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
|