Spectators helping on stage. [Archive]

chmsam

03-29-2009, 09:51 AM

Not safe at all these days and I gotta rant for a little bit.

I have seen incidents where spectators were quick and effective in helping out while still being safe. That was rare and a long time ago. These days I'd feel more relaxed if I had a very pretty 15 year old daughter going out on her third date with a guy named Big Stud.

One of the most scary moments I have ever seen was on a night stage when a car came around a L 2+ starting uphill, climbed a bit of the bank, and instead of backing off, hit the gas and rolled it on its side. Spectators immediately started to rush off a fairly steep bank to help. There was another car coming right then and there. That's the reason every marshall should have a Fox 40 whistle (accept no substitutes!) and a lot of lung power. Just managed to get them stopped since they would have been all over the road and caught like deer in the headlights with no way to get anywhere near safe. They would have been behind the car on that was on its side, blocking the oncoming cars' view of it as they came around the corner -- the turn was uphill and had folliage. Now this happened at a moderate size spectator area and we did have maybe 3 or 4 people working there. Remember that this was years ago when a greater portion of the crowd had either competed or crewed and actually did have an idea of what was going on.

These days, everybody who "knows all about it" gained their vast knowledge from maybe watching the X-Games once or from a friend of a friend of a friend who knows somebody who put tires on a rally car once. Add in the fact that the lawyers and insurance companies don't seem to have lost any other their teeth, and this could make life really suck.

Now, you and I both know full well that if a car rolls on its side anywhere near a spectator area the first thing they're not going to grab is a triangle. They're gonna yell and wave like hell, "Hey guys, come on!" This is especially true of guys at the middle of the pack who are just starting to not be able to keep up the pace. Is there going to be enough workers to be able to spot for on coming cars and maintain crowd control over even a crowd of only 30-40, plus roll the car? Hell no, not gonna happen.

We're lucky to manage a crowd of that size with two workers or MAYBE three, but one of them is more than probably going to be a rookie who's moaning about not being able to get a good video shot and will not stop and actually do their job on a good day let alone when something happens -- why, they might miss getting the shot with their cellphone camera. "Dude, look what I saw and three spectators got killed. Whoa"

Most rolls are not going to happen in front of large and well staffed spectator areas because those usually aren't in sections with double or triple cautions and the like. They might more likely occur in areas with "unofficial" spectator spots. Hey, aren't those more likely to have a bunch of guys having a pop or two, or maybe a Blunt? Gee, does that sound like a likely spot for a bunch of about 25 butthole junior lawyers (been there done that literally -- I'll swear to it on a stack of Bibles) I had to round up all by myself a few years ago? Well, why not and what's wrong with that, you ask? Are these the guys we want in a hot zone regardless of how nice it might be to see them become hood ornaments? I'd rather not see a team get the hood bent and the windshield cracked and have some schmuck end up at the hospital ADASTW (arrived dead and stayed that way).

Fer cryin' out loud folks, we have our hands full trying to keep mothers from letting their 5 year olds wander on to a hot stage to play in between the cars since they just don't get it that this ain't NASCAR and the cars do not all show up in a bunch. It was dangerous enough in the good ol' days but these AIN'T the good ol' days any longer.

That said, if we get enough workers (has there ever been a rally with enough workers?) who have a lot of experience with hot situations (harder to find than 20 carat diamonds in your backyard), and sober spectators (OK, that might not be the worst problem since I at least have a lot of practice with drunks) and spectators who also actually have the absolute vaguest clue about how fast and dangerous the sport is (Ah, and THAT is whole 'nother question, isn't it?), AND it was in an area where there were few trees, no rocks, and no steep banks so they could take their time to get out to the car, roll the car over again, and than wander back to safety after taking the time to pat themselves on the back, well, why then it would only qualify as being terribly scary. We'll let slide the fact that I have never been to a spectator area that fit that description in my 20+ years of working.

In my book allowing spectators to assist a car that has rolled or gone off is asking for trouble. Well, at least in this country and especially at this time. I too am sure it happens all the time. However, without having more workers and more experienced workers, this is one of my recurring nightmares. This exact scenario is why I see myself saying in just a few years, "I remember when cars actually drove through the woods and crowds didn't sit in stands that are 20 yards behind guardrails..."

Like I said, this happens all the time. It will keep on happening all the time. It will happen right up until... and then it's Game Over & Everybody Out of the Pool. Some 23 year old hick will get pinned between a car that's rolled and the next car on the scene. Until it gets pulled, the YouTube video will show the second car pinning him as it slams into the first car and then just stops -- all the energy making the kid go "pop" like a piece of ripe fruit that got stomped by an overweight 12 year old who was really, really pissed off at Mommy. At the autopsy it will be discovered that his BAC was 0.09. There will have been banner tape, but he will have ducked under it. It really won't be the fault of anyone -- he just ran out to help. His family will be able to pay off the national debt with the settlement. This, people, is my nightmare.

That's why one of the first things I tell rookies is that if there is an accident or an off, immediately turn and face the crowd, put your arms out wide, and tell 'em to STOP! They are not trained for it. Most workers are not even trained for it. It is a simple thing to do but in an emergency 99.9% of people become idiots. If they don't jump in front of a moving car, they're more than likely to roll the car over on to someone. Unless you have seen as many stupid things happen as I have witnessed, you'd never believe it.

Trust me, Brothers and Sisters, I have been to the top of the mountain. Good Lord, I swear to thee that these folks are f'ing stoopid on a good day!

Want to help put my nightmare off from happening? Get off your butt and go stand in the woods with one of those stupid vests on and buy a whistle. Every rally needs volunteers desperately. It's fun. you meet some very strange people, and you save lives just by being there.

nhibbert

03-29-2009, 03:13 PM

That's a great contribution. I'd like to get some further input from other people. I've never been a stage rally competitor so I don't really know how competitors feel about this subject.

For discussion, how would competitors feel if there were rules either strictly forbidding outside help or strictly outlining the conditions under which they could accept help?

If it were strictly forbidden and the fans KNEW a team would be eliminated if they were to accept help no fan is going to risk getting a team eliminated by running onto the stage. However away from the main spectator areas there may be situations where a team could get back in the running with help from a few strong fans, and therefore it may be appropriate to allow outside help if certain safety guidelines are followed. I don't know what those guidelines would be, but I would suggest a triangle MUST be out and properly positioned before spectators are allowed near the car, and if a qualified marshal was not at the location to control the spectators the co-driver would have to be outside of the car to take full responsibility for the safety of the spectators by coordinating their efforts, clearing the road when another competitor comes along and making sure no one is hurt before driving off.

Carl S

03-29-2009, 03:29 PM

DaveCotie

03-29-2009, 04:08 PM

Watch any group f video and there would be lots of car to car damage going on if it wasnt for the spectators getting the cars moved out of the way and somewhere safe. The finns seem to do it without getting killed, so theres gotta be a way to do it safely.

I think overall Finnish rally fans are probably much more knowledgable about the risks than the average NA Fan.

I agree with chmsam, a large number of people, especially on night stages are drunk or high and you don't want them near a car.

