This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
The legend that is Danny Mac has a series starting on Channel 4 tomorrow at 10pm. "Daredevils; Life on the edge", not his choice of title apparently, has Guy Martin on. Should be good.
In reply to Removed User: thanks for heads up - should be worth a watch - dreadful title though
In reply to Removed User: Cheers for that!
In reply to Removed User: A wee "bump", should be good!
In reply to Removed User: another bump
In reply to Removed User: enjoying it so far. I'd quite like to try all of that
In reply to Removed User:
NIce to see a programme with an interesting premise and filmed without whizzy and stupid camerawork. No intrusive music either.
NIce to see a programme with an interesting premise and filmed without whizzy and stupid camerawork. No intrusive music either.
In reply to digby: Nice also that although the commentator kept banging on about risk taking that the 'experts' were talking about risk management and that the people pursuing such activities are not crazy.
In reply to Removed User: A good prog with intelligent commentary. Just a shame the weather stopped play.
One thing they didnt mention was the difference between real danger and apparent danger.
When Danny performs a stunt,that is real danger,he has no safety net,if he lands that bike wrong,its broken back or broken neck. The highliners to my mind are only dealing in apparent danger. Presuming all their anchors and rigging is good, they have a safety system with them in the form of the harness and leash. So although it looks spectacularly dangerous wobbling about above a yawning chasm,if they fall they just harmlessly plop onto their leash - no real danger there.
The close proximity flying is another example of real danger.
Yep all in all and excellent programme, and success couldnt happen to a nicer person than Danny MacGaskill,he deserves it.
One thing they didnt mention was the difference between real danger and apparent danger.
When Danny performs a stunt,that is real danger,he has no safety net,if he lands that bike wrong,its broken back or broken neck. The highliners to my mind are only dealing in apparent danger. Presuming all their anchors and rigging is good, they have a safety system with them in the form of the harness and leash. So although it looks spectacularly dangerous wobbling about above a yawning chasm,if they fall they just harmlessly plop onto their leash - no real danger there.
The close proximity flying is another example of real danger.
Yep all in all and excellent programme, and success couldnt happen to a nicer person than Danny MacGaskill,he deserves it.
In reply to David Hooper:
I know you know precious little about biking but how can you say the highliners are in an "apparent" danger is just stupid. In the clip with Mcaskill having a "go" they have no redundacy in the system of rigging. At all. If the flatline breaks he will be out of the system, fall and die. The trailing lead he has around his waist has no locking system of it's own and he will slide off as the line breaks. You can have has many anchors as you like but if the line itself breaks he will die. Do you actually go climbing?
p.s. Trials bike riding is not a "high risk" activity. By your evaluation in line skaters, skateboarders, parcours runners, and BMX are as well......it is just risky, nothing else. High risk - never.
They mentioned several times "imagination" which I thought was interesting. McAskill has none - otherwise he would have spotted the lack of redundancy in the system and the motor-bike rider the same - he denigrated surfing to such an extent he just sounded deluded. He probably can't even swim. He clearly has no idea how dangerous or hard water can be. He seemed to think going fast on a bike was the epitomy of "danger" Speed kills and all that. He ought to be a policeman or a road safety campaigner. In one fell swoop he has given those two august bodies the ammo they need to continue the persecution of bikers. What a knob.
I found the programme trite and superficial. It centred on nothing in particular and wandered about in a daze. The two bikers being high risk-takers? Do me a favour. Neither of them have little experience of any other activities, they just happen to be very very good at their own pastime.
It merely hangs itself on the back of many other programmes purporting to expose dangerous sports. It was pop culture and mass hype in the extreme. Good photography granted but what was it trying to achieve? Merely self exposure for all involved is my guess.
> (In reply to IainFP) A good prog with intelligent commentary. Just a shame the weather stopped play.
>
> One thing they didnt mention was the difference between real danger and apparent danger.
>
> When Danny performs a stunt,that is real danger,he has no safety net,if he lands that bike wrong,its broken back or broken neck. The highliners to my mind are only dealing in apparent danger. Presuming all their anchors and rigging is good, they have a safety system with them in the form of the harness and leash. So although it looks spectacularly dangerous wobbling about above a yawning chasm,if they fall they just harmlessly plop onto their leash - no real danger there.
