Roebling death
02-15-2018, 03:48 PM
#181
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
^^^^ What Fumes and Deutchkar said regarding Summit Point, Chris White, and PCA Potomac's contribution. They have been investing a lot of time, effort and money into safety improvements in recent years. Having been driving on Summit Point for 20 years I notice every improvement they make to the track.
We all need to keep in mind that as the performance envelope of the cars, tire technology, suspension technology evolve, so are the improvements to track safety.
We all need to keep in mind that as the performance envelope of the cars, tire technology, suspension technology evolve, so are the improvements to track safety.
02-15-2018, 03:51 PM
#182
Rennlist Member
So the safety variables we have discussed so far:
1. Track design, barriers, berms, tires.
2. Instruction methods: in car vs alternatives
3. Safety equipment in the car for both instructor and driver
4. Medical check ups for fitness.
5. Instructor intervention in emergency situations.
But I'm curious as to which SINGLE variable could carry most weight in being able to actually prevent this particular tragic outcome?
1. Track design, barriers, berms, tires.
2. Instruction methods: in car vs alternatives
3. Safety equipment in the car for both instructor and driver
4. Medical check ups for fitness.
5. Instructor intervention in emergency situations.
But I'm curious as to which SINGLE variable could carry most weight in being able to actually prevent this particular tragic outcome?
I'm sure there will be many that would say this idea defeats the purpose of going to a DE event...
02-15-2018, 03:52 PM
#183
Rennlist
Basic Site Sponsor
Basic Site Sponsor
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Durham, NC and Virginia International Raceway
Posts: 18,649
Received 2,802 Likes
on
1,655 Posts
Agreed!I agree an earthen berm is not an adequate safety feature. It should've been addressed long ago and hopefully will be addressed now. Same thing with Summit Point, that track seems to be totally negligent.
Track owners won't spend money until they're forced to, look at what F1 had to go through to get the track owners to step up and put in proper safety equipment...
Track owners won't spend money until they're forced to, look at what F1 had to go through to get the track owners to step up and put in proper safety equipment...
The problem is that a large percentage of those deaths and serious injuries were preventable by mitigating known risks. If the rates of deaths and serious injuries could be substantially reduced by making some changes which are feasible without unreasonable costs or other burdens, why wouldn't we do it? I'm not saying that all of the proposed changes are necessarily good ideas (benefits may not be worth the costs, and there may be unintended adverse effects), but I don't see how fixing obvious deficiencies at tracks isn't something we should push for, given that such deficiencies have been a key contributor to many of the deaths and serious injuries.
And BTW, the deficiencies at Summit Point haven't been due to limited funds to address them. The owner has been rolling in money from lucrative government contracts.
And BTW, the deficiencies at Summit Point haven't been due to limited funds to address them. The owner has been rolling in money from lucrative government contracts.
You clearly have not been there lately. Denver is home, is it?
The truth is, SP has made huge safety improvements over the last few years and have made the track - left side of 1, inside of 3/4, 9 and 10 to name a few places - considerably safer. Not small investments, either. Our local DC/NoVA PCA chapter (Potomac, the first in the nation) supports SP efforts with a check every year to fund more improvements. They listened to our club and others, made improvements years ago, we support them, they made more changes, we react with more support and they keep making changes....it works. SP listens to drivers and Chris White is a solid dude who is reasonable and communicative. Plus, wifi in the paddock and the snack bar finally got taken over by Railside Market, which is the most important improvement and will measurably improve my life #deliciousSandwiches.
Sooooo yeah, negligent? Hardly.
The truth is, SP has made huge safety improvements over the last few years and have made the track - left side of 1, inside of 3/4, 9 and 10 to name a few places - considerably safer. Not small investments, either. Our local DC/NoVA PCA chapter (Potomac, the first in the nation) supports SP efforts with a check every year to fund more improvements. They listened to our club and others, made improvements years ago, we support them, they made more changes, we react with more support and they keep making changes....it works. SP listens to drivers and Chris White is a solid dude who is reasonable and communicative. Plus, wifi in the paddock and the snack bar finally got taken over by Railside Market, which is the most important improvement and will measurably improve my life #deliciousSandwiches.
