> Please realize this was an anomaly, and as you have probably
> picked up on by
> now, somewhat outside the parameters set by the SCCA rules. I
> would not look
> upon this as typical of SCCA, but quite the opposite. The "typical" SCCA
> event would not present such a situation.
However, even if it is very atypical of the particular part of the SCCA (the
club) involved, it is more than "somewhat outside the parameters set by the
SCCA rules". According to the descriptions from people who were there and
have not been contradicted by others, it seriously violated the rules.
_NO_ SCCA event is supposed to present such a situation.
It was an SCCA sanctioned event that clearly violated the safety rules that
the insurance for the SCCA is predicated on.
> (But it is all to easy to say shoulda-woulda-coulda ... how many
> of us have
> designed something only to find out it was far different than
> what we intended or expected?>
Are you saying that you think that the course designers may have been so
inexperienced that they didn't notice that people would be running so
completely out of the rules?
People sometimes make mistakes. The attitude of the "powers that be" in the
club needs to be that they can recognize mistakes and also be open to
remedying them when they are either noticed by them or pointed out to them.
|