While I generally agree that a kart will not travel as far once out of
control as will a larger vehicle, and our insurance will compensate a site
owner for damages, I think most would agree that property damage and vehicle
damage will not make the evening news as quiclky as an injured karter.
*Once* that makes the news it would have more of an effect on site retention
and acquisition than does the "unreported" property damage. One thing site
owners have told me in the past is their concern from negative publicity,
and the fact that if there is an injury a lawyer will go after them even if
they are covered by our insurance. This would lead to further negative
publicity so denial of usage of the site is an easy way to eliminate the
possibility. Whether this is entirely accurate or not is not mine to say.
All sounds plausible, and who am I to argue?
in HIS grace thru Jesus,
Don
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Peter Mottaz" <mph_16@hotmail.com>
Reply-To: "Peter Mottaz" <mph_16@hotmail.com>
To: autox@autox.team.net
Subject: Personal responsibility
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 10:03:48 PDT
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_2c1f8376_48eedf13$56872e27
From: "Peter Mottaz" <mph_16@hotmail.com>
To: kevin_stevens@hotmail.com
CC: f125@listbot.com, autox@autox.team.net Save Address
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 09:07:16 PDT
Kevin,
Jon BSP wrote:
I've heard enough! This Stevens guy is just a big whining little girl
who wants to subject everyone around her to her version of what the >rules
should be.
Boy you really did it now you big whining girl you <grin> - he is having to
resort to name calling!! :-) (note smiley Jon and Kevin)
Kevin wrote:
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.
You are reaching a bit here though Kev, really - running into a light pole
with _anything_ increases risk of site loss and insurance claims. In fact
the car will do more property damage to the pole which belongs to the site
owner, the costs of which will be borne by our insurance.
Because of our waiver, the costs from personal injury a karter may receive
by hitting an object will be the responsibility of the karter. It may affect
out insurance but won't hold the site owner liable for anything. I believe
the incident "SFR" had at McClellen gives precedence to this fact.
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'm so touched by your care and concern - I'll remember that if you're ever
in need of first aid <grin>.
I do care about karters' selfish willingness to significantly increase
>the
chances that I won't be able to *auto*cross in the future.
Again, I feel you presume too much here. Given equal circumstances on a
typical autocross course, an out of control car will slide for a much longer
distance and will have a greater likliehood of doing more damage to anything
in its path than a kart. Given this fact I don't believe that Karters are
selfishly increasing your chances of not being able to autocross in the
future - your big ol' Vette has the potential to hurt more people/property
than any little kart does.
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...
I agree and that is why we have the safety stewards approve the courses we
run on - which includes the power to exclude karts from an event that may
pose a special hazard to karts specifically. You and I also have the
power/responsibility to bring up any safety concerns we may find to the
event chair or safety steward. This is an organization made up of fallable
people - it is our responsibility as an organization to minimize (note: not
eliminate) the risk caused by our "short-sightedness."
I don't think that karts pose a large incremental increase in our overall
risk level. I do feel our over-reaction to karts far exceeds their
contribution to that increase in risk.
Pete (likes the car but really misses the kart) Mottaz
________________________________________________________________________
------=_NextPart_000_2c1f8376_48eedf13$56872e27
Return-Path: <mph_16@hotmail.com>
Received: (qmail 93768 invoked by uid 0); 18 May 2000 16:07:16 -0000
Message-ID: <20000518160716.93767.qmail@hotmail.com>
Received: from 206.24.101.132 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP;
Thu, 18 May 2000 09:07:16 PDT
X-Originating-IP: [206.24.101.132]
From: "Peter Mottaz" <mph_16@hotmail.com>
To: kevin_stevens@hotmail.com
Cc: f125@listbot.com, autox@autox.team.net
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 09:07:16 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Kevin,
>Jon BSP wrote:
>I've heard enough! This Stevens guy is just a big whining little girl
>who wants to subject everyone around her to her version of what the >rules
>should be.
Boy you really did it now you big whining girl you <grin> - he is having to
resort to name calling!! :-) (note smiley Jon and Kevin)
>Kevin wrote:
>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.
You are reaching a bit here though Kev, really - running into a light pole
with _anything_ increases risk of site loss and insurance claims. In fact
the car will do more property damage to the pole which belongs to the site
owner, the costs of which will be borne by our insurance.
Because of our waiver, the costs from personal injury a karter may receive
by hitting an object will be the responsibility of the karter. It may affect
out insurance but won't hold the site owner liable for anything. I believe
the incident "SFR" had at McClellen gives precedence to this fact.
>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'm so touched by your care and concern - I'll remember that if you're ever
in need of first aid <grin>.
>I do care about karters' selfish willingness to significantly increase
>the
>chances that I won't be able to *auto*cross in the future.
Again, I feel you presume too much here. Given equal circumstances on a
typical autocross course, an out of control car will slide for a much longer
distance and will have a greater likliehood of doing more damage to anything
in its path than a kart. Given this fact I don't believe that Karters are
selfishly increasing your chances of not being able to autocross in the
future - your big ol' Vette has the potential to hurt more people/property
than any little kart does.
>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...
I agree and that is why we have the safety stewards approve the courses we
run on - which includes the power to exclude karts from an event that may
pose a special hazard to karts specifically. You and I also have the
power/responsibility to bring up any safety concerns we may find to the
event chair or safety steward. This is an organization made up of fallable
people - it is our responsibility as an organization to minimize (note: not
eliminate) the risk caused by our "short-sightedness."
I don't think that karts pose a large incremental increase in our overall
risk level. I do feel our over-reaction to karts far exceeds their
contribution to that increase in risk.
Pete (likes the car but really misses the kart) Mottaz
________________________________________________________________________
------=_NextPart_000_2c1f8376_48eedf13$56872e27--
________________________________________________________________________
|