Norm, I have been to PN once and the fans were helping push the cars all the time there. Especially on a certain acute left uphill that I was at. The 2wd would have never made it around that corner without the fans pushing.

chmsam

03-29-2009, 06:57 PM

Hey, there are a bunch of rallies in other countries where fans take care of cars all day, every day (hmm, what's that say about some of the drivers?). Then again there's the Portuguese fans who reach out to touch cars going by and the resulting "rally fan pinball game" is deadly and they know what rally is. Like I said, fans in the US are used to MAYBE seeing a rally on the X-Games, and that is hardly what stage rally is all about. There are fewer and fewer people spectating who have any hands on experience with rally at all. Even being a driver or co-driver doesn't mean someone has enough knowledge about what's safe when you are not in the car. It's different, trust me. Most spectators today have no clue about what can happen.

I may have, well, slightly exaggerated in my previous post a tad (aw, but I bet you couldn't tell, right?) but not all that much with some of it. I do promise that I really, truly found and had to remove a drunk who was sitting, in a lawn chair, smack dab in the middle of the road with cars REAL close and coming at full speed. Not just the 0 car. Rally cars. Hey, I'm way to old for that ****.

This is one of the crowd you expect to jump in and try to roll over a vehicle that could weigh 3,000 pounds and is full of fuel. There are other cars coming at speed and real soon. What could go wrong?

Think that is far fetched, that nobody could be so dumb? Here's a simple test. Go someplace with a bunch of people and ask them if they know anyone who thinks pro wrestling is for real. Betcha they all laugh. And I also bet that at least a few will say that, yes they do know somebody. 'Course no one will admit it's them.

And tell me this, just exactly how do you only let some fans, but not others, go help?

Like I said, spectators jumping in happens all the time and will keep on happening. The climate is not what it used to be though. People have less and less common sense in general. Add to that the fact that excitement drops the average IQ by a whole buncha points. Know anybody who can spare 'em?

It happens. It will happen again. I really feel that it is not a good idea for today's spectators to do it though. Better idea is to get more volunteers and to train them. Hey, learn a new facet of the sport. Volunteer. Help us out. We need help (and there's a straight line anyone can pick up on).

nhibbert

03-30-2009, 02:53 AM

I think overall Finnish rally fans are probably much more knowledgable about the risks than the average NA Fan.

I agree with chmsam, a large number of people, especially on night stages are drunk or high and you don't want them near a car.

Norm, I have been to PN once and the fans were helping push the cars all the time there. Especially on a certain acute left uphill that I was at. The 2wd would have never made it around that corner without the fans pushing.

Thanks Dave. At one of the rallies I was involved in I heard a report that a spectator who had been helping push a car slipped on the ice as he was trying to get off the road before the next car came and fell right in the middle of the road. Luckily the next car had enough control to slow and avoid him.

I've brought this subject up informally with a few people around here and while every agrees there is the potential for serious injury no one seems agree on what, if anything, should be done about it, which is why I'm trying to get a bit more input. The simple solution would be to outlaw all outside help but then you will be forcing competitors to retire when with one good push they could be back in the game. If you're not going to completely outlaw spectator help then you have to come up with more complicated rules that outline the conditions under which you can accept help. Or you have to leave it as is and hope no one ever gets hurt.

HiTempguy

03-30-2009, 04:55 AM

The simple solution would be to outlaw all outside help but then you will be forcing competitors to retire when with one good push they could be back in the game.

There's this magical thing called sweep. Works wonders! :D

rightseat

03-30-2009, 06:24 AM

The simple solution would be to outlaw all outside help

Simpler solution would be to outlaw rally, since the cars might go out of control erratically and hit things or flip over at high speeds. :confused:

Outlawing spectator help would remove one of the biggest draws to the sport--that of speccies actually being able to help rally cars in need. It's already hard enough to draw rally spectators, we don't need to make them feel any more unwelcome than they unfortunately already do at many events.

Organizers, marshals and even the Man Upstairs simply cannot legislate common sense. Of course the crews of "offed' cars rely on marshals to help manage speccie assistance at an incident scene. Absent marshals, this is the codriver's job, BTDT more times than I care to admit. ;)

ihbobry

03-30-2009, 07:16 AM

Well that was not what I posted!

Anyway I was agreeing with Dave and based on seeing him marshal a bunch of spectators to get them unwedged this winter know that if the crew does it's job and everyone works together it actually was safer for us to get around them then if we only had triangles and a wave.

And please no lectures about what the new days are about... I've seen the same @ RA rallies, NASA, and others.

chmsam

03-30-2009, 08:08 AM

This ain't the old days. Like it or not, this is the US and it's today. Argue all you will but IN REALITY (I know, a bad thing to bring up) is there anyone here who would argue about what the eventual outcome of a spectator accident in such am instance would be? Not how you might think it should but what would actually happen and that's with 99.9% certainty.

But it's the thought of a team having to deal with hitting a spectator that tops my reasons for strongly advising against this, more so even than having to watch it unfold in front of me. It even tops the fact that it would bring an end to the sport in this country and it would happen virtually overnight. As I said before, Game Over -- everybody out of the pool, but that pales in comparison of having to deal for a lifetime with thinking, "It was our car that killed that guy..." Getting the thought in your head is scary enough but remember, the driver and co-driver that might hit the person are going to be innocent victims, too. Even if no one is to be blamed (like THAT'S gonna happen in this day & age).

Hell, Grand Prix and other types of racing in this country used to go on in the streets (or on the beaches) with spectators standing behind a single or maybe even a double (didn't want to block the view of the children) high stack of hay bales as the cars went by ten feet away or less. Thrilling! People complained bitterly that taking the races out of the streets would totally destroy the sport. I know there are some who'd go back to those days in a heartbeat. Read the details about what happened in Watkins Glen and you might possibly see a tie in to my logic.

Discouraging spectator assistance would not end rally any more than motor racing ended 50+ years ago when racing on streets and beaches stopped.

As for not being able to legislate common sense, when the hell was the last time anyone saw an abundance of common sense anywhere, but especially in a crowd or more to the point, in the jury room for a personal injury case? So, why should we not be our own voice of common sense? Want a reminder of why this is important? Just remember why the SCCA no longer associates itself with performance rallying. In my opinion there was very little if anything that could have prevented that except the use of some common sense. Where did that momentary lack of common sense get anyone at all? Reality does suck once in awhile but we can deal with it before hand by just thinking along the lines of trying to reasonably prevent avoidable injuries.

If spectator assistance is restricted (as outside assistance has been in almost every other motor sport for many years), there is nothing to say that there cannot be other rule changes to possibly make up for it. If nothing else having one team DNF because they rolled or went off and couldn't get it back together is a lot better than stopping a stage and waiting first for EMS and then the authorities. "BTDT" too many times.

Let's face it. Except for things like a surprise patch of ice and such, certainly not all but many offs are the result of errors. Might be better that we learn to deal with it rather than invite a big headache. If the notes have an error, it's on the organizers but if a driver or co-driver has a brain fart, just like in every other sport and life in general, why do some people think we should depend upon someone else to jump in with both feet to bail us out in the first place? Especially someone who has no protection, has not signed a waiver (for whatever good one of those does), is not volunteering nor has even paid to be there in the first place, and has no idea what they are doing.

"Hey, what could possibly go wrong?"

There's a difference between a dangerous sport and letting someone not associated with that sport take a serious risk. Otherwise they'd let fans stand in the ring at a bullfight.So once again I'll end with a plea to get more volunteers for any rally. Just one because of this thread will be a help.

jimmy

03-30-2009, 08:40 AM

Um, the original question came from a Canadian, and they generally display more common sense (other than the use of tow straps) than we in the States do - at least in regards to sueing over "it's not my fault"....

