Talking about "Incidents" at Autocrosses

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:07 pm

jimpastorius wrote:

If there were any incidents, I would not put them on a forum, just like THSCC does not mention theirs. You trust the officers and event organizers to learn from them.

I had originally posted this as a reply to another thread, but decided it was not cool to hijack that thread. Anyhow, I am sort of afraid to post this due to potential flaming, but to play devil's advocate here...

Why do we not talk about incidents at events here in the forums? There also seems to be a little bit of a double standard as well. We can talk about incidents to/from events and it seem it is Ok to talk about those that happen at HPDE (they are sort of expected?), but not those that happen at autocross?

I am not saying there are not good reasons I am just curious regarding the thought process that is going on. I can think of reasons to not discuss incidents. Such as there is no need to glorify them (a.k.a. I don't watch races on TV just to see wrecks) or potential insurance issues. But I can see positive reasons as well. I think the recent photos (and related discussion) of Ryan's incident

on the way home is a good thing. I shows the dangers of driving to/from events in tires with little or no tread. I can see that frank discussions about incidents that happen at events can benefit more than just the organizers.

If you have been to enough events, you have seen someone who has lost control but are trying to "save the run" and end up having an off. Is the only way to learn this lesson to have it happen to yourself or watch it in person?

Aaron Buckley · **Posted:** Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:50 pm

I think the big issue with autocross is purely insurance/site related. One thing is said on a forum, then another, then pictures show up, and the next thing you know it's blown way out of proportion.

Incidents on track with HPDE and on the street don't risk anyone's site or the club's insurance (for the most part, although there are exceptions). Incidents at an autocross not only risk the club's insurance, but also our sites, which are now shrinking instead of growing like back in 2002.

I think discussing incidents at an autocross is helpful, but probably it shouldn't be done in a forum format. Club meetings would be an excellent way to address any situation. - AB

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Tue Mar 09, 2004 1:27 pm

Aaron Buckley wrote:

I think the big issue with autocross is purely insurance/site related. One thing is said on a forum, then another, then pictures show up, and the next thing you know it's blown way out of proportion.

Ok, that makes sense. I see stuff on the Evolution email list about increased insurance costs, difficulty in finding and keeping sites, etc. I just wonder what it will be like in 5-10 years. :roll:

Kevin Hoff · **Posted:** Tue Mar 09, 2004 1:29 pm

I think, particularly on a closed forum like this one, that is is very constructive to talk openly about any incidents that happen. I think that clear discussion of any incidents goes a long way towards slowing the rumor mill. There's always 50-200 people around at events anyway. They will talk and the rumor mill will churn. Better to get things out in the open and kill any wild discussions as soon as they meet the light of day.

Now I don't think members should quote posts or images from this forum to any other, particularly if the other forum is known for juvenile behavior or flames (such as clubsi, vwvortex or, unfortunately, nasioc)

--Kevin H.

shawnwhipple · **Joined:** Wed Aug 20, 2003 6:28 pm **Posts:** 603

Aaron is exactly right here.

Site relations and insurance are the main reasons for not posting a long discussion on the forum about incidents. The problem with the internet is that you can never be certain who the information will be distributed too. I can picture some government type doing to search about one of our sites and coming up with some pictures that doesn't show us in the best light. I sure you can see, that as much as possible, it makes sense for us to keep that type of thing out of the public's eye.

Having said that, I think we do need to discuss incidents and learn from them so we can make smarter decisions in the future. As far as I know, anytime we have had anything remotely close to an incident at an autocross, at least the President and autocross VP's have discussed the situation and tried to see what we could do to improve the situation or if steps were needed immediately to correct something.

Also, most people don't realize this but the autocross VP's are charged with the responsibility of making sure the courses we setup are as safe as possible. At least one of the "senior" officers is usually at the setup to insure the course is safe. This is often the time where lessons learned in the past are revisited and learned from.

Shawn

jimpastorius · **Posted:** Tue Mar 09, 2004 2:12 pm

I have to disagree with Shawn and Aaron on this. I think they are propogating an old urban myth. We often times talk smack about other club's incidents. Even people that were not there know everything about NASA-VA and last year's Pro Solo.

Trust me, open discussion is a good thing. Our recent rash of incidents at Sanford are well known. An open discussion of events, so people know what happened, why and what should and will be done differently is a good thing.

If there is a very serious incident, the site and insurance company will know about very quickly. I remember watching Karen having to fill out the forms

Scott Johnson · **Posted:** Tue Mar 09, 2004 2:20 pm

jimpastorius wrote:

Trust me, open discussion is a good thing. Our recent rash of incidents at Sanford are well known.

And Jim illustrates quite clearly what *everyone* else is talking about. Since I'm a club officer, I must be ignorant about the rash of incidents that have occured at Sanford. Maybe it's unfounded rumors like this that cause our concern about people talking about incidents publically?

Jim, I'm aware of *one* and only *one* incident at Sanford that resulted in anything more than a dirty car.

Maybe I did miss one? What incidents (plural) are you talking about?

Scott

jimpastorius · **Posted:** Tue Mar 09, 2004 2:25 pm

We had Frank, Hoppe and recently at the VW event and there is rumor around about the test and tune.

I was there for Charles and Tom's. The other two may or may of happened...

Scott Johnson · **Posted:** Tue Mar 09, 2004 2:34 pm

jimpastorius wrote:

We had Frank, Hoppe and recently at the VW event and there is rumor around about the test and tune.

