http://www.sportscarmarket.com/content/carrera

discuss.

first things first RIP to both men involved...i hate hearing about people passing from legal motorsports related incidents.

i dont really know what to say in terms of the verdict but i will throw a question into the discussion...
dont you have to sign a waiver before going out stating that you will accept all responsibility of any incident? isnt there a line in there that says you could possibly die? or is it just me
i just did a measly njbmwcca auto-x and i remember it saying something like that

That is so ** ridiculous.

Having porsche pay a cent for not putting traction control on their CGT is like taxing Glock every time one of their guns kills someone.

I'll never understand some people. Your husband gets in a car with a guy, they both die. He made that decision to get in the car, no one put a gun to his head, he knew the consequences. What makes your husband more important than Ben Keaton? Why do you get to sue a family grieving the same circumstances? Some people will use any and all excuses to obtain other people’s money. It’s disgusting.

That is so ** ridiculous.

Having porsche pay a cent for not putting traction control on their CGT is like taxing Glock every time one of their guns kills someone.

I'll never understand some people. Your husband gets in a car with a guy, they both die. He made that decision to get in the car, no one put a gun to his head, he knew the consequences. What makes your husband more important than Ben Keaton? Why do you get to sue a family grieving the same circumstances? Some people will use any and all excuses to obtain other people’s money. It’s disgusting. Plus 1 to that ,if that was the case???? High profile car makes you wonder ??? NO Riders !!! 20/20 hidesight.

...
dont you have to sign a waiver before going out stating that you will accept all responsibility of any incident? isnt there a line in there that says you could possibly die? or is it just me

The article specifically addresses the Liability Release, and California law recently determined that a waiver can release liability for normal negligence but it cannot waive liability for gross negligence. There were two main problems (aside from Porsche leaving out stability control on a car like this)... The track was an unsafe design (pit out into the middle of the straight, on the racing line, with no line of sight) and Ferrari Owners Club broke their own rules by allowing a car that had failed tech to run.

The article specifically addresses the Liability Release, and California law recently determined that a waiver can release liability for normal negligence but it cannot waive liability for gross negligence.

Interestingly the article also stated that NY and Virginia do not allow the waiver to absolve the organizers of ordinary negligence.

I think we will see some repurcussions and changes to the way events are done from now on.

The point is, he didn't know the consequences. Sorry, but the location (re-location) of that wall was bogus, and the pit-out was bogus. Exit pit lane on the left side of a straight where cars are coming at high speed and setting up on the left also, and instructing cars entering the track to move right "as soon as possible"? Sorry, but you don't have to be Einstein to know THAT's a potential disaster waiting to happen. Gross negligence.

How can the average person know at the time the waiver's signed that these conditions are existing? Shoot, you wouldn't know about it until, riding as a passenger, you saw those conditions while leaving pit lane. By that time, it's too late.

Remember, this was a settlement, not a verdict. So the defendants obviously knew they had a problem once the thing got to trial.

Porsche, unfortunately, was in an impossible position. I don't really think they did anything wrong, but they decided to settle before pouring much more money into a defense. Let's hope they don't see a bunch of other CGT lawsuits, as they've now set quite a precedent. They got off cheap, though....$360,000 ain't all that much to them.

The point is, he didn't know the consequences. Sorry, but the location (re-location) of that wall was bogus, and the pit-out was bogus. Exit pit lane on the left side of a straight where cars are coming at high speed and setting up on the left also, and instructing cars entering the track to move right "as soon as possible"? Sorry, but you don't have to be Einstein to know THAT's a potential disaster waiting to happen. Gross negligence.

How can the average person know at the time the waiver's signed that these conditions are existing? Shoot, you wouldn't know about it until, riding as a passenger, you saw those conditions while leaving pit lane. By that time, it's too late.

Remember, this was a settlement, not a verdict. So the defendants obviously knew they had a problem once the thing got to trial.

Porsche, unfortunately, was in an impossible position. I don't really think they did anything wrong, but they decided to settle before pouring much more money into a defense. Let's hope they don't see a bunch of other CGT lawsuits, as they've now set quite a precedent. They got off cheap, though....$360,000 ain't all that much to them.
+1

That article was a good read. It explained the many factors that contributed to this regrettable but probably avoidable accident. It also shows again that event organizers have to think harder about safety, especially in sue-crazy-America, as the track conditions and workers (pit-out, location of wall, flagger at pit-out, etc) were partly to blame for the incident.

The thing about Porsche getting dinged for not putting stability control on the car was somewhat silly, but a 600hp rear-mid engined car with no on-board electronic nannies in the hands of a n00b is always going to make for lots of spins (driver had already spun "three or four times" that same day). Porsche paid nearly nothing, though, whereas the deceased driver's estate paid 49% of the $4.5M settlement to the passenger's family - it was apparently shown to be largely driver error.

This type of thing scares the shit out of me. I race and instruct for HPDEs and it makes me rething doing some of these things. I quite often have students who are really dangerous on track. There's always a good possiblity they will wreck. I am a real hard ass with them and I make them listen, but you never know. I also have been routinely taking students for rides in my race car and street car at over 140mph. I may have to rethink that practice. I accept the possiblity that I might injure or kill myself but then someone else riding with me could be hurt or killed and sue my family. It is just really sad all around and makes me think about continuing to do these things I really love to do. It's sad because I know how much my students benefit from these events. Who knows how many lives I've saved by teaching my students not to do some dumb-ass move on the street and kill a family?

Sad day for motorsports, IMO.

NASCAR can pay $4.6M without any problem. But what about a car club? The report doesn't break down the track versus organizer's share, but this could easily exceed the club's liability insurance.

I predict:
club insurance cost ++;
track insurance and hence rental cost ++;
instructors willing to give rides (particularly if they have family) --
instructors willing to encourage students to go faster --

There are so may gray areas of tech, too. Do you knowingly run with "low" brake pads? A bit of a soft pedal? Control arms that are nearing replacement time? Surface cracks on rotors? Tires near the cords? A "neutral" suspension that might be considered "tail happy" by some?

And :blackeye to the passenger's widow for suing the driver's estate. I can believe that is what her husband would have wanted.

And holy crap, there were 6 posts written while I was composing mine!

There are so may gray areas of tech, too. Do you knowingly run with "low" brake pads? A bit of a soft pedal? Control arms that are nearing replacement time? Surface cracks on rotors? Tires near the cords? A "neutral" suspension that might be considered "tail happy" by some?


I think part of the liability for FOC is that they are supposed to require a shop do the inspection, but never stopped a car from running because of failed tech, and let him sign off on his own. I think that nobody knows my car better than me but I still get it inspected by a third party. Sometimes a fresh set of eyes sees something you miss.

All the clubs I drive with allow you to do your own pre-event tech inspection, so that hardly seems out of the ordinary unless all these clubs have negligence on this account.

I don't know many people that get a $100-ish tech inspection before every single event, if they are running a lot of events / year.

While I have seen cars sent away, they are few and far between. The norm would be to try to help the person resolve the tech defect at the track.

I sometimes help with tech. Makes we worry about THAT too.

The shop I use does inspections for free. Sometimes he finds things I have him address, normally it's just free.

I don't understand how the Ferrari driver is even partly at fault for exiting the pits too slowly :confused

I agree that this can be a very bad precedent, not in regards to the gross negligence, but the reaction to the settlement.

My opinion may not be popular but I gotta say I agree with the plaintiff on this one. I write this as an event participant, past instructor and event organizer. There are multiple things that were done wrong that simply can't be excused. The first and foremost is the track configuration. The location of the wall is unbelievably dangerous in the relocated position. No one noticed a wall almost perpendicular to a 130+ mph straight? Second, is the event organizer that allowed someone on track without a tech inspection AND knowing he had tech problems. Third the event organizers for allowing a guy that spun 3-4 times prior to keep driving. Most events if you spin more than twice you're done for the day. Fifth, the corner worker that allowed the Ferrari to enter the track. He said the guy entered too slowly but that is something he should have accounted for. You never let someone out on track 'assuming' he will quickly accelerate to avoid an accident. Sixth, the driver for taking a passenger out in a car he quite clearly couldn't handle, evidenced by his multiple prior spins

I disagree with the Ferrari owner's settlement. But, without knowing just how slow he pulled out its hard to say more on that.

I also wholeheartedly disagree with the Porsche settlement. The car was sold without traction control and the purchaser knew that when he bought it. It is also not required by any state or federal law. When courts start ruling against companies for things like this it actually make the consumer less safe. There have been documented instances of companies NOT putting added safety equipment on their product due to fear of litigation for not having an equivalent system on previous products.

Hugely sad deal all the way around. In the end though this could have been easily avoided all together and both driver and passenger would have been with their families today.

Remember, this was a settlement, not a verdict. So the defendants obviously knew they had a problem once the thing got to trial.

This fact was actually lost on me when I first read the post... and it is significant.

As an event organizer for Triangle Z / Tarheel SCC and organizer/owner of Asphalt Ventures, this ruling will play a huge role in the future. I'm still digesting the info, but the long and short of it... this is exactly the type of ruling I predicted.

I'm with robertm on this one.

I'm missing something in my read regarding the failed tech inspection & mechanic input.

The driver signed off on his own form when asked to present the form is my read. No biggie on that as it seems some experienced drivers (with a mechanical bent) will do their own tech inspections and sign-off. BMW & PCA both allow this. Some might not agree or want 3rd parties to conduct the inspections, sure, whatever. I personally have others do it for me, but I'm just that kinda cat. But is it accurate to say that he failed it? (Too much play in bearings, leaking fluids, low tire pressure, etc?)

The more confusing point to me is the mechanics 'advice'. So, he warned Mr.Keaton that the car was tail happy .... and that indicates a tech problem? Was this advice given upon buying the car - Keaton had tracked that car quite a few times and was well-known & respected in Pcar circles for maturity and driving experience. The mechanic's contribution sounds like an empty "I told ya so". It sounds like he didn't inspect the car for the event so any advice would have been just that, "that's a Porsche, they're tail happy".

