mose121

So you're good with a 60's era safety berm that acts as a launch ramp after this just happened? Okay then.

jdistefa

You must be doing some pretty rigorous sailing. Maybe sex while sailing?

Manifold

These organizations typically rely on the opinions of volunteers who don't have any professional background in track safety engineering. They may be well intentioned, but good intentions aren't a substitute for proper qualifications and engineering analysis/design. Imagine if people could practice medicine without needing to go through med school and residency ...

Veloce Raptor

Give it a rest

bldn10

A thought came to my mind, in addition, of course, to the horror and sadness of losing a track brother and injury to another, that perhaps I should stop instructing at the "dangerous" tracks. Then it hit me that, aside from some runoff deficiencies, Roebling would probably be considered one of the safer tracks in the SE. I.e. it can happen anywhere, anytime. To anyone.

I can envision the day, as some here have suggested, when instruction will not be in-car. Or at least not every session. Frankly, the biggest improvements I've ever obtained was after the student rode w/ me. And I am a believer in lead-follow too.

ExMB

+1

And even close calls can make one think. More than that in a weekend and you question your sanity as an instructor.

R_Rated

Even Jalopnik picked up the story:

https://jalopnik.com/driver-dies-aft...ash-1822938194

thebishman

ExMB

Yes, 2 days ago. Post # 80

Estoril

Why not stop instructing at track with badly outdated safety features? I have. Its not as if there is a shortage of tracks. There will always be tracks (not singling one out) that will refuse to improve safety features for decades - until they feel the financial pressure to do so. That dirt berm in Turn 1 appears to be so outdated that its hard to believe that it is still relied upon. How long has it been there - unchanged with no improvements? If my observation about this are wrong - tell me how.

Instructors DO have the ability to vote with their feet. After the death of instructor Ken Novinger at Summit Point Jefferson circuit in 2014 - I vowed not to do events on tracks where a car can go directly to a tree without safety features intervening. We will lose a fight with a tree 100% of the time. If you look at the post-crash photo - the car slid sideways into the tree and the instructor stood no chance. No chance. And yet events are still held on that circuit with plenty of mature trees. Now ask yourself "Why is that?"

Wasn't a PCA Instructor killed years ago in the south (GA, SC?) when they went off track and a tree branch penetrated the windshield? Its been a while and I'm doing this from memory.

Summit Point Main - ~3 years ago a driver swerved to miss an object on track, left right side of the main straight and the dirt berm did not stop the car - but instead launched it upwards. It settled on a fence post which penetrated the floor pan and the instructors seat. Very serious injury to the instructor. Again - dirt berm.

There are four entities that contribute to safety at these events: The student driver, Instructors, the track and the event sponsor. Students aren't going to lobby for modern safety protection. They pay their money and expect a safe event - generally unaware of the myriad of risks - including those of their own doing. Most tracks aren't going to spend to modernize - unless it means loss of revenue from pro or amateur events. And the track owners aren't in the car. In-car Instructors know the risks, manage them within the limits of reasonable action and time and have serious skin in the game (personal risk). The event sponsor also recognizes the risks, but has to manage the event within the limits of cost and the track time urged by paying drivers. So who has the ball?

The only two parties than can and will do anything to advance safety at HPDEs are instructors - and by extension the event organizer (who needs instructors to run events and bears some liability). If in-car Instructors don't push for changes - who will? What should we wait for? Government regulation? Insurance industry regulation? Tracks to suddenly start getting interested in safety improvements?

Props to the good, safe tracks that take safety seriously and have the very real improvements to prove it. Most of us have been on them. Many of those run pro events - and the event sponsors won't sign with a track whose safety features aren't up to par. Which is the way it should be for HPDEs. Pro sponsors learn from most serious incidents. We should too.

Defending the status quo in substandard track features will just mean that the next few generations of instructors (and track drivers - race or not) will have gained nothing from our harsh experiences.

Manifold

^ Estoril, very well said. The tracks will only improve their safety if there's real pressure to do so. Who else but us will apply that pressure?

I knew Ken, as well as the instructor who was speared by a fence post (I was at that track instructing that day myself). Both really nice people. And both entirely PREVENTABLE outcomes if those tracks had proper safety features - the deficiencies were OBVIOUS to anyone properly qualified to evaluate the tracks.

fatbillybob

I do not know your source but I'll accept it. You have 102 deaths in last 7 years!

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...ingsafety.html

the National Weather Service, conducted the study by examining demographic information for 238 deaths attributed to lightning over the last seven years.

So you are two times more likely to get killed by lightening than killed on a race track! So what do we need to fix again?

mglobe

Estoril

It seems NOAA doesn't agree with itself:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-not-more.html

fatbillybob

OK so the NOAA I quoted was 7 yrs of data I forget which yeatrs. Your quote from NOAA shows this graph with incomplete # of 2017 deaths so 182 deaths from lightening. You are still more likely to get killed by lightening than driving on track.