parking lot for an hour after the game is over. And how about the 120,000 people that probably drive further to get to the car race? And people have parties and get drunk, and sometimes cause accidents. Should football be banned because of this?
Lumberjacks cut down trees. This is bad for the environment. Many lumberjacks get injured or die on the job, too. Should lumberjacking be banned?
The amount of fuel used by auto racing is a drop in the bucket. You can argue about the example that it sets as being terrible, but on the participants are willing, people are willing to pay to see it, and that's how businesses work.
Why don't we ban 9v batteries, because people can lick them and get hurt?
Why not ban violent movies, because some people think that they make people kill and hurt others? (Hint: in Japan, violence in movies is far more pervasive than it is here in the US, but the murder and violent crime rates are vastly lower).
People need to have some level of freedom. Given that car racing is not only a business, but isn't an outright awful thing, why should that be limited? Where it can be done should be restricted, which it is, but beyond that? The stadium is private property. People can do anything that want that's legal on private property. As it happens to be, driving a car is legal. Even if the car isn't street legal, it is not being driven on public roads. Unless car racing were specifically outlawed, they can do it as much as they want as long as the city the location is at doesn't stop them with zoning/noise ordinances... and that's something that is dealt with when the race tracks are built.
Should owning a pool be banned? The number of drownings per backyard pool are vastly higher than the number of shootings per gun in circulation. Yes, pools are nice to have during the summer, but think of all of the children that drown!
There's a reasonable balance when it comes to allowing freedom and outlawing things that are outright *bad*. But the latter should be as rare as reasonably possible.
Lumberjacks cut down trees. This is bad for the environment. Many lumberjacks get injured or die on the job, too. Should lumberjacking be banned?
The amount of fuel used by auto racing is a drop in the bucket. You can argue about the example that it sets as being terrible, but on the participants are willing, people are willing to pay to see it, and that's how businesses work.
Why don't we ban 9v batteries, because people can lick them and get hurt?
Why not ban violent movies, because some people think that they make people kill and hurt others? (Hint: in Japan, violence in movies is far more pervasive than it is here in the US, but the murder and violent crime rates are vastly lower).
People need to have some level of freedom. Given that car racing is not only a business, but isn't an outright awful thing, why should that be limited? Where it can be done should be restricted, which it is, but beyond that? The stadium is private property. People can do anything that want that's legal on private property. As it happens to be, driving a car is legal. Even if the car isn't street legal, it is not being driven on public roads. Unless car racing were specifically outlawed, they can do it as much as they want as long as the city the location is at doesn't stop them with zoning/noise ordinances... and that's something that is dealt with when the race tracks are built.
Should owning a pool be banned? The number of drownings per backyard pool are vastly higher than the number of shootings per gun in circulation. Yes, pools are nice to have during the summer, but think of all of the children that drown!
There's a reasonable balance when it comes to allowing freedom and outlawing things that are outright *bad*. But the latter should be as rare as reasonably possible.
There are arguments for and against banning all the things you mention. The arguments against banning them are believed to outweigh those for banning them. But what about auto racing? I am asking for reasons for or against it. So far arguments in favor of auto racing have been "entertainment value" and "encourages technical advances". I mentioned when writing the question that auto racing wastes fuel, kills people, and encourages bad driving habits but no one has added any other reasons to ban it. Nor has anyone shown that it does not do these things. Instead, most answers have claimed that other things not under discussion are worse but that has nothing to do with the pros and cons of auto racing.
Who cares I like racing on the weekends and that enough for me. Its an sport nobody shut down baseball or wrestling because of steroid used and that more dangerous then racing. But if they had a bad ass electric race series I'd probably like has well. For all my fellow weekend worriers keep on burning.
Related questions
140 characters left
ask any question
I agree that there is a lot of wastage of fuel and resources, but over the years FIA is trying to reduce costs by following measures
1. Reduce the practice mileage. Every year a team is allocated a specific kilometer it can practice, it has been reduced to half in past 3-4 years.
2. Single gearbox has to be used 4 races, rather than 1 race or 2 races (2008).
3. Standardized ECU, thus making sure every car uses same system and reduce costs.
4. Standardized engine: Engine design was frozen till 2011, so teams can concentrate more on aerodynamics and reduce cost in development on engine.
5. Reduced engine capacity : From V10 in 2007, the number of cylinders has been reduced to V8 for coming years, thus saving fuel. RPM of engines also have brought down to enhance engine life, so it can be used in more races. Currently an engine lasts for 2 races but from 2009 season, the limit has been increased to 3 races.
6. Restriction on wind tunnel usage and no in-season testing other than practice days.
A list of cost cutting measures for 2009 onwards can be found here - http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2008/12/12/fia-reveals-major-cost-cutting-measures/
Barbaric?
I would like to say, no F1 (or any other motor sport) is not barbaric. Over time there have been measures to improve the quality of cars and that has reduced the injuries drastically. Those improvements eventually move into the mainstream cars, improving the road safety condition.
If we look at the number of deaths (http://www.f1complete.com/content/view/228/383/) in F1, we see that since 1994 there has been no major casualties. Development life safety zone, inclusion of carbon fiber had helped improved safety. Looking at the incident of 2007 Canadian GP where Robert Kubica had an 200 mph accident with car rolling in all direction. He did not have any injuries at all, because of the safety regulation in place and development of cars. [ One might argue, why put some persons life in danger in first place]
Contribution to road cars :
1. CVT - continuously variable transmission came from F1 to mainstream cars.
2. TC - Traction control
3. ABS - Anti-lock brake
4. KERS - Kinetic energy regenerative system, this is a proposed system for 09 and hopefully if this experiment is successful, we might have it in mainstream cars too.
Moreover, autosports is a very thrilling sport where every second counts and every overtake is cheered by millions of people worldwide. I enjoy the sports and so does many more people. I agree, there are flaws but they can be fixed over time.
Talking about all the sports, yes they take time and space, but they give back the joy, a feeling of relaxation and that helps us improve productivity. Entertainment has its own value and if we do not agree on that, we should remove TV from our houses.