Jeff Winchell wrote:
> Since perception by the site owner seems to be the relevant statistic,
> then miles is the wrong metric. Time is a better one.
According to YOUR speculation, the statistical risk associated with
autox is negligible compared to street driving. I came up with a model,
now you're dodging the issue. How many accidents per vehicle mile are
typical for street driving?
> Is there more information on this, or was this the sole significant
> factor?
This was indeed the "sole significant factor." The site was unavailable
for autox use for more than two years as a direct result of Solo II
incidents.
> Is this situation representative of the typical site having
> problems?
I've heard the concern about accidents expressed often enough by site
ownership to know that it is usually a major issue.
> Sites that also hold open track events, road racing or drag racing
> couldn't possibly have this problem since accidents are likely to
> happen at least once every few events.
That's not even a good attempt to dodge the issue. The vast majority of
Solo II events are held in stadium or high school parking lots or on
airport facilities. The owners of these sites are distinctly concerned
with safety issues, as you would be in their position.
> The current SCCA rules of the fastest Stock or Street Prepared cars
> running in the mid 60's is an objective standard that is reasonable.
As is the expectation that a course design allow sufficient runoff space
so as to allow a spin without the car striking solid objects.
> Doom and gloom over a roll over once in 13 years is not.
Based on my experience, rollovers occur a bit more often than that. To
some extent, driver awareness of the capacity of certain cars to roll is
the only defensive measure that is effective in preventing them. Course
design can be a factor, but no course design can be 100% effective in
preventing a rollover.
Jay
|