I guess once lawyers get a hold of something, it spins out all sorts of ways. I'm just trying to work this out in my head - it was an awful and tragic situation with repercussions that are going to affect my hobby in ways that I don't understand. (no offense to any lawyers in the gallery, I'm sure you're all lovely people, you just confuse me :) )

Usually cases settled out of court don't disclose the settlement....why in this case was so much information relased? Just curious (we'd be complaining the other way if they didn't release any info).

Many years ago, a woman totaled a Porsche and was injured. She successfully sued Porsche for selling her a car she couldn't handle.

Barber Raceway is built, and Porsche uses it as the driver's training for anyone buying a new Porsche.

This is really a bad deal all around, and I agree with you guys about increased costs as well as truly considering the on track risks with passengers. If I were an instructor I'd consult an attorney about having passengers sign waivers.

I've given people rides in my race car, but will be talking to my wife, who runs a law firm, about whether I should continue the practice. Or if a waiver will even be adequate.

Common sense is out the window these days, I assume all risks as a driver and a passenger on track. However, there is always a lawyer ready to make a buck under any circumstance.

James Posig
JMT TrackCars
#231 GTS 2

I'm missing something in my read regarding the failed tech inspection & mechanic input. The more confusing point to me is the mechanics 'advice'. So, he warned Mr.Keaton that the car was tail happy .... and that indicates a tech problem? Was this advice given upon buying the car - Keaton had tracked that car quite a few times and was well-known & respected in Pcar circles for maturity and driving experience. The mechanic's contribution sounds like an empty "I told ya so". It sounds like he didn't inspect the car for the event so any advice would have been just that, "that's a Porsche, they're tail happy".


According to the article "At a previous event, the FOC President and organizer had been warned by one of their vehicle certifiers that he believed that something was wrong with the handling of Keaton’s car and it should not be allowed to run."

It's not that the driver signed off on his own tech, but that the FOC had been warned by someone they deemed qualified as "one of their vehicle certifiers" but allowed him to run in any case, with just his own signoff. If they had required him to get a signoff from another shop or certifier I think it would be a different case.

This sucks.

I have a few of Cory Rudl's Internet Marketing DVD's. He was a smart young capitalist that was well on his way to becoming a multimillionaire. Also helping lots of smaller companies like our own.

That said.

This sucks.

First Porsche should not have been held responsible for the lack of TC. That is bull shit. Next thing you know all the manufactures will be installing TC that can not be completely turned off. How does it even make sense? You knowingly purchase a 600hp supercar that you know does not have TC then........ America.

It seams that FOC did make a critical mistake allowing the car to run. If indeed it does mandate that your car be checked out by a shop before the event and the driver did not. THey still allowed him to run..... why have tech then?

As far as california speedway....... All my events there (moto and auto) the pit exit was at the end of the pit lane that sends you out onto the banked turn 1 basically. As a driver you can see car entering the track from as far as the start finish.

Why in the world would they ever put the track entry halfway down the back straight? from that picture looks like the back straightaway by the bridge. Why was that being used as the pit exit? huh? makes no sense!

Some explain that to me.......

http://www.sportscarmarket.com/img/othercontent/headline-carrera.jpg

So in my view the track is a safe as you choose to make it. You can set it up safer or like an idiot like these organizers did.

As the event steward for this event I would of simply moved the track entry to the more reasonable location like on the end of the front straight.

Another issue is, every time I've been to a track day and wanted to have a passenger I have been denied. The rule is instructors only. Since when are people allowed to ride shotgun at track days? I guess ferrari club is special and feels the need to have their members be able to show off their expensive cars. I think if there was an instructor in his car things MIGHT of turned of different.

THIS is a roaval. Road ovals always have lots of concrete barriers and walls. Not the safest tracks out there. This is clearly evident to anyone that looks at a roval in person. Still Cali speedway is not the worst roval out there. This is akin to blaming Porcshe for not having TC...

The moving of the barriers for the nascar race should of been fixed before the event. Essentially looks like it cut into run off area.

I would say

- 0% Porsche fault

- 60% drivers fault

- 30% FOC - 1-Allowing a passenger that wasn't a instructor 2-Allowing the car to "pass" tech without having a shop sign off per their rules. 3-Holding the event with a unsafe configuration and not making track officials move barriers into place before allowing any cars on track. 4- Allowing that driver to continue to drive without an instructor and taking a passenger after already having spun 3 times that day. Some of the events I've been they might of sent you home after the 3rd spin.

-10% California Speedway - for failing to move barriers back into a safer track orientation after hosting a previous event.

-0% other drivers fault - He was waved onto the track by a track official. He was following workers instructions like we are tought to do. It is my prerogative if I want to accelerate slowly after entering a track. There is no rule saying I have to rush up to racing speed as soon as possible, especially on a track day. I fail to see how it was his fault. He was following directions. He did not enter without permission. How was he grossly negligible?

I belive they were only using the infield and not the banked oval.

umm... how do I put this.

As someone who was *there*, don't believe everything you read in the article. The facts as skewed to support the plaintiff's view, and the 'facts' as presented to the court.
The deepest pockets were targeted. The fault lay elsewhere...

The Ferrari events that occured 10 years ago in Texas didn't require instructors for anybody (they were made available if somebody wanted them)...even for people who have never been to a track before. They also allowed passengers for everybody. I don't know how they handle them now.

umm... how do I put this.

As someone who was *there*, don't believe everything you read in the article. The facts as skewed to support the plaintiff's view, and the 'facts' as presented to the court.
The deepest pockets were targeted. The fault lay elsewhere...

Just for clarification... is this directed at a particular comment, or the thread in general?

Just for clarification... is this directed at a particular comment, or the thread in general?

As someone who knows several people who were there and have gotten first hand accounts of the event, I would have to assume the entire thread in general.

The version of the accounts that I got from people who were there, were dramatically different from what's presented to the court.

As someone who knows several people who were there and have gotten first hand accounts of the event, I would have to assume the entire thread in general.

The version of the accounts that I got from people who were there, were dramatically different from what's presented to the court.

Is that really surprising?

The only thing I can think of (discussed in this thread) that would be disputed would be the Ferrari and its involvement in the incident. And it was stated in the article that there was blame back and forth. Unless you were standing there with the person releasing cars, or maybe the car waiting behind the Ferrari, then what else is there?

I've heard different stories as well... obviously I wasn't there, so I'd be very interested in the discrepancies.

I've amended my posts on other threads, and I'll bring it up here: This is not a court ruling... and we're getting much more info than most of these types of cases. This was a settlement between a plaintiff and a defendant, nothing was proved in a court of law. It's the court of public opinion that matters now.

umm... how do I put this.

As someone who was *there*, don't believe everything you read in the article. The facts as skewed to support the plaintiff's view, and the 'facts' as presented to the court.
The deepest pockets were targeted. The fault lay elsewhere...

Can you please elaborate? This is a touchy subject, but I believe everyone deserves to know exactly what happened and who was *really* at fault here..

If not, I understand.

Thanks.

wonder is this will make my race entries at cal speedway next year more expensive?

cause a hike in insurance for the event organizers......they will just pass it on to us....

wonder is this will make my race entries at cal speedway next year more expensive?

cause a hike in insurance for the event organizers......they will just pass it on to us....

Most tracks already require a bare minimum liability policy that covers up to 2 million... many here on the east coast require it to be 5 million. That said... I imagine any participation in a Ferrari event will be more expensive.

found this also intresting

http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/jun2006/bw20060608_466074.htm

I've heard different stories as well... obviously I wasn't there, so I'd be very interested in the discrepancies.

Well, almost all the first hand stories I've heard from eye witnesses were surprisingly consistent, despite the fact that they were given over different period of time.

The way I understood it, the organizers of the event should have bore the majority of the liability. If anyone was grossly negligent, it was FOC.

these kind of lawsuits will force manufacturors like Porsche and BMW to install non-disableble traction/stability control systems in future sportscars for the US market..or they will not offer certain models at all in the US.

I don't understand how the Ferrari driver is even partly at fault for exiting the pits too slowly :confused

I agree that this can be a very bad precedent, not in regards to the gross negligence, but the reaction to the settlement.


About 2 weeks after this happened an instructor who was there gave a very detailed discription of the circumstances at an SCDA event at Lime Rock. According to him the Ferrari driver not only didn't go when he was told to go, but then went without a clear indication from the corner worker that it was all clear...but that wasn't the really bad news....the really bad news was that the Ferrari driver tracked straight out to the "line" upon pit out, that was the big mistake.

I do classroom for a number of groups in the north east and I use this as an example of how bad it can get if you don't use the blend line and track straight out...it usually gets folks attention.

And finally, let me join the others in the forum by extending my sympathy over this terrible incident; hopefully we'll learn by it.

the really bad news was that the Ferrari driver tracked straight out to the "line" upon pit out, that was the big mistake. .

NOW i can see how it happened. i hope ALL instructors read this and understand the importance of the blend line. POUND it into your students heads. the "blend" line is NOT a suggestion. at our schools, you cross the blend line, your black flagged. second time, your out.

somberly, with respect.
jason

Well, almost all the first hand stories I've heard from eye witnesses were surprisingly consistent, despite the fact that they were given over different period of time.

The way I understood it, the organizers of the event should have bore the majority of the liability. If anyone was grossly negligent, it was FOC.

I agree, but you cannot discount the track's responsibility.

FOC created the situation that led to the spin. CA Speedway created the wall into which that spin ended.

I think if there was an instructor in his car things MIGHT of turned of different.

It is also my understanding that many of the people participating in that event felt they "needed no instruction" as well. Whether or not that is really the case or not? I do not know, but I have my suspicions.