So, I don't know if his question was directed at U.S. rallying.

This ain't the old days. Like it or not, this is the US and it's today.

press on,

ajax

03-30-2009, 08:55 AM

You could banish spectators, that would solve a lot of problems with liability. Grandstands and barricades would discourage people from helping "in need" rally teams also. Then comes the unofficial spectator points and I will go back to my first statement.

In my experience, which is limited I'll admit, the safety triangles and somebody waving slows me down in a hurry. You could mandate having a triangle out before you're allowed to receive assistance. And if spectators are going to help you what's wrong with handing it to someone and saying, "set this out where the next car will see it, wave at cars to slow them down, and bring it back once we're out." Albeit, drunk attention span is limited but I'm sure they would be happy to do what you ask which is why they came to your offed car in the first place.

chmsam

03-30-2009, 08:57 AM

Ah, but it DOES apply to the US because it happens here just as often.

No matter where it happens, it is just not safe and in many (but not all) cases amounts to a team saying, "Golly. We f'd up. How about you risk YOUR butt and bail us out?"

It's old school and just as out of date (and deadly) as spectators standing behind hay bales at the outside of a corner at a race.

And I know quite a few Canadians who are just as dumb as Yanks. Want proof? TV does not stop at the border and even some of them are dumb enough to watch American TV and crap like "My Sweet 16."

And get real, folks. No one ever said we should ban rally. I sure as hell didn't anyway.

As for teams setting out triangles, I personally have not seen a team even get out of the car when they wanted spectator help more than once. I have not been at every scene of course but I have seen just a few over the past 20+ years. Let's hear from folks who have also been out there for awhile at the side of the stage. It's a whole 'nother thing when you are outside of the car, people. The focus is more than keeping it on the road and going fast as you can. I want to see you all have fun too, and for many more years to come.

And as I have asked repeatedly, how is it that someone is going to be able to tell who is capable (let alone sober) while all this is going on? Who makes that decision? Are you going to sign off on the liability waiver? Didn't think so.

Hey, please believe me I do love this stuff. Rallying is ALWAYS going to be dangerous. However, there are reasonable risks and avoidable risks. These are avoidable and unnecessary risks. Arguing for allowing this is like saying we don't need marshalls because spectators know enough to take care of themselves and should be responsible for themselves.

Try selling that one after an incident.

bentmettle

03-30-2009, 09:32 AM

*looks up*

Still there.

ihbobry

03-30-2009, 10:08 AM

Albeit, drunk attention span is limited but I'm sure they would be happy to do what you ask which is why they came to your offed car in the first place.

And as I have asked repeatedly, how is it that someone is going to be able to tell who is capable (let alone sober) while all this is going on? Who makes that decision?

OK I'm hardly innocent but where are all these drunks in the woods when I need them. :) For that matter is it only the high and drunk that find all these extra spectator areas that people need help @?

I don't doubt they exist; just the woods are not as polluted with the polluted as you make it out. And this is hardly the first 10 things about their safety that would concern me.

As an aside yes I would sign a waiver to spectate...

chmsam

03-30-2009, 10:17 AM

Let's be real clear about this yet once again for those who don't get it -- No one wants to ban spectating or rallying. To say so is just so bogus and as weak an excuse as saying your mommy didn't love you 'cause she wouldn't let you play in traffic (but she could have been wrong, too). If this never happened again or was banned outright (and that's never gonna happen by the way) there would not be one less spectator or competitor at a rally because of it.

How many people who have recently (ever?) volunteered as stage or spectator workers are speaking up to say that this is a good idea? If there is some actual volunteer experience then maybe that's something. I've made judgment calls about this very thing before and would again, since I tend to closely study the crowds I'm working and get along with them very well. But why not do the job first and THEN tell me how you'd treat the situation. Any volunteers?

bentmettle

03-30-2009, 10:19 AM

chmsam

03-30-2009, 10:28 AM

OK I'm hardly innocent but where are all these drunks in the woods when I need them. :) For that matter is it only the high and drunk that find all these extra spectator areas that people need help @?

I don't doubt they exist; just the woods are not as polluted with the polluted as you make it out. And this is hardly the first 10 things about their safety that would concern me.

As an aside yes I would sign a waiver to spectate...

Worked STPR two years ago and unexpectedly ended up having to marshall at an "unofficial spectator area." About 25 drunks who bragged about being lawyers and how stoned they were. More than one threw beer cans on the stage and one staggered out in the middle of the road to set up his lawn chair with a rally car within 100 yards. No, I did not call the cops. I even turned away extra help. We ended up having a good afternoon but it was a shitload more work than it had to be.

This was not the first, last, nor worst thing I have had to deal with.

Spectators helping at an off is also not the top of my safety first list but it certainly is on it, along with many other things. Volunteers have to do a lot (and put up with a lot) to make sure that things don't end up behind concrete walls and with bleachers 200 yards back from the cars. That's why I keep pleading for help that we don't seem to get.

chmsam

03-30-2009, 10:41 AM

Help us, more specifically me, to understand what you are arguing for.

Can you state your position clearly in only 3 sentences or less?

Anecdotes of drunken spectators and suggestions that our collective opinions are invalid because of a preconception none of us have worked a stage distract from the ability to clearly find the point to your missive.

Because it is traditional, spectators want to run onto a hot stage at an off although they are nowhere as knowledgeable about the sport (and it's dangers) as spectators were years ago. Some people can see no problem with that but it's very dangerous regardless of whether someone is drunk or sober.

bentmettle

03-30-2009, 11:29 AM

So again, what are you after? More volunteer help? Rules against spectator assistance?

If calling in police was an option, then I'd suggest you missed an opportunity to let law enforcement professionals do the very job they're trained and payed to do.

It's difficult to see where pleading for more untrained volunteers makes sense if the trained paid professionals are left to lay fallow.

Using the perennial famously bad behavior at STPR as an example to push any viewpoint is going to meet with resistance from those of us that have been to other events with well behaved, knowledgeable fans and volunteers.

If your argument is that fans are somehow less capable now, vs. the past, I don't see how one could possibly support that position with facts.

At best, the only sensible argument to support that position I'd buy into would be to start with the fact that fans no longer are allowed to position themselves on stage. They've been culturally absolved of responsibility; to blame them for being ignorant suggests they're at fault for having the opportunity taken away from them.

chmsam

03-30-2009, 01:24 PM

So again, what are you after? More volunteer help? Rules against spectator assistance?

The question was originally raised as to whether spectators jumping in to help an off is a good idea. That is not a good idea today -- dangers, lawyers, etc. Should it be banned outright? Maybe but that will never happen. I merely suggest at this time that teams should learn not to expect it and that the tradition should be discouraged.

If calling in police was an option, then I'd suggest you missed an opportunity to let law enforcement professionals do the very job they're trained and payed to do.

Professionals are not an option -- no rally could afford to pay them, not even for one law enforcement officer per stage. They do not come with the territory nor would the local community(-ies) pay for their use at a rally. More to the point, calling the cops in that particular situation would have resulted several bad things -- canceling the stage, delaying the entire rally for quite some time, tying up resources, and probably a few arrests and many citations. We were so short of volunteers and that's why I didn't request help even though, yes I would have preferred help if it was available.

