[daphne]

For those that have not seen this:

http://www.scca.org/news/tech/prorally/PRCB072603-emergencypenalty.pdf

Minimum penalty for violating emergency procedure rules now at $500.

 

[John Vanlandingham]

That sure should shut up those who say the SCCA "Central Services" can't be bothered to inform the membership of their actions and take months and months like with the Wild West Fiasco last year or the current lack of communication regarding the suspension of club rally on such absolute BS rationale.
This is really encouraging, just a few days after a problem, and TA_DAAAA 5 fold increase in fines, that'll really clear up problems like lack of a non-medical red flag procedure.

Ahh Progress, ain't it wonderful.
Sorta gives you a warm feeling somewhere.

John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

Black Rocket Rally Tires
http://www.blackrockettires.com/

 

[Trevor Donison]

>Ahh Progress, ain't it wonderful.
>Sorta gives you a warm feeling somewhere.

But is it like the warm feeling one might have gotten as a 5 year old when mom took a little too long to get you to the restroom?

 

[randyzimmer]

RE: $500+ fee

I didn't know those yellow shirts cost so much to keep starched...
So, here I am, racing along, trying to stay on course without wandering astray, thru tape that may or not be run down and I think I see a car off but maybe not but I have no second opinion because with notes, all my navie sees are openings onto longish straights occasionally.
If I don't stop and go back, on foot, after placing a triangle, I get fined.
If I don't and I'm right, I get fined.
If I do and I'm wrong, I may get fined (and will lose).
If I make an improper decision about what to do in a different, perhaps abnornmal, situation, I get fined.
If someone else does and gets a time allowance for doing it, I lose.
Sorry, I just confused myself.
OK... does this mean a triangle on the wrong side of the road costs $500? If so, I'm all for it.
Have fun in Maine, I'll be at Defi.
rz

 

[John Vanlandingham]

>>Ahh Progress, ain't it wonderful.
>>Sorta gives you a warm feeling........ somewhere.
>
>But is it like the warm feeling one might have gotten as a 5
>year old when mom took a little too long to get you to the
>restroom?
Oi Trevor, Is my writing that transparent?
Or are you telling us a bit more than you might ought to?
At 5?
Oi!




John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

Black Rocket Rally Tires
http://www.blackrockettires.com/

 

[rallytaff]

RE: $500+ fee

Randy, Don't you see that with all the memberships not being renewed and people looking elsewhere for sanctioning bodies for club level rallies, they have to get revenue by whatever means they can!(Tongue-in-cheek!)HMMMM!

 

[randyzimmer]

RE: rally fee

Kinda surprised this is a non-issue to most readers.
Everyone en-route and out-of-touch?
rz

 

[daphne]

RE: rally fee

Why should this be an issue?

Recent posts on this forum suggest that we consider violations of the current emergency procedures to be a big safety issue and, thus, a big deal.

The fine used to be $100 - what some would consider to be chump change when compared to what it costs to run an event.

So the PRB raises the minimum fine to $500. Now we're talking....after all, $500 can get you an entry fee, or at least a good part of one.

So now the minimum penalty hurts. The minimum punishment now more closely fits the crime.

I have no idea what the PRB does in their meetings. For all I know, they could be evaluating additional penalties. Potentially the $500 fine is an interim ruling to show how serious they are about enforcing emergency procedures.

It may not be a complete solution to the problem, but isn't it a step in the right direction?

So, why is everyone pissed off about this?

 

[jimmy]

RE: rally fee

Randy-

I am not sure what your proposal, or objection, is. We all come in with our own biases and agendas. That said, we are also our own first responders and our own corner workers. Methinks what is here for rules on safety is a good start (I also think we, as competitors, should have a first aid course - even beyond the one required in Canada). When the proposal for the expanded use of the red cross came out, I said that it was a reasonable approach, but that WE MUST BE WILLING TO THROW THE BOOK AT THOSE WHO ABUSE IT. I think that this ($500 fine) is a piece of that.

