So how many have to die before they...

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

Yes, and my solutions are equivalent to thinking out loud. But if you could run without any of those burdensome safety features if you stayed NA and being on the track was your priority while keeping your car "street-able" would you still go FI? Also in many states adding a roll bar doesn't make it illegal for public roads and you can still retain the factory 3 point belt. When I started tracking my car street car I added a 4 point bolt in after just 2 events. Wasn't an inconvenience for me.. well it was less inconvenient (and less costly) than my latest trip to the ER.

Have you ever seen a professional driver wreck a street car at the track? No?.. I have. The quality and quantity of instruction is relevant but it's not the magic bullet. Lapse of judgement, mistakes, part failures happen to everyone. It isn't just big egos in fast cars. Well trained, well disciplined folks make mistakes as well. The question is: when that mistake is made what outcome are you comfortable with?

In many states you can also build a car yourself from the ground up and get it registered for road use, that doesn't make it safe let alone prevent it from being downright dangerous. I am under the impression that a rollbar can seriously hurt a non-helmeted driver even with a 5 point harness and clearance that meets the guidelines, if you've got some info that proves otherwise I'd love to see it. To me, a caged 86 would not be one that I plan on driving without a helmet, hey maybe that inconvenience is livable to someone, but I would rather find another solution (or at least get the advantages of riding a bike).

You are right, if safety in the event of the crash on track is the primary concern there is no substitute for a full battery of professional level safety equipment, the fact that thousands take that risk every week is startling. You are also correct that accidents happen to the best.

And yes, if I couldn't track an FI 86 without compromising what the car does for me I wouldn't, just like if FI didn't exist that was road legal I would not install it on my car. Like I said if I needed a car that I felt was unsafe on the street (I don't plan on wearing a helmet and firesuit on my commute to work unless I get a drastically more awesome career) I would bypass HPDE altogether and go racing for real.

But I think it's valid to not leap before we look, yes the fatality rate over the past 4 years is too high, any number is too high. I know there has been at least one car leaving on a trailer (that didn't arrive on one) at every HPDE I've been to. At the same time I've heard that one of those organizers has stated that after 8 years and an estimated 5 million miles logged during his involvement they've had 3 cars roll over and in every accident the driver walked away.

Sadly, the way you've phrased the argument, most people will respond that "Yes, more people need to die before we implement strict safety equipment in amateur driving events."

I doubt anyone will disagree that there are improvements that can be made. IMO there are definitely measures that can be taken that do not limit the appeal of performance driving in an accessible, controlled, 'safe' environment.

I do not know all details of the events we are discussing, but I am aware of the one at the 'Disney Speedway' where they were running in the reverse direction and a barrier became a spear. A proper barrier would have saved a life, hell running the track in the proper direction would have saved a life, a roll cage or 5 point harness or HANS device would not have reduced the chance of fatality as effectively as using and equipping the track properly would have.

http://blog.axisofoversteer.com/2015...anization.html

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

... Personally I think death is a blight on this activity, on this industry as a whole. It's bad PR, it catches headlines and deters people from the activity....

I'm not sure I understand your point. Yes, it has an impact but it cannot be eliminated from the activity, and still have a viable activity. It can be minimized but deaths on the track are inevitable.


People that don't participate because of deaths don't participate because they aren't willing to take the risk associated with an "optional" activity. They are actually more likely to die on the way to the track than on it, they just don't admit to that fact.


Driving on the streets has a relatively high risk of death. It can't be eliminated from the equation without making driving on the street impractical.


In the US in 2013, 32,719 people died in auto related accidents. Of course, unlike track accidents, those aren't each blasted all over the news everywhere every time one occurs.

[Rio]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

A discussion about safety and death cracks you up, strange sense of humor you posses I suppose. I also agree that idiots shouldn't be on track, cage or no cage.

Have you ever seen a professional driver wreck a street car at the track? No?.. I have. The quality and quantity of instruction is relevant but it's not the magic bullet. Lapse of judgement, mistakes, part failures happen to everyone. It isn't just big egos in fast cars. Well trained, well disciplined folks make mistakes as well. The question is: when that mistake is made what outcome are you comfortable with?

