Video of my rollover

#89

[quote=“catsailor” post=72973][quote=“Ranger” post=72967]Re. opposite conclusion. Point well made.

The problem with the rules and these examples is that they are oriented towards the braking zone of a turn. The actions of the passee are predictable in the braking zone and the rules dictate things that the passer has to take into account as he is planning and then executing his pass.

This incident was not in a braking zone. We all try to read each other’s minds, but I certainly would not have expected Rob to come across the track so I’d have been caught be surprise too. One of the purposes of rules is that they help us predict each other’s actions. They are not intended, to reference a hypothetical I created earlier, to allow me to ram a passer because he looked at my sister wrong.[/quote]

Scott, the rules are not oriented towards the braking zone, they are for everywhere on the track. And it is a really bad idea to consider any other drivers future actions to be “predictable” no matter where you are on track. And trying to “read the mind” of another driver or assume that he / she sees you is another very bad idea. The overtaking driver should deal with only what they see and not what they assume the other driver sees.

It is really pretty simple, if you are the overtaking driver you need to be paying enough attention to the car you are overlapped on that if it moves towards you you can give room. I’m surprised that some of you have so much trouble with that notion.

In this incident the lead car needed to get to track left before entering the fast right hander that was in front of him, he did not make a sudden move to the left he simply started to fade over like you would do if no other car was there. The overtaking car had put himself very close to the lead car, had he been a foot or two to the left and / or moved left with the lead car this crash would not have happened.

One other note: when we are reviewing incidents it takes extraordinary circumstances for us to start thinking that there was malice or intent by either party. We simply look at what happened and then use the rules to determine if and where fault should be placed and then apply the appropriate penalties as stated in the CCR’s.[/quote]

Well, the lead car didn’t NEED to move left. He COULD have negotiated the right hander just fine if he had lifted a bit. Heck, his line through the previous corner was quite compromised, (As he had the overtaking car on his inside) so he might not have been carrying the speed and might not have needed the entire track anyway.

I’d also debate whether it was reasonable to assume the lead car was aware of the overtaking cars presence, as he certainly knew the overtaking car was well overlapped just seconds before, proven by the fact that they went through the left hander two wide. If he didn’t know, he has serious issues with situational awareness. (Beyond that, his video comments make it very clear he knew exactly where teh overtaking car was, and in his mind thought he knew the precise overlap)

And yes the overtaking car COULD have gone two wheels off. Ugg.

But yes, all that is really irrelevant isn’t it? The rules gave the lead car the right to drive pretty much where he wanted.

I’d suggest that the increase in incidents might be due to more people from other sanctioning bodies coming into play, and bringing with them the majority mindset, which is vastly different than this particular ruling. NASCAR, Indycar, ALMS, SCCA, Conti Challenge, Rolex…in any of those this would result in a penalty for the lead driver.

I’d suggest racing would be better if the overtaking driver, who had such a significant overlap, was given more rights down a straight, and if responsibility of a clean pass was borne by the lead driver as well in such a situation. As it stands now, the lead driver has a “push you off the track free” card.

Still not understanding the 'black and white" aspect that needed a 180 degree reversal in the post penalty stage.

#90

[quote=“mcmmotorsports” post=72972][quote=“catsailor” post=72971]
Incidents like this could be debated endlessly, but the fact remains that a rule was clearly broken and the penalty was applied.[/quote]

So then answer me this…if this is so clear cut and not subject to debate, why did your Regional Director rescind the original penalty?
If what you are saying is true, then this shouldn’t have been up to discussion.[/quote]

That is news to me, I just went back and found Chris’ post about his review. He is the series director and it’s his call, I’m not one to question that. All I do as Compliance Director is collect the information from the drivers, review it with the Race Director and check it through the rule book to see what needs to be done.

It is my opinion that a lead car should not push an overlapped car to one side or another especially to the point of forcing him 2 wheels off, I think the driver should give a full car widths room, but many would say that the lead driver is not “racing hard enough” if he just lets a car come up next to him that way. Others would say that the overlapping car is racing “to hard” if he sticks his nose in there and then is unwilling to move a little bit to allow the lead car room to set up for the next turn, which is pretty much how I feel about this incident, Rob needed to get left to make the next turn, it would not have cost Jeff anything to back out slightly and allow Rob the space to do so - so therefore I agree with the rule as it is applied. However, I didn’t necessarily agree with the penalty that the rule book said was to be applied, but again, we are supposed to simply follow the book. Remember, we have to act fast on these rulings so that final results can be released and posted - otherwise everyone gets in a tissy about “when are results gonna be posted?!!”.