We need to look out for ourselves!

btw - if you are at Defi this weekend, aren't you a bit early (or doing a bit of clandestine recce?)

press on,



>Kinda surprised this is a non-issue to most readers.
>Everyone en-route and out-of-touch?
>rz

 

[randyzimmer]

RE: rally fee

I guess I'm the one out of touch.
Mark U. made a mistake, missed the clue, is deeply sorry and will try harder to be more aware.
If he could make that error, so could anyone.
Mandatory fine is now $500 for that.
---
re: agenda
none, except I've been very pleased with being welcomed and accepted rather than just tolerated.
---
Sorry about saving key strokes, my next national will be at Defi or perhaps a trip to CT.
I'm doing the winter rebuild I didn't have time for.
rz

 

[Rich Smith]

RE: rally fee

Daphne,

Timing isn't everything. But it's important.

Announced at this time, this 500% Safety Fine increase tends to focus attention back onto the most recent violation as an example. This puts focus in the wrong place since the Utecht issue at Oregon Trail was relatively minor and is already satisfactorily resolved. I don't know anyone that thinks he should have been given a larger fine.

Car #81 at Oregon Trail is a much bigger issue and it's still unresolved. Ditto the Red Cross issues. Plus, a lot of people have serious concerns about the Chain of Command and Authority when it comes to investigating problems and taking action during and following an event. There is a perception that SCCA National runs roughshod over local organizers and has poor follow through. Now comes the National announcement that "everybody else" ought to shape up.

It looks like a poorly timed announcement being issued from a glass house. I think what your hearing is not anger, but frustration moving toward ambivalence and an increasing lack of confidence.

Rich Smith

Vive le "Pro-le-Ralliat"

 

[hilmera]

RE: rally fee

>I guess I'm the one out of touch.
>Mark U. made a mistake, missed the clue, is deeply sorry and
>will try harder to be more aware.
>If he could make that error, so could anyone.
>Mandatory fine is now $500 for that.
> (...)
>rz


OK, fine, if you force me to have an opinion:
"The five-fold increase in the basic oopsie penalty seems unnecessary."

Few see the previous level of fine as either problem or solution, so no one spends the energy to make official statements of opinion on that narrow issue. Everyone prefaces their response with "THE REAL ISSUE IS..."

The real issue is that the triangle, red cross, and OK sign rules are becoming ever more convoluted and broken and the only National response is to adjust penalties rather than make the rules proper and sensical.

Please, PRB folks, I'm not beating on you for this. I don't think you are stupid or evil. Despite what some of my comments about Dan Coughnour, Kurt, or Steve may lead folks to believe, I don't think they are stupid or evil either. (irrelevant, maybe...) It's just that the train seems to be sitting on the frontage road, within sight of the tracks, but not actually touching them.

The process for proposing rules and putting them in place is not working. The intent of recent rule changes is positive, but they just aren't coming out right. Speaking as someone who has done technical writing for procedures and specifications in a manufacturing environment, new documents or document sections require a rapid cycle of one or two revisions after release before they become rational and "correct" in the eyes of the people that use them.

When new rules are implemented, expect to substantially revise them at least once within a couple months -- a basic guideline. Get used to it, or get used to dealing with problems.

andy

 

[John Vanlandingham]

RE: rally fee

>>I guess I'm the one out of touch.
>>Mark U. made a mistake, missed the clue, is deeply sorry and
>>will try harder to be more aware.
>>If he could make that error, so could anyone.
>>Mandatory fine is now $500 for that.
>> (...)
>>rz
>
>
>OK, fine, if you force me to have an opinion:
>"The five-fold increase in the basic oopsie penalty seems
>unnecessary."

>The real issue is that the triangle, red cross, and OK sign
>rules are becoming ever more convoluted and broken and the

You are due a beer in reward for:::
>only National response is to adjust penalties rather than
>make the rules proper and sensical.
>

>
>The process for proposing rules and putting them in place is
>not working.
The intent of recent rule changes is positive,
>but they just aren't coming out right.
Another beer to Andy!

Speaking as someone
>who has done technical writing for procedures and
>specifications in a manufacturing environment, new documents
>or document sections require a rapid cycle of one or two
>revisions after release before they become rational and
>"correct" in the eyes of the people that use them.

