There's a big difference between risking your own health and vehicle, and
risking Solo II's ability to get insurance and sites.
Having a car run into a light pole carries a very low risk of losing a site
and no risk of impacting our insurance.
Having a kart driver flung into a light pole carries a significant risk of
losing a site, and a low but cumulative risk of impacting our insurance.
Losing one site due to an injury accident can *very easily* lead to losing
other sites. The people making rental decisions don't live in a vacuum -
they work with and talk to each other. Anything an autox organization can
offer to offset the liability and general inconvenience of renting the site
generally ain't worth it to them. We exist on sufferance.
If you think I care about the personal safety of kart drivers, you couldn't
be more wrong - my theory of emergency health care is that all bleeding
stops eventually.
I do care about karters' selfish willingness to significantly increase the
chances that I won't be able to *auto*cross in the future.
And yes, I feel the same way about people who design courses that are too
fast with insufficient runoff. It's a shame we don't make drivers pass a
test for short-sightedness...
KeS
>From: "Jeff Parker" <lugnut@texas.net>
>Reply-To: "Jeff Parker" <lugnut@texas.net>
>To: <autox@autox.team.net>
>Subject: Re: Petty column in the Worcester paper
>Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 18:05:49 -0500
>
>I think the anti-Kart folks should hire this guy to promote their cause.
>
>If you don't want to take a risk, then don't do it.
>
>Jeff Parker
>
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
|