TD in DC

mamoroso

I agree that there is a risk with taking a car to 150mph (whether on a track or not). And people should be aware of it. There is a risk that something can go wrong and people partecipating might die because of it.

You mention other risky activities and say that people that wish not to expose themselves to the possibility of death or injury should not participate.
I somewhat agree with the statement...

I am thinking out loud here because I am not a layer nor an expert. It's just that this tragedy hit close to home and I can't accept this Macho/Cowboy attitude of just accepting a death because there are risks involved.

It's a risky activity, that's why we have a system that is there to minimize that risk. I see nothing wrong in trying to figure out if something didn't work properly.
I take that everyone of you expect their Hans/Isaac to work as intended, their 6-point harness not to fail on impact. The diver expects the tank not to blow up when 100ft below water, the guy that goes for bungee jumpinng expects the the rope to be tied properly...

Even in F1 they had an investigation and a lawsuit was filed against Frank Williams and Patrick Head after Senna's death.

Maybe I am too naive and this lawsuit is just a way for someone to make a lot of $, but what if the findings work to make this sport safer? Wouldn't you be happier to see the risks reduced?

Say all clubs now will demand 5 mins cool offs between groups (assuming the CGT failed to end the session in time), or "professional" corner workers, or the tracks will be forced to redesign their in/out points.
Yes maybe it will cost us a little more (but haven't we all spent a lot of $$$ in safety already?) and we'll be on the track a little less, and maybe some tracks will be judged too "risky" by some clubs... but wouln't you accept that to reduce the risks?

F1 left the Nurburgring after it was deemed too risky. I truly believe that we should be responsible for our choices and actions. I hate this "blame it on the others" attitude that frees us up from the consequences of our actions. But I am also for trying to better the system in anyway we can.

What if (and I hate "what ifs") it was the Ferrari guy who died after having being T-boned by the CGT because either the CGT driver didn't respect the end of session flag or the corner worker let him in without noticing the incoming car? Would that be a justifiable death?

Again let me make this clear. This is a dangerous sports. Whoever turns up at a DE with the belief that nothing is going to happen to them is nuts. By sitting in the cockpit and heading out on the track we take some risks and we should be aware of the consequences. Also we should be responsible for our actions. But a death is not something we should just brush away with an "Oh well, they knew it was risky" attitude.

M758

Guys,
There is certainly something to be learned from the CGT incident. If the facts are looked at objectivly then DEs safety probalby can be improved. The problem here is a law suit is not condusive to objectivly looking at the facts. Everyone involved will try to defend their actions and deflect the blame as much as possible. So instead of learning from it the parties involved will get defensive. That is NOT good. I am not sure of the result, but I do have concerns that one or more defendants will be heavily penalized. What that will mean is that it may very well become very expensive to hold DE's in the future. The more expensive it is the fewer there will be and then it will be even more expensive. While many can afford a 50% increase in DE cost many will respond by not going. Thus the reduced numbers will increase costs by another 25%. That is not even the worst case which may effectively (or activly) ban all DE's.

So that is what really scares me. I would be much happier if some investigation were held to understand what happened and how the chances of it can be reduce without fear of blame and finacial penalty. None of defendant were trying to cause an unsafe situation in my mind. I don't believe any of them were acting in such a way that they felt they were taking a risk "above and beyond" the norm. I think all felt there were acting within the normal "safe" parameters of track behavior and within the normally accepted risk level. Still it seems to me that a number of folks made small errors that when added up in sequence they did resulted in dire consequences. Really we should be able to learn how to break such a chain of events from occuring again, or at least aid in reducing their chances. Applying blame and trying exort money is really a **** poor way of resolving this issue.

mamoroso

I totally agree with you!

TD in DC

It is too soon to be scared about anything.

JCP911S

I agree in principle. In practice "investigations" are either done in coursory fashion or done to validate a desired outcome.... generally the last thing they do is expose the actual facts 9such as they are).

Unfortunately, companies (and many private individuals) have no incentive to act "responsibly" unless threatened with financial costs.

Why should I care if you fall on my badly maintained sidewalk and break your leg? Its your leg... I don't give a ****... why should I care if one of my badly maintained trucks careens into a car and kills your child... not my child... I don't give a ****.

But if I stand to be sued for $1M then I have to give a ****, and spend the money to fix the sidewalk, and keep the brakes on my trucks in repair.

Sad that it comes down to that... but in the real world...frankly...it comes down to that..the alternative is 20m govenment inspectors writing citations... that doesn;t sound too good either

Garen

Yup, I remember that it took a bunch of kids to get into accidents befor the city finally installed a red light at an intersection by my high school (back in the late 80's).

Same with DE's. In another post elsewhere in this forum, there were cars staged in potential striking distance of cars on the track. Sure enough, a car did loose it, and plowed into the staged cars. I bet that sanctioning body will re-assess their track day layout.

