Tom_Spangler wrote: IMO, it's not always a bad thing. The death of Dale Earnhardt led to the widespread adoption of things like HANS, SAFER barriers, banning open-face helmets in NASCAR, and the safety improvements in the COT. Those have made racing safer without making it any worse, IMO.
Tom, I agree...
But every one of those was about adopting a technology which was not understood well by the masses of drivers.
Changing a behavior is different, especially when the behavior draws attention.
SVreX wrote: Flag rules, etc, are not inherently understood, they have to be explained and defined.
But only to a point. I agree that the flags meaning is not inherently understood. If a yellow flag is thrown that means there is an incident on track and if a red flag is thrown that means there is a more severe incident on track. But that is everything needed to understand them by your idealist rationalizations, and should be all that the drivers need to make the right decision of their own accord. Beyond that is doing nothing but creating the same exact (doomed to failure) rules that define behavior and making people act right regarding things that are commonly understood. The problem that you're completely ignoring with your fallacious 'rules only create loopholes' argument, is that what is "commonly understood" to one person is not so to another whose experiences have taught them differently.
You're theory that rules do not make a society that behaves right might hold true in a perfect world. But due to the wide range of inherent human nature, the simple reality is that a civilized large-scale society cannot exist without rules defining the limits of socially acceptable behavior.
tuna55 wrote:ronholm wrote: This is probably really horrible of me... but I am starting to think "Why bother with a rule at all". Let them get out of their cars if they are not smart enough to figure out running onto a hot racetrack is a bad idea. Couldn't you write up a a solid enough "hold harmless" waiver. Then let them do whatever the hell they want. Why do we think we need to save people from themselves all the time.. Especially the ones who are clearly a special kind of stupid. Stuff like this to me is like getting worked up over a kid getting shot after looting and beating up Policemen... Or acting like it is huge tragedy when one of those guys in the flying squirrel suits smashes into something.. When I die doing something really stupid.. Please don't make any new laws on my behalf.Exactly. What would I change to fix this problem? Nothing.
I thought the "problem" was fairly self correcting. Kind of like gang on gang violence. Given enough time they're self correct.
SVreX wrote:GameboyRMH wrote: As a bonus, it keeps the bad PR down...There is no such thing as bad PR. There is not a single spectator who would now avoid going to the track because someone died. In fact the opposite is true. There are people who have NEVER been to a dirt track event who will now go to see what all the excitement is about.
I didn't mean PR with spectators, I meant PR with track management. When the lawsuits start flying over this, tracks are going to think twice about hosting an event where it's A-OK and almost culturally encouraged for drivers to walk out onto a hot track.
So, what happens when a car has a catastrophic accident (hits the wall, multi-car pileup, etc)?
The driver is supposed to sit in his car until it catches fire, then get out?
Drivers leave cars all the time immediately after an accident, and don't look for the red flag first.
Generally, corner workers are extremely good at flagging. But a car entering turn 1 probably won't see the flag before he leaves turn 2. If the accident is on turn 2 (like this one), the track is "hot", even if the flag has been thrown.
SVreX wrote: But every one of those was about adopting a technology which was not understood well by the masses of drivers.
If that was true, hen all that should have been necessary to get all of the drivers to embrace the safety improvements would have been to teach them how to understand the technology. Once the technology has been thoroughly explained and is understood by the drivers, creating rules mandating use of the safety technology is nothing more than attempting to dictating human behavior into doing the right thing.
SVreX wrote: So, what happens when a car has a catastrophic accident (hits the wall, multi-car pileup, etc)? The driver is supposed to sit in his car until it catches fire, then get out? Drivers leave cars all the time immediately after an accident, and don't look for the red flag first.
Really? Check F1 or most other forms of racing. Drivers don't get out until a flag is thrown or sometimes until safety workers arrive. So sitting in the car until it catches fire (or safety workers tell them to get out) is the technically correct and safest thing to do.
In reply to Driven5:
I said inherently understood, not understood in detail.
No one knows what a flag means until they are taught. My wife has never watched a race, and has no idea what a yellow flag means, although she has been alive for 52 years.
She does, however, know better than to play in traffic.
That is an "inherent understanding".
No driver needs a "detailed understanding" like you described.
Getting out of the car and staying near it is one thing. But walking into traffic is another.
The kid made a mistake in the heat of battle and paid dearly for it.
Driven5 wrote:SVreX wrote: But every one of those was about adopting a technology which was not understood well by the masses of drivers.If that was true, hen all that should have been necessary to get all of the drivers to embrace the safety improvements would have been to teach them how to understand the technology. Once the technology has been thoroughly explained and is understood by the drivers, creating rules mandating use of the safety technology is nothing more than attempting to dictating human behavior into doing the right thing.