It is also my understanding that many of the people participating in that event felt they "needed no instruction" as well. Whether or not that is really the case or not? I do not know, but I have my suspicions.

Unfortunately, this is becoming the norm across all organizations... we're seeing it first hand here in the southeast. Even to the point where drivers are inflating or exaggerating their experience level to get into a solo group.

I remember at BMWCCA LA auto-x they require you to have a instructor drive the first lap. Only for first timers.

seams like a good rule.

I agree, but you cannot discount the track's responsibility.

FOC created the situation that led to the spin. CA Speedway created the wall into which that spin ended.

I believe the track has some liability here for where the wall is placed, but the way FOC ran the event the majority of the blame lies with them. There's no clearly coned off section of the track entry, only 2 professional corner workers out there, poorly organized driver's meeting, and allowing a participant to take a passenger out that's not an instructor.

Situation could have been avoided if some basic HPDE rules were observed, IMHO.

If I was the judge or jury, I would have assigned 60% of the liability with FOC, 20% liability goes to the track, and 20% goes to the driver. Unfortunately it looks like the plaintiffs went after the biggest pocket for the biggest chunk of change.

Is it common at some events that the track workers work for the event organizers? I've been to a lot of PCA and PBOC events at Sebring and it was my understanding that most of the on track workers are provided by the track and make sure the event organizers are following the track rules.

The people working in the "timing" booth, if you will, are event volunteers, but the folks at the false grid, the pit out, and all of the corner stations are payed by the track. Some of the same folks that work the same stations at professional races. I'm also use to the pit out worker standing in the middle of the pit out lane. If he doesn't want you to pass him, you are going to hit him if you don't stop.

The events I run at also require that a licensed mechanic do your tech inspection, so yeah, I have to pay for either .5 to 1 hour of time before each event. I just factor that in as part of the cost of doing an event. You have to be either an instructor or in the advanced solo or "super-solo" group to do your own inspection. I also agree with the other posts wondering why it was that a non-instructor was doing a ride along.

It still amazes me that people will take a 500+ hp car with minimal safety equipment and go push it down the track at over 130MPH. We've seen posts on here where people with supercharged street cars are saying they do 150 on some tracks and they only have stock seat belts and an airbag. I'm really surprised that groups don't put a maximum speed on the different groups. Novice can't go over 100, intermediate can't go over 120. And you can't go over 120 without being an advanced driver with proper safety gear(harness/hans). I know most of the time instructors take care of this, but you shouldn't be going so fast that if something happens you have no chance of surviving.

I don't understand how the Ferrari driver is even partly at fault for exiting the pits too slowly :confused

.Just like on a freeway, entering drivers are supposed to get up to speed before merging into traffic. Anybody on a race track should know this, the BMWCCA events I attend always tell drivers to accelerate quickly out of the entry point.

-0% other drivers fault - He was waved onto the track by a track official. He was following workers instructions like we are tought to do. It is my prerogative if I want to accelerate slowly after entering a track. There is no rule saying I have to rush up to racing speed as soon as possible, especially on a track day. I fail to see how it was his fault. He was following directions. He did not enter without permission. How was he grossly negligible?I disagree. By moving too slowly on a track, you are a hazard. If you are not ready to navigate the track at speed, you should not be on it. My 2 cents.

This fact was actually lost on me when I first read the post... and it is significant.

As an event organizer for Triangle Z / Tarheel SCC and organizer/owner of Asphalt Ventures, this ruling will play a huge role in the future. I'm still digesting the info, but the long and short of it... this is exactly the type of ruling I predicted.

I'm with robertm on this one.It's not a RULING, it's a settlement. The parties sized up their positions and decided this was the best way to resolve the lawsuit. It has ZERO value as precedent. No judge or arbitrator will ever be able to rely on the settlement as having any bearing on any future lawsuit.

Will it make clubs change the way they do things? Maybe. But it's not going to affect any court's view of who is legally liable.

I know most of the time instructors take care of this, but you shouldn't be going so fast that if something happens you have no chance of surviving.
That's impossible.

Just like on a freeway, entering drivers are supposed to get up to speed before merging into traffic. Anybody on a race track should know this, the BMWCCA events I attend always tell drivers to accelerate quickly out of the entry point.

I disagree. By moving too slowly on a track, you are a hazard. If you are not ready to navigate the track at speed, you should not be on it. My 2 cents.

Agreed - you're there at a track day. The whole point is to drive on a track at speed. While that can vary greatly from say a stock Honda Civic and a Z06 Corvette sharing the track, you should at least be able to expect people will be driving at speed when on the racetrack.

If you want to drive along at a leisurely pace, then do the speed limit on your local highway.

Just like on a freeway, entering drivers are supposed to get up to speed before merging into traffic. Anybody on a race track should know this, the BMWCCA events I attend always tell drivers to accelerate quickly out of the entry point.

I disagree. By moving too slowly on a track, you are a hazard. If you are not ready to navigate the track at speed, you should not be on it. My 2 cents.

It is very track dependent. What if there is a slow car, short pit out, and little blend area?

Case in point is the track configuration used in this incident. The guy is supposed to enter the track from the left, then jump to the right to stay off line. Anything less than top speed will be too slow. Whether or not he could actually get up to a decent speed (granted he was in a Ferrari) that I doubt but that's just a WAG on my end.
To be clear, I wasn't referring to his acceleration rate.

u guys do understand that racing is a dangerous sport, right? wether you call it racing, hpde, open track, whatever it doesn't change the basic premise of pushing the car to its limits. this sport inherently carries the danger of overstepping the limits and having to face the consequences. nobody should ever come near a race track if they think it's a safe place to be. it is not. this lawsuit is about money and not much else unfortunately; "it will make things safer for the future" is just the sugar coated version for the naive. hopefully the umbrella policy will cover the settlement and the family can move on with their lives... it's disappointing that such lawsuits are common in our culture, i don't think they benefit society at all. sad story made worse by few lowlifes trying to make a buck.

It is also my understanding that many of the people participating in that event felt they "needed no instruction" as well. Whether or not that is really the case or not? I do not know, but I have my suspicions.

Ferrari clubs are notorious about this. They aren't "students", they're "participants". Using an instructor is up to the "participant". BMWCCA (at least in our area) goes overboard in the other direction, where every student needs to take an instructor for at least a lap before being signed off, and it's for that day only. Insurance requirements?

PCA seems to have it nailed...you need to take a vigorous on track test, in front of at least two instructors one of which needs to be the chief instructor, before you're signed off solo. But once you've done that you're solo until you do something silly.

At least one of the lessons we should come away from this with is that inspection standards and solid teaching and evaluation procedures can't be compromised based upon the value of the hardware. My guess is that someone somewhere along the line here was intimidated by the real or assumed power and influence of the car owners. It started in the tech line and went down hill from there.

u guys do understand that racing is a dangerous sport, right? wether you call it racing, hpde, open track, whatever it doesn't change the basic premise of pushing the car to its limits. this sport inherently carries the danger of overstepping the limits and having to face the consequences. nobody should ever come near a race track if they think it's a safe place to be. it is not. this lawsuit is about money and not much else unfortunately; "it will make things safer for the future" is just the sugar coated version for the naive. hopefully the umbrella policy will cover the settlement and the family can move on with their lives... it's disappointing that such lawsuits are common in our culture, i don't think they benefit society at all. sad story made worse by few lowlifes trying to make a buck.

Sure, it's a lawsuit so it's about money. Perhaps, though, the dead plaintiff left behind children without a father's support.

I know I'm taking a big risk when I strap-in and head onto the track. I accept the consequences. I can reduce the risk by installing safety equipment in my car. But how am I supposed to protect myself when the track moves a wall in and makes it perpendicular to the track just past the pit-out? I think it's fair to expect that event organizers, tracks and other drivers won't do something so utterly stupid as that. I don't expect organizers to protect me from the dangers inherent to racing, but I think it's also fair to expect that track owners will be held to some reasonable standard of maintaining safety, and that event organizers will pull idiots off the track before they kill somebody. How many times at a DE event do you see some Master of the Universe in a new GT3 and little real experience spin out and put wheels off-track with the regularity of a cheap shower door? If an amped-up poseur in way too much car wants to kill himself, fine with me. But when he's shown himself to be incompetent and a menace and he kills someone else....

But how am I supposed to protect myself when the track moves a wall in and makes it perpendicular to the track just past the pit-out?

I know you meant this as a rhetorical question, but you could:

Refuse to drive. If a bunch of people did that, the track may have moved the barriers.
Slow as you approached the danger. I often don't push it in places where a mistake would be bad.
Anticiapte the consequences of a late track entry and been ready for it.
Refuse the ride-along because the track configuration was dangerous and you didn't want to drive with another student (which was almost certainly against the rules, no?)


:thinkerg Here's a question for all you lawyers out there:
Do you think an additional waiver between student / passenger and instructor / driver would do anything -- one that specifically acknowledges that there would be errors in judgement, lapses in maintenance, foreseeable dangers, etc. I am particularly worried about Watkins Glen in NY, where the waivers don't waive even regular negligence (like, maybe, forgetting to torque your wheels? Or running your pads or tires too low?)

It's not a RULING, it's a settlement. The parties sized up their positions and decided this was the best way to resolve the lawsuit. It has ZERO value as precedent. No judge or arbitrator will ever be able to rely on the settlement as having any bearing on any future lawsuit.

Will it make clubs change the way they do things? Maybe. But it's not going to affect any court's view of who is legally liable.

You're absolutely right, I should have not used that wording.

I hope it does change the way some clubs do things though. As an event organizer, and as part of an organization that prides itself in running very safe DE and time trial events, it gets extremely frustrating when some people get upset with us for trying to do everything we can to keep people safe (even from themselves in extreme cases.) This means that yes, we'll be very diligent that everyone signs the waivers (participants and visitors). That students don't ride with other students, that driver's aren't solo'd before their ready, that two-off rules will be used and enforced. We'll sacrifice an entry fee if we have to to ensure we have people on track that we trust to do the right thing if they get in over their head.

