> Kevin Stevens <Kevin_Stevens@pursued-with.net> wrote:
>> PbPied@aol.com wrote:
>> I disagree with your assertion that there were incidents not caused
>> by stupid mistakes. Driving over one's head, or beyond the direct
>> controlled operating capabilities of a vehicle is a stupid mistake,
>> perhaps the biggest and most common one. "Gotta save this run"
>> is responsible for almost all incidents involving vehicle or property
>> damage.
Shit, somebody write down the date.
I (mostly) agree with Kevin here:
>> Sorry to throw water on the theories that "things just happen", or "it
was
>> the course's fault", or "high speeds caused it". The DRIVER, and only
>> the DRIVER decides what control inputs to make. If someone has no
>> experience autocrossing at 60 + and flat out, they should make an honest
>> assessment of the risks they take by trying to go 100%.
> The flaw in that argument is that the judgement and level of
> aggressiveness of the driver is statistically pretty consistent. You
have
> to be able to explain the empirical results. Three contact incidents at
> one site on one weekend, vs long periods of time with no contact
incidents
> at other sites, with the same or similar drivers, is a stretch to explain
> away as a statistic anomaly.
Agreed, except for the "statistical anomaly" being a *stretch*. Anomalies
happen. Sometimes, you'll hit 10 coin flips in a row. In fact, given
sufficient randomness and enough samples, eventually ALL anomalies MUST
occur.
> Drivers are always going to make strategic and tactical mistakes; the
> point of autocross is that "reasonable" errors shouldn't result in hard
> contact.
Bingo.
I agree that when you go out on course, you are ultimately responsible for
your own destiny. However, there is an understanding that while you assume
a certain degree of risk, that the amount risk you assume is supposed to be
a good deal lower than, say, running at the Daytona 500.
> In the cases where it does, a reason needs to be identified and
> a lessons-learned produced, even if the cause is ultimately determined to
> be an anomaly, and the lesson learned is that shit happens.
Agreed, double-underline it and grave it in stone Amen, Brother!
> Your position is ultimately untenable because, if the course design truly
> can't accommodate/compensate for reasonable driver error, autocross as a
> sport would quickly cease to exist as site and insurance availability
> became prohibitively expensive.
Agreed again. Hell, I hope this isn't a trend.... :)
When you do a Pro event or even a National Tour, it can be assumed that the
level of assumed risk is slightly higher than a local event. Speeds WILL be
higher. Courses WILL be more difficult. And the level of performance you
need to extract from yourself WILL be higher. That means that the level of
attention to detail on the part of safety from course designers, safety
stewards, and on-site staff needs to be that much higher as well.
Not having been there, it's impossible for me to speculate either way. It
would be irresponsible to speculate either way. But a review MUST take
place.
With one exception - there were 3 engine failures at this event. That
cannot be laid at the feet of any event staff, and is firmly in the relm of
"shit happens".
DG
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|