The solution discussion cracks me up! I do have a strange sense of humor but not in the way you think :-). I am glad you agree about idiots which IS the root cause.

As a person who started racing in the 80s, paused in the 90s and returned to it on 2000s, trust me I have seen what an idiot can do on the track and on our public roads (ex-law enforcement). I have also seen a professional driver wreck a street car on course.

In racing we all know that we are taking a risk by just being present at a racing event. Respect for the dangerous environment is on top of pushing the limits of our cars for us. We are in more danger on the regular streets of Portland than on the course.

Considering cages would alter many club classes and the progression of a driver's education. This is al,out like a discussion on gun control. Lol

[Ultramaroon]

I think we're missing an important metric here. Considering only the participants, how many deaths per capita are happening annually. Let's compare that number to the same with respect to any other risky activity. Hang gliding? Downhill skiing? Driving to work?

[wparsons]

It's critical to look at the root cause of the crash too. Was it mechanical in any way? Was it a situation the driver should have been able to handle, but just lacked basic skills? Was it caused by fatigue and the driver shouldn't have even been behind the wheel? Were they showing off and driving beyond their capabilities (especially carrying a friend as a passenger)?

[smbstyle]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

Well, it is why I posit the question.. how many have to die. So your answer to the question is more, definitely more have to die. It also sounds like the GM of Chin Motorsports agrees with you... More have to die. To him, and apparently yourself, .8 deaths/year average isn't enough death to address this. Fair enough.

Personally I think death is a blight on this activity, on this industry as a whole. It's bad PR, it catches headlines and deters people from the activity.

Either reading comprehension is not your strong-suit or you are totally ignoring the above message and are after the sensationalism of the issue.

Did I say that we can't improve incident rates, or that we are fine with a death in the track hobby here and there? NO. Absolutely not. Read my post again; I clearly stated the most effective way to reduce incidents is done with education - "teaching the drivers to drive". My point in the post was to show the fact that there is this talk of speed limits reducing incident rates when there is CLEARLY no data to support this, and your "sensational" title and opening line has no merit, where you state "other week I'm reading about a lapper or an instructor that died at an event".

Organizers need to focus on quality instruction, driver education, tracks need to focus on safety infrastructure. There are several popular tracks out there that many organizers refuse to visit due to no barriers, poor safety standards, etc., where it is possible for a driver to fly off the track and hit a tree.

ANY activity in life has risk. Want to be safe and into motorsports? Sit at home and watch it on TV. In this hobby, we can mitigate risk, but we can't remove it. I'll ask again, where is the data to support speed limits will reduce incidents? Mine shows otherwise. We've got one of the largest pools of data on track day incident rates, and can firmly state that it's the corners, not the straight-a-ways, where the most incidents occur.

You're regurgitating a topic regarding an aspect of the track hobby that many participants are drawn to, being able to achieve higher speeds in a safe environment, for no reason other than you and other uneducated individuals "think" it makes sense.

[Rio]

Originally Posted by smbstyle

Either reading comprehension is not your strong-suit or you are totally ignoring the above message and are after the sensationalism of the issue.

Did I say that we can't improve incident rates, or that we are fine with a death in the track hobby here and there? NO. Absolutely not. Read my post again; I clearly stated the most effective way to reduce incidents is done with education - "teaching the drivers to drive". My point in the post was to show the fact that there is this talk of speed limits reducing incident rates when there is CLEARLY no data to support this, and your "sensational" title and opening line has no merit, where you state "other week I'm reading about a lapper or an instructor that died at an event".

Organizers need to focus on quality instruction, driver education, tracks need to focus on safety infrastructure. There are several popular tracks out there that many organizers refuse to visit due to no barriers, poor safety standards, etc., where it is possible for a driver to fly off the track and hit a tree.

ANY activity in life has risk. Want to be safe and into motorsports? Sit at home and watch it on TV. In this hobby, we can mitigate risk, but we can't remove it. I'll ask again, where is the data to support speed limits will reduce incidents? Mine shows otherwise. We've got one of the largest pools of data on track day incident rates, and can firmly state that it's the corners, not the straight-a-ways, where the most incidents occur.

