Contact impound

[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.