Rules alert

[dw230]

At the board meeting last night two rules alerts were passed.

First, before arriving at tech inspection ensure that your vehicle is current to the 2011 rulebook. Instances at El Mirage this past weekend were people with no HNS, improper belts, helmet to current requirement, etc.

Do your bail out drill at home. Too many drivers had not  sat in their cars with the HNS or tried a bail out without assistance. You sit in your car more than just on the race track.

Second, effective immediately. No two wheel vehicles are allowed to tow within the pits or on the return roads. The towed start rule on the course is still in place. This rule change is the result of an incident at the end of the meet on Sunday that resulted in injury to a competitor and his wife.

DW

[Seldom Seen Slim]

Dan,let me be anal and ask for a clarification.  Your post says that "No two wheel  vehicles are allowed to tow within the pits or on the return roads."  That could be interpreted that no two wheel vehicles may do the towing - or that no two wheel vehicles may be towed.

I know the intent -- perhaps not all here do.  Please consider changing it to "no two wheel vehicles may be towed"...  if that's what the new rule means.  Thanks.

[saltwheels262]

my thoughts also.
thinking that bikes need to be in or on some type of trailer;
not freewheeling ( wheels rolling ).

franey

[Stainless1]

Does this mean this is no longer legal

[Glen]

Dan, most understand but could be clarified a little. Also put it in the SCTA web site and add to the El Mirage operating procedures. Do you know if this will be added to the tow back rules at Bonneville?

[Seldom Seen Slim]

I know the the rule committee will be making a proper statement of the rule/change, if that's what it becomes -- I think Dan was being kind to let us know in advance of what's coming.

[Nortonist 592]

What about those vehicles with three wheels?

[Dynoroom]

What about those vehicles with three wheels?

I was at the Board meeting last night when the issue of tow ropes came up. The rule said two (2) wheels.
It also said on the return road or in the pits. Try not to read more into it.
Glen, yes, Bonneville too.
The complete wording should be on the SCTA web site soon.

[Buickguy3]

  Improper belts?? Example please.
Doug

[donpearsall]

Wow, there was one incident so an emergency rule had to be made. One incident out of how many times racers have towed with a two wheeled vehicle? How many? Tens of thousands? What next? Maybe if someone crashes on the race course there will be an emergency rule that prohibits racing.
You just can't regulate your way to 100% safety. There will be incidents and that's what happens when people DO things. The only way things will be completely safe is when people can't do ANYTHING. I am out of the SCTA management loop, but one incident does not a trend make.

Don

[Nortonist 592]

Any details of the "incident" that caused the knee jerk reaction?

[dw230]

Not a knee jerk reaction. There were four insurance related events in a two day event. The costs are increasing while you sleep the peaceful rest of the 'us against them'.

If you want or need further details please contact the SCTA President or the BNI Chairman. If you feel over regulated maybe LSR is not for you.

Trying to help I negelated to add one word 'two wheel race vechicles'. A sidecar generally has three wheels so is not effected by this rule.

DW

[fastman614]

Wow, there was one incident so an emergency rule had to be made. One incident out of how many times racers have towed with a two wheeled vehicle? How many? Tens of thousands? What next? Maybe if someone crashes on the race course there will be an emergency rule that prohibits racing.
You just can't regulate your way to 100% safety. There will be incidents and that's what happens when people DO things. The only way things will be completely safe is when people can't do ANYTHING. I am out of the SCTA management loop, but one incident does not a trend make.

Don

An interesting post..... especially these words-

You just can't regulate your way to 100% safety. There will be incidents and that's what happens when people DO things. The only way things will be completely safe is when people can't do ANYTHING.

Well, I would love fro you to be a renowned world authority on this topic so that I could use this quote to point this out to all of the different mining operations at  which I work during any given year.... as well as to the various Worker Compensation Boards and government agencies charged with protection of workers.... such, though, is probably NOT the case.

[Nortonist 592]

Perhaps that was bad phrasing.  Would it not be more helpful to the LSR community to release (not necessarily all) details of what happened to have "four insurance related incidents in a two day event" so that we could be aware for the next event?

[fastman614]

OOPS!.... I hit a wrong button before I was finished.

The problem is not specifically zealous attempts to regulate 100% safety just for the sake of doing so..... It is about LIABILITY in the event of NOT DOING SO!

The concept of due diligence is at the heart of this..... and, as much as I too disagree with a rules and regulations based approach to making safety happen, I KNOW from experience (my own included) that, given the absence of rules to the contrary, many people will do NO MORE than what is written and will also, at times, hide, misrepresent, obfuscate and otherwise skirt or dodge rules that don't have performance paybacks..... (employers do it ALL THE TIME!.... and due to my being in a project managerial position at times, I am charged with making sure that safety compliance is done in a meaningful manner- BUT DON'T LET ME GET STARTED ON THAT!) Due diligence REQUIRES that any foreseeable safety hazards be eliminated in one of six ways...

the first item of which includes elimination of the hazard (in the case of racing activity of any sort, stop racing) It goes into engineering controls and finally, as a last option, the use of personal protective equipment

The other related concept in the insurance end of things is the concept of moral hazard.... without going into great detail, which may be difficult for me, is that you cannot act in a knowingly danderous, reckless or otherwise destructive manner with regard to the items that are insured and expect your insurance coverage to be in effect. I will use the analogy of buying a new car and entering it in a demolition derby (ore ven deliberately driving it into a wall because you want it replaced with a brand new one.... (but I will NOT go into how Federal Deposit Insurance applies the concept to banksters knowingly acting recklessly with money that is NOT THEIR OWN though)

So, don't be too hard on the SCTA Board members on this... they have, at times, thankless duties that must be performed... and it is like, if we do not want to apply the number one step of due diligence-elimination of the safety hazard.... then we will HAVE to accept the other methods of dealing with risk.