Umm... that's what was done.
The rules were used to teach the understanding of the technology, which was not inherently understood.
Dale Earnhardt is dead because he did not understand the technology of a HANS. He thought it was a limitation instead of an opportunity.
Very few drivers would stop wearing them now if the rule was eliminated. Because, there is a good cultural understanding of the technology.
SVreX wrote: So, what happens when a car has a catastrophic accident (hits the wall, multi-car pileup, etc)? The driver is supposed to sit in his car until it catches fire, then get out?
Rules are created all the time, that are capable of accommodating a wide range of potential situations. Fearing the fact that a perfect rule cannot be created, is a terrible reason to prevent making the best rule possible when there is just cause. If drivers walking onto an active track in anger is a common problem, which it obviously is in oval track racing, then the dangers of doing so in that environment are most certainly NOT commonly understood. Thus a reasonably worded rule would be a prudent measure to significantly reduce such occurrences.
GameboyRMH wrote:SVreX wrote: So, what happens when a car has a catastrophic accident (hits the wall, multi-car pileup, etc)? The driver is supposed to sit in his car until it catches fire, then get out? Drivers leave cars all the time immediately after an accident, and don't look for the red flag first.Really? Check F1 or most other forms of racing. Drivers don't get out until a flag is thrown or sometimes until safety workers arrive. So sitting in the car until it catches fire (or safety workers tell them to get out) is the technically correct and safest thing to do.
F1 drivers have spotters. They know instantly over the radio when the flag has been thrown. Not the same.
SVreX wrote: F1 drivers have spotters. They know instantly over the radio when the flag has been thrown. Not the same.
Fair point, but what does that change? If you don't see a flag, just stay in your car until it catches fire. The safety workers will know if a flag has been thrown when they arrive.
In reply to Driven5:
I have no fear of the inability to create a perfect rule.
I have an understanding that all rules are imperfect, and lead to 10 more rules, and that THIS one (which will lead to 10 more) is a bit pointless.
Kind of like the $20XX Challenge rules. Once you start writing rules, its pretty easy to keep writing rules to fix the rules. 
In fact, it became a badge of honor to do something that forced GRM to write a new rule!
GameboyRMH wrote:SVreX wrote: F1 drivers have spotters. They know instantly over the radio when the flag has been thrown. Not the same.Fair point, but what does that change? If you don't see a flag, just stay in your car until it catches fire. The safety workers will know if a flag has been thrown when they arrive.
So, you are sitting in your car up against the wall. Rattled. Perhaps upside down. The adrenaline had been pumping, but now everything is a blur.
You smell fuel. Strongly.
But your logic is better than your emotions, so you surmise, "I need to sit here until a corner worker comes, because we have an important rule that exists to keep people from getting hurt".
Yeah, right.
I saw a guy try to run across a small dirt oval during a shifter kart race. When the kart hit him he flew higher than I would have thought physically possible.
I've also been at a small dirt track in Indiana where a guy was killed in a midget.
Anyway I'm saying there is a clear and discernable difference between storming out on track to act like an idiot and just simply climbing out of a wrecked car. It's not that hard to make that call.
It is common sense but it's also common sense to have the rule.
Kevin Ward appears to have violated no rules in confronting Stewart.
A review of the rules of both Canandaigua Motors Park in New York, and the Empire Super Sprint series, suggests that racer Kevin Ward, Jr., violated no specific rule when he climbed from his disabled car Saturday night and walked toward the sprint car of NASCAR driver Tony Stewart, who was still under power.
http://www.motorsport.com/sprint/news/kevin-ward-appears-to-have-violated-no-rules-in-confronting-stewart/
SVreX wrote:GameboyRMH wrote:So, you are sitting in your car up against the wall. Rattled. Perhaps upside down. The adrenaline had been pumping, but now everything is a blur. You smell fuel. Strongly. But your logic is better than your emotions, so you surmise, "I need to sit here until a corner worker comes, because we have an important rule that exists to keep people from getting hurt". Yeah, right.SVreX wrote: F1 drivers have spotters. They know instantly over the radio when the flag has been thrown. Not the same.Fair point, but what does that change? If you don't see a flag, just stay in your car until it catches fire. The safety workers will know if a flag has been thrown when they arrive.
If you smell or see fuel coming out, you can:
A) Use that fact to protest the penalty later. If you don't then run onto a live track pointing angrily, they'll probably waive the penalty. B) Simply decide that a suspension is better than burning to death and take your chances with being suspended.