I was on the receiving end of a very similar incident on the back straight at Road Atlanta. I was passing to the left of 2 cars that were side-by-side on the right side of the track. It was 9:30pm and a very dark night, it had been raining most of the evening so the track and grass were wet, I was not excited about going to the outside to make the pass but the two other cars were going considerably slower than I was and there was plenty of room for me get safely by. Unfortunately (I later learned that) the driver I was passing next to was no paying attention to his line because he was looking at the flag station to see if he was being black flagged, he later said that he didn’t realize he was fading left. I was along side him and saw him coming so I was moving left and thinking “oh shit, what is he doing?” by the time my left wheels left the track I was nosed ahead and his front left tire contacted the front of my door / rear of my front fender and sent me hard against the wall. I bounced several times between the wall and the edge of the track before somehow popping back on track with the car still running, and was able to finish the race. In hindsight I wish I had just hung back to see what they were doing, but that would have required me to slow down about 20mph. Perhaps if I had not moved left with him he would have simply leaned on me before realizing what he was doing and things may have been better. But I tried to follow the rules, and my instincts, and moved left in hopes that he would see me (not much to ask since I was nosing ahead) and start moving back to his right where he had plenty of room. No such luck. This was Chump Car so I just beat the hell out of the guy in the paddock… just kidding. Anyway, I still don’t see what is so difficult about the overtaking car giving a bit of room (thought I wish I hadn’t that night) he is the one that made the move and should be willing to give some extra space. IMHO.

#91

[quote=“Ranger” post=72967]Re. opposite conclusion. Point well made.

The problem with the rules and these examples is that they are oriented towards the braking zone of a turn. The actions of the passee are predictable in the braking zone and the rules dictate things that the passer has to take into account as he is planning and then executing his pass.

This incident was not in a braking zone. We all try to read each other’s minds, but I certainly would not have expected Rob to come across the track so I’d have been caught be surprise too. One of the purposes of rules is that they help us predict each other’s actions. They are not intended, to reference a hypothetical I created earlier, to allow me to ram a passer because he looked at my sister wrong.[/quote]

What prevents that – beyond common sense, sportsmanship, and general not-being-a-dick?

#92

[quote=“Lateapex911” post=72976][quote=“catsailor” post=72973][quote=“Ranger” post=72967]Re. opposite conclusion. Point well made.

The problem with the rules and these examples is that they are oriented towards the braking zone of a turn. The actions of the passee are predictable in the braking zone and the rules dictate things that the passer has to take into account as he is planning and then executing his pass.

This incident was not in a braking zone. We all try to read each other’s minds, but I certainly would not have expected Rob to come across the track so I’d have been caught be surprise too. One of the purposes of rules is that they help us predict each other’s actions. They are not intended, to reference a hypothetical I created earlier, to allow me to ram a passer because he looked at my sister wrong.[/quote]

Scott, the rules are not oriented towards the braking zone, they are for everywhere on the track. And it is a really bad idea to consider any other drivers future actions to be “predictable” no matter where you are on track. And trying to “read the mind” of another driver or assume that he / she sees you is another very bad idea. The overtaking driver should deal with only what they see and not what they assume the other driver sees.

It is really pretty simple, if you are the overtaking driver you need to be paying enough attention to the car you are overlapped on that if it moves towards you you can give room. I’m surprised that some of you have so much trouble with that notion.

In this incident the lead car needed to get to track left before entering the fast right hander that was in front of him, he did not make a sudden move to the left he simply started to fade over like you would do if no other car was there. The overtaking car had put himself very close to the lead car, had he been a foot or two to the left and / or moved left with the lead car this crash would not have happened.

One other note: when we are reviewing incidents it takes extraordinary circumstances for us to start thinking that there was malice or intent by either party. We simply look at what happened and then use the rules to determine if and where fault should be placed and then apply the appropriate penalties as stated in the CCR’s.[/quote]

Well, the lead car didn’t NEED to move left. He COULD have negotiated the right hander just fine if he had lifted a bit. Heck, his line through the previous corner was quite compromised, (As he had the overtaking car on his inside) so he might not have been carrying the speed and might not have needed the entire track anyway.