All that said, I agree wholeheartedly with other posters that it seems with some proper event management, this entire situation could have been avoided... well before the event got under way. Pit out looks to be the main culprit here, but not necessarily due to its position.

Are we sure about the pit-out protocol? Question for FierySphere since you were there: I find it really hard to fathom that cars pitting out would be asked to move across traffic to go offline. Surely it was the cars already on track that should have been moving track right while passing pit out, right?

Also, can anyone confirm or deny that the Carerra was on the track when it shouldn't have been? I read (probably an internet rumor/speculation) that the ride-along was last minute, at the very end of a session, and that the car stayed out after the session was over for an extra lap. That the Pit-out personnel didn't know it was on track, and only realized it as he was about to let the Ferrari out as the Carerra came onto that straight (causing the confusion and "balk" as the car was released.)

If there's any truth to the matter, I would think that would, in fact, shift the blame onto the driver of the Carerra.

I know you meant this as a rhetorical question, but you could:

Refuse to drive. If a bunch of people did that, the track may have moved the barriers.
Slow as you approached the danger. I often don't push it in places where a mistake would be bad.
Anticiapte the consequences of a late track entry and been ready for it.
Refuse the ride-along because the track configuration was dangerous and you didn't want to drive with another student (which was almost certainly against the rules, no?)


:thinkerg Here's a question for all you lawyers out there:
Do you think an additional waiver between student / passenger and instructor / driver would do anything -- one that specifically acknowledges that there would be errors in judgement, lapses in maintenance, foreseeable dangers, etc. I am particularly worried about Watkins Glen in NY, where the waivers don't waive even regular negligence (like, maybe, forgetting to torque your wheels? Or running your pads or tires too low?)

No additional waivers will do anything. The waivers in place already cover forseeable problems. We all go out there an have a pretty good idea of what the dangers are and those are the ones deemed forseeable. A waiver that covers "anything" violates public policy because you can't claim a waiver for conduct that is intentional or willful.

No additional waivers will do anything. The waivers in place already cover forseeable problems. We all go out there an have a pretty good idea of what the dangers are and those are the ones deemed forseeable. A waiver that covers "anything" violates public policy because you can't claim a waiver for conduct that is intentional or willful.

It's murkier than that, unfortunately, at least in NY. NY has a statute that essentially makes such releases unenforceable in certain situations -- for both gross and ordinary negligence. The statute speaks of "users" of "recreational facilities" and has been applied to race tracks. Some cases have turned on whether the injured party was a "user" within the meaning of the statute. Many years ago, Watkins Glen was sued by a prof racer who was killed there; the track won that one, as the court ruled that the statute didn't apply and the release was enforceable. I believe CT law is essentially the same, though I'm not very familiar with their statutory law on this issue. I believe their courts have tossed out such releases on public policy grounds.

Bottom line is that you cannot assume that a track's release is going to protect you against a lawsuit brought by another student. In fact, it will not in some states.

IMHO the track should bear 75% responsibilty and the Santioning Body 25% for not insisting the wall be relocated. After moving the wall and creating a new wall at a 90 degree to traffic in a high speed section it was only a matter of time.

Joe

A few comments:

(1) This case was pending for a long time, with extensive investigation and discovery done. No one not involved with the case can substitute his judgment for the allocation of settlement funds because the information that is available publicly is a tiny percentage of the facts developed by and known to the litigants. In addition, insurance coverage limits likely had a role in determining the percentages.

(2) Based on the facts as they appear in the reports, this case is NOT a poster child for tort reform. The altered wall palcement is alarming. The requirement that cars entering the track move across the "racing" line on a high-speed straight is a terrible idea. The inspection irregularities and allowing a driver who had been off track so many times are question-begging at least.

(3) NHTSA recently implemented a standard that will require all cars and light trucks sold in the US to be equipped with electronic stability control. (The phase-in is gradual, and will be complete with the 2012 model year.) The car involved was not subject to this rule because the standard was not yet in effect when the car was manufactured. Again, without knowing more, it seems that Porsche's best defense would have been that even if the car had had the system, the driver would have turned it off. (The NHTSA rule allows manufacturers to make the ESC system in such a way that the driver can disable it. Interestingly, one of the two reasons NHTSA gave for allowing this is the desirability of disabling ESC when driving on a track. Kudos to NHTSA there.) All that being said, it is difficult to speculate about Porsche's exact motivation in contributing to the settlement.

(4) I applaud Stacy for examining this case closely. Having attended his event at VIR, I can vouch for his and his staff's scrupulous attention to safety. I hope that all other club organizers and track operators take the opportunity to learn from this tragedy -- because there clearly are lessons to be learned -- rather than ignoring it as just another example of a plaintiff overreaching (which does not appear to be the case at least with respect to the main defendants).

It is very track dependent. What if there is a slow car, short pit out, and little blend area?

Case in point is the track configuration used in this incident. The guy is supposed to enter the track from the left, then jump to the right to stay off line. Anything less than top speed will be too slow. Whether or not he could actually get up to a decent speed (granted he was in a Ferrari) that I doubt but that's just a WAG on my end.
To be clear, I wasn't referring to his acceleration rate.

I've used that configuration before and I've never had an issue. The key is, the car entering the straight stays TRACK LEFT and the car coming onto the straight stay TRACK RIGHT. If you take a look at the track map, there's a right-left chicane right before the straight that forces you to go track right anyway. Sure, you'll need to tuck back to the left to make the next corner, but by going track right immediately after pit-out you are forcing the slower and BLIND traffic to cross a hot track.

That way it doesn't matter how fast the car entering the track is moving, there's still room for you to either brake off-line or tuck left in front of the car that's just entered the track like you're making an off-line pass.

I've used that configuration before and I've never had an issue. The key is, the car entering the straight stays TRACK LEFT and the car coming onto the straight stay TRACK RIGHT. If you take a look at the track map, there's a right-left chicane right before the straight that forces you to go track right anyway. Sure, you'll need to tuck back to the left to make the next corner, but by going track right immediately after pit-out you are forcing the slower and BLIND traffic to cross a hot track.

Although I've never done the infield-only configuration, I've been to Cal Speedway several times and what you said above is the only way it makes sense to me. If in fact FOC asked drivers to move right when exiting the pits suggests that somebody had their head firmly in their ass.

Although I've never done the infield-only configuration, I've been to Cal Speedway several times and what you said above is the only way it makes sense to me. If in fact FOC asked drivers to move right when exiting the pits suggests that somebody had their head firmly in their ass.

Anyone know if this Google satellite image is accurate as far as where the wall was? Or was it moved from this location closer to the pit-exit?

http://trianglezclub.smugmug.com/photos/212421713-L.jpg

(3) NHTSA recently implemented a standard that will require all cars and light trucks sold in the US to be equipped with electronic stability control. (The phase-in is gradual, and will be complete with the 2012 model year.) The car involved was not subject to this rule because the standard was not yet in effect when the car was manufactured. Again, without knowing more, it seems that Porsche's best defense would have been that even if the car had had the system, the driver would have turned it off. (The NHTSA rule allows manufacturers to make the ESC system in such a way that the driver can disable it. Interestingly, one of the two reasons NHTSA gave for allowing this is the desirability of disabling ESC when driving on a track. Kudos to NHTSA there.) All that being said, it is difficult to speculate about Porsche's exact motivation in contributing to the settlement.
As I'm sure you know, settlement is largely motivated by a desire to eliminate uncertainty and stop spending attorney fees. There is always a risk by going to trial. Juries are completely unpredictable.

Although I consider the claim that Porsche was liable for not including stability control to be completely defensible, there was no way Porsche was going to refuse to contribute to the settlement and go to trial. $360K is minimal when you consider what a jury might do to a deep pocket like Porsche, especially when the jury is going to be composed of non-enthusiasts who don't understand what it means to be on a track. MOreover, the attorney fees alone would probably reach $360K (or more) by the time you got completely through trial and the aftermath of post-trial motions.

None of here have the mindset of those potential jurors. Our view of this is colored by the fact that we are far more knowledgeable about track driving, powerful cars, and stability control on the track than 99.99 percent of our jury pool. Porsche knows that the jury is going to be a bunch of senior citizens who drive Camrys who cannot understand why Porsche would be so "irresponsible" for not equipping such an expensive car with ESC.

On the other hand, the plaintiff is uncertain how far it could get with a jury. It might not weed out that one level-headed juror who is masterful at convincing the other jury members that Porsche was completely reasonable and not liable. So the plaintiff has uncertainty too.

The elimination of that uncertainty comes with a price. Porsche paid a "relatively" small amount, and the plaintiff accepted that "relatively" small amount.

I don't think it necessarily comes down to a question of whether Porsche thought it was liable or not. Settlement is often a business decision guided by what is the least costly and least damaging from a PR point of view. Certainly, a huge jury verdict would not help Porsche's image. Other than among enthusiasts, I have not seen too much coverage about this settlement. So Porsche paid a modest amount to eliminate uncertainty and eliminate any possibility that a large jury verdict would end up in the news. (why this settlement became public is a mystery, maybe it was a deal point for the plaintiffs. :dunno )

Anyone know if this Google satellite image is accurate as far as where the wall was? Or was it moved from this location closer to the pit-exit?

http://trianglezclub.smugmug.com/photos/212421713-L.jpg

AFAIK the wall that was hit is where the wall is just right of the small rectangular object in the left 1/4 of the picture. The track entry was the little piece of road just left of the bridge there (which was not present at the time of the incident IIRC). I also don't think the wall to the right of the bridge was there at that time.