It's difficult to see where pleading for more untrained volunteers makes sense if the trained paid professionals are left to lay fallow.

Added to my comments above, what rally doesn't need more volunteers? Numbers of volunteers have declined recently at some rallies. It is hard enough to get volunteers in the first place. Being able to get additional time for proper training is a dream I have had for years. I mean, have you volunteered and if so would you volunteer for an extra day on the rally weekend so you could get training?

Using the perennial famously bad behavior at STPR as an example to push any viewpoint is going to meet with resistance from those of us that have been to other events with well behaved, knowledgeable fans and volunteers.

That is not a universal truth. Most spectators are good folks out for a nice time. The few that are not can often ruin it for the majority. Perhaps I just have a knack for being in the right place at the wrong time.

STPR organizers and community rep's called for no alcohol several years ago (actually it is illegal in the forest anyway) and caught a ton of flack, including some from SpecialStage. A breathalyzer was purchased and was used last year. That, too raised the ire of many. What would you suggest we do to eliminate the few that cause the problems? We had requested more LEO's on duty in the area of the rally in the past few years.

It is wonderful to see that some events do have knowledgeable fans. That is not universal either. As for knowledgeable workers at other events, I have met veteran workers from other events who had great ideas. I have met others who did not know enough to not position themselves between rally traffic and a tree at their back. It is relative perhaps.

If your argument is that fans are somehow less capable now, vs. the past, I don't see how one could possibly support that position with facts.

Every year more and more spectators ask: a) Will they do a warm up lap?, b) Why do they only come one at a time?, c) How long does it take for them to do a lap? (which can be either the "do I have time to go back to my car?" or the "how many laps will they do?" question), and d). How come there are two people in the cars?

Need I say more?

They've been culturally absolved of responsibility; to blame them for being ignorant suggests they're at fault for having the opportunity taken away from them.

As for your comment that spectators have been "culturally absolved of responsibility" I really don't think anyone should allow that to happen to themselves, do you?

I merely think it is not too much to ask to try to decrease avoidable risks to spectators and to avoid liability issues that would bring the sport to an end.

DaveCotie

03-30-2009, 02:28 PM

Thanks Dave. At one of the rallies I was involved in I heard a report that a spectator who had been helping push a car slipped on the ice as he was trying to get off the road before the next car came and fell right in the middle of the road. Luckily the next car had enough control to slow and avoid him.

I've brought this subject up informally with a few people around here and while every agrees there is the potential for serious injury no one seems agree on what, if anything, should be done about it, which is why I'm trying to get a bit more input. The simple solution would be to outlaw all outside help but then you will be forcing competitors to retire when with one good push they could be back in the game. If you're not going to completely outlaw spectator help then you have to come up with more complicated rules that outline the conditions under which you can accept help. Or you have to leave it as is and hope no one ever gets hurt.

Norm, I mostly agree with some of the others that have posted that this is part of rally and I would most certainly push an "off" car to get it going again. I don't think you can make a rule or legislate common sense.

nhibbert

03-30-2009, 03:05 PM

This wasn't intended to be directed at any particular nation. It's dangerous for any spectators to be on a closed stage road during an event no matter what country they are in, or how much knowledge they have, even Finns.

Here's another take: Historically stage rallying has been in reality a semi-closed-course event, where the teams have to expect and avoid all sorts of obstacles including spectators. If the competitors are prepared for that then fine. But with better safety gear, better technology and the use of stage notes today rally cars are able to go a lot faster and really push the limits of control. They are not just street cars with roll cages in them. They are full blown race cars. Higher speeds mean the drivers have to react a lot more quickly and they take a lot longer to stop even with the best brakes and tires. Therefore the rules of the stage road should evolve to reflect that.

If every rally car was a 120 hp FWD civic then no problem. If you start throwing 300hp Evo X's into the mix you've got a potential issue.

rightseat

03-30-2009, 03:43 PM

OK ppl take a chill pill here

Contrary to certain opinion, the goal of rally cars is NOT to hit things wherever possible.

Speccies are a key part of the rally circus. We wouldn't do what we do 'Out There' if crowds weren't waiting in the woods to egg us on--ppl standing out in the rain heat sleet snow blackflies snowbanks and/or choking dust, exhorting the cars to go fastAr fastAr. So what if the cars go a leetle extra sideways at speccie areas, that's because the persons inside those cars are making sure they slow down enough to avoid trouble. If the volunteers' day is boring, c'est OK pour moi!

And...Might I Add...rally car crews are acutely-acutely-acutely aware of the humanity of speccies and NOT mowing anybody over, ever. Give it a rest chmsam, we are on the same team.

BUT say we overcook a "R3/cr into L3", slide off over a snowbank and land almost in a beaver pond, and magically 6 Very Large Guys in snowmobile suits appear to poosh us back onto the road, this is A-OK for all involved. All I'd say at the time is, "Watch OUT for oncoming cars...don't push on the wing, OK??!!"

randyzimmer

03-30-2009, 04:41 PM

Yeah, what Dave said.
If they don't know the sport, they wouldn't even think of helping.
They're used to sitting in the stands and watching.

starion887

03-30-2009, 05:00 PM

Interesting. This is breaking down somewhat along the line of:
- competitors who believe they have little or no liability exposure in the case of spectators hurt or killed, and who think that they have something to gain with more spectators being present,
- versus the organizer view where, in reality, plenty of liability ends up.

I expect that if both sides believed that they were exposed to the same risk of being sued and suffering a life altering financial loss from such a spectator injury or death, this discussion would show a high degree of alignment in opinions.

Regards,
Mark B.

chmsam

03-30-2009, 05:08 PM

Believe it or not, been there done that many times.

Since everyone feels that "because it has always been that way" is enough reason to not try to keep the spectators safer, go for it. Keep your fingers crossed.

rightseat

03-30-2009, 06:21 PM

Crikey you guys, whatever happened to "everybody doing their best to avoid Bad Sheet Happening" ???

Organizers, racers, speccies alike. We're all in it together, remember.

ajax

03-30-2009, 07:10 PM

You could banish spectators, that would solve a lot of problems with liability.

Does anyone smell that? Oh yeah, it's burning sarcasm. I may not make up my own comedy material but my thoughts are my own.

More to the point, calling the cops in that particular situation would have resulted several bad things -- canceling the stage, delaying the entire rally for quite some time, tying up resources, and probably a few arrests and many citations.

Maybe you should have cancelled the stage. There would have been a lot of unhappy competitors but you would have eliminated your problem of unruly spectators. Especially with how bad you make it sound, a few arrests and pissed off rallyists may have even helped your cause.

I could continue on and on but I agree with bentmettle (sorry dude, I'm drawing a blank on your name). chmsam, you're on a rant with no point. Yes, it's dangerous to have spectators on stage helping competitors. Will they stop? Short of getting rid of them completely, no. Some of them are idiots, I know. I once met someone that didn't know that race cars could turn right. Also, it's not like the whole stage is set up to give people minimum reaction times so that the next car will mame and destroy everything along the stage.

nhibbert

03-31-2009, 02:40 AM

. . . Yes, it's dangerous to have spectators on stage helping competitors. Will they stop? Short of getting rid of them completely, no. Some of them are idiots, I know. I once met someone that didn't know that race cars could turn right. Also, it's not like the whole stage is set up to give people minimum reaction times so that the next car will mame and destroy everything along the stage.