I was there for Charles and Tom's. The other two may or may of happened...

Charles went off course, got a dirty car.
Tom went off course, got a dirty car.
Gordon went off course and didn't even get the car dirty (is stayed on top of the snow).
The VW event resulted in sheet metal damage.

An incident requires an "incident report." The VW club is the only time that's happened. The others are simply "off course" but happen to require a tow to get back on course. I see that as no different than a car that stalls and has to be pushed off the course (or should we also consider those "incidents" in the context of this discussion). Since 2 wheels off is a DNF, we probably have several "incidents" at all of our airport venues.

I realize we are arguing symantics here, but my car has been involved in an "incident" and I feel qualified to comment about it! In the context of this thread, I feel that an incident involves more than a car wash to fix it.

Edit: Examples of "incidents"

1) This summer's pro finale (car vs car)
2) VMP a few years ago (car vs dumpster, then car vs fence *and* dumpster - Celica and Corvette).
3) VMP a few years ago (car vs fence - S2000).
4) VMP a year ago (car vs oil container - Impreza)
5) Sanford a year ago (car vs trees - WRX).
6) Years ago, Corvette hitting course worker (that video that resurfaces anually).

Scott

Aaron Buckley · **Posted:** Tue Mar 09, 2004 2:39 pm

I think they were looking for more recent examples than two seasons ago.

Sanford does have an inherent problem with the taxiway, and I think since then we've been very careful about how we setup the courses to accomodate for a safe taxiway. I truly don't like Sanford, due to the lack of grip and runoff room, but in a time when we're running out of sites, we can make adjustments to continue to run there safely.

Besides, my liability ran out in Jan '04 when the new officers took over, so I am just an innocent bystander :wink:

- AB

Adam Ligon · **Posted:** Tue Mar 09, 2004 2:45 pm

Ok I have to chime in here. The "incident" happened in the morning portion of the event with the normal THSCC people running on the course.

There were NO incidents during the VW portion of the day. Just want everyone clear on that point.

Edit; So actually let's stop even calling it the "VW event" in this context, K?

Kevin Hoff · **Posted:** Tue Mar 09, 2004 2:57 pm

All these <ahem> misunderstandings between people who were/are club leaders and event regulars is a perfect example of why I think these things should be openly discussed in an objective manner. Rumor and innuendo thrive in a vacuum and that's what we have with the "top secret" model that this club follows in regards to discussion of off course excursions.

I am personally much much more worried about the insurance company finding out about some incident through a (potentially biased, certainly not fully informed) third party. Having an open and honest discussion about such a thing gives the club a leg to stand on if the insurance company ever calls stating "We heard there was an incident at your XXX event. Why didn't you tell us about it?" Acting secretive makes the club look guilty when it most certainly is not.

Tarheel runs the most safety-conscious non-SCCA events that I've been to. In fact, Tarheel's safety focus is better than many SCCA regions that I've seen. This club has nothing to hide.

--Kevin H.

jimpastorius · **Posted:** Tue Mar 09, 2004 2:58 pm

You are argueing symatics. The opening post used the word "incident". It is hard for me to concede the noun to you though because I think it is being used in the proper context in this discussion:

Incident:
A definite and separate occurrence; an event.

A usually minor event or condition that is subordinate to another.

Something contingent on or related to something else.

An occurrence or event that interrupts normal procedure

The only two "serious" incidents that I have witnessed are the VMP Corvette and the 2003 Ft. Myers Pro where there was damage to course workers! I did not see Richard's incident with the container.

Wes Eargle · **Joined:** Mon Oct 27, 2003 9:47 am **Posts:** 3683

In my limited experience, I've seen several cars (<10) do a little gardening and I missed the expansion from gardening to forestry.

I feel that it's important to have a frank and honest discussion about these incidents rather than try to hide them. I believe that you're not giving it 100% if you *don't* succeed in keeping the car on course the whole time. Obviously, some times you can go really off course when this happens. Without mentioning some of the detriments that come along with this sport, we're not being honest with ourselves.

Scott Johnson · **Posted:** Tue Mar 09, 2004 3:40 pm

jimpastorius wrote:

Incident:
A definite and separate occurrence; an event.

Of course, you leave it up to interpretation as to which of the 4 definitions we should be using, so I'll just go with the first one...

I stand corrected. I concede that EVERY event we have is a separate incident. They are all publicized before hand (even advertised), and typically thoroughly discussed after each incident as well.

As a matter of fact, we have an incident scheduled for March 21. Don't forget to sign up.

I'm sure if I look, the forms in the bus are probably actually titled "serious incident" forms, and it's a good thing, since we have so many incidents at each incident that we schedule!

At our national warm-up incident, Tom Hoppe had an incident that required a tow home, however, it must not have been a serious incident because we didn't fill out a "serious incident" report. Based on that, the incident that Tom had in Sanford must not have been a serious incident either, since it didn't require a "serious incident" report (though towing was involved there as well). Additionally there were pictures of that particular incident and we all had a good laugh about it, both facts that indicate it wasn't a "serious incident" since we try to keep discussions of "serious incidents" limited to incidental discussion only.

I think I've commented sufficiently in this particular incident that my feelings are well know, so I'll go contribute to another incident.

Scott

THSCC Forums

Talking about "Incidents" at Autocrosses

Who is online