"Newb" Question on Track Safety

[EAPCPA]

I appreciate the feedback from everyone.

After doing some research, in my region, if the contact is not protested at the track within 30 minutes, then there is no record of it anywhere even if you tube video exists it will be ignored. Therefore if you have a repeat "contactor" who only gets one protest per season and has this history over several seasons, it does not matter to our stewards because it never happened. I am told that some stewards will try to talk a driver out of filing the protest and just deal with it now. Then the paper trail is lost and it never happened once you leave the track.

There should be an incident report after each track session at least by the drivers involved for any metal-to-metal contact just to document the the incident. The stewards do not want to carry the extra paperwork burden and I understand that but if the procedure is in place I think the frequency of contact will be reduced and a repeat offender can/should be adequately dealt with.

David hit it right on the head:

I think it's up to the drivers to create a culture that doesn't accept  contact.  
If someone hits you then you need to let them know you're not  happy about.  
If you say nothing then they're going to think it was ok.   
If it's bad enough then a protest should be filed.  
If it's repetitive  then a group of drivers needs to have a discussion with that person.
This is for fun and fixing busted chit isn't fun.  
Some people don't  seem to get that.

 

[Matt93SE]

Agreed. Also note though, that any time there is metal-to-metal contact on track AND IS WITNESSED BY A CORNER WORKER, then it's called in on the radio and recorded in the race log. If it was an actual HIT (more than just a bump/rub) or was a more obvious driving infraction, then written witness statements are given by the corner workers and can be used as evidence-- for all sides-- in a protest.

There are forms in all of our F&C corner packets for exactly this, and I've written many a statement similar to the following:

"On corner 10 entry, Car 12-white blocked/turned in on car 34-red, causing 34 to contact 12's right door and rear corner. Car 12 then spun center track due to contact. Car 34 went off track driver right to avoid additional contact. Both cars then continued. Visible damage to both cars from contact."

Something to that effect will be in the F&C logs AND will be in the radio logs for race control if it was called in by workers.

Now... if nobody protests this contact, nothing will happen, even though it was witnessed by corner workers and noted in the logs. The Steward has the option to do something to the driver(s), but almost always will leave it be if nobody protests.

 

[Ron Earp]

Now... if nobody protests this contact, nothing will happen, even though it was witnessed by corner workers and noted in the logs. The Steward has the option to do something to the driver(s), but almost always will leave it be if nobody protests.

Color me simple, but I think this SOP for steward behavior is a failure to the club and its members. There can be many reasons why a driver may not protest another driver. Probably first and foremost is that most drivers I've spoken with feel that protests come to nothing and aren't worth the time and hassle, i.e., nothing is ever accomplished.

I feel that stewards should always investigate metal to metal contact and that there should be a probation system in place for repeat offenders that is used early and used often. But I'm not a steward, maybe actually using these tools is a royal pain in the ass for a steward and if that is the case then the process should be changed. There needs to be a simple to use process for stewards to take action against drivers that are involved with contact.

EAPCPA, in response to your original question I have not heard anything about the incidents at CMS a couple of weeks ago. I suspect that nothing was actioned. Unfortunately, I think this means that they essentially never happened should they be brought up in conjunction with a future incident.

 

[JeffYoung]

FWIW, NASA is far more proactive about penalties for metal to metal conduct. In fact, based on what I have seen, way more proactive than they should be -- witness the brown board saga of a guy who drove his line in the uphill esses and got hit by a car that went off line and came back, and got DQ'ed.

There needs to be a happy medium.

 

[Ron Earp]

FWIW, NASA is far more proactive about penalties for metal to metal conduct. In fact, based on what I have seen, way more proactive than they should be -- witness the brown board saga of a guy who drove his line in the uphill esses and got hit by a car that went off line and came back, and got DQ'ed.

There needs to be a happy medium.

One example of NASA going off the deep end doesn't equate to a perceived history of non-actions by the SCCA.

