Contact impound

[dickita15]

There was an interesting discussion this weekend during the Ne Div convention. Apparently Nasa has something at events called Contact Impound designed to make drivers accountable for metal to metal contact. The suggestion that evolved was to have an area in the impound are that if you have any metal to metal contact at the end of a session you need to stop briefly and fill out a short form describing the situation. No interrogation but just a brief what happen, who was at fault in your opinion and was it a big deal. After you turned in your form you would be free to leave.
Would you guys view this as a positive thing?

[Greg Amy]

Absolutely.

[team-gpracing]

What happens to the forms? Is it like when you got in trouble in elementary school and you had to copy pages of the dictionary so your teacher can throw them out later or does something get done with them? For example, 3 strikes and you're out?

I think it sounds like an interesting idea, just want more info.

[Flyinglizard]

NASA does this now. Seems to reduce the SM contact.

[Matt93SE]

Stupid GCR question.. aren't you already supposed to report to impound post-race after any metal-metal contact?

Edit: Yes, I'm all for it as well. last few races, I've had my share of unintended contact, but fully accepted the responsibility..

[Knestis]

An excellent idea. More documentation into the system is a good thing, and the anticipation of *any* oversight might have a damping effect on tomfoolery.

K

[ShelbyRacer]

Agreed.

Seemed to work years ago when a certain Steward took pictures of all the SRF noses to monitor bump-drafting contact.

Any comments Terry?

[disquek]

I'm for it.

-Kyle

[Ron Earp]

Damn good idea. A mandatory investigation after metal to metal.

[dickita15]

I think the idea to start is to be non-confrontational in the contact impound. After all there are times that unintended contact does happen and I think that in that case if both drivers forms agree that it was unfortunate but just a minor thing that was not intended that would be the end of it.
It is when the forms show a difference of opinion that further investigation should be warranted.
I would guess that someone could stand 50 yard away watching the body language of the driver filling out the form and get a feel for which is which.

[Wreckerboy]

I think it's an excellent idea.

[dave parker]

Dick
I think that this is a very good idea.

cheers
dave parker

[Keith O]

If there is a way to make it work for the folks who have to jump from one race to the next back-to-back, I think it's a no-brainer.

[Greg Amy]

If there is a way to make it work for the folks who have to jump from one race to the next back-to-back, I think it's a no-brainer.
Nope, no compromise. You have contact - your fault or not - you go to the box and fill out the paperwork. Got a back-to-back? then avoid contact.

Just the specter of having to deal with the paperwork is the major deterrent all by itself.

Easy peasy.

GA

[dickita15]

If there is a way to make it work for the folks who have to jump from one race to the next back-to-back, I think it's a no-brainer.

We rarely have true back to backs. Up here we try to have double dip friendly groups with at least one group in between. I suppose if you are facing in FV and ITA it might be an issue however they are talking about a very simple form and no interrogation, but possible investigation at a later time.
I might even have some preprinted with the name of certain drivers on them and carry them in the car.:shrug:

[erlrich]

I like it - but then I believe all MTM should have to be explained anyway.

As far as drivers doing back to back races; how do they handle it if they are top-3, and have to go to impound (assuming the event calls for that), or have some other on-track issue and have to go talk to the steward? I think any driver running back-to-back races should be prepared for the possibility that he will not make the start of the second race. Heck, in many MARRS events we are being given the 5-to-go as the prior group is exiting the track, so even without a trip to impound it would be tough to do back-to-back races.

[Matt93SE]

As far as drivers doing back to back races; how do they handle it if they are top-3, and have to go to impound (assuming the event calls for that), or have some other on-track issue and have to go talk to the steward? I think any driver running back-to-back races should be prepared for the possibility that he will not make the start of the second race. Heck, in many MARRS events we are being given the 5-to-go as the prior group is exiting the track, so even without a trip to impound it would be tough to do back-to-back races.

The few folks around here that do true back-to-back classes (FF and HP) would take both cars to grid before race #1. After race #1, they drive car #1 into impound, then have a friend/crewmember with a golf cart drive them to grid and help them buckle into car #2. after race #2, they head back to impound again.
once impound is cleared, he removes both cars, and deals with any issues found in impound after race #2.

If there is any car-car contact in race #1, the paperwork wouldn't be sorted until race #2 is over anyway since tech takes 15-20 minutes to weigh all the cars in and do whatever surprise inspection they're going to do. Only then would they start on contact reports since "the bad kids can wait for the good kids to get through tech".
so a contact report for race #1 wouldn't necessarily even be looked at or talked about until near the end of race #2.

[jimbbski]

At MCSCC races any driver who has contact or thinks he/she has had contact needs to report to impound and fill out an incident report. If the contact was reported in by F&C and the driver or drivers fail to report you will hear your name over the PA asking you to report. Also if one driver reports and the other doesn't you will hear your name.

I had to this at my last race and MCSCC's last race for this season. I had minor contact with a slower car while passing it that resulted in very minor paint transfer and scratches.

The creation of a record can help the stewards determine if a driver who constantly has "minor" contact with other drivers is really at fault and not just write it off to "just racing". Which is what they would do if there were not this paper trail.

.