I think they would stop helping IF there was a rule clearly stating that any team caught accepting outside help of any kind would be disqualified and that was well advertised to the public. No spectator is going to run onto the road and push someone if they know it could disqualify the team. The team will just have to dig themselves out or wait for sweep. That's also a simple rule to make and enforce.

A more complicated rule would be to say competitors can accept help under certain conditions. That's a much harder rule to write and enforce because there could be a multitude of conditions and interpretations which means judgment calls may need to be made whenever someone is accused of breaking the rule. Of course writing a rule that specifically allows outside help would be officially allowing spectators on the road which might be a no-no.

However, at the very least I think the rule should be that no one is allowed to accept outside help unless there triangle is out. With the use of stage notes drivers are in effect almost driving blind. While there will be a lot of situations where the next driver will see the spectators on the road with plenty of time, there will also be some where they won't. It's the most dangerous situation that the rule has to be written for.

If you think about it - in the backwoods where there are no officials a rule like that could only be enforced by the next driver along the road. Therefore, if you go off you have about twenty or thirty seconds to try and get yourself back on the road before you have to jump out and grab the triangle. If you are so stuck that a simple push wont get you out then you have probably already lost positions so it's time to just take a deep breath and think about getting the car out safely. Having to put your triangle out and collect it again is like a mini-time penalty for going that far off the road.

Don Kennedy

03-31-2009, 09:00 AM

Speccies are a key part of the rally circus. We wouldn't do what we do 'Out There' if crowds weren't waiting in the woods to egg us on--

I believe you are in the minority with that statment (I hope)!

Don Kennedy

03-31-2009, 09:02 AM

I think they would stop helping IF there was a rule clearly stating that any team caught accepting outside help of any kind would be disqualified and that was well advertised to the public.
Don't know how you plan on doing that (letting "everyone: know know your rule. That is not possible.

nhibbert

03-31-2009, 09:39 AM

Don't know how you plan on doing that (letting "everyone: know know your rule. That is not possible.

That wouldn't be difficult. Many hardcore rally fans are aware of rule changes due to discussion boards like this and they would spread the word at events. Notices could be posted at HQ and in spectator guides for rallies that have them. And finally competitor would have to tell spectator to stay away when they find themselves in that position. It may take a season or two to filter through to all the spectators but the majority would know by the end of the first event.

rightseat

03-31-2009, 09:52 AM

organizers & marshals are working diligently to increase speccie safety in a variety of ways, which does NOT need to include more roolZ about what speccies can and cannot touch.

I am moving a bit out of the race car this season and more onto the organizer side. if we are going to keep rally going and growing here, we need to make speccies feel welcome and like they are part of the show, not lay more rules on their backs.

spectators are not the enemy, please quit trying to demonize them

ajax

03-31-2009, 03:08 PM

I agree that a conditional rule about allowing cometitors to recieve assistance from spectators would complicate things. What about, "A team may not recieve assistance of any kind on stage until a safety triangle is in place."?

As a side note, we're only talking about on stage right not transits or anything?

DaveCotie

03-31-2009, 04:54 PM

That wouldn't be difficult. Many hardcore rally fans are aware of rule changes due to discussion boards like this and they would spread the word at events. Notices could be posted at HQ and in spectator guides for rallies that have them. And finally competitor would have to tell spectator to stay away when they find themselves in that position. It may take a season or two to filter through to all the spectators but the majority would know by the end of the first event.

Norm, I have not sat as close as you have to the top of a Rally organization, but I would not want to see such a rule. It would force teams to "tattle-tale" on others and yes I know a lot of rally rules are already like that.

The vast majority of people at rallies would be able to assist a car without endangering themselves. The few exceptions to this tend to be at night when the anonimity of darkness coupled with the hours of drinking can lead to poor behaviours. This can be managed with good Marshalls. I know that they can be hard to find some times.

I was marshalling at Tall Pines several years ago when Tim Penasack (sp?) rolled his Subie at Castledine's. Four or Five Marshalls using their voices (that was not a request, it was an order) managed several hundred spectators that wanted to get out and get the car going. It was upside down 5-6 feet down in a gully. I really don't think we were going to roll it back over and send it away.

I would propose that a rule could be written that outside assistance can only be allowed if a Marshall was present but that would probably make it worse. "Honestly judge the Marshall said I would be safe and I submit to you I was injured. They are Rally workers."

Watching some British rallies it seems like most assitance there is provided by Marshalls, but we don't seem to have anywhere near the Marshalls they have.

It seems to me like this may be "damned if you do, damned if you don't" territory.

Doug Woods

03-31-2009, 06:29 PM

Here in Quebec, asking spectators not to help get a car back on the road would be like asking spectators not to drink beer or maybe asking the women spectators not to be hot.;)

Just won't work.

nhibbert

03-31-2009, 06:45 PM

Norm, I have not sat as close as you have to the top of a Rally organization, but I would not want to see such a rule. It would force teams to "tattle-tale" on others and yes I know a lot of rally rules are already like that.

The vast majority of people at rallies would be able to assist a car without endangering themselves. The few exceptions to this tend to be at night when the anonimity of darkness coupled with the hours of drinking can lead to poor behaviours. This can be managed with good Marshalls. I know that they can be hard to find some times.

I was marshalling at Tall Pines several years ago when Tim Penasack (sp?) rolled his Subie at Castledine's. Four or Five Marshalls using their voices (that was not a request, it was an order) managed several hundred spectators that wanted to get out and get the car going. It was upside down 5-6 feet down in a gully. I really don't think we were going to roll it back over and send it away.

I would propose that a rule could be written that outside assistance can only be allowed if a Marshall was present but that would probably make it worse. "Honestly judge the Marshall said I would be safe and I submit to you I was injured. They are Rally workers."

Watching some British rallies it seems like most assitance there is provided by Marshalls, but we don't seem to have anywhere near the Marshalls they have.

It seems to me like this may be "damned if you do, damned if you don't" territory.

While I've sat near the top of the organizational chart I don't the first hand experience that others have, which is why I'm interested in getting more opinions.

I would think that most competitors would only "tattle-tale" on another competitor if they saw a serious violation (i.e. they came around a corner and almost hit someone), but I think you are right about the liability issue. Permitting help in some situations is saying spectators are allowed to be on a closed road which is not something you want to encourage. The way it is now the spectators are more likely to get hurt but the organizers can say "We didn't sanction them helping so we are not responsible." Therefore it's either say silent on the subject or ban all help. There is no middle ground.

Anthony Tremblay

03-31-2009, 07:16 PM

I am jumping in a little here, my apologies -

In response to having a specific rule for allowing outside help (triangle must be out before outside help can be accepted) – I think this would expose teams and organizers to even more risk because it would specifically allow spectators on the road to help if certain criteria are met (“specie bob gets hurt – specie bob says driver ace asked me to help…”). The way it is now – spectators who help are kind of not really supposed to be doing so – competitors didn’t ask for the help but won’t refuse - the community turns a blind eye to the danger because it adds to the excitement.

I guess my suggestion would be to formally introduce a “no spectators on the road under any circumstance” policy (if there isn’t already such a rule), make sure the spectators understand it and why that is and then do our best to enforce it. If after that, some spectators still run out – they are doing so against the rules and just maybe, that would keep them accountable for their poor choices.