What we need to constantly remind ourselves is that whether we're the organizers, or event staff, instructors or students, that knowing what can and sometimes does happen is key in preserving our DE and track days. Many of you will bring extra parts for your cars, just in case something breaks. Same principal. Anticipate potential problems, so that maybe you can plan accordingly. Whether it's the location of the wall, propper training for corner workers, driver awareness, etc.

Anyway, the idea of casually riding shotgun in a car as potent as the C-GT with a non-pro driver is pretty insane to begin with. And the idea that Porsche should have trained C-GT owners is also shallow at best. You all know that some people, regardless of the size of their bank accounts, will never be competent behind the wheel of a machine as potent as the C-GT, or even a 997 for that matter (and I'm not suggesting that Ben Keaton was a bad driver - I'm just making a general statement). What's Porsche to do, decline the sale of the car if the potential buyer fails the driver training course? Can you imagine?

JCP911S

First, I know our club is extremely strict about this.... if there are two people in a car, one of them better be an instructor or somebody is going to get thrown out immediately... no excuse and no appeal.

Also, every Instructor car that I am aware of (and virtually every advanced driver) is equipped with full safely equipment, and although we do not have an "official" recommendation on how this is to be installed (again for legal reasons), informally, everybody in the paddock knows what is acceptable and the advanced drivers and Instructors are constantly advising each other on proper installations.... this is a very high priority.

Second, the same goes for motorcycles, private airplaces, boats, and even chainsaws... I can very easily kill myself in my 84 Carrara... where does it end?

TD in DC

I fully appreciate the risks of death at DEs and races. In reality, I worry more about the risk of paralysis and "death by wallet" than I do outright death. I think that the events I attend are run extremely well.

My perception is that I stand a greater chance of ruining my car, but a lesser chance of dying or serious injury, when I participate in a DE than when I drive around Washington DC.

Again, though, for the purposes of this lawsuit, comparative risk doesn't matter as much as the recognition that death and/or serious injury is a real possibility. I do not know any reasonable person who does not understand that they could potentially die or be seriously injured on the track even if they do not expect that it will happen to them. Why do you think everybody overbrakes? You do not have to expect that you are going to die or be seriously injured. If you did, then no reasonable person would participate. Rather, you just have to recognize that there is that possibility.

Garen

JCP and TD, your comments are on the money. I feel that PCA sanctioned events are planned more meticulousley, and are better run than most others. The passenger rule is spot on, I think.

Rick964

The whole idea that Porsche, or any car company, should be required to give driver's training before selling the car is ludicrous. What would happened when that used car is re-sold to a new buyer? Is the seller required to give driver's training or does Porsche have to approve the second hand buyer. Just silly and totally out of the realm of reasonablenes.

kurt M

Perhaps we need advanced driver licenses? Same as aircraft. Class drivers and cars by training, training required and proven skills and skills required. Dif classes of driver would qualify for different classes of cars. This would improve the drivers on the roads for sure but it would also be looked on as police state type stuff. On the up side this would encourage drivers to improve their skills.

Think about it. We go to kindergarten, grade school then on to high school where most also learn to drive then on to advanced learning of many types. Many people look down on those without advanced learning but very few ever advance their driving skills once they get the original drivers permit. Double PhD with 3 weeks of in high school driving lessons by the PE teacher ability gets an advanced use only car? Makes good sense to me... I have a GED but you don't see me cutting folks open to fix bum tickers. Why would the heart Dr. be OK to drive a (fill in the blank with hot car)? Just about any dingbat can get a drivers permit in the US. Why do we not require any follow on driving education unless you screw up? Even then it is only reaffirmation of what you did not get the first time around.

gbaker

I love it. Don't some EU countries do this, some type of superlicense?

NetManiac

I think this statement is naive, I may be wrong, but honestly I do not think you are looking at the larger picture.

So do you really think that insurance companies have not already begun increasing rates?

That tracks have not already begun looking at which clubs they are going to cut from next years schedule? Or at the very least, how much they are going to increase the cost.

That clubs have not already begun looking at which members they may politely ask to not attend the next event? Or which events they may begin removing from their schedule?

The PAG governing Committee has probably already started discussing which cars will become Euro-only in the future. It would not even surprise me if the GT3RS was suddenly yanked from the list of "Coming to the US" cars.

This is just my opinion, but I think just the fact that this suit was filed is going to cost those of us who participate in this sport greatly.

It would be nice if there was objective investigation into the matter. Similar to the way the FAA investigates airline accidents. Once the investigation is complete *then* suits are brought against the parties at fault (if there were any). But a suit prior to that type of investigation is a non-productive witch hunt.

Just my $0.02

kurt M

Yes some do. Some also have a graduated driving system and you learn your way up. I think the US should as well. Daytime only at first then 24 hour. Add in a snow ice/ limited visability class and a high peformance class the same as we do to add a motorcycle. 0.0 green 16 year olds in 5K lb high HP SUVs is stupid. But we digress...