I’d also debate whether it was reasonable to assume the lead car was aware of the overtaking cars presence, as he certainly knew the overtaking car was well overlapped just seconds before, proven by the fact that they went through the left hander two wide. If he didn’t know, he has serious issues with situational awareness. (Beyond that, his video comments make it very clear he knew exactly where teh overtaking car was, and in his mind thought he knew the precise overlap)

And yes the overtaking car COULD have gone two wheels off. Ugg.

But yes, all that is really irrelevant isn’t it? The rules gave the lead car the right to drive pretty much where he wanted.

I’d suggest that the increase in incidents might be due to more people from other sanctioning bodies coming into play, and bringing with them the majority mindset, which is vastly different than this particular ruling. NASCAR, Indycar, ALMS, SCCA, Conti Challenge, Rolex…in any of those this would result in a penalty for the lead driver.

I’d suggest racing would be better if the overtaking driver, who had such a significant overlap, was given more rights down a straight, and if responsibility of a clean pass was borne by the lead driver as well in such a situation. As it stands now, the lead driver has a “push you off the track free” card.

Still not understanding the 'black and white" aspect that needed a 180 degree reversal in the post penalty stage.[/quote]

The lead car had room to move left without going off track. Also, he was not along side but rather just overlapped and in the perfect spot to punt the lead car if contact happened. If the lead car “lifted” as you suggest then he would not be racing very hard now would he? The lead car had given the overtaking car more room than he had to at the previous turn and was now trying to get back on his line for the upcoming turn(s). Common courtesy on the part of the overtaking car would have avoided the whole mess.

Again, just my opinion.

#93

I was glad to read the most recent post of the two guys in the incident, and the fact that they are better friends now than before.

I agree with Ranger. The turn-in rule that we are debating to death is, it seems to me, what happens in a brake zone. I’m not suggesting either way whether this is what happened or not in the videos, but here’s my actual question, that I’d love an answer to:

If I am on a long straight, in the middle of the track, and I just crept past you on your right, when I get my rear tire to your door, may I elect a line with a slow turn to the left (for more fun, let’s say the upcoming turn, 1500 feet away, is a right hander), and just slowly start turning into you, to the point where you must drop two tires off track to drivers left?

I pray that the answer is no, but I’d really like an answer to this, since the ambit of this thread seems to be applying the turn in rule to things that aren’t turns. Frankly, when I think of the turn in rule, I think of a turn that requires the brakes. I would not think of just coming down on someone in bishops bend at Sebring, a flat out sweeping lefthander, even if I had the full rights under the turn in rule. But again, I do feel the need to fully understand this rule now. I sure wish I had Jon Felton’s feedback into this, since he will be dealing with the issue should it arise in Florida.

For everyone else chiming in about how you were about to build the world’s best Spec E30 and now you’re going to sell it off for scrap in protest of the madmen that reside here, really, this is more of a theoretical discussion than it should be. This overall is a great, fun group of people to drive with.

As a general observation, small bore cars, particularly in spec classes, get in far more wrecks than big bore cars, or non-spec cars. The nature of having a bunch of cars that are allegedly identical, or as close to that as one can get, and the fact that you have to wheel them super hard to get them to go, just leads to contact.

-Scott

#94

[quote=“BigKeyserSoze” post=72981]I sure wish I had Jon Felton’s feedback into this, since he will be dealing with the issue should it arise in Florida.
[/quote]

Noted. :wink:

Jon

#95

Is anyone interested in petitioning for a rule change? I understand the 3/4 width rule is a great tool for anything entering a corner. As it applies going down a straight, it can lead to trouble.
Would a petition need to happen? Perhaps all of us that don’t agree with the rule need to shoot an email to the correct director to help facilitate a rule change? Or maybe an address where my carrier pigeon needs to land with the note tied around his foot?
Theres been some great debate over the last 10 pages. Every system has flaws. Perhaps this incident has uncovered a flaw in the rules and something needs to be done about it. It would help protect drivers from damage and injury, and ease the decision or judgement making process for the officials.