In short – as Norm puts it – I feel we should ban the help. Even if it doesn’t work, if we at least look sincere at trying to stop it, we’ll be doing a better job of covering our ass.

starion887

03-31-2009, 07:20 PM

The vast majority of people at rallies would be able to assist a car without endangering themselves. The few exceptions to this tend to be at night when the anonimity of darkness coupled with the hours of drinking can lead to poor behaviours. This can be managed with good Marshalls. I know that they can be hard to find some times.

It seems to me like this may be "damned if you do, damned if you don't" territory.

Our nightmare scenario was at 100AW a few years back. We were in a nice power slide at about 50 mph around a 4+ 90 left at about 9PM, on a pitch black night, and exited looking right into the trunk of a Toyata that did not make it and was about 1/4 stuffed off the road. The guys didn't put out triangles and were at the car, and it took some nifty driving to avoid hitting the car. If spectators had been there trying to help, it could have been very bad.

There was an access road 100yds beyond offering access. Take the same scenario out of rural MO in March to STPR in June, and it would be guranteed to have spectators there. Our nighttime STPR spectator assistance incident several years back was that in a similar location, about 15 heavily drinking guys appeared before we knew it, and started in to heaving us off a low bank; we could smell their alcoholic breaths through the open windows as we yelled at them. Marshals were there but could not/would not stop it.

If such a rule was in place, then in that situation I bet we would have lept out and driven the spectators away (rather than trying to explain how to help us), and tried to explain why we could not accept assistance. With the marshals there, we would have been open to a stiff penalty.

But this leads to the question: if no marshals are present, will other competitors 'tell' on the offenders? In my view and experience, no, as most competitors will not bring this type of thing up until well after the event, even if it a close and very scary shave. And few marshals will tell either. It's only the fear of being caught that will have any effect.

Does this mean that such a rule is useless? I have not come up with my own opinion on that, much less an answer. But I do beleive that without increasing attempts to control spectators, we risk another spectator tragedy. That WILL effect the event involved (probably with destruction of the event as in the Sawmill case), and seriously jeopardize the financial well-being of the lead organizers, as well as possibly doing the same to any competitor involved.

One thing for perspective: WRC had that type of rule in effect for at least a Safari event, and I think it was Gronholm who got penalized when a local helped jack up the car with a camera recording it all. What I don't know was the purpose and details of the rule that was applied: was it to prevent spectators from getting into danger, or prevent service by team agents masquerading as spectators?

Yes, Dave it certainly might be 'damned if you don't'; I hate to bring up the legal word of negligence. Whether and when it can be successfully applied is better answered by folks like Wilson or Bruce.

Regards,
Mark B.

DaveCotie

04-01-2009, 11:51 AM

Our nightmare scenario was at 100AW a few years back. We were in a nice power slide at about 50 mph around a 4+ 90 left at about 9PM, on a pitch black night, and exited looking right into the trunk of a Toyata that did not make it and was about 1/4 stuffed off the road. The guys didn't put out triangles and were at the car, and it took some nifty driving to avoid hitting the car. If spectators had been there trying to help, it could have been very bad.

There was an access road 100yds beyond offering access. Take the same scenario out of rural MO in March to STPR in June, and it would be guranteed to have spectators there. Our nighttime STPR spectator assistance incident several years back was that in a similar location, about 15 heavily drinking guys appeared before we knew it, and started in to heaving us off a low bank; we could smell their alcoholic breaths through the open windows as we yelled at them. Marshals were there but could not/would not stop it.

If such a rule was in place, then in that situation I bet we would have lept out and driven the spectators away (rather than trying to explain how to help us), and tried to explain why we could not accept assistance. With the marshals there, we would have been open to a stiff penalty.

But this leads to the question: if no marshals are present, will other competitors 'tell' on the offenders? In my view and experience, no, as most competitors will not bring this type of thing up until well after the event, even if it a close and very scary shave. And few marshals will tell either. It's only the fear of being caught that will have any effect.

Does this mean that such a rule is useless? I have not come up with my own opinion on that, much less an answer. But I do beleive that without increasing attempts to control spectators, we risk another spectator tragedy. That WILL effect the event involved (probably with destruction of the event as in the Sawmill case), and seriously jeopardize the financial well-being of the lead organizers, as well as possibly doing the same to any competitor involved.

One thing for perspective: WRC had that type of rule in effect for at least a Safari event, and I think it was Gronholm who got penalized when a local helped jack up the car with a camera recording it all. What I don't know was the purpose and details of the rule that was applied: was it to prevent spectators from getting into danger, or prevent service by team agents masquerading as spectators?

Yes, Dave it certainly might be 'damned if you don't'; I hate to bring up the legal word of negligence. Whether and when it can be successfully applied is better answered by folks like Wilson or Bruce.

Regards,
Mark B.

I am a realist and frankly, I think a rule like this will HAVE to be put in place. I said, I would not want it, but that matters nothing for Rally overall.

You can't legislate common sense, but you can write rules to try to limit legal exposure.

DC

starion887

04-01-2009, 12:00 PM

I would think that most competitors would only "tattle-tale" on another competitor if they saw a serious violation (i.e. they came around a corner and almost hit someone),

The more I think of this, the more I think, "OK, so now what do you do with the 'tattle-tale' info?" Without a recognized 'judge of fact' present, like a marshal, or unless you can gain corraborating evidence like a video posted on You-Tube, it becomes one competitor's word against another. You can't take the observing competitor's word for the situation because it opens up the scenario of intentionally trying to give another competitor a penalty to gain advantage. Even an emotional, shaken word from 'another competitor' from their very close shave cannot be taken as adequate to apply a penalty.

And, BTW, I assuming this principle works the same way way up north...

So this rule only really works as a threat to induce the desired behavior in remote locations, IMO, but could be an actual deterrent in offical or 'known' spectator areas where a marshal is present, or very likely to be. Not that we don't already have a few rules that work in this way (at least so I believe), so it would not be a new principle, IMO.

Regards,
Mark B.

nhibbert

04-01-2009, 12:43 PM

The more I think of this, the more I think, "OK, so now what do you do with the 'tattle-tale' info?" Without a recognized 'judge of fact' present, like a marshal, or unless you can gain corraborating evidence like a video posted on You-Tube, it becomes one competitor's word against another. You can't take the observing competitor's word for the situation because it opens up the scenario of intentionally trying to give another competitor a penalty to gain advantage. Even an emotional, shaken word from 'another competitor' from their very close shave cannot be taken as adequate to apply a penalty.

And, BTW, I assuming this principle works the same way way up north...

So this rule only really works as a threat to induce the desired behavior in remote locations, IMO, but could be an actual deterrent in offical or 'known' spectator areas where a marshal is present, or very likely to be. Not that we don't already have a few rules that work in this way (at least so I believe), so it would not be a new principle, IMO.

Regards,
Mark B.

Further on that line of thinking it would mean each competitor would have to decide for themselves if they wanted to follow the rules and not accept help, or risk getting caught and accept help. If they chose to break the rules and someone gets hurt it would be the competitor who is complicit not the organizers.