>
> The close proximity flying is another example of real danger.
>
> Yep all in all and excellent programme, and success couldnt happen to a nicer person than Danny MacGaskill,he deserves it.
>
> One thing they didnt mention was the difference between real danger and apparent danger.
>
> When Danny performs a stunt,that is real danger,he has no safety net,if he lands that bike wrong,its broken back or broken neck. The highliners to my mind are only dealing in apparent danger. Presuming all their anchors and rigging is good, they have a safety system with them in the form of the harness and leash. So although it looks spectacularly dangerous wobbling about above a yawning chasm,if they fall they just harmlessly plop onto their leash - no real danger there.
>
> The close proximity flying is another example of real danger.
>
> Yep all in all and excellent programme, and success couldnt happen to a nicer person than Danny MacGaskill,he deserves it.
I know you know precious little about biking but how can you say the highliners are in an "apparent" danger is just stupid. In the clip with Mcaskill having a "go" they have no redundacy in the system of rigging. At all. If the flatline breaks he will be out of the system, fall and die. The trailing lead he has around his waist has no locking system of it's own and he will slide off as the line breaks. You can have has many anchors as you like but if the line itself breaks he will die. Do you actually go climbing?
p.s. Trials bike riding is not a "high risk" activity. By your evaluation in line skaters, skateboarders, parcours runners, and BMX are as well......it is just risky, nothing else. High risk - never.
They mentioned several times "imagination" which I thought was interesting. McAskill has none - otherwise he would have spotted the lack of redundancy in the system and the motor-bike rider the same - he denigrated surfing to such an extent he just sounded deluded. He probably can't even swim. He clearly has no idea how dangerous or hard water can be. He seemed to think going fast on a bike was the epitomy of "danger" Speed kills and all that. He ought to be a policeman or a road safety campaigner. In one fell swoop he has given those two august bodies the ammo they need to continue the persecution of bikers. What a knob.
I found the programme trite and superficial. It centred on nothing in particular and wandered about in a daze. The two bikers being high risk-takers? Do me a favour. Neither of them have little experience of any other activities, they just happen to be very very good at their own pastime.
It merely hangs itself on the back of many other programmes purporting to expose dangerous sports. It was pop culture and mass hype in the extreme. Good photography granted but what was it trying to achieve? Merely self exposure for all involved is my guess.
In reply to unclesamsauntibess:
What a load of bull you just spouted!
What a load of bull you just spouted!
In reply to unclesamsauntibess:
1) How do you know I know precious little about biking,youve never met me.
2) Have you got any figures for how many highlines (or for that matter circus tightropes) break, perhaps you could do the research and get back to us. So I dont think its a stupid comment, but I do think you need to qualify it with some stats.
3) Do I actually go climbing? Due to health issues I havent climbed for nearly 2 years, but I optimistically hoping to ease back into some very gentle multipitch soon - I miss it in my soul.
4) You obviously watch the world on another channel to me, so rather than bandying insults to back up your argument, lets just cordially agree to disagree.
Best wishes
David
1) How do you know I know precious little about biking,youve never met me.
2) Have you got any figures for how many highlines (or for that matter circus tightropes) break, perhaps you could do the research and get back to us. So I dont think its a stupid comment, but I do think you need to qualify it with some stats.
3) Do I actually go climbing? Due to health issues I havent climbed for nearly 2 years, but I optimistically hoping to ease back into some very gentle multipitch soon - I miss it in my soul.
4) You obviously watch the world on another channel to me, so rather than bandying insults to back up your argument, lets just cordially agree to disagree.
Best wishes
David
In reply to David Hooper: Remarkably level reply given the jibes flung your way David. Nice one. I watched the programme too and I think I must have seen an entirely different programme to uncle sam. I liked it. Now I must go off and raise my dopamine levels by doing something dangerous - like change my daughters nappy (the internal pressure in a baby can be amazingly high!).
In reply to ring ouzel:
Next time someone suggests that top-roping indoors makes me a bit of a softy, I'll remember to bring out the 'lack of redundancy' argument.
