Paul Foster wrote:
>Although it is hard to come to any sort of rational conclusion without
>more facts, there are still a number of factors that everybody seems
>to be glossing over. This was a very fast section where the driver had
>to navigate a very tight corner. Furthermore, the car ended up close
>to another car and in the proximity of the timing trailer. Those
>appear to be the facts and they are not good.
I don't know why I am even dignifying your response with a rebuttal,
but I just can't stand to listen to your pompous attitude any longer.
When did you get the idea in your head that you know everything, and
that you are unable to make mistakes? My god man... get a grip. First
of all, stop trying to make comments about events that you did not
attend. The comments you make about the timing trailer/other car are
way off base... Next time you think about opening your mouth, ask
yourself how much you know about the actual situation. Then, do us all
a favor and refrain from reminding us how stupid we are, and how much
safer the event could have been **if the great Paul Foster** had been
there. Where do you get off thinking that you are better at making an
event safe than the hard-working people that are doing it every
weekend? And for that matter, if you are so good, why don't you come
out to these events and help out instead of waiting for an incident to
happen so you can jump on everyone involved. Do you have any idea how
ridiculous you sound spouting your rhetoric?
>Now there are lots of people who state that not every condition can be
>considered, but this sure sounds like a situation which could have
>been avoided. What would have happened if a heavy prepared car had had
>it's throttle stick? Never happens? Shouldn't be considered? I
>disagree. If you are going to have high speed sections they should be
>in the back away from such hard obstacles with a great deal of runoff.
>And they should give the driver some leeway to recover from mistakes
>without having to worry about hitting something or someone. In this
>case it didn't appear to be the case.
Once again, making comments about a situation that you have
*absolutely* no idea about... You have about as good a chance of
guessing what I had for lunch today as you do of guessing what the
course looked like in the section where the incident happened. Are you
going to start telling me that I need to eat better? You telling me
that is the same as you telling everyone else that they are not making
events safe enough... you are speaking about something that you have
very little, if any, information about.
>And I simply do not buy the bad shocks theory. That is no excuse,
>particularly with only 60K miles on a stock car. It sounds more like
>the car was going too fast for the driver to properly react in a safe
>manner. This sport is all about relative newcomers strapping on a set
>of sticky tires to their stock daily driver and having fun without the
>immediate concern of trashing their car. I really hate to see that
>change because I believe it is the greatest thing about autocrossing.
Cars roll... you get a tall, high CG car sideways with sticky tires on
it and *bad shocks* that don't do a good job of controlling weight
transfer, there is a chance that it could go over. So now we have to
design courses that leave no chance for a car to go sideways? Give me
a break! I'd like to see one of your courses... it would be so
freaking boring that everyone would leave the event. You would
probably put up speed limit signs and write people tickets for
exceeding them in the fast areas, because they are going 'to fast to
react in a safe manner.' Why don't you do us all a favor and keep your
mouth shut.
>This is not a professional sport where incidents can be shrugged off.
>This is a sport where there should never be an injury. This is a sport
>where there should never be a rollover of a stock car owned by a
>relatively poor student. This is a sport which does not require an
>ambulance in attendance, nor does it require roll bars or cages,
>drivers suits, or window nets. Those sports exist but I really hate to
>see autocross become one of them. And I don't think our insuror is
>going to be too pleased with the number of recent incidents either.
Driving to the grocery store is not a professional sport either, yet
many people die doing just that. We are pushing out cars to the limit
out there, and you are kidding yourself if you think that we can
completely eliminate the risk of *any* incident occurring. How can you
be so dense? Please *PLEASE* spare us your harangues about safety and
how we are all failing at it. The people running these events are very
dedicated, and most do it on their own time in a volunteer capacity.
If you can do it so much better, I suggest you volunteer.
>Some of you think it is just the odds. It doesn't really matter
>because unless it stops autocrossing will either come to a quick end,
>or the relative expense, the lack of licensing, and the lack of safety
>equipment will have to change. It is our choice. Our reaction to such
>incidents will be the major impetus. Do we shrug it off or do we do
>everything we can to ensure it doesn't happen again? It is up to us.
I don't think autocross is in any danger of coming to a quick end...
However I hope your uninformed, derogative and condescending posts do
come to a quick end. But that's asking for way too much, I know. Have
a nice day!
-Jason Saini . Chicago, IL
-'93 Corrado . GS Sleeper
__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints!
http://photos.yahoo.com
|