Like I said, this rule is nearly universal in racing already. These problems have been sorted out.
If the guy in front hit him, it wouldn't be mainstream news but we'd still be having the exact same argument here.
SVreX wrote: The rules were used to teach the understanding of the technology, which was not inherently understood...Very few drivers would stop wearing them now if the rule was eliminated. Because, there is a good cultural understanding of the technology.
It's the exact same thing. Creating a cultural understanding, that obviously doesn't exist already, is exactly what we're talking about with a rule that would teach drivers to understand the severity of safety concerns involved with getting out of their car on a track. Put this rule in place, and in a few years it too might not even be necessary to keep drivers from exiting their cars.
Regardless of what you want to tell yourself, this was not the same thing as somebody running blindly out into the middle of the street with absolutely no awareness of their surroundings. The drivers that do this are looking into the traffic and have at least some historical reason to believe the other drivers will see them and have full control of the cars at the moment, even if that's not always the case.
However, running blindly into the street is actually the perfect example of another cultural safety understanding that is only taught to us by some form of rules, rather than being "inherently known" as you claim. Each and every one of us has done this at some point in our life after having had the dangers explained to us repeatedly, but not yet having faced any serious enough repercussions to change our understanding. While this specific scenario may be more specific to children, it's no different than changing the cultural understanding in adults who think they know better and/or who inherently become complacent over time. It's not until the minor repercussions are serious enough that it eventually becomes "inherently known", or a cultural understanding if you will, over time. Which is hopefully at the point before they have an incident involving major repercussions that they didn't fully understand the likelihood of occurring. The simple reality is, the vast majority of adults are little better than children when it comes to "inherent knowledge" that was never actually taught to them via first hand experience or some system of rules...And nobody should have to learn about this from first hand experience.
A common sense application of a 'stay in your car' rule would not only protect the driver who might otherwise get out on foot, but also the psychological well being of the driver who would have otherwise hit them. Seriously injuring or killing somebody, even if through absolutely no fault of your own, will stay with you forever and nobody should have to live with that.
Datsun1500 wrote:GameboyRMH wrote: If the guy in front hit him, it wouldn't be mainstream news but we'd still be having the exact same argument here.No we wouldn't because we would not have heard about it. People get killed on racetracks every day. I don't remember a thread on this one Last Year
Well, we missed that one but we have discussions about accidents without celebrities in them all the time, down to club-level amateur racing. I can find plenty of evidence for those if you'd like.
If I'm in a crashed car that isn't on fire but is smelling strongly of fuel you best believe I will start snatching belts and ejecting my corpulent carcass from the car, no matter what. If I don't smell fuel and don't see immediate danger, best to stay in the car till a corner worker shows up.
To me, this is understandable and is the basis for the 'stay in the car' rule mentioned at drivers meetings but there has to be some common sense on the part of the driver. What is NOT understandable is what this guy did: get out of the car and GO DOWN TO THE RACE LINE! to 'confront' Stewart. That was just plain dumb.
In reply to Driven5:
You are an engineer.
I understand that engineers like rules, and believe in their ability to fix problems.
We disagree.
I also understand that lots of the world likes rules, and believes in their ability to solve problems, and that I will loose this debate.
I will still disagree.
When they write the rule, I will abide by it, because I already do.
However, I believe in the law of unintended consequences. I may not be willing to abide by the rules that come as by products and unintended consequences of this rule.
Enjoy!
SVreX wrote: So, you are sitting in your car up against the wall. Rattled. Perhaps upside down. The adrenaline had been pumping, but now everything is a blur. You smell fuel. Strongly. But your logic is better than your emotions, so you surmise, "I need to sit here until a corner worker comes, because we have an important rule that exists to keep people from getting hurt". Yeah, right.
Except the upside-down part... I have been in this exact situation. At the exit of the fastest corner on a fast race track.
I stayed in the car. Getting out meant exposing my soft vulnerable bits to getting hit by cars going triple digit speeds and sliding in MY oil. I was sitting in the safest place I could be with straps cinched tight and my hand on the fire suppression pull switch counting the seconds until it was over. So... yeah, right... Stay in the berkeleying car unless it's on fire. EVERYONE knows this. Except, I guess, friday night dirt trackers.
In reply to SVreX:
Exactly what "unintended consequences" and safety "loopholes" have any other racing series/organization/sanctioning body actually experienced as a direct result of implementing a "stay in your car" rule, that you believe are worse than the unintended consequences which have been experienced on numerous occasions where there was no such rule in place?
You'll need to log in to post.