I genuinely mean no offense, but I think the hard-and-fast opinions of the safety procedures (wall location, pit-out procedure, tech procedure, lack of 2-spin rule, lack of students-can't-take-passenger rules) are too much monday-morning quaterbacking. It is fine to say, "we wouldn't have allowed that in our club." But there are a wide variety of clubs, with a spectrum of safety considerations.

I in fact think this is good. The rules for, say, the Audi club (where there are a lot of "I'll try this once" novices) are different from, say, Group 52 (open lapping; don't be an idiot, please). I drive with Slowpokes (motto: ain't that slow) where instructors are optional, passing is more-or-less open, you can take passengers, and there is no pre-event tech or event-day spot check. Most of the drivers know each other. You are supposed to have some track experience, but they don't send you away if it turns out you don't. There are very fast cars (including, ironically, a Carrerra GT recently) down to low hp driving school forumla cars. The track (Brainerd in MN) has some high pucker factor turns, including one with the bridge at track out, as well as very high speed sweepers with some grass, then trees as run-off (fastest turn in North America, they claim).

Should the track be closed?

Should the event be cancelled?

Or should I be allowed to decide for myself how much risk to take, agree not to sue anyone, and then abide (or have my estate) abide by my decission?

Furthermore, EVERY track could be made safer. Shall we take the uphill crest out of LimeRock? The kink out of Road America? Maybe the Esses at the Glen are too fast, so we should but in a chicane before them? NHIS -- good god, there are walls everywhere to hit, possibly nearly head on.

I think the INTENT of the waiver is the correct way that we should conduct ourselves, absent intentional harm (OK, the tech steward can't cut your brake lines during tech).

While this settlement doesn't set precedent, it certainly encourages plantiffs to sue. And presumably the defendants settled because they feared a loss. Consequently, I (and perhaps you?) should ponder:

1) Are you really willing to help with tech at an event, if you could be sued despite the waiver if you miss a tech defect?

2) Are you willing to help students go faster if that means they could crash and sue you?

3) Are you still willing to give rides to anyone that wants one? (Don't think that going 8/10's prevents you from crashing and injuring them -- slide on coolant or break a control arm or get a flat, and you can do plenty of damage at 70 MPH.)

4) Are you willing to volunteer to organize an event? A registrar, did you check the student's claimed background? As Chief Instructor, did a lousy instructor slip through the cracks? If you run control, did you quickly go FCY or Black or Red or get the Debris out the station before or let too many cars out on track or whatever? Did you print the T-shirts, but fail to make them of Nomex?

Sorry for the drone, but this is very depressing. I really like this sport, but am wondering if I can expose my spouse and child to the risk of bankruptcy if I should be sued.

(why this settlement became public is a mystery, maybe it was a deal point for the plaintiffs. :dunno )

Great points made Pete... me being the uber-optimist that I am, I would like to believe Ms. Rudl agreed to the settlement (at least in part) as a gesture that they really weren't suing simply for the money. Making it public has certainly sparked lots of discussion where it matters: in the track/day community of drivers and organizers.

Obviously, everything we're talking about is based on this one article... certainly there is more info that we'll probably never know. But we do need to learn from this. Especially the track day organizers, but also the drivers...

If you feel unsafe in any way at an event... PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE let an event organizer or track personnel know your concerns. Use your out laps to survey your surrounding at the track, even if its a track you've got thousands of laps on. You never know when the track will do something stupid and put a wall somewhere it shouldn't be. Sometimes all it takes is a different set of eyes to see something lots of other people missed.

As I'm sure you know, settlement is largely motivated by a desire to eliminate uncertainty and stop spending attorney fees. There is always a risk by going to trial. Juries are completely unpredictable.

Of course. Settlement is a risk management mechanism.

. (why this settlement became public is a mystery, maybe it was a deal point for the plaintiffs. :dunno )

If California, like other states, has a statute that requires court approval of wrongful death settlements, the parties had no choice but to disclose the terms of the settlement in the course of requesting the court's approval.

Unfortunately, this is becoming the norm across all organizations... we're seeing it first hand here in the southeast. Even to the point where drivers are inflating or exaggerating their experience level to get into a solo group.

Wow... That is extremely sad :(



This whole story is sad. It seemed that certain people just simply "messed up" and had a lapse in judgement. I have never run a ferrari event but if they do allow students in students cars for ride alongs that is NOT a good thing. Do they do sign offs to ride solo or can you just request "No instructor" and you don't get one?

Since I don't have any knowledge on this exact icident it is hard for me to pass judgement. I would say the club and the track have more responsibility than the driver though...



From the business week aritcle:

"Predictably, the lawsuit has been filed. Rudl's wife Tracey filed suit against a long list of defendants, seeking an unspecified amount of damages for her husband's wrongful death. She is represented by Craig McClellan, a very successful San Diego-area personal injury attorney who made a name for himself in the '80s when he represented a plaintiff who successfully sued Porsche on the theory that their 911 Turbo was too difficult a car to handle to be sold to inexperienced drivers."


Are you serious? I NEVER heard about that but that is the reason why the wife chose this particular lawyer.

and...

"McClellan says, "No, Porsche should only be liable because this car was defective." But then he adds, "It is defective, however, if the risks of its design outweigh the benefits. If its power and handling characteristics make it too dangerous for the average driver without training or instruction, then it is defective. Porsche should be liable because it sold a defective vehicle to Ben Keaton."


The vehicle is defective because a driver can't drive it?

I don't understand how the Ferrari driver is even partly at fault for exiting the pits too slowly :confused

I agree that this can be a very bad precedent, not in regards to the gross negligence, but the reaction to the settlement.
If you're told that, after pit out, you need to cross the track to avoid traffic setting up for the turn at the end of the straight (a brain-dead situation to begin with), then driving slowly, on the line, is not helpful. If he'd done what he was told, the CGT wouldn't have had to swerve, etc., etc.

All the clubs I drive with allow you to do your own pre-event tech inspection, so that hardly seems out of the ordinary unless all these clubs have negligence on this account.

I don't know many people that get a $100-ish tech inspection before every single event, if they are running a lot of events / year.

While I have seen cars sent away, they are few and far between. The norm would be to try to help the person resolve the tech defect at the track.

I sometimes help with tech. Makes we worry about THAT too.
It's not that owners can't tech their cars, or don't know their cars better than a mechanic. It's that an owner might not be as up-front about failing his car adnan independent mechanic.

Wow... That is extremely sad :(



This whole story is sad. It seemed that certain people just simply "messed up" and had a lapse in judgement. I have never run a ferrari event but if they do allow students in students cars for ride alongs that is NOT a good thing. Do they do sign offs to ride solo or can you just request "No instructor" and you don't get one?

Since I don't have any knowledge on this exact icident it is hard for me to pass judgement. I would say the club and the track have more responsibility than the driver though...



From the business week aritcle:

"Predictably, the lawsuit has been filed. Rudl's wife Tracey filed suit against a long list of defendants, seeking an unspecified amount of damages for her husband's wrongful death. She is represented by Craig McClellan, a very successful San Diego-area personal injury attorney who made a name for himself in the '80s when he represented a plaintiff who successfully sued Porsche on the theory that their 911 Turbo was too difficult a car to handle to be sold to inexperienced drivers."


Are you serious? I NEVER heard about that but that is the reason why the wife chose this particular lawyer.

and...

"McClellan says, "No, Porsche should only be liable because this car was defective." But then he adds, "It is defective, however, if the risks of its design outweigh the benefits. If its power and handling characteristics make it too dangerous for the average driver without training or instruction, then it is defective. Porsche should be liable because it sold a defective vehicle to Ben Keaton."


The vehicle is defective because a driver can't drive it?

BINGO. Give that man a stuffed animal. Yes, I was around when the whole 930 controversy was current, and for a while there PCNA would literally send 930 buyers to Skippy for a little tune up to cover their butts.

It's also the same mentality that conjured up the insane Audi "throttle/brake" fiasco. :eyecrazy

That was when in the US (and the US only) there was a rash of massive and complete brake failures, including the entirely separate dual diagonal systems, simultaniously failing at exactly the same nano-second, while at the same time a miraculous and simultanious sudden throttle malfunction (to full open throttle no less). What a remarkable series of coincidences. Since Audi, like most modern, quality manufacturers, had barely a handful of brake failures on one system in a car, and never in it's history BOTH completely isolated brake systems failing at once, this was quite extraordinary. Naturally, anyone with half a brain, as confirmed by an exhaustive study by Road & Track, concluded that it was clearly "pilot error", confusing the throttle for the brake.

But our esteemed justice system managed to stun the world, which considering our litigous history is an achievement in and of it's self, by handing down massive liablity suits against Audi, one after another. By the time the decade ran out their losses in settlements and lost business in the US nearly put one of the oldest and largest car manufacturers out of business for good. For absolutely nothing.

The US is a great country, but we have a LOT of work to do in reining in this sort of nonsense.

Yes we do. How can you sue because you can't drive? haha

*Thinks to myself*

Damn my M3 is kind of hard to drive... kind of tail happy in the rain... BMW should not have put defeatable traction control on my M3 as to let me hurt myself*


hahaha I might win... so sad.

I've used that configuration before and I've never had an issue. The key is, the car entering the straight stays TRACK LEFT and the car coming onto the straight stay TRACK RIGHT. If you take a look at the track map, there's a right-left chicane right before the straight that forces you to go track right anyway. Sure, you'll need to tuck back to the left to make the next corner, but by going track right immediately after pit-out you are forcing the slower and BLIND traffic to cross a hot track.

That way it doesn't matter how fast the car entering the track is moving, there's still room for you to either brake off-line or tuck left in front of the car that's just entered the track like you're making an off-line pass.

This is what the article had to say

The organizers also failed to enforce the track safety rule about cars entering the track. Pit-out was in the middle of the straightaway, with entry on the left side. But cars on the straightaway tended to stay to the left to set up for the right-hander at the end. To avoid collisions, cars entering the track were required to move to the right side as soon as possible. However, at this event, cars were entering the track and staying on the left side.