#96

Just as food for thought/comparison purposes, here’s the IMSA take on it. I just thought I would include it because there’s virtually no rules – it all comes down to race director/steward opinion.

[quote]6.17 ON TRACK PROTOCOL

6.17.1 PASSING
It is the responsibility of both the overtaking Driver and the Driver being overtaken to assure safe overtaking at racing speeds. A car traveling alone may use the full width of the track. Overtaking may be either right or left depending on the conditions of the moment.

6.17.2 BLOCKING
Any Driver who, in the sole opinion of the Race Director and/or Stewards, alters their racing line based on the actions of pursuing competitors, or uses an abnormal racing line to inhibit or prevent overtaking may be considered to be “blocking” and may be warned or penalized pursuant to Art. 8 of the IMSA CODE. In accordance with Art. 9.1.3 (1) any action or decision (or any alleged inaction or non-decision) taken by or imposed by the Race Director, Stewards or IMSA officials in this regard is not subject to protest or appeal.

6.17.3 AVOIDABLE CONTACT
Any Driver who, in the sole opinion of the Race Director and/or Stewards, initiates avoidable contact with another competitor, whether or not such contact interrupts the other competitor’s lap times, track position or damages other competitor’s cars, and whether or not such actions result in actual contact, may be warned or penalized pursuant to Art. 8 of the IMSA CODE. In accordance with Art. 9.1.3 (1) any action or decision (or any alleged inaction or non-decision) taken by or imposed by the Race Director, Stewards or IMSA officials in this regard is not subject to protest or appeal.

6.17.4 UNJUSTIFIABLE RISK
Any Participant who, in the sole opinion of the Race Director and/or Stewards, engages in any behavior deemed to represent an unjustifiable risk or reckless endangerment may be warned or penalized pursuant to Art. 8 of the IMSA CODE. In accordance with Art. 9.1.3 (1) any action or decision (or any alleged inaction or non-decision) taken by or imposed by the Race Director, Stewards or IMSA officials in this regard is not subject to protest or appeal.[/quote]

#97

[quote=“catsailor” post=72962]Hey everyone, Tom Hall checking in. I guess its time for me to chime in since I’m the MA Compliance Director and I helped rule on this incident. There is no grey area in this incident it is simply a case of a driver not following the passing rules as stated in the CCR’s, whether or not the driver fully knew and understood those rules. Location on track, IE: entering a turn, on a straight, etc makes no difference. When an “overtaking car” is attempting to make a pass (side-by-side driving, overlapped ahead or behind, etc) he is obligated to give the “lead car” room to his / her line. The “lead car”, which was previously clear ahead, is only obligated to give 3/4 of a car width to the overtaking car. In other words the overtaking car has to be ready to go 2 wheels off in order to avoid contact with the car it is attempting to pass (or is driving side-by-side with, etc).

Soooo, in this incident the overtaking car (Jeff) is obligated to give the lead car (Rob) room to drive his line.  Again, the lead car is only obligated to give the overtaking car 3/4 of a car width, on the left side of the track in this case.  The overtaking car never went 2 wheels off, he simply "held his line" which is not acceptable under the rules.  The correct thing for the overtaking car to do would have been to back out and allow the lead car to drive his desired line.  Nothing else matters, not his position in the race, the class he is in (out of class racing), etc.  the overtaking car must give room.  If he gives room, goes 2 wheels off (clearly trying to give room) and there is still contact then fault could possibly shift to the lead car.  However, that was not the case here, this is a clear cut classic case of a "punt resulting in damage", look up the penalty for that infraction and you'll probably want to avoid doing it, not to mention wanting to avoid causing serious damage and possible injury to a fellow racer.

Y’all would be amazed at how many racers I interview who don’t fully understand this rule. I’ve realized now that until I took on this position I really didn’t fully understand this rule and some of the other rules that are designed to keep us all safe and heading home from the track without damaged vehicles.

Not too many years ago the Spec E30 groups could have tight racing and a lot of fun without very many collisions.  For some reason that seems to have changed and we are now having multiple and occasionally serious incidents at almost every race event.

If I could ask everyone to please read the CCR's again, there are some additions to rules as of this year.  And after you've read them read them again, and the maybe another time or two.  We all have to take on the responsibility to not only learn but internalize the rules, because when followed the racing is much safer IMHO.

