Uhh, you're misrepresenting my position (and Will's) and then arguing against that misrepresentation... I am compelled to clarify my position... I did not accuse Art of either. Art's cases may even have done the world good... I made no assertion on the specifics... I don't know them. My point (and I think Will's) is that its a "slippery slope"... that in general, if the courts start deciding what is and is not adequately safe in racing, that racing will rapidly become too expensive for amateurs to play. I did NOT say that. I did say that I'm in greater danger on many of my freeway drives where there are concrete barriers and lots of moron drivers all within a few feet of my car going 85mph than on my home track doing 130mph. And I stand by that. I also indicated that I am okay with the risk levels that I am taking on track without having a rollbar. I drive at less than 100% in many spots even on my home track... and on tracks with walls in the runoff of some corners, I take it even easier. Or if a notable rut builds up on a corner, I'll take it easier there. That's how I choose to mitigate risks. But that does NOT mean I believe I'm perfectly safe! But I'm in far more danger on public roads. I'm NOT opposed to raising the safety bar. I am a big fan of Motorsport Ranch because it is sooo safe (no walls to run into). I hope more tracks are built like that. What Will and I were complaining about is trying to do that in the courts. The judicial system is not the place for it. Just wanted to make sure nobody took your mis-representation of my positions as my positions... they're NOT. You are arguing against positions you invented.
Brian: This is a terribly complex issue. World Superbike and Dorma (promoter of motogp) both have very high standards regarding track design and safety. In Europe, and throughout most of Asia, the promoters adhere to those same standards. We don't here. The AMA is in bed with the promoters, rather than looking out for the riders. Always has been. Until John Ulrich got on their board, started using his magazine to scream about safety, nothing got done. There is a distinct difference between the car guys and the motorcycists. Tracks that work for cars, have problems with motorcycles. In Europe, faulty design the leads to a death can end up with a criminal charge of manslaughter. Maybe that's a better solution. Art
Brian: I agree with what you've written. FatBilly: I agree with you that science needs to drive safety decisions. The recent article about seat design in SportsCar was fascinating. I disagree with Art about how to improve safety. I'm not sure, Art, why you say the issue is complex; I think you mean to patronize us, which I find amusing because I know from your political posts that you can write and think well enough not to need insults to make your points. It's idiotic to suggest that I'm against safety. I can imagine several complexities: first, the science may not be clear. Second, racing is a very small community, and small towns can have quite dense politics - and the influence of drivers, well .... Finally, as in every industry, safety decisions are subject to a cost/benefit analysis that is quite subjective; economics will affect safety decisions. I'm thinking of a major North American track, one which hosts pro sportscar races, among many other events. I have always found it to be quite dangerous and, indeed, the track has seen deaths in the past decade. It is one of the most beautiful and famous tracks we have. I suppose Art would use the courts to force it to change, or shut it down; I would leave it alone and factor the risk into my racing choices. I like being able to take make choices - you want to tell me what's best for me. You'd like a jury to determine what's best for racing. As I said previously, I think there's an underlying philosophical disagreement. Edit - I apologize to the thread starter for participating in this thread hijacking. Interesting discussion of HANS.
Is anyone else here a little offended by the idea that you can willingly sign a waiver and release to take on risk, then sue anyway if something bad happens?