You're regurgitating a topic regarding an aspect of the track hobby that many participants are drawn to, being able to achieve higher speeds in a safe environment, for no reason other than you and other uneducated individuals "think" it makes sense.

Amén!

[smbstyle]

And to elaborate on infrastructure; If/when costs come down on SAFER barriers, well probably look back in 20 years and wonder how the hell tracks could be lined with concrete (look back at pics on Vintage Road Racing Archive page and see how far we've come already). Or as various head and neck restraints become more prevalent and affordable, especially those that can be worn with any harness configuration for the street car driver or brand new Novice, helmet AND head/neck restraint will be mandatory for all DE drivers. Speeds of cars will always increase, that's the nature of the Sportscar world, but we need to make sure safety keeps up at the same pace.

And a final point, take a look at automotive safety in general. Years ago a 60 mph impact would mean certain death in certain scenarios, and today people can walk away from hitting a wall at 3 digit speeds without a scratch. What did the automotive industry do? Rather than slow the cars down, or not allow them to go any faster, they worked on how to make them safer. Call me crazy but I'd rather smack a wall at 90 mph in a 2015 GTR than at 60 mph in a 60s Corvette.

[jjaisli]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

It's often said: "if you can't afford to leave it at the track, don't take it there." but you are taking a $25k car to the track so you've accepted the risk, that investment could be written off. Now, combine that risk with the cost of medical (unless your Canadian). For me, 1 x-ray and 1 CT scan plus the ambulance ride was $11,000. Avoiding medical expenses is a part of the "investment" in safety. Also, the reason that Audi did so well is because it's that Audi. Imagine that same thing happening to a car without 40 air bags and modern crumple zones? The crash that audi suffered was significant enough to cause great harm to the driver had it happened to most other cars.. Kudos to Audi.

I think in very general terms, strat61caster covered my thoughts on risk in his last post. I drive a road car in HPDE events. I am and have been mulling over the possibility of converting it to a full track car. I'd certainly feel safer. And I probably will eventually. But the cost of doing so (when I also factor in the cost of a trailer and vehicle to tow the trailer) is a bit prohibitive at the moment. And I think it would be for the vast majority of people who do HPDE events.

That said, I also drive about 25,000 miles a year just going back and forth to work. And I know that statistically, I probably suffer a greater risk of dying or serious injury in a road car accident during my commute than I do on the track. I try to minimize my risks. I have insurance for my daily driver and I take out track day insurance for every HPDE event and I have a pretty good medical insurance. Hopefully I won't ever have to put it to the test.

That said, and not to belabor the point, but do you really think that the driver of the Willow Springs roll over escaped serious injury JUST because he was driving an Audi? Or would most modern cars with a 5 star safety rating have protected their occupants in a similar manner. I'm guessing it's the latter. I'm a big believer in passive safety. I used to drive an Audi myself. And a Volvo after that. But this is 2015. And be it from increased regulations or of their own initiative, I think almost all manufacturers hold themselves to a level of safety, far above and beyond what was considered adequate just a decade ago.

I also see a lot of early 90s era cars at the track. And while I would prefer to have my car fully caged, I think it's a lot safer than say, an old CRX Si or a Golf II. And that's a disparity you don't even mention.

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by Ultramaroon

I think we're missing an important metric here. Considering only the participants, how many deaths per capita are happening annually. Let's compare that number to the same with respect to any other risky activity. Hang gliding? Downhill skiing? Driving to work?

Healthy, debate is healthy.

Why do sky divers fold their chutes in a certain way, or wear altimeters or have to have training?

Why do ski resorts have designated areas for different skill levels, roped off zones, perform preventative avalanche blasting and post signs everywhere about how the downhill person has the right of way?

Why does the guy driving to work have to get a license, obey laws, adhere to speed limits and drive a car with regulated safety standards?

While all these acts inherently posses risk, there are steps that are taken to mitigate it without removing it. In many cases it's also to mitigate the risk a person could inflict on another person and that sentiment also applies to a track day.