[Abhi]

There was an interesting discussion this weekend during the Ne Div convention. Apparently Nasa has something at events called Contact Impound designed to make drivers accountable for metal to metal contact. The suggestion that evolved was to have an area in the impound are that if you have any metal to metal contact at the end of a session you need to stop briefly and fill out a short form describing the situation. No interrogation but just a brief what happen, who was at fault in your opinion and was it a big deal. After you turned in your form you would be free to leave.
Would you guys view this as a positive thing?

Damm...

Mickey is going to get writer's cramp...:D

Abhi

[Chip42]

I liek the idea, and would like it more on a national level and having the documentation available to or recorded with the national office. a trend of "harmless" MTM reports could be good background info for a guy who also has a few "racing incidents" and support the assertation by his competitors that he is overly aggressive, generally.

and, deterents are good. the bad side is if the group or whatever steward decides to be overly involved on the front end, that could be bad. get the reports, read them, make a decision and I'm for it.

[BruceG]

Damm...

Mickey is going to get writer's cramp...:D

Abhi

Who will break up the fight in the "impound compound" when all the parties arrive at the same time to fill out the form?

[Terry Hanushek]

Dick


There was an interesting discussion this weekend during the Ne Div convention. Apparently Nasa has something at events called Contact Impound designed to make drivers accountable for metal to metal contact. The suggestion that evolved was to have an area in the impound are that if you have any metal to metal contact at the end of a session you need to stop briefly and fill out a short form describing the situation. No interrogation but just a brief what happen, who was at fault in your opinion and was it a big deal. After you turned in your form you would be free to leave.
Would you guys view this as a positive thing?

Very interesting subject ... and great responses.

I have looked at this concept during this year and had already made a decision to implement a process of this nature at all TreadZone Pro IT events next year. My plan is to have standard SCCA witness statements available from our staff and Tech. Everybody involved with car to car contact (regardless of perceived 'fault') will be required to make a statement describing the incident. As much as possible, collaboration will be encouraged to fully understand / explain the contact.

Aside from the 'deterrence' effect of additional paperwork :), I expect two benefits from this policy. First, it will certainly encourage drivers to discuss their contact, hopefully lessening lingering resentment / protests resulting from a lack of communication. The second obvious benefit is that it will give me a ready 'database' of incidents so that I can quickly identify and react to significant problems without chasing lesser matters across the paddock. All contacts will be a matter of record to track trends and tendencies.

I'm looking for this experiment with a small subset (Pro IT) to give us insights into the process and resulting benefits.

See ya at the races

Terry

[StephenB]

I think it is a good/great idea. I have always thought impound all was good for this same reason, so that drivers can talk it out without seeking eachother out.

I think this should be a regional only thing and not sent to National. National has enough to take care of and I would rather that our local regions, whom participate with us, absorb the information. To be fair the SM guys will most likely have more written than other drivers (Just based on participation counts). I would rather that info be kept to the regions that understand that and SEE it rather than someone sitting behind a desk 1000miles away.

Still though I think it is a great idea! I know we already have a black book here in our region and this would be a great way to improve on that process that we already have.

Stephen

[dickita15]

Dick



Very interesting subject ... and great responses.

I have looked at this concept during this year and had already made a decision to implement a process of this nature at all TreadZone Pro IT events next year. My plan is to have standard SCCA witness statements available from our staff and Tech. Everybody involved with car to car contact (regardless of perceived 'fault') will be required to make a statement describing the incident. As much as possible, collaboration will be encouraged to fully understand / explain the contact.

Aside from the 'deterrence' effect of additional paperwork :), I expect two benefits from this policy. First, it will certainly encourage drivers to discuss their contact, hopefully lessening lingering resentment / protests resulting from a lack of communication. The second obvious benefit is that it will give me a ready 'database' of incidents so that I can quickly identify and react to significant problems without chasing lesser matters across the paddock. All contacts will be a matter of record to track trends and tendencies.

I'm looking for this experiment with a small subset (Pro IT) to give us insights into the process and resulting benefits.

See ya at the races

Terry

We were talking about it on the way home and after the responses on this thread I see no reason not to try it. NHMS is easy, LRP may be hard because of space requirements. I think we are going to try an easier form than the standard one, you know one a driver could do in crayon.:D

[rthiele]

My only concern is that sometimes it takes a breather after something happens. If you force to document things immediately when emotions are still high, it may cement uncompromising positions that may otherwise look different after a paddock conversation and views and advice from other people later.
Like the idea of better documenting repeat offenders though.

[Dano77]

Great Idea with pre printed names on them Its spelled Sheppard 77 IT-7 Black. :smilie_pokal:

Just so everyone knows I do really like the idea. And yes, Make it crayola easy for us.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Absolutely.

+ 1.

It would facilitate 'discussion' as well...sometimes better left until cooler heads prevailed, sometimes better to discuss right away,

[ner88]

Although cool down time may be good, more often drivers never get to talk about what happen or nothing gets done.
At the two NASA events I attended, the Miata guys had the least amount of paper....It was the bigbore guys doing all the writing!:rolleyes:

[raffaelli]

I like this idea.

