BTW, the incident I described was not at an SVRA event, it was a different
vintage organization.
Mark
>From: psr@mnw.net (PSR)
>Reply-To: psr@mnw.net (PSR)
>To: "Robert Alder" <alder_rj@ix.netcom.com>
>CC: <vintage-race@autox.team.net>
>Subject: RE: SVRA Points
>Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 08:35:54 -0500
>
>I'll interrupt this thread at this point because the clear differences of
>opinion, just on this one incident, serve to illustrate precisely the
>reason
>why SVRA has a points system.
>
>SVRA's 3-driver committee (with the sole power to put you on the trailer)
>has been an effective disciplinary device over many many years. Generally
>the parties get a fair and complete hearing and the Safety Steward has done
>his homework with hardware inspections and worker reports. The fact that
>the organizers are excluded from the proceedings helps assure that loss of
>revenue or politics does not intrude in the decision.
>
>Sam White and Carl Jensen, former Driver's Committee Chiefs, were concerned
>by the fact that though the quality of the decisions were generally
>consistent from event to event, the penalties weren't. Two "throw the book
>at 'em" participants in this thread might put a driver on the trailer for 6
>events while two others might give him a one race probation. Their points
>system deals with this and the penalties now are much more consistent.
>
>I have served on the committee and been in front of it. I agree with the
>general mood, however, that the penalties are too light and the deterrent
>has lost some of its effectiveness. Perhaps the next version should have
>some ranges of punishment.
>
>I am not in agreement with SVRA's current practice of having only two
>drivers and a voting Safety Steward, Walt McCarthy. When the points system
>was put into effect the committee consisted of a permanent Drivers
>Committee
>Chief, who did not vote and was charged with conducting the hearings at
>each
>event, three drivers and the Safety Steward, who was not involved in the
>decision process. The driver's committee position has been lost, along
>with
>the Competition Director's position, to the new "cost-effective",
>cash-flow-positive, SVRA.
>
>I am interested in how many SVRA members were aware of this change and how
>many just learned about it here. Let me know, and more importantly let
>Claire and Peter know whether you like it or not.
>
>Pat Ryan
>SVRA Member since 1988
>
>
> >Car #1 loss of control was not intentional and he was remorseful, but he
> >caused damage, damnit. Shouldn't there be a sanction of some
> >sort????????????? To cause damage (especially to OTHERS) without being
> >sanctioned is at the heart of the problem, is it not?
>
> >>In the incident I described, the driver's committee found drivers #2 and
>#3
> >>blameless. Driver #1 was reprimanded for careless shifting, but no
> >>probation or suspension. He was quite remorseful, his car was banged
>up,
> >>and it was a mistake, not aggressiveness.
> >>
> >>Mark Palmer
> >>MGA #185
>
>
>
|