If the rope breaks - I DIE!
Next time someone suggests that top-roping indoors makes me a bit of a softy, I'll remember to bring out the 'lack of redundancy' argument.
If the rope breaks - I DIE!
In reply to unclesamsauntibess:
David is far too nice a person to denigrate himself to your level, but I'm no.
YOU'RE A COCK! GET A LIFE!
David is far too nice a person to denigrate himself to your level, but I'm no.
YOU'RE A COCK! GET A LIFE!
In reply to unclesamsauntibess:
Just to go through your comments with interest.
How do you know?
Not really stupid, DH qualified this statement with "Presuming all their anchors and rigging is good, they have a safety system with them in the form of the harness and leash" which, David, as a qualified climbing instructor will have many years of experiencing in judging safety situations. This would be a category of 'apparent danger'. Not checking their systems would place them in a category of 'mortal danger' n'est-ce pas?
This as a risk assessment remains within the 'apparent' as the rigging was tested by three people slacklining including bouncing on the bloody thing. How much testing does one need for someone to then slide on it without shockloading? Your comment seems naive and would suggest you do not climb. Is this the case?
Really? Never high risk? youtube.com/watch?v=wdRjjv3-8QE&
A very poor attack on Guy Martins swimming ability.
An incorrect assumption on your part. Guy Martin never said speed kills. What he does is compete in road races which are dangerous because the HSE have not reduced the risk to be equivalent to a well maintained looped race track with run offs etc.
Not a knob - a road racer. He has not given road safety campaigners/police ammunition as he did not condoned speeding on motorbikes. Unless the "two august bodies" wish to ban road racing then what he does will have little effect on them.
Really? Guy Martin does many other sports - did you bother to check?
And you are entitled to have your opinion. Shame it contained an attack on David and abusive language.
> (In reply to David Hooper)
> [...]
> [...]
Just to go through your comments with interest.
>
> I know you know precious little about biking
> I know you know precious little about biking
How do you know?
> but how can you say the highliners are in an "apparent" danger is just stupid.
Not really stupid, DH qualified this statement with "Presuming all their anchors and rigging is good, they have a safety system with them in the form of the harness and leash" which, David, as a qualified climbing instructor will have many years of experiencing in judging safety situations. This would be a category of 'apparent danger'. Not checking their systems would place them in a category of 'mortal danger' n'est-ce pas?
> In the clip with Mcaskill having a "go" they have no redundacy in the system of rigging. At all. If the flatline breaks he will be out of the system, fall and die. The trailing lead he has around his waist has no locking system of it's own and he will slide off as the line breaks. You can have has many anchors as you like but if the line itself breaks he will die.
This as a risk assessment remains within the 'apparent' as the rigging was tested by three people slacklining including bouncing on the bloody thing. How much testing does one need for someone to then slide on it without shockloading? Your comment seems naive and would suggest you do not climb. Is this the case?
>
> p.s. Trials bike riding is not a "high risk" activity. By your evaluation in line skaters, skateboarders, parcours runners, and BMX are as well......it is just risky, nothing else. High risk - never.
> p.s. Trials bike riding is not a "high risk" activity. By your evaluation in line skaters, skateboarders, parcours runners, and BMX are as well......it is just risky, nothing else. High risk - never.
Really? Never high risk? youtube.com/watch?v=wdRjjv3-8QE&
>
> They mentioned several times "imagination" which I thought was interesting. McAskill has none - otherwise he would have spotted the lack of redundancy in the system and the motor-bike rider the same - he denigrated surfing to such an extent he just sounded deluded. He probably can't even swim.
> They mentioned several times "imagination" which I thought was interesting. McAskill has none - otherwise he would have spotted the lack of redundancy in the system and the motor-bike rider the same - he denigrated surfing to such an extent he just sounded deluded. He probably can't even swim.
A very poor attack on Guy Martins swimming ability.
> He clearly has no idea how dangerous or hard water can be. He seemed to think going fast on a bike was the epitomy of "danger" Speed kills and all that.
An incorrect assumption on your part. Guy Martin never said speed kills. What he does is compete in road races which are dangerous because the HSE have not reduced the risk to be equivalent to a well maintained looped race track with run offs etc.