I suggest that they be submitted after a cool down period. I assume that these will be used as evidence should there be a protest and to track a pattern of behavior. The description on the form may not really represent the facts, but instead a slanted reaction in anger should they be filled out as soon as the helmets come off. Cooler heads filling out the form may bring clarity and avoid further escalation.

[vicktorvolpe]

A cool down period may be a good idea.

NASA NE we don't have contact impound, but you have to fill out a contact report if you have any contact. If one party to contact fills out the form, and you don't......you're in trouble.

The forms can be funny. Especially when a slow car taps the rear bumper of a fast car exiting a corner.

-Vick

[Terry Hanushek]

Rob Thiele: My only concern is that sometimes it takes a breather after something happens. If you force to document things immediately when emotions are still high, it may cement uncompromising positions that may otherwise look different after a paddock conversation and views and advice from other people later.


Andy Bettencourt: It would facilitate 'discussion' as well...sometimes better left until cooler heads prevailed, sometimes better to discuss right away,


Dan Sheppard: Although cool down time may be good, more often drivers never get to talk about what happen or nothing gets done.


Chris Raffaelli: I suggest that they be submitted after a cool down period. I assume that these will be used as evidence should there be a protest and to track a pattern of behavior.

I intend to start slow and keep an eye on the process. I suspect that most contacts (at least in Pro IT) will be able to be addressed fairly quickly. If there is something really contentious, someone from our staff will probably be on hand to moderate.

I doubt that I will use pre-filled (name, car number, etc.) until mid season. It will NOT be considered an honor to have your own personalized witness statements. :rolleyes: :D :rolleyes:

See ya at the races

Terry

[RSTPerformance]

Stephen- the black book is the "Red Book" and it is a way to resolve issues that could become issues in future races. Sorta acts as a way to document drivers issues, workers issues and stewards issues. It helps "visiting" stewards understand some (little) history.

I really like this idea but for it to work you need to keep it simple. A nice preprinted form with a space for both drivers name and/or number and class. Then the rest needs to be checkboxes that are easy to fill out. If you don't do this you will not get the info you want or need. Not to mention we all like this here on the computer but when you need to spend 10min in impound filling out a form from when you got hit rather than celebrating a victory or your best lap time it won't be as much fun.

Anyway, love the idea!

Raymond "I wonder how many people who get reported to the stewards will actually stop on his/her own?" Blethen

[RSTPerformance]

Anyone who says a checkbox type form won't work, call me... Most large transportation companies use mostly checkboxes in the "Accident" reports they use. A small part is a picture and/or written statement that generally is very biased.

Raymond

[StephenB]

Anyone who says a checkbox type form won't work, call me... Most large transportation companies use mostly checkboxes in the "Accident" reports they use. A small part is a picture and/or written statement that generally is very biased.

Raymond

Can you post an example.
I actually agree with you for once... check boxes are the way to go. Less emotion/feelings and much faster. Space on the back that we can fill out IF we want to share our emotions/feelings.

Stephen

[Kai Noeske]

Agree too. That's a very good idea.

What would happen in cases where one driver has to go through medical for checkout, and/or where at least one car comes in on the flatbed? Would that collision be considered under investigation until both drivers/entrants have had a chance to file their contact report forms?

[ulfelder]

I want to like this idea, but ...

Take as an example an SM race at the Glen. It's entirely possible to do a little consensual bump-drafting with 5 or 6 different cars during a 9-lap race. No big deal, thumbs-up all around, you push me toward the Bus Stop one lap, I push you the next ...

Is a driver expected to fill out a form for each incident of contact? Hell, how would you remember all the car numbers?

[dickita15]

Kai
I would assume that if only one driver reported the contact someone official may investigate and find out why the other driver did not. Could be he was tied up as you describe, could be he did not know they touched, could be someone got the wrong car. These forms would not necessarily start an official action or they might depending on the situation.
It certainly would give the club officials a better handle on what is going go out there.
I do not see it as a big deal if I write something on the form right after the session and after reflection or reviewing video I decided it happened differently. I see that as understandable.

[dickita15]

Steve,
If you touch someone in a consensual manner you better make sure it really is consensual.
Or the FBI will investigate and you will resign in disgrace… opps wrong forum.

[Greg Amy]

Take as an example an SM race at the Glen. It's entirely possible to do a little consensual bump-drafting with 5 or 6 different cars during a 9-lap race. No big deal...
Except it's contrary to the regs and subject to the same sanctions as all other metal-to-metal contact...regardless of intent and consensus. - GA

[JLawton]

Great idea Dick!! :023:

[vicktorvolpe]

I want to like this idea, but ...

Take as an example an SM race at the Glen. It's entirely possible to do a little consensual bump-drafting with 5 or 6 different cars during a 9-lap race. No big deal, thumbs-up all around, you push me toward the Bus Stop one lap, I push you the next ...

Is a driver expected to fill out a form for each incident of contact? Hell, how would you remember all the car numbers?

I thought we were talking about metal to metal contact?

For example if Steve and I give each other a push (not in a braking zone), Steve and I would be ok with that.

If Steve and I rubbed door handles, chances are the two of us would talk about it anyway to see how that happened and apologize.

-Vick

[Ed Funk]

Steve,
If you touch someone in a consensual manner you better make sure it really is consensual.
Or the FBI will investigate and you will resign in disgrace… opps wrong forum.