SCCA perverse and obstinate insistance to refuse to acknowledge that THIS SS on line IS the only effective rapid means to RECieve feedback is IMHO a major reason for their irrelevance.
I have suggested as have others the there should be a Sub section here where rules can be questioned and revisions suggested and a general give and take should occur about the whole process of revising, obsoleting, and correcting rules.
That fact that some have ridiculed the idea says something troubling about those peoples personal politics and is sad to see the concept of a democratic process ridiculed by obvious idiots, but the fact that _SCCA_ PRB and SS online has let the concept lay and wither leaves me to conclude that SCCA Doesn't want to incorporate membershib and associated suggestions.
Hence, they are increasingly, as we have seen, out of touch, out of line.
>
>When new rules are implemented, expect to substantially
>revise them at least once within a couple months -- a basic
>guideline. Get used to it, or get used to dealing with
>problems.
Yep, one wonders if they folks drafting the rules have had any experience editing things.
>
>andy
I owe you some beer Andy.




John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

Black Rocket Rally Tires
http://www.blackrockettires.com/

 

[Mike Hurst]

Since this is a pro sport

They just deduct the fines from the prize money, right?

 

[Trevor Donison]

RE: rally fee

> There is a perception
>that SCCA National runs roughshod over local organizers

Nah, from the Speedvision Rim of the World telecast, it is obvious that National makes all the decisions.

 

[Bjorn240]

RE: rally fee

>The process for proposing rules and putting them in place is
>not working.

The rules adoption process is stipulated in the SCCA bylaws, and one of the bylaws states that the only appropriate forum for publishing proposed rules is in Fastrack.

I can assure you that I and the rest of the PRB are aware that this is a bottleneck in the process, and we are working with the SCCA from both a bylaws and technical standpoint to get a more expedient way for rules commentary from members. Don't expect a solution tomorrow, but we're trying to push this issue with the rest of the SCCA.

Your comments are, of course, always welcome.

Cheers,
- Christian

Bjorn Christian Edstrom
Co-Driver

 

[Trevor Donison]

RE: rally fee

>That fact that some have ridiculed the idea says something
>troubling about those peoples personal politics and is sad
>to see the concept of a democratic process ridiculed by
>obvious idiots, but the fact that _SCCA_ PRB and SS online
>has let the concept lay and wither leaves me to conclude
>that SCCA Doesn't want to incorporate membershib and
>associated suggestions.
>Hence, they are increasingly, as we have seen, out of touch,
>out of line.

Although I don't see anything changing in regards to getting any kind of dialog going on Special stage, I guarantee that this board is reviewed regularly by SCCA higher ups.

With Christian on the PRB, things have been getting done in a more timely manner if just not as visual/quickly as we might like them.

 

[hilmera]

RE: rally fee

>I owe you some beer Andy.
>
>John Vanlandingham
>Seattle, WA. 98168

I'll settle for a price quote for some Bilstein rally struts set up for the street for my Rabbit pickup, delivery sometime in latter September. ...or something else that will take gravel and speed bump abuse, unlike the KYB insert crap I've inflicted on myself.

andy

PS: I'll take the beer too. I'd be happy to share.

 

[hilmera]

RE: rally fee

> (...) we are working
>with the SCCA from both a bylaws and technical standpoint to
>get a more expedient way for rules commentary from members.
> (...)

In hindsight, some of the questions on the recent SCCA marketing survey hint at this. Perhaps you could just call it "Fastrack Online." My personal feeling is that you should consider contracting with Special Stage to put it together, or at least the rally area. Policies about posting and moderation issues are pretty well thought out in the forum packages used by well-estabished online shops like Special Stage. They should be able to accomodate what you have in mind.

While the bylaws may restrict rules proposals to Fastrack, would it be possible to float the proposed changes to Fastrack a little more widely? ...or send out an email to members entitled "Fastrack Online", where the changes are discussed, or even sending a letter to the SportsCar mailing list?

andy

 

[wvonkessler]

RE: rally fee

>I'll settle for a price quote for some Bilstein rally struts
>set up for the street for my Rabbit pickup, delivery
>sometime in latter September. ...or something else that
>will take gravel and speed bump abuse, unlike the KYB insert
>crap I've inflicted on myself.

There's a pair for sale at Ben's Rallyclassifieds NIB for $400.00 including shipping.

Wilson