Cheers.[/quote]

Hi Tom, thanks for weighing in. You mention that the passing car be prepared to go 2 wheels off, but you said that the passing car in this situation should have hit the brakes. You did not recommend that he should have gone 2 wheels. I assume that is because of the significant danger of 2 wheels off in that section? So the rule is in all cases racing room is considered 3/4 car width? What about trying to pass a car on the outside of T9 at WGI? There is a wall right next to track out. 1) Is the car being passed legally allowed to push the passing car into the wall to prevent a pass? 2) Should they be allowed to intentionally crash another car in order to prevent a pass? 3) Is there any verbiage in the rules to prevent that sort of thing and if so where?

Also when passing on a straight is the car being passed allowed to move into the car trying to pass as soon as the passing car’s front bumper is is at the lead car’s rear bumper? Using your strict interpretation of the rules, who’s fault would that be? I know common sense would dictate that you don’t want to make someone hit your rear bumper, but where in the rules does it actually prevents someone who has the checkbook and will to turn racing into a game of chicken instead of skill to prevent passes? (ie, everytime someone starts to get some overlap on me, I’m going to swerve over, counting on him to have to hit the brakes and lose momentum so I can prevent a pass. If I get hit, it’s his fault, and if I wreck, no big deal I just write a check for another race car). Rules need to prevent this, don’t just assume common sense will.

#98

When I started posting last night I didn’t know that a ruling had been made. I was not trying to sound contradictory to that ruling.

#99

So are your posts and comments now based on your opinion? Or are you still standing behind the CCR even after the ruling was changed? Might give others planning on running in the Mid-Atlantic Region some piece of mind knowing that the MA Compliance Director’s views and opinions may or may not agree with the regional director.

#100

[quote=“swolfe” post=72978][quote=“Ranger” post=72967]Re. opposite conclusion. Point well made.

The problem with the rules and these examples is that they are oriented towards the braking zone of a turn. The actions of the passee are predictable in the braking zone and the rules dictate things that the passer has to take into account as he is planning and then executing his pass.

This incident was not in a braking zone. We all try to read each other’s minds, but I certainly would not have expected Rob to come across the track so I’d have been caught be surprise too. One of the purposes of rules is that they help us predict each other’s actions. They are not intended, to reference a hypothetical I created earlier, to allow me to ram a passer because he looked at my sister wrong.[/quote]

What prevents that – beyond common sense, sportsmanship, and general not-being-a-dick?[/quote]
That’s my point. That kind of reckless behavior is prevented by the knowledge that a decision-maker is going to look at the circumstances of the incident, look at the rules, and determine that “altho the rules fit the situation imperfectly, it was not reasonable for me ram the other guy.” Therefore I get penalized. It is always wrong to reflexively apply rules, any rule, with zero attention to the circumstances of the incident. Rules cannot possibly take into account every detail. That’s where human interpretation comes in.

#101

Sorry is this is already said, but what is getting lost is that the 3/4 rule is as much a shield as it is a sword. It prevents the guy being overtaken from completely cutting down or moving over on the overtaking car. He has to give room!

To those who are concerned about running NASA because of this rule–this situation is an extreme, and we’re getting in the realm of fear mongering. Does the rule allow Rob to do what he did? Yes. Is it a dickish move to do it if that’s what he was doing? Probably. Will our community tolerate that kind of driving? Absolutely not! I know before our first race this weekend I told all of our drivers I won’t have any of that crap in our races and we had some fantastic close racing (videos to come)!

#102

I disagree that this situation is extreme or rare. I was on the losing end of a strict reading of the same rule last October. The incident happens a few corners into the first lap at which point the other car and I had been door to door for several corners.
NASA-MA Oktoberfast video

I was friendly with Tom before he made the judgment that I was at fault, having met him at other races, gone wheel-to-wheel with him, etc. I still think he is a good guy. However, even F1 has someone to temper the rulebook with a driver’s perspective.

I don’t think a strict interpretation of a rule set should ever count more than common sense. If my view of my incident is too one-sided, I’m all ears.

Again, the other driver in my incident admitted to Tom that he hit me because he washed out after hitting the curb. I was told I should have gone further left (i.e. into the grass).

