We've probably all witnessed examples of selective rule enforcement. I
recall an incident from the short lived Autoweek vintage challenge where Pete
Lyons' race report described how a Can-Am owner/driver had an incident in
practice that was admittedly driver error. The car was repaired and he
started the race on Sunday. If it had been myself, I would have been told to
become a spectator for the rest of the weekend.
Later in the year, the same driver wrote off a Lola T-222 Can-Am at Road
Atlanta. Let's see, 2 incidents in one year. Hmm. I would have been asked
to serve a period of suspension for that. The well known owner/driver did
not miss the next event.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think he is a dangerous driver and had I
been in his shoes and the drivers committee said I did not have to serve a
suspension, I would be at the next event. I also respect the effort and
dedication required to get those cars on the track. I'm just pointing out an
example of selective enforcement for the 'fat cats'.
The 13/13 rule was meant to be a strong deterrent for over-aggressive
and or foolhardy driving. Enforcement has been so erratic and selective that
some organizations no longer report drivers that have incidents at their
events. I understand that SVRA is probably going to go to a points system in
place of the often arbitrary 13/13 rule. I think it is a step in the right
direction.
In the end, we all have to accept the risks of racing, and that includes
accidents. The best way to protect yourself is to know who your dicing with.
If the organizers fail to throw out a dangerous driver, don't race with
him/her. Let 'em go. Most of us are doing this for fun. If he/she needs to
win that badly, I'll let 'em start ahead of the pace car!
Doug Meis
1967 Honda S-800
"If you haven't ever been just a little bit scared, you're not going
fast enough!"
|