> I can understand how you guys that are anti-art feel about the
> situation. A class was put up on you that circumvented tradition rules and
> thinking without your input. I was in SCCA back in the 70's when showroom
STUPID ASSUMPTION. Did I anywhere say that I was against karts? It is
actually a moot point for me since we do not have them locally.
Your misuse of statistics was the point. 1 injury in 4 years. divorced of
the number of runs in 4 years, does not mean it is safe. Just think how
safe it would look if you said there had been 1 injury in 50 years of
autocrossing karts?
> I can't debate attendance figures with you since I don't know how many
> karts have attended autocrosses in the last 4 years. I will argue that
> statistics are not lineal. If in four years you have had 500 art
> entries(for example) and one art incident results in an injury is the
> incident rate 1 in 500? not exactly.Not one of every 500 art entry is
> going to have an injury.
Actually, that IS your best estimate. If you get 10 times the runs, you
expect to have 10 times the accidents, unless you do something to change the
risk.
The risk in this case is rolling the vehicle by hitting a cone. There is NO
way to reduce that risk. If you reduce that risk, it isn't autocross.
This is a different risk than poor course design that puts a car (or a art)
into a light pole. A car hitting a cone is NOT going to roll or break an
arm.
The autocross community needs to decide if the risks of breaking an arm by
hitting a cone (plus the ones of karts mixed with larger cars in the pits)
are worth it.
|