This doesn’t keep me up at night but I thought it was pertinent to point out that Rob and Jeff’s incident is not isolated.

#103

[quote=“cosm3os” post=72992]Sorry is this is already said, but what is getting lost is that the 3/4 rule is as much a shield as it is a sword. It prevents the guy being overtaken from completely cutting down or moving over on the overtaking car. He has to give room!

To those who are concerned about running NASA because of this rule–this situation is an extreme, and we’re getting in the realm of fear mongering. Does the rule allow Rob to do what he did? Yes. Is it a dickish move to do it if that’s what he was doing? Probably. Will our community tolerate that kind of driving? Absolutely not! I know before our first race this weekend I told all of our drivers I won’t have any of that crap in our races and we had some fantastic close racing (videos to come)![/quote]

it might be an extreme, but there’s a car with a busted roof, essentially because he played chicken with another car trying to flex his “rules muscle”. And the following post to yours is from a guy who says the nearly identical incident happened to him. And I know people who would certainly ‘move you over’ like that if they knew the rules would back them up. (I think they are some of the biggest dicks I know and I will not race in that class). A rule director is shocked so few people are aware of this rule. So, in some ways, it’s not extreme…and is likely to happen again.

I hope the NASA racers take it to heart to implore their rulesmakers to clean up this clearly mistaken rule. The onus MUST also be on the passee to ensure that racing room is given in club racing. Racers get the world they want, but most put this sort of thing on a lower priority than making sure the new dampers arrive in time, etc. It should be a top priority.

Having ANY car move another car off the straight…well, thats flat out not right. And I see the need for a full cars width not 3/4. Good point above about walls, etc.

#104

[quote=“Ranger” post=72991][quote=“swolfe” post=72978][quote=“Ranger” post=72967]Re. opposite conclusion. Point well made.

The problem with the rules and these examples is that they are oriented towards the braking zone of a turn. The actions of the passee are predictable in the braking zone and the rules dictate things that the passer has to take into account as he is planning and then executing his pass.

This incident was not in a braking zone. We all try to read each other’s minds, but I certainly would not have expected Rob to come across the track so I’d have been caught be surprise too. One of the purposes of rules is that they help us predict each other’s actions. They are not intended, to reference a hypothetical I created earlier, to allow me to ram a passer because he looked at my sister wrong.[/quote]

What prevents that – beyond common sense, sportsmanship, and general not-being-a-dick?[/quote]
That’s my point. That kind of reckless behavior is prevented by the knowledge that a decision-maker is going to look at the circumstances of the incident, look at the rules, and determine that “altho the rules fit the situation imperfectly, it was not reasonable for me ram the other guy.” Therefore I get penalized. It is always wrong to reflexively apply rules, any rule, with zero attention to the circumstances of the incident. Rules cannot possibly take into account every detail. That’s where human interpretation comes in.[/quote]

The problem is that is not the case. As Tom said, he had no choice but to rule the way he did and give the penalty that he did, because he MUST follow the rules strictly. There is no room for leeway or judgement. Regardless of the situation, the rules say this, so this is what someone making the judgement must do, no exceptions.

A rule change would be needed for them to rule the way Scott suggests.

-Scott

#105

NASA is the only venue that has tried to legislate a way of driving through the rulebook…probably based on many new drivers in the series and lack of WTW experience. Since they copied, almost verbatim, the GCR, I strongly suggest they modify their passing rules to better align with SCCA, PBOC, BMWCCA, PCA, etc. (Note: If a very similar car is beside your door and you A S S U M E he is not there 10 seconds later: IT’S YOUR DAMN FAULT FOR HITTING HIM!) I don’t really give a damn what the CCR says…common sense is common sense. It is everyone’s responsibility to prevent contact.

Write the letters…change the rule, and for God’s sake, let this forum die an already indignant death.

#106

AMEN!

#107

[quote=“cwbaader” post=72997]NASA is the only venue that has tried to legislate a way of driving through the rulebook…probably based on many new drivers in the series and lack of WTW experience. Since they copied, almost verbatim, the GCR, I strongly suggest they modify their passing rules to better align with SCCA, PBOC, BMWCCA, PCA, etc. (Note: If a very similar car is beside your door and you A S S U M E he is not there 10 seconds later: IT’S YOUR DAMN FAULT FOR HITTING HIM!) I don’t really give a damn what the CCR says…common sense is common sense. It is everyone’s responsibility to prevent contact.