Originally Posted by smbstyle

Either reading comprehension is not your strong-suit or you are totally ignoring the above message and are after the sensationalism of the issue.

Did I say that we can't improve incident rates, or that we are fine with a death in the track hobby here and there? NO. Absolutely not. Read my post again; I clearly stated the most effective way to reduce incidents is done with education - "teaching the drivers to drive". My point in the post was to show the fact that there is this talk of speed limits reducing incident rates when there is CLEARLY no data to support this, and your "sensational" title and opening line has no merit, where you state "other week I'm reading about a lapper or an instructor that died at an event".

I haven't really seen you bust out the ad-hominem attacks before, this is a new side of you. But if we're discussing reading comprehension I may point you to the fact that I also said I'm not in favor of speed limits as a solution, I'm in favor of not dying as an instructor and my opening statement says "It seems like every other week." But you conveniently left out that critical use of syntax in accusing me of being a sensationalist.

Secondly, my other point still stands that NO AMOUNT OF DRIVER EDUCATION WILL ELIMINATE INCIDENTS. It's not just the wrong argument, it's also not a good one. Nobody is suggesting that incidents will ever be eliminated, not in this hobby. I've been agreeing with 2 points you've been making too: speed limits aren't the solution and education needs to improve but neither address the issue.

Originally Posted by smbstyle

You're regurgitating a topic regarding an aspect of the track hobby that many participants are drawn to, being able to achieve higher speeds in a safe environment, for no reason other than you and other uneducated individuals "think" it makes sense.

If you call me and others "uneducated" because we think fewer people should have to die then so be it. I can live with that.

It looks like you're saying that the risk of death or catastrophic vehicle damage is drawing people to HPDEs?! I'm regurgitating a topic about how HPDEs are becoming unnecessarily dangerous for both the driver and the instructor but if you are saying it's that danger that's drawing the crowd then the problem is greater that I suspect. It seems this way since you're vigilantly defending the status quo.

[Rio]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

Healthy, debate is healthy.

Why do sky divers fold their chutes in a certain way, or wear altimeters or have to have training?

Why do ski resorts have designated areas for different skill levels, roped off zones, perform preventative avalanche blasting and post signs everywhere about how the downhill person has the right of way?

Why does the guy driving to work have to get a license, obey laws, adhere to speed limits and drive a car with regulated safety standards?

While all these acts inherently posses risk, there are steps that are taken to mitigate it without removing it. In many cases it's also to mitigate the risk a person could inflict on another person and that sentiment also applies to a track day.



I haven't really seen you bust out the ad-hominem attacks before, this is a new side of you. But if we're discussing reading comprehension I may point you to the fact that I also said I'm not in favor of speed limits as a solution, I'm in favor of not dying as an instructor and my opening statement says "It seems like every other week." But you conveniently left out that critical use of syntax in accusing me of being a sensationalist.

Secondly, my other point still stands that NO AMOUNT OF DRIVER EDUCATION WILL ELIMINATE INCIDENTS. It's not just the wrong argument, it's also not a good one. Nobody is suggesting that incidents will ever be eliminated, not in this hobby. I've been agreeing with 2 points you've been making too: speed limits aren't the solution and education needs to improve but neither address the issue.


If you call me and others "uneducated" because we think fewer people should have to die then so be it. I can live with that.

It looks like you're saying that the risk of death or catastrophic vehicle damage is drawing people to HPDEs?! I'm regurgitating a topic about how HPDEs are becoming unnecessarily dangerous for both the driver and the instructor but if you are saying it's that danger that's drawing the crowd then the problem is greater that I suspect. It seems this way since you're vigilantly defending the status quo.

So, the Corporate Learning Leader in me says... Training DOES have a positive impact on behavior change if it is designed and performed correctly. Not eliminate, but you will never "eliminate' the possibility of injury or death in the sport.