....somethin', somethin', rear ended.

[gran racing]

For example if Steve and I give each other a push (not in a braking zone), Steve and I would be ok with that.

This has been a big discussion in the past especially on the SM board. Have I ever done it, absolutely. However it's not technically legal per the GCR. It's more of a regional and being smart on where it's done.

Would you do it right before start/finish at the Glen where all flaggers can easily see you do it?

[Ed Funk]

This has been a big discussion in the past especially on the SM board. Have I ever done it, absolutely. However it's not technically legal per the GCR. It's more of a regional and being smart on where it's done.

Would you do it right before start/finish at the Glen where all flaggers can easily see you do it?

I tried really hard in July on the pit straight at WGI with Paul Curran....just couldn't quite get there. Starter was lookin' at us every time we came through.

[ner88]

...just couldn't quite get there.
How often do you have this problem? :happy204:

[Ed Funk]

Less frequently, now that I have a more agreeable pharmacist,

[team-gpracing]

Good idea notwithstanding, no one has still really said what the purpose is. Are we assuming that people will race "better" because otherwise they might have to do some ...*gasp*... paperwork after a race? Again, I think it is a great idea if used to reprimand and document the guilty, not just to assign busywork. If someone keeps a spreadsheet of the info from past forms at the track and uses it to punish repeat/aggregious offenders, then sure.

Also, bump drafting in SM is not M2M, it's P2P. :D

[gran racing]

It's not about busy work, but forcing people to be more accountable.

I think it's a good idea. Regarding providing some additional time to cool off, I also agree but drivers could still report to this impound first, then be required to come back after reviewing video and speaking with other people.

[jjjanos]

If someone keeps a spreadsheet of the info from past forms at the track and uses it to punish repeat/aggregious offenders, then sure.

No can do. It won't and should not matter how many times your name appears in that spreadsheet -- if none of the individual incidents resulted in the SOMs or CS officially finding you at fault, then you weren't at fault. If you weren't at fault, then it has no value in determining the punishment for the current infraction. Even if you were at fault, it bears no value in determining the punishment for the current infraction unless the driver is on probation.

You want to reduce the incidence of contact? Then grow a set, throw paper and hope that the SOMs become vertebrates and assign at least a reprimand (1 Point on your license).

[Matt93SE]

what Dave said.
Every region has their 'frequent offenders', yet there's no paper trail since it's usually minor contact and often considered a racing incident. But if you have one driver with 2-3 racing incidents per weekend, their file will eventually get thick enough to become obvious.

The recordkeeping behind the contact reports is what this whole concept revolves around, and that's the big grey area that would/should/could be left up to each region. "Must be reported" and "must take action" are two completely different things.

[Knestis]

I think that the accumulated body of "evidence" potentially serves as the context for any action that might be levied, not as "proof" that someone is guilty of something. It tracks patterns of behavior that can then alert folks - drivers and officials alike - that they should pay attention to an individual, rather than just assuming there's nothing wrong...

K

[Flyinglizard]

Who keeps the little black book? Who has access to it's data?

[team-gpracing]

It's not about busy work, but forcing people to be more accountable.

So by making people write down how they think the other guy caused contact is being more accountable?

You don't need to make a gentleman and good driver "more accountable", they already are....because they're gentleman (no offense intended ladies). And forcing a "multiple offender" to fill out a form surely isn't going to make them care about not causing more crashes. The "accountability" in question shouldn't be in the physical writing of the form, but in the (potential) action that is taken after it is written. That's all I'm sayin'.

I just want to make sure that the forms get filed away and put to good use, not just scribbled down and tossed.

In regard to the cool off period, how do you make sure that the driver comes back and actually fills it out?

[lawtonglenn]

bump drafting in SM is not M2M, it's P2P. :D


P2P = Pinata to Pinata ?



.

[ner88]

[QUOTE=team-gpracing;342888

In regard to the cool off period, how do you make sure that the driver comes back and actually fills it out?[/QUOTE]

Electronic Ankle bracelet! :shrug:

[ner88]

As far as a cool off time! If a guys pissed he's gonna go find the other driver asap. Would it not be better to have that happen where it could be monitored?:(

[team-gpracing]

P2P = Pinata to Pinata ?

:happy204:

I was thinking plastic, but that's WAAAAAAAY better! :023:

[vicktorvolpe]

This has been a big discussion in the past especially on the SM board. Have I ever done it, absolutely. However it's not technically legal per the GCR. It's more of a regional and being smart on where it's done.

Would you do it right before start/finish at the Glen where all flaggers can easily see you do it?

I have done it there, yes. Also on the front straight at Thunderbolt and LRP......no one said I was intelligent.However I have only ever given a bump to guys who asked for it.

That being said, I have learned that if I'm at someone's bumper just before start finish, I may be able to pull a pass off, so why am I going to give my speed to someone else there when I can use it to make up a position? There probably is more bump drafting in SM than is necessary.

-Vick

[itracer]

As far as a cool off time! If a guys pissed he's gonna go find the other driver asap. Would it not be better to have that happen where it could be monitored?:(

And we could charge admission for the really good exchanges.