Write the letters…change the rule, and for God’s sake, let this forum die an already indignant death.[/quote]

I hear ya, Mr Baader, but apparently it’s not that common…

#108

[quote=“sbarton” post=72995][quote=“Ranger” post=72991][quote=“swolfe” post=72978][quote=“Ranger” post=72967]Re. opposite conclusion. Point well made.

The problem with the rules and these examples is that they are oriented towards the braking zone of a turn. The actions of the passee are predictable in the braking zone and the rules dictate things that the passer has to take into account as he is planning and then executing his pass.

This incident was not in a braking zone. We all try to read each other’s minds, but I certainly would not have expected Rob to come across the track so I’d have been caught be surprise too. One of the purposes of rules is that they help us predict each other’s actions. They are not intended, to reference a hypothetical I created earlier, to allow me to ram a passer because he looked at my sister wrong.[/quote]

What prevents that – beyond common sense, sportsmanship, and general not-being-a-dick?[/quote]
That’s my point. That kind of reckless behavior is prevented by the knowledge that a decision-maker is going to look at the circumstances of the incident, look at the rules, and determine that “altho the rules fit the situation imperfectly, it was not reasonable for me ram the other guy.” Therefore I get penalized. It is always wrong to reflexively apply rules, any rule, with zero attention to the circumstances of the incident. Rules cannot possibly take into account every detail. That’s where human interpretation comes in.[/quote]

The problem is that is not the case. As Tom said, he had no choice but to rule the way he did and give the penalty that he did, because he MUST follow the rules strictly. There is no room for leeway or judgement. Regardless of the situation, the rules say this, so this is what someone making the judgement must do.

A rule change would be needed for them to rule the way Scott suggests.

-Scott[/quote]
I entirely disagree. This “MUST follow the rules strictly” is complete BS. A human decision maker uses the agreed upon rules, the precise circumstances of the incident, and their own wealth of experience to render a fair and responsible judgement. It took us the last 100million years to add the forebrain to it’s reptile underpinnings. As a result we are now capable of making reasoned decisions, as opposed to responding reflexively to external stimuli. I vote for the former over the latter.

Ethnically I’m 3/4 German. I spent much of the '90’s there and loved the place and the people. But the Germans are nutjobs about rules. They, as a culture, find much comfort in being surrounded by rules and when faced with a choice between a “rule” and “the Right thing to do”, end up in a terrible quandary. Americans, in contrast, when faced with a rule that prevents a clearly Right action, generally don’t feel like they’re in much of a quandary. They’ll just shrug their shoulders, blow off the rule and do the Right thing.

We had an expression in the military…“Regulations are for the “guidance” of the commander”. That means that the expectation is that the commander do his/her very best to do the Right thing. Hopefully there’d be a way to do the Right thing that was congruent with the regs, but if not, so be it. As the commander you were ultimately responsible for everything. The regs were handy guidance, but your job was to DO THE RIGHT THING. If you had to break the Regs to do THE RIGHT THING, if you f**king had to kill people to do THE RIGHT THING, then you did it. You just had to be emotionally prepared to stand in front of your boss and justify your actions. And if he wasn’t impressed, it was your ass waving in the breeze.

Said another way…the purpose of rules is to make things run fairly and efficiently. Occasionally you will find that a rule impedes fairness and efficiency. When that occurs, the officious bureaucrat will sacrifice fairness and efficiency on the altar of their treasured rule. In contrast the self-actualized type will see how the peculiar circumstances that lay before them put the rule, and the rule’s objective, in conflict, and find their own reasoned way to meet the rule’s intent.

Think about what that means…if a rule leads to something that’s just crazy, do you really blindly follow the rule? If following the rule ensures that you don’t meet the rule’s intent (safe behavior), we still follow the rule? Have we lost our minds?

We cannot mindlessly follow rules that lead to bad outcomes. Mindlessly following anything, defined as strictly following as opposed to thoughtfully following, is a really bad idea.

Always do the Right thing. Rules are meant to be thoughtfully applied.

There’s some good ideas for rule changes here that would cover the situation, so lets adopt one of those ideas. Easy enough to submit a rule change.