| skuttledude | 12-07-2005 01:51 PM |
My reason for posting up this topic was to see if we could apply changes to our own region from learning from another's unfortunate accident. (although I'm happy to hear that it wasn't worse, thoughts and prayers to the family involved)
I think the "Be aware of your surroundings in a motorsport environment" lesson is the one to remember here. (I use to work at an ex-F1 racetrack as a Safety Steward and know the importance of it, BUT it is always worth repeating and reminding each other)
Injury details, names, cars, which region, who's responsible...etc..those are private matters.
I believe its done now.
I think the "Be aware of your surroundings in a motorsport environment" lesson is the one to remember here. (I use to work at an ex-F1 racetrack as a Safety Steward and know the importance of it, BUT it is always worth repeating and reminding each other)
Injury details, names, cars, which region, who's responsible...etc..those are private matters.
I believe its done now.
| ewright | 12-07-2005 02:00 PM |
I agree with David wholeheartedly; details are necessary only insofar as they help us prevent further incidents. The important thing which I have learned from this is that spectators rather than course workers were the ones injured. It just highlights the fact that even as spectators at what seems to be a safe distance we must still be attuned our environment. I know this sounds basic, but I can say for myself that when I am spectating I tend to relax and zone out. No more though, lesson learned on my part and I hope for everyone else as well. My prayers are with the injured and their families.
ernie
ernie
| Jon Bogert | 12-07-2005 02:12 PM |
It is ironic that the only information that is available is precisely the sort that nobody needs.
It would be useful to see a diagram of the course indicating the worker locations? It would be useful to see a drawing showing the path the out of control car followed? Then some constructive discussion of what went wrong can take place.
I'd like to believe that information will show up in Sportscar, but that'll probably happen about the same time they release the analysis of specific failure points in the rollcages in rally car accidents. :rolleyes:
It would be useful to see a diagram of the course indicating the worker locations? It would be useful to see a drawing showing the path the out of control car followed? Then some constructive discussion of what went wrong can take place.
I'd like to believe that information will show up in Sportscar, but that'll probably happen about the same time they release the analysis of specific failure points in the rollcages in rally car accidents. :rolleyes:
| bjorn240 | 12-07-2005 02:14 PM |
[QUOTE=Jon Bogert]I'd like to believe that information will show up in Sportscar, but that'll probably happen about the same time they release the analysis of specific failure points in the rollcages in rally car accidents. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
Or slightly after.
- Christian
Or slightly after.
- Christian
| Templar | 12-07-2005 02:36 PM |
I have been an autcross chairman for a local club and am interested in the details of what happened. Not because I want to know the "gory details" like some morons believe; but for several reasons after I heard that there was a "tragic" accident at an event.
I first want to know if the parties are alive and alright. In this case it appears that they are alive, but one is hospitalized and will feel the affects of the accident for the rest of his life...and I feel very sorry for him.
Secondly, I want to know the details of how the course was designed, or how the driver let the car get far enough out of sorts to get into a spectator area.
I want to know these details so that we can continue to look at and improve things like course design and work stations.
My guess is (and this is nothing but a guess) that it was driver error. I have seen several cars get far enough out of sorts to be that kind of danger and it has, without exception, been the driver of the car pushing way beyond their skill limits. I personally was almost hit by a car at an event 3 years ago when the driver of the car lost control, and then tried to real the car in, instead of just going "both feet in" and bringing the car to a stop...and I was 40 feet off of the course and had to jump over an iron fence to keep from being hit. This same driver (who was driving a modified Mustang 5.0 at that event) later came back to race his fathers Z06 with our club and promptly destroyed the rear suspension of it (and our timing lights) for the exact same reason.
Again, my curiousity has nothing to do with the "gory details", it has to do with concern for fellow racer and concern for the future of our sport.
I first want to know if the parties are alive and alright. In this case it appears that they are alive, but one is hospitalized and will feel the affects of the accident for the rest of his life...and I feel very sorry for him.
Secondly, I want to know the details of how the course was designed, or how the driver let the car get far enough out of sorts to get into a spectator area.
I want to know these details so that we can continue to look at and improve things like course design and work stations.
My guess is (and this is nothing but a guess) that it was driver error. I have seen several cars get far enough out of sorts to be that kind of danger and it has, without exception, been the driver of the car pushing way beyond their skill limits. I personally was almost hit by a car at an event 3 years ago when the driver of the car lost control, and then tried to real the car in, instead of just going "both feet in" and bringing the car to a stop...and I was 40 feet off of the course and had to jump over an iron fence to keep from being hit. This same driver (who was driving a modified Mustang 5.0 at that event) later came back to race his fathers Z06 with our club and promptly destroyed the rear suspension of it (and our timing lights) for the exact same reason.
