And according to that document, the offending driver in this situation should have been penalized the same.
Was the contact avoidable? Undeniably yes... even if the "cause" of the accident was the loss of grip in the tires, there is NFW this loss was sudden. I.e. the driver knew his tires were less than ideal and failed to leave a suitable margin of error.
According to a former member of the CoA, when the CoA takes on a case the specifics items of the protest do not matter at all. To overturn the original findings of the court, there must be either a procedural error (as in this case through the failure to impose a penalty) or new evidence. If, however, in reviewing either the new or older evidence, the CoA notices a new violation not part of the initial SoM action, it is within their power to impose a penalty -- even on a driver who wasn't part of the original protest or the appeal!You protested the stewards lack of dishing out the punishment you deemed necessary. Rational people may disagree but the COA is not there to beat up on stewards to please a driver. Your only appeal was for the contact and proving that it was avoidable with NEW Evidence.
i.e. Jack protests Jill over contact and SoMs find no foul. Jack appeals. In reviewing the evidence, the CoA notices that on the video, you can see Thumper drilling Bambi in the door, the CoA could penalize Thumper.
Don't know if he was blowing smoke up my rear over this, so YMMV
Bookmarks