FWIW I'm more apt to believe what you have to say normally happens (fast cars stay right) than what the article states. And that makes much more sense than a car crossing over.

But if the the CGT was supposed to stay to the right, then the Ferrari's speed shouldn't matter. Actually, I think it would be easier for the CGT driver if the Ferrari was going "less than fast" so they won't have to compete for space in the braking zone before the chicane.
(I know I'm flip-flopping my opinion about the Ferrari's speed.)

How much speed do you think that CGT would be carrying before braking for the chicane?

How much speed do you think that CGT would be carrying before braking for the chicane?

120+ isn't un-heard of. They repaved the chicane to the entrance of the straight and conservatively I was hitting about 115mph in my MZ4 Coupe.

I also think it's hard to imagine that the CGT would have to swerve to avoid the Ferrari if the Ferrari had tracked out left. The way the article describe as the "proper" way to enter the infield course sounds all jacked up.

2) Are you willing to help students go faster if that means they could crash and sue you?
.

Or what about signing a student off and then said student claiming you signed him off before he was actually "good" enough to be solo and crashes?

Elbert: (Im instructing Elbert in Nov I think)... What do I do?? you tell me what you want... :devillook

120+ isn't un-heard of. They repaved the chicane to the entrance of the straight and conservatively I was hitting about 115mph in my MZ4 Coupe.

That pavement extension does not apply here though because that was only put in recently.

However, with the way the CGT can accelerate, I wouldn't be surprised if it could get to 120+ even with the original chicane being there.

Or what about signing a student off and then said student claiming you signed him off before he was actually "good" enough to be solo and crashes?

Elbert: (Im instructing Elbert in Nov I think)... What do I do?? you tell me what you want... :devillook

Hmm, James Clay was the first instructor to sign me off...
...let's blame him! http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/images/smilies/thumb.gif (just kidding James!) ;)

"The real lesson here is that when we track our cars we are engaging in a dangerous sport which takes us a moment away from death or serious injury. With head in the sand we all take our high speed play far too casually, until something like this. Then, although we may reflect for a moment, we're back on the gas.

When we take a passenger with us we are morally, if not legally, responsible for that passenger's safety. The decision we make about how hard we push on the track must recognize that fact, as well as our safety equipment, experience level, track configuration, etc. When a car hits a wall at speed it makes no difference to the occupants that it was "just a DE."" - Dan (STLPCA)

Very well summarized and I totally agree. We as students and instructors are taking other peoples lives into our hands. When I am giving a ride to a student I feel like I am going about 8/10 of my normal solo speed which is still faster than most in the instructor group. This sobering incident makes me think I need to slow down even more and also makes me question how hard I want students to push. Do I have them leave "stability control" on to protect both of us?? Sort of makes you rethink the whole instructing thing, doesn't it. I, and most instructors in BMWCCA, PCA, Audi Club etc. have ZERO professional driver training, much less professional training on how to teach driving skills. We do this because it is our passion and our hobby. Todays cars are so capable and with such high limits that when they are exceeded the consequences can be very grave. Example: 3 GT3s wrecked at the Memorial Day weekend PCA event at Road America accorrding to a friend that attended that event. Those cars are reaching speeds of 160mph in the 2 long straights at RA. I am not sure I want to be the passenger in a car that capable that has only the stock seatbelts and air bags to protect me, with a novice driver with more money and ego than skill piloting it.
Food for thought....
Tom:(

Or what about signing a student off and then said student claiming you signed him off before he was actually "good" enough to be solo and crashes?

Elbert: (Im instructing Elbert in Nov I think)... What do I do?? you tell me what you want... :devillook

Wonger, Elbert wants you to increase your insurance policies and be negligent without maiming or killing him, that way he can collect for the "mental trauma" you have caused without long term repercussions. Of course, most of us can claim "mental trauma" just knowing Wonger, but would that hold up in court?

:D

(Elbert, just joking, Eric is not that scary most of the time) :lol

It is hard to say what you do as an instructor after this :(

Who knows. My goal right now is to become an instructor and I am trying to learn as much as I can and this is always one thing to think about.

i think it is more the tracks fault because the barrier design is clearly very dangerous

Don't know about you guys but these types of lawsuits piss me off. You know in the end it's all about money. It's a racetrack! it's inherently dangerous! Shit happens when you live life dangerously. These people were doing what they enjoyed doing and knew the risks. Don't like the way the track or the car is setup? then don't sign the waiver and participate in the event! It amazes me how people don't want to be accountable, it's always the other guys fault. Sorry, I thought everything should have ended with the liability waiver...period. Perhaps a longer and more detailed waiver that completely protects the organizers, instructors needs to be written up.

While i see and agree with many viewpoints in this thread, I have to say that the owner's of the racetrack are clearly at fault for allowing such dangerous revisions to the track to be performed.

An ordinary and reasonable individual understands the inherent risks of entering a car at a racetrack due to the high speeds and so forth.

Being held to a higher standard of care, the racetrack owners and such architecs/designers of the wall (whatever you want to call them), should of known of the risk of positioning a wall in such an angle that might possibly result, even as minute the possibility, of a head on collision.

So, in my own opinion, an individual entering the premises of a track should be responsible for their own action of participating...but not for the design flaw of the layout which obviously was a deciding factor in the outcome of the incident.

" Example: 3 GT3s wrecked at the Memorial Day weekend PCA event at Road America accorrding to a friend that attended that event. Those cars are reaching speeds of 160mph in the 2 long straights at RA. :(

The wall at Cal Speedway was a hazard camouflaged as a safety device because it had been moved to create a kiddie pen -- not something that is likely to be repeated. The pit-out process was bad but pit-outs can be properly managed -- and are, every weekend at tracks across the country. But perhaps the scariest fact about the Speedway case was the driver, who apparently showed that he did not have the skill to drive a CGT at speed. I imagine that dealing with guys like that is the toughest part of managing a club event, but perhaps it's the most important. At a recent NASA event I witnessed a driver who was new to the local organization go straight into DE3 because he claimed he had the experience, then drive straight off the track because he was clueless as to how to drive his new GT3.

Don't know about you guys but these types of lawsuits piss me off. You know in the end it's all about money. It's a racetrack! it's inherently dangerous! Shit happens when you live life dangerously. These people were doing what they enjoyed doing and knew the risks. Don't like the way the track or the car is setup? then don't sign the waiver and participate in the event! It amazes me how people don't want to be accountable, it's always the other guys fault. Sorry, I thought everything should have ended with the liability waiver...period. Perhaps a longer and more detailed waiver that completely protects the organizers, instructors needs to be written up.

It's easy to say that from the outside looking in... but put yourself in her shoes. I posed this question on another local board: Lets say your significant other DE's with you. Something tragic happens, thats not cut & dry as to why it was tragic (not that it happened mind you, but that it caused a death). Are you going to sit there and tell me 'shit happens'? Sometimes suing is the only way to get answers and closure.

If you feel this strongly about it, I suggest putting some wording in your will that forbids your family from suing. Can you do that?

I think we can all show a little empathy here, if not understanding

Perhaps a longer and more detailed waiver that completely protects the organizers, instructors needs to be written up.

Nope. NO waiver that covered the allegations (willful conduct) would be legal.

We all accept the known risks of this activity, but what if someone (another participant, an organizer, a track worker) does something just plain stupid and injures or kills you? You or your family aren't gonna want to hold someone accountable?

BTW, don't put anything in the percentages quoted in the article. It has nothing to do with percentage of fault attributable to each party. Each party contributed what the contributed for a variety of reasons.

Folks, this case doesn't change anything. I have reviewed the law on motorsports liability and can quote you cases from the 50's and 60's which follow the same laws. If anything, it's another sobering reminder to me that the ultimate consequnce of my "hobby" would be a wife without a husband and a son without a father.

Be safe.

... it's another sobering reminder to me that the ultimate consequence of my "hobby" would be a wife without a husband and a son without a father.

Uh, not so fast. How about adding a wife and son without their life savings? That would appear to be the tragedy that keeps on taking.

Gotta disagree with you there. My wife and kid can get along without my income and I'm sure they'd trade it to have me back if something were to happen to me.

However, you raise an interesting point relating to this case. People shoould n't be shocked by the dollar figure. I'm a personal injury defense lawyer and this is how I might present this case to my client--this guy was an "internet guru". He probably earned more than $4 million a year and had a long working life ahead of him. Jury verdict on the future lost wages alone could easily be $50 million. Accordingly, that settlement could be seen as a steal for the defendants.

Gotta disagree with you there. My wife and kid can get along without my income and I'm sure they'd trade it to have me back if something were to happen to me.

That's why I said "adding" the loss of income (to the tragedy of the death).

... that settlement could be seen as a steal for the defendants.

:bluecry1

You appear to be "in the know". I instruct with your chapter. What is my liability as a volunteer instructor should an incident occur and the student claims I told him to go faster, turn traction control off, or whatever claim he wants to make to try to blame me, the organizers, etc. for his mishap. (For discussions sake let's say he totalled a Porsche GT3 and has some permanent personal injury.) Has there ever been a case that went to court or was settled involving any of the major car clubs before this one? If not, then this case does set a precident and is concerning. ( I actually feel this case is a series of unfortunate errors that could have been prevented and don't feel the settlement was inappropriate. Poor track layout with the moved barrier, allowing someone who had demonstrated poor judgement/skills (mult. previous spins) to continue to participate, etc., etc.)
Same goes for if I were to have an incident while giving a student a ride and he claims to have suffered a neck injury and now has chronic pain and can't work. Am I protected in any way or is this my personal liability??
In the case under discussion that was settled, the driver himself (or his estate) were felt to be liable and obviously settled in addition to the organization that sponsored the event, the track, etc.
Thanks,
Tom

Wow, an amazing thread. I am surprised and pleased that so much information has come out, as confidentiality is so often part of the settlement terms, court approval notwithstanding. It does seem that the family wanted the publicity to spark these kinds of discussions. I actually feel a little safer already, as I will be more confident to speak up if I see something at an event that raises a safety issue.