Seriously -- Having observed and facilitated these discussions, I think this is a great idea. Any info received should be used by the Chief Steward and the Chairman of the SOM to monitor trends. If anything is serious enough to require action, then it should be taken immediately. If someone is spending more time filling out reports than driving on the track, then it might be time for both the competitors and the official to write paper on that individual. And maybe suggest a new hobby for them.

I do like the idea of the simpler form.

[Matt93SE]

[taking it a bit far]
How's this?

first time contact = check box form
second time to fill out form= full written description form
third time= full written description of incident, AND signed by the person/people you contacted
fourth time = have the guy you contacted fill out the form for you, you sign it.
fifth time = write it in blood
[/too far]

IMO, if something is actually done with the forms regarding a filing system and referring back to the files, something will be done in short time.
My first thought is the stewards are going to get tired of missing the free beer while waiting on the same few people to fill out the forms every race. they will then either stop doing the forms completely (sorry, mandated by GCR.. have to do your job!), or they will do something about the repeat offenders so they will no longer have to spend their afternoons in detention with the ruffians.

[kcolbey]

Who keeps the little black book? Who has access to it's data?

I believe it is a steward only thing, and not sure who keeps the "master".

[RSTPerformance]

No can do. It won't and should not matter how many times your name appears in that spreadsheet -- if none of the individual incidents resulted in the SOMs or CS officially finding you at fault, then you weren't at fault. If you weren't at fault, then it has no value in determining the punishment for the current infraction. Even if you were at fault, it bears no value in determining the punishment for the current infraction unless the driver is on probation.

You want to reduce the incidence of contact? Then grow a set, throw paper and hope that the SOMs become vertebrates and assign at least a reprimand (1 Point on your license).

No offense but... This is exactly what turns people away from SCCA. 30 year old rules that people think still work well.

As someone who has been part of the Stewards program I think several would support something like this (but I cannot speak for them). It is pushed year after year to make our "customers" happy and IMO this would be a step in the right direction. I have seen first hand the red book work to get everyone to move forward happily and this is just one more tool.

With that said I do have to admit, as mentioned and IMO a flaw in our SOM process is we are not allowed to use misdemeanors (red book notes) as an influence on our decisions.

Stephen.. Tough to type exames on my phone but would be glad to show you one of our accident reports when you come over. The key is identifying the information we what to gather.

Also to all- maybe we should be filling out voluntary incident reports "for the file" that include more than just MTM... Not every frustration comes with MTM when one of the parties has a brain.

Raymond

[Andy Bettencourt]

One of the most 'productive' meetings in NER for SM happened about 6-7 years ago. PTB decided that there was way too much contact so they called for an open meeting. They encouraged drivers to speak up in a large group to other drivers that they thought were too aggressive. After a few minutes, one driver says, "Who is #77?". #77 pipes up. He tells him that he thinks he is a rough and aggressive driver. #77 tries to defend himself until 2 other drivers also say they feel that way about #77.

#77 had little to no contact for the remained of the year.

I personally DO feel that if you posted a running spreadsheet next to the results (with totals and 'leaders') you would get people really thinking about contact. Anytime your anonymity gets taken away, your behavior changes at least SOME.

[dickita15]

I personally DO feel that if you posted a running spreadsheet next to the results (with totals and 'leaders') you would get people really thinking about contact.

maybe with an end of year trophy :o

[gran racing]

In regard to the cool off period, how do you make sure that the driver comes back and actually fills it out?

The driver signs the paper stating that they decline to comment now but will come back before the event is over. If they do not, there should be some type of consequence.

This cool off period can be critical. Hey Gulick, remember the ARRC when "two souther boys" were looking for me, Mark said he had my back and picked up a crow bar? Fortunately there instead was this cool off period, I showed one of the guys my video and the entire tune changed.


I have done it there, yes. Also on the front straight at Thunderbolt and LRP......no one said I was intelligent.However I have only ever given a bump to guys who asked for it.

Well then my friend, as I motion you to bump me near a flagger especially when some regions host the events I sure hope you do. :p Don't think people don't waive for the bump knowing ful well that region does not look the other way for bump drafts.

[EBSNASCAR]

Waterford Hills Road Racing has implemented a simliar program two years ago. There was too much "This guy hits people all the time", but when a protest came around, it was all heresay, with no evidence.

M2M contact = filling out a form discussing the incident, for both participants. Form has to be filled out 30 minutes after the race and placed in the "box" at tech. Stewards are in charge of reviewing and tracking.

[Flyinglizard]

Published contact reports would be very effective and get the reports on paper for all to see. Genius.

Black flag also does the intended job. Fill out the form, sitting in the car on pit road. That would have to be for contact that knocks someone off track.

SCCA has a no bump/push rule that is overlooked. Either change the rule (per NASA) or enforce it. As soon as you look the other way for one rule, the others are in jeopardy .

[gran racing]

Either change the rule (per NASA)

How does NASA address it?