RallyTruck

04-01-2009, 05:24 PM

March 14, 2009!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo7I2y7NiAA&feature=related

Anders Green

04-01-2009, 05:49 PM

Here in Quebec, asking spectators not to help get a car back on the road would be like asking spectators not to drink beer or maybe asking the women spectators not to be hot.;)

Ha! Nice!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v312/sparkley_dudette/clap.gif

Joe Average

04-01-2009, 05:55 PM

The spectators in the video Jeff posted had THEIR OWN tow strap to pull cars out!
Gotta love the Finns, and can we rent them for our events.

Sean Gallagher

Don Kennedy

04-01-2009, 06:11 PM

March 14, 2009!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo7I2y7NiAA&feature=related

If they hadn't moved some of those cars . . . . .

Eric Burmeister

04-01-2009, 08:50 PM

When spectators helping are outlawed, it's just gonna make rallying that much more expensive for us competitors. Think of all the team-specific photographers we'll each have to hire and get media vests for:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfSomp-rcq4

:)

nhibbert

04-02-2009, 02:53 AM

At the other end of the spectrum is this fiasco (watch to the very end): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKuFrk2GNOM

North American rallying is probably somewhere between these two extremes. The question is at what point, if ever, on the spectrum do you officially start to impose penalties to competitors in an attempt to prevent spectator injuries or death?

rightseat

04-02-2009, 03:42 AM

starion887

04-02-2009, 07:39 AM

Further on that line of thinking it would mean each competitor would have to decide for themselves if they wanted to follow the rules and not accept help, or risk getting caught and accept help. If they chose to break the rules and someone gets hurt it would be the competitor who is complicit not the organizers.

Your line of reasoning is clear, but is it going to really work that way? This slant of liability might make competitors think more about this, but if there are no real consequences to the competitor for a spectator being hurt, even with the rule, then I think many of the competitors (possibly including me if I ever get my helmet back on) would not be concerned.

So this begs the question of the validity of your premise that the competitor's face more liablity risk in the light of such a rule. Is this way this scenario woud really work out.? I believe that there may be some better liabilty shield to the orgnaizers and sanctioning body in preventing a suit, but in the end, in a lawsuit, does it really change who will get sucked into a suit, and who is most likely have to pay? (I don't know the answer, and again, I call upon the guys who actually know something about lawsuits and deal with them for a living for a living to pass judgement here; I don't have the experience or training at all.)

Regards,
Mark B.

Eric Burmeister

04-02-2009, 09:10 AM

First of all, that last youtube post of a rally somewhere with speccie cars lined up alongside the road and no crewmember acting with any kind of urgency, nor producing any traffic control device (triangles) is NOTHING like what I have experienced in some 55 US rallies I've entered, nor another 20 or so that I've spectated. How 'bout a little reason? Reality is NOT somewhere between those two examples. The first example WAS one of our rallies! The second was NOTHING LIKE one of our rallies. That kind of hyperbole is NOT constructive. Don't make me go all Jon Stewart on you. ;)

point being, in vast majority of speccies-helping scenes I've encountered during 50-some rallies, (either assisting us directly or passing by offed cars that specs were working on) things were well in hand and there was enough warning to get slowed down as needed. And most importantly this warning very often came from the specs first.

I have to agree. In ALL of the instances where I've seen spectators help...whether direct help (pushing a car) or indirect help (slowing down oncoming cars), they have done just that. They HELPED the situation.

When they have helped me, I have been grateful...not because they got me going again (I think I've only been helped by spectators once or twice in that fashion), but because they made the situation safer by helping slow down the oncoming traffic, or retrieving a triangle more quickly or similar.

Somewhere else on here was the discussion about the most unsafe times during a rally...like retrieving triangles. This discussion should be part of that discussion.

Watching folks try to mitigate legal risk in rally is like watching the church try to defend creationism in science class. The legal dogma associated with our liability based society makes activities like rally almost impossible.

Rallying's dangerous. That's what attracts most of us.

Ferdinand

04-02-2009, 09:55 AM

Speccies are a key part of the rally circus. We wouldn't do what we do 'Out There' if crowds weren't waiting in the woods to egg us on--
Here in Quebec, asking spectators not to help get a car back on the road would be like asking spectators not to drink beer or maybe asking the women spectators not to be hot.;)

Please, don't ban spectators. I'm all for hot women spectators egging us on!

On my first ever ride as co-driver for Martin Walter, at Tall Pines 2007, one of those hot women spectators "flashed" us as we drove by. And damn, didn't I have my head down reading the notes at the time and missed it.

I run an in-car video recorder now, just so I won't miss anything important, eh.

ihbobry

04-02-2009, 10:35 AM

Watching folks try to mitigate legal risk in rally is like watching the church try to defend creationism in science class.

Quote of the year.

starion887

04-02-2009, 11:04 AM

Somewhere else on here was the discussion about the most unsafe times during a rally...like retrieving triangles. This discussion should be part of that discussion.

That's quite a different legal situation, IMO, where the competitors have signed a waiver. Spectators have not done so. I think it is quite OK to discuss spectator safey apart from competitor safety, unless spectators are a common part of all or most triangle retreivals.

And, it seems that the reasoning that spectators can make a situation safer (which is indeed true in many cases) is trying to follow the logical path that therefore, somehow, because some situations are made safer with spectators helping, then this would somehow hold water as a legal defence and is somehow justification to allow potentially dangerous situations to develop and persist. That is not reasonable, IMO.

Nobody (except maybe a minority of legal types) like the situation. But we have to deal with it, and just saying rallying is dangerous does nothing to deal with things. It's like saying grass is green. I think Norm is trying an idea and asking for feedback. "Never never never, no no no" IS feedback of a form.

Mark B.

Eric Burmeister

04-02-2009, 11:20 AM

...But we have to deal with it, and just saying rallying is dangerous does nothing to deal with things. It's like saying grass is green. I think Norm is trying an idea and asking for feedback. "Never never never, no no no" IS feedback of a form.

Fair enough, Mark. I do apologize if my remarks seemed flippant.

I don't envy those who have to figure these things out to cover their (our) asses in every possible scenario. It's unfortunate that the sport we fell in love with isn't available anymore. It feels like innocence lost.

ihbobry

04-02-2009, 11:35 AM

Mark,

and any one else I guess...and I had nice big narrative, about pros cons enforcability, etc. but wittled it down to the point...

Has anyone ever tried to waiver spectators?

Eric Burmeister

04-02-2009, 11:40 AM

rightseat

04-02-2009, 11:48 AM

Has anyone ever tried to waiver spectators?

OK, now we are maybe getting somewhere

nhibbert

04-02-2009, 11:56 AM

when spectators helping are outlawed, only outlaw spectators will help. (pardonnez-moi me for invoking ghost of charlton heston, but lurch's comment sort of made it inevitable)

under the proposed ban-help scenario, what would the deal be with spectators helping to control an incident scene because someone needed to -- such as, no marshals present, not enough marshals present, car crew not doing it themselves (or not able to), or more ppl needed to remove car from a bad place ?? if specs were banned from helping, would that preclude somebody up the road waving to oncoming crews to "slow down, bad stuff ahead!" ??

point being, in vast majority of speccies-helping scenes I've encountered during 50-some rallies, (either assisting us directly or passing by offed cars that specs were working on) things were well in hand and there was enough warning to get slowed down as needed. And most importantly this warning very often came from the specs first.