Clearly I don't know the score since I don't race in NASA, but I imagine few of us have a truly accurate picture of how the organizations compare with metal to metal infractions.

Isn't the PCA agressive with their contact rules?

 

[JeffYoung]

Sure.

But I have learned a fair amount about their procedures and read their rules after that thread. They have pictorial diagrams about what constitutes "fault" in particular instances that don't make a lot of sense to me. They do give the stewards far more authority to initiate action, which can be good and bad.

There's good and bad to both systems from what I've seen. I think a happy medium is a more driver driven incident review and probationary period system. That seems to be lacking in both systems. Peer review I think is the better way to do this, bringing actual racer experience to the incident AND giving the supervisory group some flexibility to deal with the myriad of situations that develop on track.

One example of NASA going off the deep end doesn't equate to dozens of non-actions by the SCCA. Clearly I don't know the score since I don't race in NASA, but I imagine few of us have a truly accurate picture of how the organizations compare with metal to metal infractions.

 

[JeffYoung]

BMWCCA and PCA are "no fault" systems with a 13/13 rule. Their culture of metal to metal contact is very different as a result, they don't tolerate it at all and you get 13 months on the sidelines if you do it twice (even if not your fault).

I think that is correct, but would need to check.

One example of NASA going off the deep end doesn't equate to a perceived history of non-actions by the SCCA.

Clearly I don't know the score since I don't race in NASA, but I imagine few of us have a truly accurate picture of how the organizations compare with metal to metal infractions.

Isn't the PCA agressive with their contact rules?

 

[seckerich]

You would be wrong about Charlotte, action was taken. Stewards for the group 2 race Saturday did initiate action and then dropped it after the driver involved filed a protest. Saturday was deemed a racing accident because the protesting driver lost his protest. The driver that was hit did not file counter protest. System was used properly.

Sunday protest with contact resulted in a penalty to the driver that was protested and it will be released after the appeal period is up and the matter is settled. Again the system worked.

You have 2 choices here guys. You either want the stewards to run the show from pit road and do all the police work, or you use the protest process when things get out of hand. Most bitch if the stewards are too harsh and step in, then complain that nobody else will protect them. Everyone thinks the stewards should see everything and can not understand when a decision does not go their way. All the stewards are ALLOWED to do is review the evidence they are presented, without pre conceived notions, and make their best decision. They look at video, check corner reports, and have witness statements. I wrote a witness statement for the Saturday race as I about got collected in that mess. We are convinced we saw what we saw and that is fine, just be sure to have the proof. These are usually our friends we race with and we try not to be a jerk and protest when a simple conversation will usually do the trick. Sometimes it may take a group of drivers to have a sit down with an offending driver. Either way it is in the end the drivers responsibility to use the process if there is no other way to solve the situation. This last statement is in general and not aimed at the Charlotte incident that started this thread.

 

[Matt93SE]

Color me simple, but I think this SOP for steward behavior is a failure to the club and its members. There can be many reasons why a driver may not protest another driver. Probably first and foremost is that most drivers I've spoken with feel that protests come to nothing and aren't worth the time and hassle, i.e., nothing is ever accomplished.

I feel that stewards should always investigate metal to metal contact and that there should be a probation system in place for repeat offenders that is used early and used often. But I'm not a steward, maybe actually using these tools is a royal pain in the ass for a steward and if that is the case then the process should be changed. There needs to be a simple to use process for stewards to take action against drivers that are involved with contact.

Agreed. There are instances where it was simply a racing incident and both parties talked it out. I've never had more than incidental front-rear contact in a corner, but for a side-side, there has to be a true lack of legit racing room and 100% at-fault before I'll protest another driver. If it's close-quarters racing and I leave 1 car width +1" and the guy makes a bobble and rubs on a door? Then that was my fault for not leaving wiggle room in there. OTOH, if I'm leaving room and a guy completely FUBARS a corner, nails my door, and punts both of us? yeah, we'll be chatting with a steward after the race.