Random thoughts, hopefully without repeating too much from prior posts:

The outcome seems about right to me. Several serious mistakes were made.

The numbers here are very low considering the successful career and age of the passenger and the pretty egregious facts about the approved mechanic who actually warned the driver and the organizer about the specific car, the demonstrated irrational exuberance of the driver (3 spins!), a pit out procedure that apparently required the slower car to obstruct the racing line, and the blatantly dangerous retaining wall modification. The low number supports the idea that the family wanted owners/organizers/participants to learn about and from this tragedy. That is, it's not really about the money in this case. I suspect the plaintiff had plenty of money from his business success, insurance policies, etc.

Let's review the basic avoidance manouevers. I don't know if the GT could have driven around the Ferrari, but I do know that it can brake in a straight line without spinning and that the track is wider than two cars.

Waivers are good, but they are not and should not be a permit to be grossly negligent (which is a legal term for stupid). People should pay for their stupidity, that way they have an incentive not to do stupid things.

The flip side of waivers is insurance. All of us should have adequate insurance to pay third parties harmed by our negligent or grossly negligent mistakes, and to replace some of our lost earnings if we die out there. If you instruct, especially, I think you do have increased exposure. Take some of the registration money you "save" by instructing and increase your umbrella policy to take into account the dangerous activity you engage in. That should protect your family from losing your savings. Then consider whether your life is adequately insured.

Let's all remember to think for ourselves, and to err on the side of caution. I'm starting to sound like the guy from Hill Street Blues (just dated myself, damn).

Don't know about you guys but these types of lawsuits piss me off. You know in the end it's all about money. It's a racetrack! it's inherently dangerous! Shit happens when you live life dangerously. These people were doing what they enjoyed doing and knew the risks. Don't like the way the track or the car is setup? then don't sign the waiver and participate in the event! It amazes me how people don't want to be accountable, it's always the other guys fault. Sorry, I thought everything should have ended with the liability waiver...period. Perhaps a longer and more detailed waiver that completely protects the organizers, instructors needs to be written up.


So let's look at a different situation... You've decided to bungie jump. You sign a waiver not knowing that the the rigger advised against using that specific cord and the group who put it together decided to proceed anyway. You assume everyone has done their job, check their work as best you can, and leap only to discover that the cord stretched too far and you hit the ground at 100MPH. Should the people who setup the event be held responsible or is it "you signed a waiver, jumping off things is dangerous stuff?"

Fewer variables but the principal is the same... The people putting the event together have a responsibility to make the situation as safe as can be expected given the circumstances. If someone or something or both are an undue hazard, and you know it (or should know it), but fail to fix it you have some responsibility.

Like an airplane crash, there is not a single thing that caused this tragedy. But there are a number of things that, had any one of them been done, may have prevented it.

FOC could have not let the car run, they could have not allowed the driver back on track after 2 spins, they could have not allowed passengers, they could have changed the pit out config or recommended racing line, they could have demanded changes to the barriers, or they could have scrubbed the event.

Fontana had some options as well.

The bottom line is if you see a condition or a practice that unreasonably dangerous (obviously, that's relative but we all seem to agree there were some obvious mistakes made in this case) bring it to the attention of the powers that be. If it doesn't get corrected then you need to make a decision about whether you are willing to continue participating (in whatever capacity you are participating).

So let's look at a different situation... You've decided to bungie jump. You sign a waiver not knowing that the the rigger advised against using that specific cord and the group who put it together decided to proceed anyway. You assume everyone has done their job, check their work as best you can, and leap only to discover that the cord stretched too far and you hit the ground at 100MPH. Should the people who setup the event be held responsible or is it "you signed a waiver, jumping off things is dangerous stuff?"

Fewer variables but the principal is the same... The people putting the event together have a responsibility to make the situation as safe as can be expected given the circumstances. If someone or something or both are an undue hazard, and you know it (or should know it), but fail to fix it you have some responsibility.

Like an airplane crash, there is not a single thing that caused this tragedy. But there are a number of things that, had any one of them been done, may have prevented it.

FOC could have not let the car run, they could have not allowed the driver back on track after 2 spins, they could have not allowed passengers, they could have changed the pit out config or recommended racing line, they could have demanded changes to the barriers, or they could have scrubbed the event.

Fontana had some options as well.

+1

The bottom line is if you see a condition or a practice that unreasonably dangerous (obviously, that's relative but we all seem to agree there were some obvious mistakes made in this case) bring it to the attention of the powers that be. If it doesn't get corrected then you need to make a decision about whether you are willing to continue participating (in whatever capacity you are participating).

This is actually part of the liability waiver we all sign at the track (at least through K&K insurance):
RELEASE AND WAIVER OF LIABILITY, ASSUMPTION OF RISK AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT

IN CONSIDERATION of being permitted to officiate, observe, work for, or participate in any way in the EVENT(S) or being permitted to enter for any purpose any RESTRICTED AREA (defined as any area requiring special authorization, credentials, or permission to enter or any area to which admission by the general public is restricted or prohibited), EACH OF THE UNDERSIGNED, for himself, his personal representatives, heirs, and next of kin:

1. Acknowledges, agrees, and represents that he have or will immediately upon entering any of such RESTRICTED AREAS, and will continuously thereafter, inspect the RESTRICTED AREAS which he enters, and he further agrees and warrants that, if at any time, he is in or about RESTRICTED AREAS and he feels anything to be unsafe, he will immediately advise the officials of such and if necessary will leave the RESTRICTED AREAS and/or refuse to participate further in the EVENT(S).


In the case of non-spectator events, the 'Restricted Area' in my eyes includes anywhere inside the facility gates, and especially anywhere once you leave the paddock and enter the track.

Of course, most of us can claim "mental trauma" just knowing Wonger, but would that hold up in court?

I think so, there are plenty of first hand accounts of how Wonger tries to dominate everyone playing Mario Party 8 http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/images/smilies/neener.gif
I bet even his wife would testify against him :stickoutt

(I keed, I keed :) )

Wow, an amazing thread. I am surprised and pleased that so much information has come out, as confidentiality is so often part of the settlement terms, court approval notwithstanding. It does seem that the family wanted the publicity to spark these kinds of discussions. I actually feel a little safer already, as I will be more confident to speak up if I see something at an event that raises a safety issue.

Random thoughts, hopefully without repeating too much from prior posts:

The outcome seems about right to me. Several serious mistakes were made.

The numbers here are very low considering the successful career and age of the passenger and the pretty egregious facts about the approved mechanic who actually warned the driver and the organizer about the specific car, the demonstrated irrational exuberance of the driver (3 spins!), a pit out procedure that apparently required the slower car to obstruct the racing line, and the blatantly dangerous retaining wall modification. The low number supports the idea that the family wanted owners/organizers/participants to learn about and from this tragedy. That is, it's not really about the money in this case. I suspect the plaintiff had plenty of money from his business success, insurance policies, etc.

Let's review the basic avoidance manouevers. I don't know if the GT could have driven around the Ferrari, but I do know that it can brake in a straight line without spinning and that the track is wider than two cars.

Waivers are good, but they are not and should not be a permit to be grossly negligent (which is a legal term for stupid). People should pay for their stupidity, that way they have an incentive not to do stupid things.

The flip side of waivers is insurance. All of us should have adequate insurance to pay third parties harmed by our negligent or grossly negligent mistakes, and to replace some of our lost earnings if we die out there. If you instruct, especially, I think you do have increased exposure. Take some of the registration money you "save" by instructing and increase your umbrella policy to take into account the dangerous activity you engage in. That should protect your family from losing your savings. Then consider whether your life is adequately insured.

Let's all remember to think for ourselves, and to err on the side of caution. I'm starting to sound like the guy from Hill Street Blues (just dated myself, damn).
All excellent points and I agree. Are there any umbrella policies out there for instructing at a car event? We are not professional instructors and I doubt my home umbrella policy will cover me on a race course. Neither will my car liability insurance. Therefore, we are relying on the organizing club's policy to provide the coverage. Our personal assets, estate, etc. are still exposed.
Tom

All excellent points and I agree. Are there any umbrella policies out there for instructing at a car event? We are not professional instructors and I doubt my home umbrella policy will cover me on a race course. Neither will my car liability insurance. Therefore, we are relying on the organizing club's policy to provide the coverage. Our personal assets, estate, etc. are still exposed.
Tom

Thats a good question... I think there are a couple options: you should be covered under the driver's policy (assuming they'd cover the incident). Liability-wise, it should be covered with the club's policy for the event (i.e. you should be protected by the waiver). Unless it can be proved (in car video?) that you were directing the student to do something clearly outside of a reasonable action within the event, or that you were intending to cause harm, you should be protected.

I'm pretty sure some of the track-day and race insurers have policies specific to (or at least that include) instructing.

Definitely a discussion that would warrant its own thread though :)

All excellent points and I agree. Are there any umbrella policies out there for instructing at a car event? We are not professional instructors and I doubt my home umbrella policy will cover me on a race course. Neither will my car liability insurance. Therefore, we are relying on the organizing club's policy to provide the coverage. Our personal assets, estate, etc. are still exposed.
Tom

I'm not 100% certain if this is correct, and probably will have to check with National on this, but I think BMW CCA events carried under each Chapter's banner has a umbrella policy that covers the organization, the key workers and instructors provided by CCA National.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

So let's look at a different situation... You've decided to bungie jump. You sign a waiver not knowing that the the rigger advised against using that specific cord and the group who put it together decided to proceed anyway. You assume everyone has done their job, check their work as best you can, and leap only to discover that the cord stretched too far and you hit the ground at 100MPH. Should the people who setup the event be held responsible or is it "you signed a waiver, jumping off things is dangerous stuff?"

