Iowa track unsafe?

[Noidly1]

Quote from: Sklossmonster on Yesterday at 02:39:49 pm
they're just saying there shouldn't be ridiculously unnecessary risks ... ie. walls perilously close to high speed corners, with no air fence, not even haybales or tire walls, competitors knowingly racing with belly pans full of water...

Quote from: tstruyk on Yesterday at 04:41:09 pm
you left that one out...

kicknuts

couldnt resist... carry on.



DOH!



Yeah.
Racing in the rain, belly pan full of water. engine leaks, oil floats on water, runs out back.
Woah Horsie... HeHe
Anybody wanna play Slip-n-Slide?  Yee-ha

[tstruyk]

actually it was a joke at marshall's expense...

he had water overflow into his radiator that was noticed by his crew chief yet he went out anyway... not from a wet track.  he fell down. lesson learned I imagine.

[251am]

  Some 30 or 40 years ago guys like Dick Mann and King Kenny were boycotting events, taking fines and gag orders from the AMA, but that was all those years ago.

  If the track won't even put up haybales or tires it's a pretty moot debate, outside it being discussed within the topic of forming a racer's union for safety concerns. In reading the piece at RRW.com Parriot's saying that T1 is 140mph with a puck down. Edmonson says it's an 80 mph turn. Can anybody here clarify this discrepancy of huge proportions? Edmonson also says it is within Moto ST's beliefs that any team can pull out per safety concerns, but then fines them, initially, $5800? What a message.

     

[tstruyk]

  Some 30 or 40 years ago guys like Dick Mann and King Kenny were boycotting events, taking fines and gag orders from the AMA, but that was all those years ago.

  If the track won't even put up haybales or tires it's a pretty moot debate, outside it being discussed within the topic of forming a racer's union for safety concerns. In reading the piece at RRW.com Parriot's saying that T1 is 140mph with a puck down. Edmonson says it's an 80 mph turn. Can anybody here clarify this discrepancy of huge proportions? Edmonson also says it is within Moto ST's beliefs that any team can pull out per safety concerns, but then fines them, initially, $5800? What a message.

    

good point on the legends...

from what I hear the track is listening to the concerns... time will tell but at least on the surface things look to change in the future.

[Court Jester]

Not to say that it would happen, but if a track has been told from several people and organizations that something is unsafe and the track fails to fix (or at least attempt to fix) the problem, someone is threatened with a fine for pulling out, they decide to race and end up getting injured, there could be a very big ugly law suit to follow.
I couldn't make one of my employees do something that they said wasn't safe. I'm not about to try to make them. And I couldn't allow any repercussions for them refusing of grounds of safety.
We all sign papers and we all know the risks. But from a legal stand point; the track is ultimately responsible and if they make no effort then the liability is theirs. Not to mention the pact that is a sign of their piss poor moral/business ethic.
And even if a person didn't win in court, a good lawyer could rake the involved organization through the coals as well. In the end it would hurt all racers/riders, at all track, just because an organization decided to go with a track that clearly didn't care.

[r1owner]

Not to say that it would happen, but if a track has been told from several people and organizations that something is unsafe and the track fails to fix (or at least attempt to fix) the problem, someone is threatened with a fine for pulling out, they decide to race and end up getting injured, there could be a very big ugly law suit to follow.
I couldn't make one of my employees do something that they said wasn't safe. I'm not about to try to make them. And I couldn't allow any repercussions for them refusing of grounds of safety.
We all sign papers and we all know the risks. But from a legal stand point; the track is ultimately responsible and if they make no effort then the liability is theirs. Not to mention the pact that is a sign of their piss poor moral/business ethic.
And even if a person didn't win in court, a good lawyer could rake the involved organization through the coals as well. In the end it would hurt all racers/riders, at all track, just because an organization decided to go with a track that clearly didn't care.

That won't happen.  The only way you could sue is if they knew there was a hole in the pavement that was large enough for you and your bike to go down in and they covered it up with straw and painted it black.  You aren't going to win shit for wall being where it was originally placed.

[Court Jester]

Yeah ya could. if the complnts were made. It would take a retard to push it, but it could fly.

[251am]

good point on the legends...

from what I hear the track is listening to the concerns... time will tell but at least on the surface things look to change in the future.

  Right. I guess it's a hot button issue when it comes to $$$, but who's responsible for the safety, or lack thereof, when it comes to a layout's design flaws for certain racing such as the case of Iowa Speedway and bikes?

The track?

The series' organizers?

The racers?

  We all sign the waivers of liability, and know that this sport is inherently deadly by the nature of these speeds and circumstances. However, I can't disregard the stated observation in the RRW article that one of the San Jose BMW guys (parriot?) who started the attempted boycott DOES run the Isle of Mann?! Is the Iowa track THAT bad?     

  Anyway, safety, safety, safety, oops and BIG fines.


  I guess it's better than the 24 guys killed in a 2 year period at Ascot!!

[mike_rbm]

The series' organizers are ultimately responsible!

They viewed the property and track and made a decision to hold an event there. Don't know if that decision is based on exposure of the series or financial gain (or some mix of those) but many of the racers showed up from great distances to then see how unsafe that track is. The big level teams can afford to complain, get fined and miss an event but the poor privateer shrugs their shoulders and rolls the dice.

[Mongo]

Actually no, you the rider make the final decision to fire up your bike and ride the track.  You are ultimately responsible and all of us orgs will follow along if you don't ride.

[Jeff]

Why do people continually look for someone to blame and hold responsible?  You wanna know who has the responsibility?  Visit wal-mart and pick up a mirror, they're cheap and hold the answer...

[251am]

  It's not a matter of blame. It's a matter of improving safety.

  If the configuration is dangerous enough for racers who are experienced enough  with dangerous layouts, such as the IOMTT, have made an effort to boycott the venue for safety reasons, then it's a valid discussion. Then there's the other tracks out there where safety changes have been requested, year in and year out, with no action...?

  Please spare us the "victimology" speech about always looking elsewhere to lay blame when discussing track changes for safety's sake. I agree with the point that John Ulrich prints in RRW per ..."professional victimologists..." , but the parrots who use his thoughts as their own? Pfft...

  There's obviously several differing opinions here about how the changes *might* be made and exactly *who* is responsible to see those changes through. Actually keeping it a constructive discussion is another matter I guess.   

  A "Get well" to those racers who were injured. Hopefully the monies we donated to the fund gets their way(s).