[gatorac]

Interesting reading about some of the experiences you guys have had with different groups. In the group I'm with, no driver moves up or gets solo without a senior or Chief Instructor riding with them to verify their ability. Even novices that have been recommended for solo by their instructor get a check out ride. The guidelines for each run group are prescriptive and clearly written down for all to see. Drivers that don't meet the requirements and refuse further instruction often become frustrated and go run with some other provider. That's fine be me.

I've instructed many novices and taught many instructors. The most important thing we teach instructors is how to maintain control of the driver and car. They are tested on this many times and they must pass. If I'm riding with driver and do not feel like I'm in control, their ass is coming to the pits now where I'm confident I have their undivided attention.

In the classrooms we teach novices about safety. I flat tell them they don't have to use all 500 hp all the way down the straight. Acceleration is optional, braking is mandatory.

I don't believe speed limits are the answer. Education is key. I am firmly in the camp of "if I know the risks and choose to accept them, leave me the hell alone". While the thread title is obviously inflammatory and designed to get a big reaction, the reality of the situation is that the most recent death has got us thinking about what else can we do. We put our heads together and came up with ways to increase education to the intermediate drivers. Implemented it at the very next event.

Sadly we will see more deaths. We can't regulate it all away unless we just close all the racetracks. That's not a world I want to live in.

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by smbstyle

And to elaborate on infrastructure; If/when costs come down on SAFER barriers, well probably look back in 20 years and wonder how the hell tracks could be lined with concrete (look back at pics on Vintage Road Racing Archive page and see how far we've come already). Or as various head and neck restraints become more prevalent and affordable, especially those that can be worn with any harness configuration for the street car driver or brand new Novice, helmet AND head/neck restraint will be mandatory for all DE drivers. Speeds of cars will always increase, that's the nature of the Sportscar world, but we need to make sure safety keeps up at the same pace.

And a final point, take a look at automotive safety in general. Years ago a 60 mph impact would mean certain death in certain scenarios, and today people can walk away from hitting a wall at 3 digit speeds without a scratch. What did the automotive industry do? Rather than slow the cars down, or not allow them to go any faster, they worked on how to make them safer. Call me crazy but I'd rather smack a wall at 90 mph in a 2015 GTR than at 60 mph in a 60s Corvette.

Head and Neck restraints are mandatory in all SCCA and NASA sanctioned racing events.

Speeds of cars will always increase but there's a limit to physics and modern technology has really pushed those limits especially in tire technology, holy moly. That 1960's corvette comparison is a fair one. I wonder what the cornering speed between the 2 cars? I've been in the slow cars and the monsters and having to correct the car at 60 is a lot easier than 90 as well. Think back to the bias ply tires on the corvette, it sure as hell wasn't doing 2 G's anywhere and would be going slow enough through any corner having to make a correction was far easier. That's why one of my thoughts was around the type of tire on the car.

If the car simply cannot go through the corner quickly, it won't be.

But yes, the "looking back" statement is profound.. Maybe in 10 years we'll look back and think.. "Wow, instructors really rode in 400hp cars with Hoosiers that didn't have a cage in them? That's insane!"

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by Rio

So, the Corporate Learning Leader in me says... Training DOES have a positive impact on behavior change if it is designed and performed correctly. Not eliminate, but you will never "eliminate' the possibility of injury or death in the sport.

Agreed. But I do have to say (having a corporate instructional designer in the family) that they think 'more instruction' is the answer to most things.





I do kind of feel like I'm in the twilight zone a bit. When I first started doing lapping events 15 years ago, having a major wreck seemed preposterous because we're out here learning and there was a huge emphasis on keeping things slow, keeping things safe and "nobody is competing". The concept of a driver death at one of these things wasn't even a thought. I was driving "too hard" at one event and that was the end of my day, I was sent home. When I showed up again with a renewed adherence to their safety policies I also had a roll bar.

But now the organizations are desperate for money and entries. The barriers to entry haven't gotten worse, in fact it is the opposite. The prices have come down the rules are relaxed and now the organization that I was originally sent home from is having to cancel days because they're losing business to other orgs that are more "open".

smbstyle can say I'm regurgitating and I'd immediately stand up and say, "busted" if I hadn't witness all this myself, personally over the last decade or so.