Fewer variables but the principal is the same... The people putting the event together have a responsibility to make the situation as safe as can be expected given the circumstances. If someone or something or both are an undue hazard, and you know it (or should know it), but fail to fix it you have some responsibility.

Like an airplane crash, there is not a single thing that caused this tragedy. But there are a number of things that, had any one of them been done, may have prevented it.

FOC could have not let the car run, they could have not allowed the driver back on track after 2 spins, they could have not allowed passengers, they could have changed the pit out config or recommended racing line, they could have demanded changes to the barriers, or they could have scrubbed the event.

Fontana had some options as well.

Too simplified with a lot less variables... On the track, anything can happen. Some things just cannot be forseen, like the Ferrari driver not accelerating fast enough. A bungie jump? ...pretty simple by comparison. In fact it doesn't really compare. Besides, you can do test or practice laps to get a feel for the track and clearly see anything that might be tricky or dangerous. On a Bungie jump you're taking a chance that less things will go wrong but on the track you're taking many chances but that's what makes it more exciting.

The car in front can throw oil on the track...are you going to sue the oil company for them making oil too slippery? perhaps sue the owner because their car spewed oil? I'm sure there's something at just about any race track that makes it somewhat unsafe. In fact there's a wall at Willow Springs that has claimed a few cars but it was on a turn. Doesn't have to be a wall, it could be a dip, etc. How do they make tracks safe? they can't. They can make them safer but not safe...it's physics. If everything were completely safe, there would be no excitement. There's a lot of shoulda, woulda, coulda but we all know sometimes things don't go down the way they are supposed to. I just think it's a shame and now we have instructors reluctant to bring on passengers to show them driving techniques first hand because now they have to worry about their families being sued. Is it worth it to them? Why should they have to risk everything to help a stranger learn how to drive? Why should it have to come to that? Is the widow going to throw the money back into motorsport to make it safer?? probably not.

In this accident, no single component failed. The Porsche was not defective for having too much oversteer or not having stability control. Anyone of us could have been the Ferrari driver or the Porsche driver. The wall could have been placed in a safer place. It was an unfortunate series of events. I don't think it's right for the widow to get awarded a cash settlement distributing blame because her husband passed away doing what he enjoyed doing on his own free will. There was no gross negligence but that's just my opinion. So now we have even more people who lost in this case than opposed to just a widow.

If I were the passenger and died on the track, hell yeah I'd want my wife to sue if she could do it and get paid...sure why not. Why wouldn't I want her and the family to benefit? I still don't think it's fair to the other parties who weren't directly at fault. Just goes to show that life isn't always fair.

Too simplified with a lot less variables... On the track, anything can happen. Some things just cannot be forseen, like the Ferrari driver not accelerating fast enough. A bungie jump? ...pretty simple by comparison. In fact it doesn't really compare. Besides, you can do test or practice laps to get a feel for the track and clearly see anything that might be tricky or dangerous. On a Bungie jump you're taking a chance that less things will go wrong but on the track you're taking many chances but that's what makes it more exciting.

The car in front can throw oil on the track...are you going to sue the oil company for them making oil too slippery? perhaps sue the owner because their car spewed oil? I'm sure there's something at just about any race track that makes it somewhat unsafe. In fact there's a wall at Willow Springs that has claimed a few cars but it was on a turn. Doesn't have to be a wall, it could be a dip, etc. How do they make tracks safe? they can't. They can make them safer but not safe...it's physics. If everything were completely safe, there would be no excitement. There's a lot of shoulda, woulda, coulda but we all know sometimes things don't go down the way they are supposed to. I just think it's a shame and now we have instructors reluctant to bring on passengers to show them driving techniques first hand because now they have to worry about their families being sued. Is it worth it to them? Why should they have to risk everything to help a stranger learn how to drive? Why should it have to come to that? Is the widow going to throw the money back into motorsport to make it safer?? probably not.

In this accident, no single component failed. The Porsche was not defective for having too much oversteer or not having stability control. Anyone of us could have been the Ferrari driver or the Porsche driver. The wall could have been placed in a safer place. It was an unfortunate series of events. I don't think it's right for the widow to get awarded a cash settlement distributing blame because her husband passed away doing what he enjoyed doing on his own free will. There was no gross negligence but that's just my opinion. So now we have even more people who lost in this case than opposed to just a widow.

If I were the passenger and died on the track, hell yeah I'd want my wife to sue if she could do it and get paid...sure why not. Why wouldn't I want her and the family to benefit? I still don't think it's fair to the other parties who weren't directly at fault. Just goes to show that life isn't always fair.
:confused
So its not OK for someone else to sue when a life is lost but if you died then it is fine for your family to do so? Am I missing something?

I went to an event at Sebring this past weekend and this settlement had an impact on the way the event was run. The settlement was specifically discussed during the drivers meeting. The first big change, any cars with stability control from the factory had to have the stability control turned on if there was a passenger in the car. So instructors riding with students, or instructors driving a student had to have it turned on.

The other item they discussed was what they felt was an unsafe aspect of Sebring. The start/finish line is painted with an oil based paint. When it is wet this spot is very very slick and there is no run off. The track is lined on both sides with a short barrier wall along the pit area. They put it up for vote that if it rained they would run the event with a debris flag out at start/finish or black flag all sessions until that spot was dry..

Everybody voted for the debris flag. But on Sunday when a car spun out and hit the wall in the first laps of the first session, exactly where they told people to be careful, they delayed most of the early sessions on Sunday due to the track being very wet and slippery. Three cars spun on the front straight during the second sprint race in the afternoon and everything was canceled after that.

... any cars with stability control from the factory had to have the stability control turned on if there was a passenger in the car...

:chicken
:nuts
:complain
:crying


I hope this contagion doesn't spread to the Northeast....

I also attended the Sebring event this past weekend. I am pleased with the changes and new enforcements overall.

I understand the reason behind the requirement for the stability control - although it will take away from some of the learning experience (recognizing mistakes is part of learning)... one can argue to use the skid pad or an empty parking lot.

Couple other notes to mention:

1) Falsifying any document or information such as a tech form or driving history will result in immediate termination from the event, all future events, and the organization.

2) During the periods of rain on Sunday, they put a pace car out there during the student group and had a no passing restriction until the surface was deemed dry enough - which is fine... you are there to learn the line and proper techniques... not to race/pass the guy in front of you.

3) During the DEs while the track was wet, you were required to lift prior to the start/finish line so that the car was neutral and no power to the wheels while crossing line... any rear wiggle action noticed by the steward, you were to get black flagged.

And as a side note... They escorted one misbehaving individual out of the track on Saturday and I haven't heard the outcome of the Radical that spun hitting the wall on the front straight Sunday morning... but I hope he is not welcome back - I heard he was passing inappropriately to the point of putting other drivers in danger... he had his girlfriend in the passenger seat. Fortunately he only spun into the wall.

I......, any cars with stability control from the factory had to have the stability control turned on if there was a passenger in the car. So instructors riding with students, or instructors driving a student had to have it turned on...

that makes NO sence at all. at our schools, we tell everyone to turn OFF the wizbang stability stuff. instructors are to teach people about vehicle dynamics....not just where to "punch it" and let the computer fix all your mistakes. my problem with that philosophy is the after effect.

Jonny hotrod has been to hpde's 6 times. he learned exactly where to apply the abs, and now he knows where to crank the steering wheel to hit apex. He's never learned car control ....or had the sensation of the back getting a little light...thanks to his world class stability control. Now, lets sign him off for solo.....now he can turn off his stability control. Lets make him figure out car control and vehicle dynamics by himself. And if he's smart enough to ask for an instructor to ride along with him......lets tell him to turn the stability control back on. Now that sounds like a good way to instruct people.

sorry for the rant. i too want a safer track. i dont believe that this would be a good solution. in fact, a step in the wrong direction.....resulting in a more unsafe track environment.

jason

weekend. I am pleased with the changes and new enforcements overall.

Yeah, I did not have any problems with the changes. My car is a 95 so no stability or traction control. PBOC has always run very safe events so I have no problems with any of the choices that they make even if I don't completely agree with things like having to use stability control.

2) During the periods of rain on Sunday, they put a pace car out there during the student group and had a no passing restriction until the surface was deemed dry enough - which is fine... you are there to learn the line and proper techniques... not to race/pass the guy in front of you.

Yes. It was very slippery. I got my very first on track spin about 20 minutes into the first session on Saturday. Turn 15. Went safely off the side, although my ego was bruised. I had to open up my line through turn 15 as the black repatch right at the apex of that corner was very slick.

I haven't heard the outcome of the Radical that spun hitting the wall on the front straight Sunday morning... but I hope he is not welcome back - I heard he was passing inappropriately to the point of putting other drivers in danger... he had his girlfriend in the passenger seat. Fortunately he only spun into the wall.


Yeah. He passed me and two other cars in the braking zone for turn 10 about 70 seconds before he hit the wall. I was in the back of the pack of cars and I did not give a passing signal as we were out of the passing zone. I think it was a grey mini and a yellow porsche in front of me. Other than that one guy, all of the other drivers were really good about dealing with the conditions.

I'm not 100% certain if this is correct, and probably will have to check with National on this, but I think BMW CCA events carried under each Chapter's banner has a umbrella policy that covers the organization, the key workers and instructors provided by CCA National.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Are you referring to D&O insurance or the separate insurance we take out for each event? Not only HPDEs.

Are you referring to D&O insurance or the separate insurance we take out for each event? Not only HPDEs.

I'm pretty sure that National provides the Directors and Officer's insurance, but I thought the separate insurance we take out for each event is part of National's policy? We just pay to have each event insured and that policy is an umbrella policy?

I'm not in charge of events in our chapter so I'm not up on the policies, but that's what I was told?