Sooooo yeah, negligent? Hardly.
Finally, some balance... Sheesh.
__________________
-Peter Krause
www.peterkrause.net
www.gofasternow.com
"Combining the Art and Science of Driving Fast!"
Specializing in Professional, Private Driver Performance Evaluation and Optimization
Consultation Available Remotely and at VIRginia International Raceway
-Peter Krause
www.peterkrause.net
www.gofasternow.com
"Combining the Art and Science of Driving Fast!"
Specializing in Professional, Private Driver Performance Evaluation and Optimization
Consultation Available Remotely and at VIRginia International Raceway
02-15-2018, 03:58 PM
#184
I think the lawyers are going to have a field day with this one. So many red flags here that I doubt any waiver/disclaimer no matter how strongly worded will hold up to negligence accusations. The possibility of a health event being the cause in this instance simply does not justify: A) a track operating with an archaic earth berm launch pad as a safety barrier that's been a danger to drivers for decades, B) the state allowing a track with 1960's era safety standards to be operated, and C) the club holding an event at a track with known safety concerns. There's more than enough negligence and liability to spread around for any competent lawyer to present a very legitimate case in all three scenarios. As someone with over 15 years of track experience at many different tracks of varying caliber, there's simply no excuse to operate an unsafe race track in this day and age. You need to limit your liability no matter what the cost, and clearly RRR has still not addressed an issue that's been there for decades. If you can't afford to operate it safely, then you have no business operating it in the first place.
There's an event there this weekend. Resting only means that other people's lives will be senselessly put in danger when it could be avoided. So go rest up while I look out for those that are being unnecessarily put in harms way. Hell, some large plastic garbage cans full of water or sand would be a better alternative to an earth berm.
02-15-2018, 04:18 PM
#185
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by ExMB
Are you a lawyer? Your posts sure read this way.
02-15-2018, 04:33 PM
#186
Banned
Ummm.... you need to revisit your basic stats /math class. You're not even close. You need to establish from which population the stats apply to. You cannot include the entire US population when looking at track deaths - so I did a quick back of the envelope to help put things into perspective.
First, let's take lightning strikes. On average over the past 7 years, there have been about 34 deaths per year. So the ODDS of dying by a lightning strike in the US are 325,000,000/34 = 9,558,000:1
According to Wikipedia there a 84 road courses in the US. I notice at least 2 were missing, so I rounded it up to 100. Add in another 100 to account for AutoX events in the US. So we have 200 "Tracks"
I estimated an average load of 150 cars per track, per day. With 365 days in the year, that means about 11 million individual cars are participating in track days. Of course this number is really high, but let's run with it anyway.
Per your citation that there 102 deaths over the last 7 years, that means, and average of 14.6 deaths per year.
11 million / 14.6 = your odds of dying in a track day are about 750,000:1 in any one event.
So the odds of dying in a trackday event are actually over 12x that of being struck by lightning in the US - according to the data. There are gross assumptions at work here but it's far more accurate than saying you're more likely to get struck by lightning.
02-15-2018, 05:56 PM
#187
Lightening = 1/161,856
Race track = 1/750,000 per you
Looks like with your math track driving death still less likely than killed by lightening. We owe it to our sport to not have knee jerk reactions to unfortunate and sensational low incident events.
02-15-2018, 06:27 PM
#189
Rennlist Member
You don't like my math then look here: " https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-mortality-risk" " The lifetime chances of dying from a drug or medication overdose were one in 96 in 2014, compared with about 1 in 645 in a car accident and 1 in 161,856 for fatal injuries caused by lightning."