Again, my curiousity has nothing to do with the "gory details", it has to do with concern for fellow racer and concern for the future of our sport.
| joey1313 | 12-07-2005 03:09 PM |
[QUOTE=Templar]I have been an autcross chairman for a local club and am interested in the details of what happened. Not because I want to know the "gory details" like some morons believe; but for several reasons after I heard that there was a "tragic" accident at an event.
I first want to know if the parties are alive and alright. In this case it appears that they are alive, but one is hospitalized and will feel the affects of the accident for the rest of his life...and I feel very sorry for him.
Secondly, I want to know the details of how the course was designed, or how the driver let the car get far enough out of sorts to get into a spectator area.
I want to know these details so that we can continue to look at and improve things like course design and work stations.
Again, my curiousity has nothing to do with the "gory details", it has to do with concern for fellow racer and concern for the future of our sport.[/QUOTE]
Well put!!!Thats what i've been trying to say in my earlier posts. "Gory details" and personal info are not needed to provide the info we would like to know.
I first want to know if the parties are alive and alright. In this case it appears that they are alive, but one is hospitalized and will feel the affects of the accident for the rest of his life...and I feel very sorry for him.
Secondly, I want to know the details of how the course was designed, or how the driver let the car get far enough out of sorts to get into a spectator area.
I want to know these details so that we can continue to look at and improve things like course design and work stations.
Again, my curiousity has nothing to do with the "gory details", it has to do with concern for fellow racer and concern for the future of our sport.[/QUOTE]
Well put!!!Thats what i've been trying to say in my earlier posts. "Gory details" and personal info are not needed to provide the info we would like to know.
| 10th Warrior | 12-07-2005 03:13 PM |
[quote]You mean we're all in trouble for knowing about injured football players? Yikes! [/quote]
no, because they gave their consent to have that info made public. It doesn't sound like the person involved here has done such.
[quote]HIPAA prohibits the physician or treatment facility from releasing that information to anyone without consent. It in no way prohibits the usual collection of internet wankers chatting it up and discussing what they heard.[/quote]
that's not what i was refering to. I should have been more specific, but I was responding to those who say its their 1st Amendment right to know about these things which is not the case when it comes to medical records and also the people actively trying to find information on somebodies medical status. People can discuss what they hear all they want, but releasing somebody's PHI without consent is not legal nor appropriate.
[quote]I want to know these details so that we can continue to look at and improve things like course design and work stations[/quote]
right, and that's reasonable, though it doesn't seem that's what the majority of this thread is about. Like i said in my second paragraph that everyone seems to have missed, its not like this aspect is going to be ignored and not discussed by the SSSs. Every event I've been to where there has been an incident, it has been looked at in great detail (which takes more than a few days), discussed, information disseminated to others in similar positions, and improvements made where applicable. A public web forum is not the appropriate place for this. An example. In the Lovell/Freeman accident, perhaps the best source for detailed information about what happened and what went wrong was the incar footage. Do you think that should be posted online for all to watch?
[quote]IMO That's good work by Tage.[/quote]
i concur.
[quote]"Gory details" and personal info are not needed to provide the info we would like to know.[/quote]
yet that's what was posted and exactly why the internet is not the best place for this.
no, because they gave their consent to have that info made public. It doesn't sound like the person involved here has done such.
[quote]HIPAA prohibits the physician or treatment facility from releasing that information to anyone without consent. It in no way prohibits the usual collection of internet wankers chatting it up and discussing what they heard.[/quote]
that's not what i was refering to. I should have been more specific, but I was responding to those who say its their 1st Amendment right to know about these things which is not the case when it comes to medical records and also the people actively trying to find information on somebodies medical status. People can discuss what they hear all they want, but releasing somebody's PHI without consent is not legal nor appropriate.
[quote]I want to know these details so that we can continue to look at and improve things like course design and work stations[/quote]
right, and that's reasonable, though it doesn't seem that's what the majority of this thread is about. Like i said in my second paragraph that everyone seems to have missed, its not like this aspect is going to be ignored and not discussed by the SSSs. Every event I've been to where there has been an incident, it has been looked at in great detail (which takes more than a few days), discussed, information disseminated to others in similar positions, and improvements made where applicable. A public web forum is not the appropriate place for this. An example. In the Lovell/Freeman accident, perhaps the best source for detailed information about what happened and what went wrong was the incar footage. Do you think that should be posted online for all to watch?