[jjjanos]

I think that the accumulated body of "evidence" potentially serves as the context for any action that might be levied, not as "proof" that someone is guilty of something. It tracks patterns of behavior that can then alert folks - drivers and officials alike - that they should pay attention to an individual, rather than just assuming there's nothing wrong...K

It does not provide context -- if no investigation was done, you don't know the context of the previous incidents. If no punishment was given after an investigation, then the driver(s) weren't at fault. The only thing it does is let the Stewards know at whom they should look closely and that is an admission that the system is broken. Metal to metal contact is never acceptable, even if it is just "a racing incident."


No offense but... This is exactly what turns people away from SCCA. 30 year old rules that people think still work well.

As someone who has been part of the Stewards program I think several would support something like this (but I cannot speak for them). It is pushed year after year to make our "customers" happy and IMO this would be a step in the right direction. I have seen first hand the red book work to get everyone to move forward happily and this is just one more tool.

If you're OK with throwing the book at someone who was the victim of several M2M contacts because he had incidental contact, then this is the system for you.


With that said I do have to admit, as mentioned and IMO a flaw in our SOM process is we are not allowed to use misdemeanors (red book notes) as an influence on our decisions.

The "red book notes" are meaningless without a finding of fault. Period. If there is a finding of fault, then there needs to be punishment. Period. You (as a steward) do have a means of giving that driver a misdemeanor. It's called a reprimand and it comes with 1 point on his license. I.e. you didn't screw-up bad enough to DQ you or take-away a position, but you still screwed up and that needs to be on your record.

What needs a good review is section 7.4 of the GCR. Rex Racer destroys someone's car on April 1 -- he gets a DQ and a 3 event probation. (4 points). In August, he does it again (he's off probation) and gets the same penalty (4 points for a total of 8). Next May, he does it again and the system FINALLY gives him a 6 month probation. Two Labor Days later, he does it again... darn, he's off probation and he only had 4 points on his license...

The judicial system is broken. It relies on either drivers to initiate an action (pack up and go home or stick around for the entire day?) or the stewards to do so (right....). When actions are initiated, the SOMs all too often treat it as a Capital Case and won't convict without 8 DNA samples and a confession.

[EV]

....The "red book notes" are meaningless without a finding of fault. Period.....
I disagree...

If your involved in 10 M2M's in a season, even if none were deemed to be your fault, you (or someone) need(s) to review what you are doing. I'm sorry, if you are paying attention, you won't hit stuff all that often.

On another note, I would like to add that even if the contact isn't M2M, if you contact something attached to the track (tire well, guardrail, tree etc), you should have to fill out a contact form too. I know one driver (who thankfully has retired from the sport), hit something and balled up a car every 2-3 events, rarely though was it another car. He was a danger, and needed to go away. A M2M system won't help take care of that idiot.

[jjjanos]

I disagree...

If your involved in 10 M2M's in a season, even if none were deemed to be your fault, you (or someone) need(s) to review what you are doing. I'm sorry, if you are paying attention, you won't hit stuff all that often.

And exactly what are they going to review? That there were X number of incidents? That information isn't actionable information, so what use is it? None of those incidents have any bearing on who is fault in the current incident or how the current incident should be punished.

FACTS IN BRIEF
At the FastRegional held February 30, 2022 at Marlboro Speedway, Iduhne Gothit (SM#1) protested Rex Cars (SM#2) for failure to complete a pass safely. The SOMs did their thing and upheld Iduhne Gothit's protest finding that Rex Cars failed to execute a safe pass and directed that Mr. Cars be disqualified and placed on a 6 race probation.

Mr. Cars appealed the decision of the SOM based on the inclusion of non-relevant materials and the dissimilar penalties imposed on other drivers found guilty of the same infractions.

DOCUMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE RECEIVED AND REVIEWED
1. Letter of Appeal from John Doe
2. Official Observer’s Report and related documents including in-car video from car #1 and car #2.
3. Reports and videos from the other protests in that run group.
3. Logs of incidents involving Rex Cars the occurred at events other than the FastRegional.

FINDINGS
After review of all the evidence, the COA finds that the decision of the SOMs was based, in part, on non-relevant materials, but that Mr. Cars failed to complete his pass safely. While the SOMs may impose any penalty, it is imperative that the judicial process be impartial and treat all violations similarly. Consequently, the COA overturns the penalty imposed upon Rex Cars and imposes a lost of position (the same penalty imposed to other drivers involved in similar incidents). SOMs need to be aware that, unless a driver is on probation, information unrelated to the matter under protest is irrelevant and cannot be considered in determining either guilt or punishment.

Mr. Cars appeal is well-founded.One should not house-train a dog by logging the times he crapped in the house as a puppy and then beating the crap out of him when he becomes an adult.

[ShelbyRacer]

One should not house-train a dog by logging the times he crapped in the house as a puppy and then beating the crap out of him when he becomes an adult.

Out of everything you've posted in this thread, this makes the most sense.

So rather than just stating why you think it's not a good idea, what would you suggest be done with the information?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Except the dog issue falls down here: It's not the dogs owner who has to punish him. It's the other dogs who share the yard who step in the crap and shouldn't have to.

We police ourselves. The system isn't failing us, WE are failing us. If we don't have the nut to file the paper, then it isn't really bothering us all that much. The log and written suggestion here WILL in fact have people thinking about their contact. The fact it's down on paper will remind them of incidents they have 'forgotten' about. Stewards will see trends and can have proactive meetings reminding drivers that they need to stay clean. The idea has great upside.