Lightening = 1/161,856
Race track = 1/750,000 per you
Looks like with your math track driving death still less likely than killed by lightening. We owe it to our sport to not have knee jerk reactions to unfortunate and sensational low incident events.
Lightening = 1/161,856
Race track = 1/750,000 per you
Looks like with your math track driving death still less likely than killed by lightening. We owe it to our sport to not have knee jerk reactions to unfortunate and sensational low incident events.
Instead, if we as a community take action, what will be productive? If the answer is we haven’t come up with anything but a shrug, we have to either continue and accept this as evidence of the risks or find something else to do.
If indeed the risk we are trying to protect against is when a person dies of essentially “natural causes” and happens to be on a racetrack by chance, I’m not sure we can or should try to do much besides as mentioned not keep an instructor in the right seat more than necessary. We could get into wanting high cost track changes and add red tape processes to feel good but what good would it do... it would just increase costs and decrease participation.
It sounds like track safety is taken very seriously by the folks in charge of the tracks. As it should be. No big conspiracy or gross negligence going on. At least that base is covered.
Perhaps things are going more or less as they ought to and this was a very sad thing that happened but not something we can reasonably fix.
But since we’re talking more generally, are there sensible steps we could or should take that are measured and reasonable responses to valid safety concerns in the PCA DE setting? And if so, what are they, and who should it apply to?
Some examples might be:
Make no changes, but use this as a reminder to keep safety in the forefront of our minds?
Require some type of (street car compatible) HANS device to participate in the advanced run group?
Require stress tests, and if so, for who, how often, and what’s the go/no go criteria or is it just an FYI like a self-tech? If the latter we can just make a strong recommendation. We can always look into other rulesets for ideas.
Something else?
02-15-2018, 06:48 PM
#190
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Mid-Atlantic (on land, not in the middle of the ocean)
Posts: 12,404
Received 3,751 Likes
on
2,174 Posts
Sorry, but that's factually wrong, there are plenty of exceptions to that statement. How many people in this thread are professionally qualified to inspect and evaluate track safety, have done so, and are willing to say that deficiencies in track safety are relatively rare? Please explain why an earth berm at the end of high-speed straight is adequate. Or ends of barriers which are barely protected or unprotected. Or guardrails which are shoddily configured and installed. Or "tire walls" which are one row thick, not bolted together longitudinally, not belted, and not backed by anything. Or narrow segments of track which have concrete barrier on both sides with zero runoff. Or trees which are directly exposed in runoff areas. These deficiencies all currently exist at tracks which many people assume are "safe."
02-15-2018, 07:06 PM
#191
Banned
Sorry, but that's factually wrong, there are plenty of exceptions to that statement. How many people in this thread are professionally qualified to inspect and evaluate track safety, have done so, and are willing to say that deficiencies in track safety are relatively rare? Please explain why an earth berm at the end of high-speed straight is adequate. Or ends of barriers which are barely protected or unprotected. Or guardrails which are shoddily configured and installed. Or "tire walls" which are one row thick, not bolted together longitudinally, not belted, and not backed by anything. Or narrow segments of track which have concrete barrier on both sides with zero runoff. Or trees which are directly exposed in runoff areas. These deficiencies all currently exist at tracks which many people assume are "safe."
02-15-2018, 07:15 PM
#192
Rennlist Member
sculptured to handled driver error.
WHY NOT RUN CCW INSTEAD OF CW. WOULD THEY PROVIDE FOR SAFER CONDITIONS FOR DRIVER ERROR.
02-15-2018, 07:48 PM
#193
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by Veloce Raptor
Agreed. Specifically a tort lawyer .
02-15-2018, 09:04 PM
#194
Supercharged
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Back in Michigan - Full time!
Posts: 18,925
Likes: 0
Received 59 Likes
on
33 Posts
I have not been to Roebling. I cannot not see the entire track in this photograph. The berm in question is located at the end of fastest speed of the track and too close to the track and not
sculptured to handled driver error.