It's complex because of several issues: 1. you run various types of machinery on the different tracks. What is safe for one, might be deadly for the others. Finding a balance can and is difficult. 2. Most competitors are fairly young. In motorcycles, you have competitors at age 16. It takes substantial experience to properly evaluate the safety consequences of a particular track layout. More importantly, although the various insurance carriers have rated the tracks re: safety, those figures aren't published, and in fact, I know of no publication which rates various tracks, corners, etc. What you see may not be the exact danger that you're looking at, and the people with the most knowledge of what is and isn't dangerous are the track owners, and their carriers. An example of a "trap" was the 2003 layout for Fontana for the AMA national. Two ex-racers, and a current racer advised the AMA that because of the layout, it was possible that a crash could end up directly into the oncoming traffic. The AMA poopood the advice and ran the track. Guess what: Exactly what happened with a fatality. Could have been avoided with a higher barrier, which is how the ran the later races, and the crashes at that site have not been serious. Should the track bear some of that burden? I say yes in that particular instance. Same deal with Sears Point the old turn 8A. Had a metal barrier, so that if you crashed, you hit the barrier. Ok for cars, going reasonabaly slow, no major damage, and it protected the traffic coming off the carousel. Terrible for bikes, killed more than one person there because of lack of run off room. Problem was, only killed them about once every 5 years. Given the average racer's career was 3 years, probably an unknown defect to the average racer. I fully understand that racing is dangerous, and in fact that's one of the features I like, when it came time to run on the track, the bs stopped, and at least on bikes, the best and bravest rider would do well. However, known defects which can be fixed should be the responsibility of the track owner. Period. Hope this clarifies the point to your satifaction. It has nothing to do with politics, but years of experience on the track, and that I've got friend running who shouldn't have to bear an unreasonable risk. Art
Guys, I'm gonna have to side with Art here. I raced motorcycles very amateurishly back in the 60s. You wouldn't believe how bad some of the tracks were. One dirt track had concrete sticking out into the track that would flip you if you took the high line. Nobody cared. Yeah, I know. You cage guys calls us sucicycles or body donors then and now. But the same applies to you guys. Yes, Will, I agree that I don't want the courts involved in race tracks. But when the promotors don't give a ****, except for the gate money, whatca gonna do? Even though I sign a wavier, I believe that I have a contractual right to expect that known hazards have been fixed. How can I, as a participant, have the knowledge necessary to drive/race on a new track, otherwise? Racing is risky. I suspect that this is why we like it. But this doesn't mean that we are sucidal. Dale
This is exactly my point in a previous post. Signing your rights away is fine as long as you have full knowledge of what you are doing. We go to tracks sign waivers and accept risk of death or injury but we each have expectations of why those injurys and death may occur. Having a privately known track fault cause that death for which you are not informed is not what we sign off on. In medicine they call that "informed consent". Art is spot on. And WCh I think you said you practiced law? Well I am not a lawyer but isn't there a legal term called an "exculpatory clause" meaning you can't give up your rights under certain conditions? So if you agree to work a metal boiling company and the boss says the last 8 guys in 8 weeks fell in and burnt to death so if you work here you have to agree to not sue me if you die. You can sign the waiver but still have certain rights to sue.
Brian....With what science do you make that assertion? Your car is tested for safety by smarter guys than you and me in this craft at street speeds and street conditions. What makes you think going off track at 130mph with nothing to hit is more safe? Have you heard about the guy at buttonwillow last year that rolled his car and the lateral whip of the roll snapped his neck? He hit nothing. He dead! Did you hear about the guy who went off T9 at Willow Springs in a 914 year ago with nothing to hit and the car canopenered open and amputated his leg? So you do this because you think you are safe right? My read on this staement is that you think you are acting safely right? I think I said that you think you are safe in my previous post. I'm not misrepresenting. Sorry "your dog still don't hunt". Good luck in your future.
fatbillybob: I like your insistence on the underlying science; on that, you and I agree. You use a medical analogy. Before surgery, you're asked to sign a lengthy document describing all the ways the cure could be worse than the disease. I guess we could do the same with racing - have every participant sign the most comprehensive list of horribles we could create, dutifully initialling each one. Maybe that's the way to go - some known hazards can't be fixed; some corners are just dangerous. You want to eliminate courage from racing? My experience with racing is that all sorts of crazy things happen. Friend of mine was hurt when his car flipped as it was being pulled from a gravel trap by a track tow vehicle. I'm sure you've seen a wreck and wondered, "how did the car end up there?" The destroyed car from which the driver climbed out unhurt? The seemingly barely damaged car in which a driver died? I guess I want two things. I'd like to preserve racing by protecting it from depositions and jury trials and punitive damages and all the other joys of litigation. I don't think that, by and large, many people are making much money in racing. I'm not sure racing as we know it would survive the cost of judicial review of safety decisions. Incidentally, I believe Art is motivated by safety concerns, and nothing else. Most important - I'd like to preserve the right of a grown man to be a damned fool. I think the right to be a damned fool and the right to be left alone are two pretty important rights. I want to be able to sign a piece of paper that says I understand all bets are off, that what I'm doing can hurt me or kill me in ways I can't foresee, that Mommy isn't at the track to kiss it and make it better and so I have to assume responsibility for my choices.