I for one don't want a flagger making the call on a black flag during a race. PTB could be more proactive with 'meetings' but people who are not experienced racers shouldn't be making judgement calls that prevent someone from scoring.

[RSTPerformance]

This is racing, everyone should be a dog by now, if not go back and time trial with the puppies ;). JK sorta (but still in good fun, no offense!)...

We all have been involved in incidents, probably on both sides. Anyone who says every contact needs protest paper written needs to get back out on the track in wheel to wheel competition and be more realistic.

This idea is good, it won't eliminate things but it will help reduce unexessay incidents until it becomes the new norm It will make some people happy and others who probably need it most will get upset once in a while.

Raymond "I will work with documenting the Formula Mazda guys" Blethen

[Knestis]

The idea as presented isn't being proposed as a replacement for the protest process. It's being suggested as a way to influence the culture and generate some social accountability. It isn't really much more than a formalized "go have a talk with the guy/gal" approach that most of us suggest should be a part of the repertoire of dealing with miscreants. Suggesting that it's a bad idea because it doesn't accomplish what the protest process does is kind of silly, given that it's not supposed to.

K

[JeffYoung]

Great idea. No downside.

[jumbojimbo]

The best thing it would do is foster communication and make people think about how others see and understand what happened. Not that your understanding is wrong, it might be, but it's important to understand what other people are thinking.

Example, guy spins in oak tree, does not keep the brakes locked, rolls up and gets clipped. Of course no paper will be thrown. But if each driver writes down what they THINK happened and compares, they may each realize they had some responsiblity. One should have had the brakes on, the other shouldn't use a moving car as an apex. Lessons learned for both. In many (most?) cases of m2m the correct conclusion is probably "yeah, we both should be more careful."

It would also help to lower animosity in some cases. There are a lot of incidents where someone just plain makes a mistake. It doesn't even have to be a poor decision or a reckless move. It can simply be a driving error. Sure, not an excuse, blah blah blah, but if both drivers understand that the contact was not negligent, not on purpose, but just "I reached the limit of my driving skill and learned a lesson" then maybe you lower the animosity a little and everyone gives a little more space next time. When people cut each other less slack and give less room out of some perceived slight is not constructive in the long run. Edit: granted this is where it is up to us to go to the other person's paddock and say "Sorry Bill, my bad", but how many newbies really understand how important that is?

There are lots of good things that can come out of communication, it doesn't have to be about assigning blame or finding bad guys. It can be about understanding what the other person is thinking.

And I agree, the papers themselves shouldn't be used as evidence, and probably shouldn't even be used to show a pattern. But when the same guy comes in event after event and consistently disagrees with the other person and consistenly doesn't reach an amicable understanding of what happened and what to do better next time, that's some pretty useful info for a steward.

[StephF]

I like it too. I was thinking of Kirk K's incident with the Chopper at WGI last summer. If both parties had had to come in and fill out forms, would there have been more of a consequence after the fact?

[Knestis]

I can speak to one side of that question...

If I'd had - or had been forced - to put my understandings and perceptions on paper and talk with others about what had happened, I would have been more likely to come to the conclusion that I did need to protest his actions, right then and there. There wouldn't have been "consequences" arising directly from filling out a witness form but that would have clarified my thinking and set the stage for additional action should it have been warranted.

As I said, this wouldn't replace the protest process. It would complement it.

K

EDIT - when I was a teacher, I settled more than a few long-running personal student feuds by simply putting the two parties in chairs facing one another and telling them we weren't going to leave until they talked to each other. I didn't care about what, and it USUALLY worked out that they found something in common. I had one pair literally ready to kill each other (9th graders) who discovered that they both loved dogs and volunteered at shelters. Changed the whole dynamic.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I bet people would start bringing their video to the impound area too. More often than not, video 'teaches' one of the parties what really happened.

[ShelbyRacer]

I fully understand the idea behind this, and I support it to that end. I'm just concerned that people will think that the data will be used in later incidents.

One minor concern that I do have is actually on the other side of of this issue: if an incident does occur, and is acknowledged by this method, and nothing is done, the lack of action may further contribute to the feeling of the involved that they "did nothing wrong, since everybody knew and nobody did anything about it."

That said, I think the benefits FAR outweigh the potential downsides. Let's make it happen.

[team-gpracing]

It would also help to lower animosity in some cases. There are a lot of incidents where someone just plain makes a mistake. It doesn't even have to be a poor decision or a reckless move. It can simply be a driving error. Sure, not an excuse, blah blah blah, but if both drivers understand that the contact was not negligent, not on purpose, but just "I reached the limit of my driving skill and learned a lesson" then maybe you lower the animosity a little and everyone gives a little more space next time. When people cut each other less slack and give less room out of some perceived slight is not constructive in the long run. Edit: granted this is where it is up to us to go to the other person's paddock and say "Sorry Bill, my bad", but how many newbies really understand how important that is?

Makes sense. Never thought about it in that way. Talking to the other driver about how I made a mistake is just something I would do, but I guess I'm not everyone.