[quote]IMO That's good work by Tage.[/quote]
i concur.
[quote]"Gory details" and personal info are not needed to provide the info we would like to know.[/quote]
yet that's what was posted and exactly why the internet is not the best place for this.
| PhilC | 12-07-2005 04:57 PM |
I for one can tell you that even as a SSS I'll never hear a darn thing about the incident through the SCCA. I think some if not all of the non-SSS have a very different idea of what is involved and how much information sharing is available than what is actual. You can now read the SafetyBelt online. Take a look at some of them and see if the results of an incident investigation are printed. Unless I've signed my name to an incident report I've already heard more about this one than I will ever hear through SSS channels about this or any other incident. Heck even if I DO put my name on the report I may never hear about it again. Jen signed the report for the Peru Tour this year as Chief of Safety for an incident that involved a hospital trip for a minor and I know we never heard a thing about it afterwards.
| leecea | 12-07-2005 05:18 PM |
In a sane world, it would be in everyone's best interest to leave out names and 'gory details' but to have an open discussion around what happened and what, if anything, could have been done to differently.
In the currently insane world that we've made for ourselves, that path leads to no more autoxing as we know it. I want to keep autoxing, so I'm willing to accept that in the same way that I accept a lot of other **** that society imposes.
No matter what, it is by far the safest way to have fun with a car.
In the currently insane world that we've made for ourselves, that path leads to no more autoxing as we know it. I want to keep autoxing, so I'm willing to accept that in the same way that I accept a lot of other **** that society imposes.
No matter what, it is by far the safest way to have fun with a car.
| makofoto | 12-07-2005 05:55 PM |
The one positive about this horrible accident and the wide spread on-line dissemination of what happened is that you can be sure that we will ALL be more careful ... at least for a while. After the accident in Las Vegas last year where a person had both legs broken ... I certainly started to become more careful when around the course. This accident will further reinforce my paying attention. As a course designer this will also reinforce taking every possible safety measure.
I for one am very pleased that enough details were released in a timely manner to have a positive effect on us.
On one of our other message boards it started discussions on general safety ... this is GOOD!
I for one am very pleased that enough details were released in a timely manner to have a positive effect on us.
On one of our other message boards it started discussions on general safety ... this is GOOD!
| adhowe70 | 12-07-2005 08:53 PM |
[QUOTE=Jon Bogert]It is ironic that the only information that is available is precisely the sort that nobody needs.[/QUOTE]
And
[QUOTE=Templar]Secondly, I want to know the details of how the course was designed, or how the driver let the car get far enough out of sorts to get into a spectator area.[/QUOTE]
Are dead on the money.
I am very disappointed that anyone is satisfied with the information available to date. The information included in the AZ240 forum post does not include any more information about how to prevent a similar accident than Josh Sortor provided in his post.
Andy
And
[QUOTE=Templar]Secondly, I want to know the details of how the course was designed, or how the driver let the car get far enough out of sorts to get into a spectator area.[/QUOTE]
Are dead on the money.
I am very disappointed that anyone is satisfied with the information available to date. The information included in the AZ240 forum post does not include any more information about how to prevent a similar accident than Josh Sortor provided in his post.
Andy
| Jsortor | 12-07-2005 10:38 PM |
[QUOTE=adhowe70]And
Are dead on the money.
I am very disappointed that anyone is satisfied with the information available to date. The information included in the AZ240 forum post does not include any more information about how to prevent a similar accident than Josh Sortor provided in his post.
Andy[/QUOTE]
Look, does all of this need to be spelled out? Do I need to hold your freakin hand through this? 99.99% of potential incidents are thwarted by following through with the proper safety structure provided by the SCCA from 50 years of experience in this sport. This was a .01% incident.
The finish was coming back in towards the timing truck with an approximate trajectory of 30 to 45 degrees away from directly at the trailer. The course cambers down, away from the trailer, and the same direction as the finish (in relation to the trailer). The finish and finish box were located the appropriate distance from the trailer and any spectator areas.
Take from this what you want. As I said before, everything was done correctly by the organization. If the vehicle in question would have reacted the slightest bit differently at any time while out of control, no one would know about this incident, because it would not have happened!
When on foot, pay attention to all moving vehicles.
When driving, be responsible and realize where things are worth saving (correcting) and where you should just flat spot the tires (both feet in).