From an organizers point-of-view the road is closed and there should be no one "between the yellow tape" except for the competitors. The only exception would be for waivered workers or media people who might be on the sides of the road under certain conditions. Of course what the organizers say should be the case and what actually is the case are two different things. Short of having a marshal every 300 ft. along every stage I don't think there is any way to be absolutely sure a competitor won't come across someone on the road. And even if there was a marshal every 300ft. they don't really have any legal power to stop people, they can only shout at people and report the situation to the Clerk who might shut the stage down and send in the cops. However if a spectator is on the road they are on there of their own choice and have not been encouraged to be there by race officials or marshals.

If a competitor asks reluctant fans to come onto the hot stage to help get them moving they are complicit if anyone gets hurt. If the fans help a competitor without the competitor asking for help then the responsibility is a lot vaguer. However to my knowledge whether or not the competitor asks for help there is no official penalty given to the competitor for accepting outside help. I'm speculating that by giving a competitor who receives outside assistance while on a stage, whether they ask for it or not, some sort of penalty they will not ask reluctant spectator for help and will in fact ask spectators NOT to help them. The penalty would have to be greater than what they suffer if sweep pulls them out. Even if spectator help is reduced by 50% that still reduces the risk of someone getting hurt by 50%.

The goal of organizers isn't to make rallying completely safe and solve every problem all at once; it's to incrementally make things a little safer and better every year. I believe eventually a rule like this will have to be instituted. I just hope it isn't instituted after someone was killed. It's sort of like seatbelts - 99,999 times out of 100,000 you don't really need to wear it. It just makes your life a less conveninent, yet you still wear it for the 1 time out or 100,000 when it saves your life.

nhibbert

04-02-2009, 12:19 PM

Eric Burmeister

04-02-2009, 12:33 PM

The first example I was refering to wasn't the Ken Block video it was the Finnish video with the guys with the tow strap. The Ken Block video is somewhere in the middle.

Ahhh...gotcha. ;)

Actually, I still don't think the STPR video was in the middle. There were hundreds of spectators there...maybe more. I only saw one spectator come down out of the mass to try to push Ken. The rest were all photogs.

Both the finnish guys and the guys in dopeland poured out of the speccie area...not just photogs/marshals.

Anyway, thanks for clarifying.

ajax

04-02-2009, 05:31 PM

starion887

04-03-2009, 08:41 AM

At every other motorsport event I attend as a spectator, I buy a ticket. On the back of the ticket it says that by buying said ticket, I waive all my rights to sue the track or the racers or the workers.

Don't know if it holds up in court...perhaps Bruce or Wilson have experience with this.

I am not legally trained in any way so the following is just my personal opinion:

Here is one appeals court ruling that shows how the protection afforded to orgnanizers by a waiver can be limited. It is based on what reasonable hazards a waiver-signer who is spectating woud assume he/she is reasonably facing.

http://www.declarationsandexclusions.com/2004/05/please_release_.html

The same question would apply, in my totally non-leagally trained opinion, to a waiver signed by rally spectators: what would be their assumptions be on the risks they are reasonably facing? Would it include knowing/assuming that they may be injured or worse if they jump onto the course to help a rally car that was stuck? It SEEMS like it would but.....

And does this really do much anything to protect organizers or sanctioning bodies? Maybe to some degree, but IMHO, I think it would not relieve organizers of having to take other reasonable steps to guide and protect spectators. That is a subject that WILL be examined in court.

As for competitor waivers, I personally believe (and again with no legal training this is my opinion only) that it can be reasonably presumed that competitors are in possession of much more complete knowledge of the hazards when he/she signs a waiver, than would any spectator. I think that this has been tested once in a US rally-related suit and held up in that case.

All this does not say that spectator waivers is not a good idea. It only says, IMO, that it would be unwise to think that spectator waiver-signing is a legal panacea for the spectator-jumping/helping-on-the-stage-road situation. IMO, rallies are probably going to be held to a more stringent set of actions to fully protect themselves.

(And BTW, Eric, I sincerely feel no comment so far needs any apology; I did not think you were being flippant. And yes, the sport has/is changed; it is a bit different from what I started into. IMO, some of it is due to societal changes, and some is due to changes that some rallliers want to see in the sport's direction, and some is just the almost random changes of the world, for lack of a better phrase. But everyone involved is still as passionate; that is good!)

Regards,
Mark B.

ihbobry

04-03-2009, 12:54 PM

nhibbert

04-03-2009, 03:48 PM

Mark,

No waiver is ever good enough. IMO

But IMO (no legal training here either :) ) the signing of such, if completed in an agreed manner; will set the risk with the signer & will re-inforce the issue of risk. Additionally, it will show a goodwill effort of the organizer to inform and protect the spectator and participant from such risk. All of this ends in a level of assignable risk, (on the policy). That's what the event insurance covers, no?

That said, if 000's job, or maybe 0000's job was to stop, question, sign, and band; people along the stage, what would be different then today?

And to be clear signer is the same as if some one purchased a ticket, it's an agreement...

(Again, I really am keeping it simple and not going off in the million directions and errors I see, this is for discussion.)

That has been done before. I've check out certain roads between 000 and 00, and any unsupervised spectators I came across were asked if they would sign a waiver form. Luckily on those roads there are never many spectators thanks to an early road control and closure policy, and the placement of marshals at the known spectator spots. Once I did come across one large family sitting at the end of their driveway. In that case I waivered the mom and told her she was now a marshal and was responsible for keeping everyone off the road. I told her going on the road was like walking onto the track during the Daytona 500. I think that was something the family could relate to, if you know what I mean.

I think you're right in that just the act of signing the waiver is enough to make most unseasoned spectators wary of the dangers. However that is another issue to the spectator helping issue. Even if someone signs a waiver and is aware of the dangers, standing on a hot stage road is very dangerous.

Adrian Wintle

04-07-2009, 10:05 AM

I'm speculating that by giving a competitor who receives outside assistance while on a stage, whether they ask for it or not, some sort of penalty they will not ask reluctant spectator for help and will in fact ask spectators NOT to help them. The penalty would have to be greater than what they suffer if sweep pulls them out.

Unfortunately, the penalty suffered by letting sweep pull a competitor out varies hugely from DNF (potentially max late if you are a frontrunner, or if sweep has to handle more than one car) to no more than a couple of minutes (last car on the road, sweep arrives almost immediately). Receiving assistance from sweep is inherently not fair (from a competition point of view), which is why some events consider that it constitutes a DNF.

There is another facet here, which is a competitor receiving assistance from other competitors, either as good sportsmanship or because they couldn't get by without assisting. How would that fit into a "no assistance on a stage" rule vs. the current "may receive unplanned assistance" rules (the assumption in the rule being that the planning is done by the competitor/team - we all know that spectators at some events plan their assistance, and sometimes plan a way for cars to need that assistance...).

Coincidentally, I was watching some videos from the 1997 CRC last night, and was struck by a couple of incidents that I was present for:

1. RAC - at the south end of the long straight (crest into L2) - I was there waiting to get onto the stage to retrieve the Latreilles (not an uncommon occurrence) - car goes off at the L2 - spectators run down the hill to assist - I took one look at this and ran up stage to warn the next competitors.

2. Tall Pines - Brown's Lake spectator point - very slippery left-right - spectators assisting the numerous cars that went off - many close calls as the spectators assisted the extracted cars through the left and moved out of the sightline of the approaching cars.

There is no reason to expect that anybody on a hot stage (be they competitors, marshals, or spectators) will show common sense in all situations.

Adrian