I still think they should be recorded though. I would assume that only people that are afraid of how aggresive they drive would be worried about the sheets being recorded. You know, like how only criminals hate cops.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Maybe two separate 'columns'. One where the drivers can agree it was mistake/racing and one where there is no agreement.

[jjjanos]

Out of everything you've posted in this thread, this makes the most sense.

You just have an institutional resistance to any contact = minimum of reprimand and 1 point.


So rather than just stating why you think it's not a good idea, what would you suggest be done with the information?

Nothing until the judicial philosophy of SCCA that imposes too high an evidence standard in finding fault changes. Assuming that happens...

This all flows from the idea that if there is contact, at least one of the drivers caused it, is at fault and needs a "permanent" mark

BF station has a list of all cars that are to report to contact impound for incidental contact with both numbers listed together. (I.e. 12 & 27, 12 & 34, 18 & 29....). Contact impound is for incidental, non-serious to be sorted out by the drivers themselves contact. Those involved in contact that the OS already knows he wants to investigate do not. The second group goes to regular impound. The OS decides where you go, but if you had contact with another car in your session, you will be going to one or the other. Cameras in cars are part of the impound.

Driver pairs in contact impound decide whether one or both were responsible for the contact with the knowledge that at least one of them is responsible. The driver(s) accepting responsibility is(are) "reprimanded" and receive 1 point on their license. If the drivers do not agree on fault, they fill out a witness statement.

OS looks at the available witness statements, takes possession of cameras and reviews on the spot, He/She then renders a CSA imposing a loss of time or position. (This is incidental, so throwing the book isn't needed.) At that point, it is the driver's choice whether to protest to the SOMs and either be vindicated or receive a harsher penalty if find guilty.

OS then deals with the SFUB contacts, issuing CSAs (or if he thinks the contact justifies more than he may deal it) an RFA. At that point, it is the driver's choice whether to protest to the SOMs and either be vindicated or receive a harsher penalty if find guilty.

Incidental contact? Man up, accept responsibility, take your point and if you don't do it eleven more times in a three-year period and you will be fine. Drivers fall into one of three categories -- those who know they were responsible in part; those who are clueless and don't realize they were at fault; and those who are ass hats and won't acknowledge that they were at fault.

The system gives the first a slap on the wrist (1 point) and a reminder of no contact rules. It gives the second a chance to learn (either in driver on driver instruction or via 2 points). It provides the rope for the third group to hang themselves by getting the DQ (4 points) if they lose the protest.

The clueless will learn. The ass hats will either learn or protest themselves out of their license.

But neither this or the idea of the little red book will work if those who sit in judgement are reluctant to impose penalties or find fault.

[ShelbyRacer]

You just have an institutional resistance to any contact = minimum of reprimand and 1 point.





Jeff-

I would be the last person who would resist addressing contact and taking appropriate action. See my protest and appeal regarding my "racing incident" at MidO. It cost me $100 to make my point that the Stewards need to address on-track behavior according to the rules that we've all agreed to by "signing" that entry form.

Even though I see your point, I think this is a step in the right direction.

[jjjanos]

We police ourselves. The system isn't failing us, WE are failing us. If we don't have the nut to file the paper, then it isn't really bothering us all that much.

We file the charges. We don't sit in judgement or impose the penalties. We have Stewards that try to talk people out of throwing paper. We have SOMs that don't impose penalties.

Real example 1 - Camera from Car A captures Car B passing Car C under a standing yellow. Yellow still displayed when Car A reaches flag station. Driver C says, yep, he passed me. SOMs render no judgement because they car causing the incident could not be seen on the camera and thus they could not tell if the pass was completed before or after the incident. The freaking pass was made between the flag and turn-in, with the flag still displayed and captured entirely on video.
Real example 2 - Waving yellow on last lap of a national in last turn. Race leader has almost a lap lead on second place. Race leader passes a back-marker between the waving yellow, the incident and the EV vehicle at the incident. Multiple witness statements. 2nd to last group of a long weekend. CS did not do anything because "that flag station is hard to see and he didn't gain any advantage". I.e. We want to go home.
Real example 3 - car dive-bombs pack of cars and spins center of track. 2 cars get by on the inside. Third car, in the same path as the first two, does not because spinner releases the brake and rolls into the path. Finding - no penalty.

So.. why throw paper?



We all have been involved in incidents, probably on both sides. Anyone who says every contact needs protest paper written needs to get back out on the track in wheel to wheel competition and be more realistic.

6.11.1.A. Drivers are responsible to avoid physical contact between cars on the race track.Protest? No. A single point on your license? Yes.

[jjjanos]

It's being suggested as a way to influence the culture and generate some social accountability.

Which we already have via paddock talk. We all know who the loose cannons are at our track and they either don't understand where their errors lie or don't care. Writing it down is going to educate them how?

And unless what gets written down gets circulated to all of the racing regions, how does it help those who get a visit in Upstate New York from the Ohio Dive Bomber?

[PDoane]

I agree that filling out the form and socializing M2M imediately after the race can only improve things. I also agree that reviewing both in-car videos, if available, can change one(both) perception(s) about what really happened.

One logistics question I had was whether M2M Impound is physically located in a different place from Race Impound? If so, what about drivers/cars that have to do both? I assume Race Impound would have to be first.