WHY NOT RUN CCW INSTEAD OF CW. WOULD THEY PROVIDE FOR SAFER CONDITIONS FOR DRIVER ERROR.
sculptured to handled driver error.
WHY NOT RUN CCW INSTEAD OF CW. WOULD THEY PROVIDE FOR SAFER CONDITIONS FOR DRIVER ERROR.
02-15-2018, 09:39 PM
#195
WRONGLY ACCUSED!
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Connecticut Valley Region
Posts: 14,451
Received 3,242 Likes
on
1,576 Posts
Before we pile on the lawyers let me offer a defense for what is still a noble profession practiced by most but denigrated because of a few late night ambulance chasing a$$holes.
It's true, most problems don't get fixed unless there is a financial incentive. Either someone perceives a risk, or more likely, the insurance company perceives a risk forcing the issue to be remediated. We can all point to cases which show a gross abuse of the system. (Mcdonald's and the hot cup of coffee for example - but that is actually more complicated than most people realize.) The fact is the world gets safer everyday because people fear they will have to pay more in damages than what it costs to prevent the problem. Ironically, insurance companies and lawyers have done their part to bring down deaths and injuries. You can also argue that some companies decided that being safe was good for marketing (Volvo?) but most are forced by the fear of lawsuits.
All that being said, what all you internet lawyers are forgetting is that driving on the track is an assumed risk. Its true that tracks owes everyone a certain standard of care, but given the nature of our sport, and the assumption of risk on our part, you would have to show a very high level of gross negligence to be successful. I don't believe I have ever been to a track where you did not sign a waiver in order to drive. On top of that there is usually a waiver from the group that rented the track. Those are exhibit A and B for the defense.
There are always going to be those outlying cases at the trial level where a specific case tugs at a jury's heartstrings and the judge lets a bad verdict stand. Many of those same cases don't survive the brutal nature of an appeals court where only the law matter. Settling in between is common just because it is more economical.
As I tell all my friends and family when they ask - anyone can sue anyone else for anything. Winning? Now that's a whole different ball of wax. Thankfully, I haven't worked in litigation in 20 years. I help structure commercial real estate transactions to be tax efficient. Helping people pay less in taxes is doing the Lord's work!
The bottom line is that cars are becoming more and more powerful and tracks, with limited budgets, are trying to keep up with these advances.
It's true, most problems don't get fixed unless there is a financial incentive. Either someone perceives a risk, or more likely, the insurance company perceives a risk forcing the issue to be remediated. We can all point to cases which show a gross abuse of the system. (Mcdonald's and the hot cup of coffee for example - but that is actually more complicated than most people realize.) The fact is the world gets safer everyday because people fear they will have to pay more in damages than what it costs to prevent the problem. Ironically, insurance companies and lawyers have done their part to bring down deaths and injuries. You can also argue that some companies decided that being safe was good for marketing (Volvo?) but most are forced by the fear of lawsuits.
All that being said, what all you internet lawyers are forgetting is that driving on the track is an assumed risk. Its true that tracks owes everyone a certain standard of care, but given the nature of our sport, and the assumption of risk on our part, you would have to show a very high level of gross negligence to be successful. I don't believe I have ever been to a track where you did not sign a waiver in order to drive. On top of that there is usually a waiver from the group that rented the track. Those are exhibit A and B for the defense.
There are always going to be those outlying cases at the trial level where a specific case tugs at a jury's heartstrings and the judge lets a bad verdict stand. Many of those same cases don't survive the brutal nature of an appeals court where only the law matter. Settling in between is common just because it is more economical.
As I tell all my friends and family when they ask - anyone can sue anyone else for anything. Winning? Now that's a whole different ball of wax. Thankfully, I haven't worked in litigation in 20 years. I help structure commercial real estate transactions to be tax efficient. Helping people pay less in taxes is doing the Lord's work!
The bottom line is that cars are becoming more and more powerful and tracks, with limited budgets, are trying to keep up with these advances.