If you course designers want a little nugget of advice to say you learned something, increase your distance from the course to timing/spectator areas over what is required by SCCA. Point your finish box at an even greater angle away from timing/spectator areas.
Something should be said about [B]target fixation [/B] as well. It is by far, the easiest way to get in the most impossible situation.
Are dead on the money.
I am very disappointed that anyone is satisfied with the information available to date. The information included in the AZ240 forum post does not include any more information about how to prevent a similar accident than Josh Sortor provided in his post.
Andy[/QUOTE]
Look, does all of this need to be spelled out? Do I need to hold your freakin hand through this? 99.99% of potential incidents are thwarted by following through with the proper safety structure provided by the SCCA from 50 years of experience in this sport. This was a .01% incident.
The finish was coming back in towards the timing truck with an approximate trajectory of 30 to 45 degrees away from directly at the trailer. The course cambers down, away from the trailer, and the same direction as the finish (in relation to the trailer). The finish and finish box were located the appropriate distance from the trailer and any spectator areas.
Take from this what you want. As I said before, everything was done correctly by the organization. If the vehicle in question would have reacted the slightest bit differently at any time while out of control, no one would know about this incident, because it would not have happened!
When on foot, pay attention to all moving vehicles.
When driving, be responsible and realize where things are worth saving (correcting) and where you should just flat spot the tires (both feet in).
If you course designers want a little nugget of advice to say you learned something, increase your distance from the course to timing/spectator areas over what is required by SCCA. Point your finish box at an even greater angle away from timing/spectator areas.
Something should be said about [B]target fixation [/B] as well. It is by far, the easiest way to get in the most impossible situation.
| adhowe70 | 12-07-2005 11:08 PM |
Josh,
I guess my point was misunderstood. I was trying to say that posting the info from the AZ240 forums served no purpose if the goal of discussing the incident was to learn from it. I guess I was saying that those details contained in that thread should be of little importance to those trying to learn from the incident. I guess my statement should have been:
I am very disappointed that anyone unsatisfied with Josh's explanation is satisfied after reading the AZ240 posts. The linked thread does not include any more information about how to prevent a similar accident than Josh provided in his post.
I did not intend to make you feel like you needed to give out more information. Your region should share the information as it sees fit. No bullying on a forum should change your decisions.
Andy
I guess my point was misunderstood. I was trying to say that posting the info from the AZ240 forums served no purpose if the goal of discussing the incident was to learn from it. I guess I was saying that those details contained in that thread should be of little importance to those trying to learn from the incident. I guess my statement should have been:
I am very disappointed that anyone unsatisfied with Josh's explanation is satisfied after reading the AZ240 posts. The linked thread does not include any more information about how to prevent a similar accident than Josh provided in his post.
I did not intend to make you feel like you needed to give out more information. Your region should share the information as it sees fit. No bullying on a forum should change your decisions.
Andy
| Jsortor | 12-08-2005 08:19 AM |
[QUOTE=adhowe70]Josh,
I guess my point was misunderstood. I was trying to say that posting the info from the AZ240 forums served no purpose if the goal of discussing the incident was to learn from it. I guess I was saying that those details contained in that thread should be of little importance to those trying to learn from the incident. I guess my statement should have been:
I am very disappointed that anyone unsatisfied with Josh's explanation is satisfied after reading the AZ240 posts. The linked thread does not include any more information about how to prevent a similar accident than Josh provided in his post.
I did not intend to make you feel like you needed to give out more information. Your region should share the information as it sees fit. No bullying on a forum should change your decisions.
Andy[/QUOTE]
Andy,
I did misconstrue the intention of your post then. Thank you for clarifying what you meant to say.
However, I do still believe that some people want to decide for themselves what to learn instead of just taking what I said and applying it. There is no need for that. Further analysis will provide very little additional positive information, while it will provide much more discussion, and second hand opinion of what was wrong, and who was at fault for the incident. Those points should be inconsequential.
I'm out.
I guess my point was misunderstood. I was trying to say that posting the info from the AZ240 forums served no purpose if the goal of discussing the incident was to learn from it. I guess I was saying that those details contained in that thread should be of little importance to those trying to learn from the incident. I guess my statement should have been:
I am very disappointed that anyone unsatisfied with Josh's explanation is satisfied after reading the AZ240 posts. The linked thread does not include any more information about how to prevent a similar accident than Josh provided in his post.
I did not intend to make you feel like you needed to give out more information. Your region should share the information as it sees fit. No bullying on a forum should change your decisions.
