Roebling death
#151
#152
Rennlist Member
#153
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Mid-Atlantic (on land, not in the middle of the ocean)
Posts: 13,344
Received 4,529 Likes
on
2,577 Posts
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 ...
#155
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.
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.
#156
#158
There is so much being made in this thread about adding ‘safety’ features to a car being used at an HPDE, but no road car is going to do well with an incapacitated driver potentially still pressing down on the accelerator and certainly not touching the brakes at the end of the front straight at any road course. The kinetic energy upon impact for even a full on race car to have to deal with upon that sort of impact is huge. No one is going to make the necessary modifications to their road car to try and make it protect a driver in that kind of scenario, i. e. a driver that is unconscious and not exerting control over the car.
It’s a tragedy for all involved, no doubt, and yes the speed of modern street cars versus what we were driving 20 years ago plays a part such that all tracks need to ensure that they have the very best protection that they can for a car that veers off track. But if some of the things proposed above are mandated for your typical entrant at the typical PCA/BMW CCA HPDE event, then the ‘sport’ as we know it will be crippled.
Bish
PS: for all of you instructors: you and your peers have taught me so much, and even though I’ve been driving solo in the Advanced run group for over 20 years now, I still learn from ‘you’ when I’m lucky enough to have of you ride in the car with me. Please know how much you’re respected!
It’s a tragedy for all involved, no doubt, and yes the speed of modern street cars versus what we were driving 20 years ago plays a part such that all tracks need to ensure that they have the very best protection that they can for a car that veers off track. But if some of the things proposed above are mandated for your typical entrant at the typical PCA/BMW CCA HPDE event, then the ‘sport’ as we know it will be crippled.
Bish
PS: for all of you instructors: you and your peers have taught me so much, and even though I’ve been driving solo in the Advanced run group for over 20 years now, I still learn from ‘you’ when I’m lucky enough to have of you ride in the car with me. Please know how much you’re respected!
#159
#160
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.
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.
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.
#161
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Mid-Atlantic (on land, not in the middle of the ocean)
Posts: 13,344
Received 4,529 Likes
on
2,577 Posts
^ 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.
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.
#162
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?
#163
The Penguin King
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
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?
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?
#164
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.
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.
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?
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?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-not-more.html
#165
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.