> He ought to be a policeman or a road safety campaigner. In one fell swoop he has given those two august bodies the ammo they need to continue the persecution of bikers. What a knob.
Not a knob - a road racer. He has not given road safety campaigners/police ammunition as he did not condoned speeding on motorbikes. Unless the "two august bodies" wish to ban road racing then what he does will have little effect on them.
>
> It centred on nothing in particular and wandered about in a daze. The two bikers being high risk-takers? Do me a favour. Neither of them have little experience of any other activities, they just happen to be very very good at their own pastime.
> It centred on nothing in particular and wandered about in a daze. The two bikers being high risk-takers? Do me a favour. Neither of them have little experience of any other activities, they just happen to be very very good at their own pastime.
Really? Guy Martin does many other sports - did you bother to check?
>
> It merely hangs itself on the back of many other programmes purporting to expose dangerous sports. It was pop culture and mass hype in the extreme. Good photography granted but what was it trying to achieve? Merely self exposure for all involved is my guess.
> It merely hangs itself on the back of many other programmes purporting to expose dangerous sports. It was pop culture and mass hype in the extreme. Good photography granted but what was it trying to achieve? Merely self exposure for all involved is my guess.
And you are entitled to have your opinion. Shame it contained an attack on David and abusive language.
In reply to David Hooper:
Yes but the payoff (in much better weather!) is doing it without the leash - which was also shown.
I have some sympathy with unclesamsautybess in saying "I found the programme trite and superficial. It centred on nothing in particular and wandered about in a daze."
In a sea of badly made rubbish it wasn't too bad.
> The highliners to my mind are only dealing in apparent danger. ...although it looks spectacularly dangerous wobbling about above a yawning chasm,if they fall they just harmlessly plop onto their leash - no real danger there.
Yes but the payoff (in much better weather!) is doing it without the leash - which was also shown.
I have some sympathy with unclesamsautybess in saying "I found the programme trite and superficial. It centred on nothing in particular and wandered about in a daze."
In a sea of badly made rubbish it wasn't too bad.
In reply to unclesamschewyauntibess:
Don't lose your rag and start smashing people about with your SQUASH CLUB...
Don't lose your rag and start smashing people about with your SQUASH CLUB...
In reply to Removed User: I thought it was better than most other programmes of its type and for once the particpants were shown to be talented individuals who carefully consider their activities and judge the risks carefully.
It wasn't perfect but it did make a nice change from the usual overhyped crap we often see.
I could quite happily watch an entire programme dedicated to Danny Mac's bike stunts though - simply mindblowing
It wasn't perfect but it did make a nice change from the usual overhyped crap we often see.
I could quite happily watch an entire programme dedicated to Danny Mac's bike stunts though - simply mindblowing
In reply to David Hooper: Hey David just ignore Unclesamsangryjess he's just a failed bike mechanic that's an inherently angry person. Who thinks he's right all of the time and likes to make himself feel better by belittling other people on the net. Most of the time his arguments don't even stack up to closer examination.
In reply to Removed User: mmm.... he does say he does the TT because "you can die - that's the thrill, because of the speed" or some such shite. His biogs on wiki etc. reveal no other sports, exception mountain biking, even then he is not too skilful, just brain out riding. The parcour jump is risky, granted. Macaskill efforts are not. The whole thing is just another example of a GM lovefest. I am NOT Uncle Sam BTW, just his auntibess, can't you read...... no 'cos nobody on here can, well not and understand what is being said anyway. IF the highline breaks the walker will slide off the line to his (poss not death true) detriment. There is no separate back-up i.e. a rope tied in independently - as a climber probably would have. Surfing is one of the most risk based activities there is. Not on Filey beach true, but on proper water death and destruction are very close by. We could go on all night.
If Hooper is an instructor then God help his pupils. Would he allow a student to walk across even a ladder placed as high above the ground and as long as that highline WITHOUT a rope attached? Even on a via ferrata I would put money on the fact that he wouldn't venture out onto said ladder himself without being belayed. On sites such as these it is all too easy to fall into the trap of everyone seeing the Emperor's New Clothes. Wake up, see and listen to what is going on. Too much sycophantic posturing will get you nowhere.
