Don,
I understand we (i.e. SCCA risk management) may need to assess and evaluate
our risk level for any proposed activity we engage in. My point is that all
of the arguements I have seen thus far on this forum regarding the desire to
eliminate karts have been based on a _large_ over-estimate of the risk to
SoloII (and the drivers themselves). The risk in the "what if" scenarious
proferred as examples, are overstated compared to reality.
I spent all of last season running a f125 kart in 18+ regional events, a
divisional, 4 ProSolos, 2 National Tours, Topeka and uncountable practice
laps at kart tracks. I believe I was pushing the kart as hard as I could
given my level of experience in the thing. I never saw anything or
experienced anything that even remotely comes close to the dangers offered
up as rationale for banning karts from SoloII.
Yes, I hit lots of cones and bumps, I never came remotely close to "going
over" (lots of real fun spins though ;-). Do I think it couldn't happen, of
course not. But I think the risk level is no worse than what we normally
assume for our events. Just for reference I am a conservative, 42 year old
male who has a deep aversion to pain <grin>. I am also a father who feels
the risk is low enough such that I let my 10 year old daughter autocross in
the Junior karts and my soon to be 8 year old son will be next.
I am, obviously, biased in favor of the karts. But I feel we are gnashing
our teeth and wringing our hands over an overstated and overblown assumption
regarding the dangers of a kart driver being injured. IMNSHO those dangers
are no more or less than that for the other classes in SoloII.
Pete Mottaz
'95 BMW 325is GS#11
'99 Trackmagic/Briggs Dragon
Don wrote:
>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
________________________________________________________________________
|