Andy[/QUOTE]
Andy,
I did misconstrue the intention of your post then. Thank you for clarifying what you meant to say.
However, I do still believe that some people want to decide for themselves what to learn instead of just taking what I said and applying it. There is no need for that. Further analysis will provide very little additional positive information, while it will provide much more discussion, and second hand opinion of what was wrong, and who was at fault for the incident. Those points should be inconsequential.
I'm out.
| Jon Bogert | 12-08-2005 09:07 AM |
[quote] However, I do still believe that some people want to decide for themselves what to learn instead of just taking what I said and applying it. There is no need for that.[/quote]Quote of the year. :lol:
| copterdr | 12-08-2005 09:39 AM |
I am a SSS and our region has already started to talk how we can improve Saftey. It is sad thing that it takes a event like this to wake us up. We all should always tryto improve the saftey factor and NEVER TAKE THINGS FOR GRANTED. It is always better to be too safe!!!
just my 2 cents
I hope all envoled have a speedy recovery.
Stuart
just my 2 cents
I hope all envoled have a speedy recovery.
Stuart
| MrDestructo | 12-08-2005 10:15 AM |
[QUOTE=ewright]I agree with David wholeheartedly; details are necessary only insofar as they help us prevent further incidents. [/QUOTE]
Well, I don't know any more details than what has been posted on this and other forums, but from the information I can gather I see this:
light yet powerful car: check
REALLY slippery/dusty/cold autox surface(from my experience): check
somewhat novice driver(it was a "novice" school): check
result: a terrible accident. :(
Well, I don't know any more details than what has been posted on this and other forums, but from the information I can gather I see this:
light yet powerful car: check
REALLY slippery/dusty/cold autox surface(from my experience): check
somewhat novice driver(it was a "novice" school): check
result: a terrible accident. :(
| MrDestructo | 12-11-2005 04:13 PM |
See below for the "official" statement:
[url]http://www.azsolo2.com/rvfund.html[/url]
Peace...
[url]http://www.azsolo2.com/rvfund.html[/url]
Peace...
| Corn-Picker | 12-11-2005 09:01 PM |
Firstly I'll say that I hope for a healthly recovery for the accident victim.
Here's what I learned when dealing with the SCCA after my auto-x incident.
There's little cross-region communication initiated by the SCCA. Incidents could be avoided if the SCCA would publish a monthly pamphlet for safety stewards. This pamphlet would catalog recent accidents/incidents. This would allow west coast safety stewards a look at something that happened on the east coast, and place a seed in their mind that would make their region's future events safer.
The SCCA's communication skills are awful. Emails I received from the SCCA contained so little substance as to be useless. I understand the SCCA's vagueness about details -- they need to cover their ass. However, they also need to let their customers know that substantitive action has been taken to reduce the chance of future incidents occuring.
Remember that the SCCA is an organization of volunteers, don't expect much from people that work for free. Realize that the SCCA's oversight over their regions is minimal, and that you participate at your own risk. Realize that public airing of ill-will accomplishes little good. The only way to change the SCCA is to volunteer and fix it yourself, or to cancel your membership and write the SCCA a letter telling them why you chose to leave.
Here's what I learned when dealing with the SCCA after my auto-x incident.
There's little cross-region communication initiated by the SCCA. Incidents could be avoided if the SCCA would publish a monthly pamphlet for safety stewards. This pamphlet would catalog recent accidents/incidents. This would allow west coast safety stewards a look at something that happened on the east coast, and place a seed in their mind that would make their region's future events safer.
The SCCA's communication skills are awful. Emails I received from the SCCA contained so little substance as to be useless. I understand the SCCA's vagueness about details -- they need to cover their ass. However, they also need to let their customers know that substantitive action has been taken to reduce the chance of future incidents occuring.
Remember that the SCCA is an organization of volunteers, don't expect much from people that work for free. Realize that the SCCA's oversight over their regions is minimal, and that you participate at your own risk. Realize that public airing of ill-will accomplishes little good. The only way to change the SCCA is to volunteer and fix it yourself, or to cancel your membership and write the SCCA a letter telling them why you chose to leave.
| jcroy66 | 12-12-2005 01:37 PM |
[QUOTE=Corn-Picker]However, they also need to let their customers know that substantitive action has been taken to reduce the chance of future incidents occuring.[/QUOTE]Ugh, not this again! As has been stated many times before to you, your definition of "substantitive action" is not necessarily the same as other people's definition. I read the communication the SCCA sent to you, and I felt it was adequate communication. And furthermore, I felt SCCA's action plan to prevent a repeat of your incident was absolutely appropriate.