What you say is quite apt - even Macaskill doesn't like the way he is presented as he didn't choose the title........but it's there and the case has to be made.
I do climb - E5/E6 on good days, Grade VI Scottish, new routes in many places, Alpine and big range experience, white water canoeing on BIG rivers, cave diving and extreme mountain biking along with other sports. I feel well qualified to state my views. GM wouldn't know adventure or risk if it poked him in the eye. Oh yes, I ride motorbikes as well - fast.
If Hooper is an instructor then God help his pupils. Would he allow a student to walk across even a ladder placed as high above the ground and as long as that highline WITHOUT a rope attached? Even on a via ferrata I would put money on the fact that he wouldn't venture out onto said ladder himself without being belayed. On sites such as these it is all too easy to fall into the trap of everyone seeing the Emperor's New Clothes. Wake up, see and listen to what is going on. Too much sycophantic posturing will get you nowhere.
What you say is quite apt - even Macaskill doesn't like the way he is presented as he didn't choose the title........but it's there and the case has to be made.
I do climb - E5/E6 on good days, Grade VI Scottish, new routes in many places, Alpine and big range experience, white water canoeing on BIG rivers, cave diving and extreme mountain biking along with other sports. I feel well qualified to state my views. GM wouldn't know adventure or risk if it poked him in the eye. Oh yes, I ride motorbikes as well - fast.
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:
> (In reply to unclesamsauntibess)
>
> This as a risk assessment remains within the 'apparent' as the rigging was tested by three people slacklining including bouncing on the bloody thing. How much testing does one need for someone to then slide on it without shockloading? Your comment seems naive and would suggest you do not climb. Is this the case?
You can "assess" and "check" the system as many times as you like but if you fail to spot the problems by being self deluded enough not to spot any what's the point. The loop and leash attachment are inherently not safe as backup. Think about it climbing terms if you can. >
> This as a risk assessment remains within the 'apparent' as the rigging was tested by three people slacklining including bouncing on the bloody thing. How much testing does one need for someone to then slide on it without shockloading? Your comment seems naive and would suggest you do not climb. Is this the case?
In reply to unclesamsauntibess: You should get a medal or something for all your epic exploits
In reply to unclesamsauntibess: You do "Extreme mountain biking" what would that be?
You come across as a right tool!
You come across as a right tool!
In reply to unclesamsauntibess: Are you big and strong? I think I love you.
In reply to unclesamsanalmess
Firstly,could you do me the courtesy of calling me David,calling me Hooper feels kind of aggressive and "putdownish".
Secondly I've unfortunately had to retire from instructing,I still dearly miss it,best job in the world.
Thirdly. If itsnot too much bother for you have a look at the "user feedback" here - http://www.ukclimbing.com/listings/info.php?id=1016
J
You seem to be operating at pretty high level and packing loads of adventures into your life. You are very lucky,but it's a shame your amazing lifestyle hasn't informed how you relate to your fellow outdoor brethren.
>
> If Hooper is an instructor then God help his pupils.
> If Hooper is an instructor then God help his pupils.
Firstly,could you do me the courtesy of calling me David,calling me Hooper feels kind of aggressive and "putdownish".
Secondly I've unfortunately had to retire from instructing,I still dearly miss it,best job in the world.
Thirdly. If itsnot too much bother for you have a look at the "user feedback" here - http://www.ukclimbing.com/listings/info.php?id=1016
J
You seem to be operating at pretty high level and packing loads of adventures into your life. You are very lucky,but it's a shame your amazing lifestyle hasn't informed how you relate to your fellow outdoor brethren.
In reply to unclesamsauntibess:
Was your intention to present yourself as a person of very little judgement and even less manners?
If so, you have succeeded admirably.
If not, then I suggest you seek some good advice on how to write (and I'm not talking about spelling and grammar).
Was your intention to present yourself as a person of very little judgement and even less manners?
If so, you have succeeded admirably.
If not, then I suggest you seek some good advice on how to write (and I'm not talking about spelling and grammar).
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...