| Corn-Picker | 12-12-2005 02:27 PM |
[QUOTE=jcroy66]Ugh, not this again! As has been stated many times before to you, your definition of "substantitive action" is not necessarily the same as other people's definition. I read the communication the SCCA sent to you, and I felt it was adequate communication. And furthermore, I felt SCCA's action plan to prevent a repeat of your incident was absolutely appropriate.[/QUOTE]
The SCCA should take minor auto-x incidents more seriously. If no one were hurt in the incident in this thread, it would have been considered a "minor incident." The SCCA needs to realize that a major auto-x incident is simply a minor auto-x incident where an on-foot person is in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I know when dealing with the SCCA for my incident, [B]all[/B] communication had to be initiated by me. Most of my emails went unanswered, and those that did result in a respone were usually of the "oh my god I've been busy will get back to you kthxbye" type -- leaving me completely clueless. The emails I posted were the result of me constantly contacting the SCCA for over half a year; both by email and phone. If I had not been insistent in following up with the SCCA, there were about four or five instances where all foward progress would have stopped. No corrective action would have been taken. Yes, I agree with you that the SCCA's plan and actions were appropiate. However, the fact that I had to constantly hassle them for half a year to get them to move is a shortfall on their part.
I appreciate that the SCCA lobbies for legislation I agree with, and I understand that they are one of the few organizations representing motorsport enthusiasts. But, they have major communication problems. Whether it's inter-regional communications or communication with it's members, the SCCA needs improvement. If the SCCA is unable to communicate and keep their base satisfied they will cease to exist, and I don't want that to happen.
The SCCA should take minor auto-x incidents more seriously. If no one were hurt in the incident in this thread, it would have been considered a "minor incident." The SCCA needs to realize that a major auto-x incident is simply a minor auto-x incident where an on-foot person is in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I know when dealing with the SCCA for my incident, [B]all[/B] communication had to be initiated by me. Most of my emails went unanswered, and those that did result in a respone were usually of the "oh my god I've been busy will get back to you kthxbye" type -- leaving me completely clueless. The emails I posted were the result of me constantly contacting the SCCA for over half a year; both by email and phone. If I had not been insistent in following up with the SCCA, there were about four or five instances where all foward progress would have stopped. No corrective action would have been taken. Yes, I agree with you that the SCCA's plan and actions were appropiate. However, the fact that I had to constantly hassle them for half a year to get them to move is a shortfall on their part.
I appreciate that the SCCA lobbies for legislation I agree with, and I understand that they are one of the few organizations representing motorsport enthusiasts. But, they have major communication problems. Whether it's inter-regional communications or communication with it's members, the SCCA needs improvement. If the SCCA is unable to communicate and keep their base satisfied they will cease to exist, and I don't want that to happen.
| jcroy66 | 12-12-2005 02:54 PM |
[QUOTE=Corn-Picker]If I had not been insistent in following up with the SCCA, there were about four or five instances where all foward progress would have stopped. No corrective action would have been taken.[/QUOTE]Are you sure of that? I'm not. Just because the SCCA wasn't initiating contact with you doesn't necessarily mean that they weren't contacting the region to determine what (if any) steps should be taken to reduce the chances of a repeat incident. Certainly because of your insistence, you found out what the steps were. I'm just not convinced that the steps were only taken [b]because [/b]of your insistence.
| Subayai WRX | 12-13-2005 05:07 AM |
Forget the hot areas, when autocrossing. Ultimately your own safety is in your own hands. I've been seeing an increase in lapses of safety at some autocrosses recently. Just imagine a wheel coming off a car, and flying into a car that is in the paddock, and up on jacks changing wheels; or a person sitting in the paddock with their back to the course.
In the regionI race in, I've now personally seen 4 different cars loose steering control due to suspension failures.
I think the real lesson to be learned here is do not trust someone else for your safety, and try to not become complacient with your own safety. Decide for yourself if a car were to lose it, or a driver become lost and confused are you a safe distance away, do not rely on even the most experienced safety steward.
In the regionI race in, I've now personally seen 4 different cars loose steering control due to suspension failures.
I think the real lesson to be learned here is do not trust someone else for your safety, and try to not become complacient with your own safety. Decide for yourself if a car were to lose it, or a driver become lost and confused are you a safe distance away, do not rely on even the most experienced safety steward.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét