[nialld]

To The Rally Community

Trying hard to make sense of this incident and the penalty that the BOD has imposed on the competitor at fault.
As i understand it Laughlin O'Sullivan catches up to a car on the stage that he knows should not have been there. He is able to get the car stopped, discovers that this car somehow got on to the stage by mistake, his co driver immeadiately displays the red cross to the next car on the road..Nelson and Bradley they stop..are advised of the situation and per the rules proceed to the next radio control to inform organisers of the problem...the next car did not stop at the red cross, and passed Nelson and Bradley at speed.

The BOD has a meeting to decide on the penalty...
Edstrom is removed from the voting because he is the one holding the Red Cross...(what could he possibly know about the incident) and wanted a more severe penalty imposed.

Kosmides is not voting because he is running group n.

the vote upholds the original penalty $100 fine and probation.

J. MILNER gets a $1000 fine and suspended for improper use of the red cross,a proper penalty... in an incident that did not pose any danger to other competitors.

Lets suppose that a second car turned right instead of left... and you can all fill in the blanks

This incident in my opinion is the most serious that has happened in U.S. rallying...and it has been brushed under the mat.

As i was not present, if i have any parts wrong please correct me but i would welcome any input from other people on this incident.


regards
niall donnelly

 

[daphne]

OK, 7.11.E says that you must stop for the red cross.

8.2.B.3 indicates there is a $100 fine for not following emergency procedures as specified in 7.10 (note that rule book is wrong, as emergency procedures are defined in 7.11...)

Per the rules, the $100 fine is appropriate.

Having Christian and Ralph removed from voting seems reasonable since one could say that they have personal involvement in the incident that may cloud their judgement, or more likely, would give people reason to complain about the judgement. They did the right thing.

8.2 affords the event steward some latitude in assessing penalties based on the severity of the incident.

I did not attend either of the events discussed, and all I know about them is what I have read on the Internet (which means I pretty much know nothing...)

My limited understanding of the STPR incident is that Mr Milner may have conducted himself in an unsportsmanlike manner, hence the stiff penalty. One could apply 8.5 and penalize him significantly. To some degree, this was a case of the "boy crying wolf" for his own personal gain.

From what you have said about Oregon, the penalized driver may not have seen the Red Cross, etc. Again, I have no information that allows me to even take a guess as to what was going on in his head.

The distinction here would be intent. Based on the punishment, it seems that the PRB felt that Mr Milner intended to break the rules for personal gain while the other competitors make have had an error in judgement (or poor vision - again, I don't know all the facts of this case.)

I agree with you that the Oregon incident is concerning and is a situation that should be addressed with modifications to the rules. Given the 4 fatalities this year, safety should be the utmost priority. If that Red Cross is displayed, you better stop. If not, the punishment should be significant, and $100 is not what I would consider a stiff penalty.

To summarize, based on limited information, it looks like both rulings applied the rules, as the currently exist.

Now you need to fight to change the rules.

 

[nialld]

hi there

7.11.I

I think you missed a bit..
"Failure to comply with any part of this Emergency Procedures section,
will result in an automatic $100 fine and possibly a license suspension."


The rule is fine... the window is there to suspend based on the facts
it does not say anything about seeing the red cross or not.

It obviously came down to the people involved in the incident...
and i really dont want to go there...but how many examples do you need..

regards
niall d

 

[daphne]

7.11.I is a repeat of 8.2.B.3. It says possible suspension. The $100 is automatic.

Emergency procedure is all encompassing - it talks about setting up triangles, displaying the OK sign, the Red Cross, etc.

Are you implying that the ruling against the Oregon competitor was unjust because the PRB showed favoritism towards that person? Gosh, I certainly hope not.

(NOTE: I'm not going to waste bandwidth talking about Milner's scenario since it's been beaten to death on this forum before...well....unless you want me to.)

But again, let's examine what happened. Once the Red Cross is displayed, the stage is done. Driving 10/10ths to the finish to get a good time is moot 'cause you aren't going to get scored. (In fact, you are likely to get in trouble since we know who started the stage when and if the car in front of you reported the Red Cross we would know you ignored it.) So, ignoring a Red Cross does not benefit you one bit, but rather it hurts you.

On the other hand, you might be someone who just wants to drive down the road - any road - fast. You don't care what is in your way. You spit in the general direction of rules and safety. You are kamakazi rally driver. In this scenario, you do have something to gain from driving 10/10ths down the road - you get your kicks.

So the question is, what scenario do you believe? Perhaps I'm naivve, but I tend to believe the first scenario; especially after what happened on SS1 at Oregon.

I don't know the people involved in this incident, so I certainly cannot pass judgement. (I don't even know WHO we are talking about...) Well, I have emailed Christian in the past (he took my rooms at the Chattanooga Marriott once and I still got my Marriott points - woo hoo!) and Ralph (I've eaten at a Ruby's before) but I don't think we're talking about them anyway.

I'm clearly missing something here. Email me if you want to discuss privately.

 

[nialld]

hi there

i am trying to understand how the penalty was so little....
who we are talking about should not matter in the process of administering a penalty...

however if you look at the penalties that have been given out so far by the new regieme...it is obvious that they are taking a no nonsense approach to people who break the rules...and i would applaud every one of the penalties... that is until this one.

i have no vested interest in the issue, other than to try to help to make the sport as safe a possible...

I just need to understand the thinking behind such a small penalty for such a serious offense.
regards
niall d

[email protected]

 

[go fast photo]

What stage are we talking about. I was on the stage where a blue Sube was ahead of Lauchlin way out of the running order about 2.5 miles into the stage. I thought who the hell was that. It wasn't until we got eklund and wolfgang to stop until I knew who the blue sube was. Rich was waving the red cross and I remember a few cars blowing by. I think it was stage 9.
Chris...gofastphoto

 

[Brian Scott]

Very interesting topic.

I checked on SCCA.org and looked at the latest Fastrack, September. There isn't a Performance Rally section listed for this issue.

Is the incident/penalty described anywhere in writing? I'm curious to read the whole thing.

Brian

 

[daphne]

Well, now I know we are talking about Mark so I have a little more to go on. ;-)

If we are talking about the penalty assessed to Mark Utecht vs the one assessed to Milner, I'm not getting your point.

In Mark's incident, you have the case of a long time competitor (and frankly, a pretty nice guy if you ask me) making a mistake...a mistake that I would argue is completely out of character for someone like Mark. He didn't mean to do it. He is normally a very careful guy. And we all know he feels terrible for what happened. And remember, he had nothing to gain from his error.

In Milner's case, you have a guy who has had a few run ins with organizers. It appears, based on what I have heard, that he was trying to cheat at STPR. (My understanding is that if he was running under BRC rules, stopping the stage when his car broke would have netted him the class win.)

At STPR, competitors were warned that improper use of the Red Cross would be severely punished. I believe the series manager said something about taking competitor licenses away for a very long time. Given that, one might even argue that Milner got a break...he was only suspended for one event.

I think we are comparing apples to oranges here as they are 2 very different incidents.

 

[Trevor Donison]

>I think we are comparing apples to oranges here as they are
>2 very different incidents.

Definately. Ultimately not stopping at the red cross cost Mark time on the road as he was given a time for the stage and everyone else got David Higgins time. As close as Group N usually is, 30 seconds could have meant the difference in the Rally. It was in his best competitive interest to stop, so obviously it was simply (if you can call it that) a mistake.

 

[Bruce]

>
>i am trying to understand how the penalty was so little....
>who we are talking about should not matter in the process of
>administering a penalty...
>
>
>I just need to understand the thinking behind such a small
>penalty for such a serious offense.
>regards

I believe the difference was that one penalty was given out under the section on red cross procedures...which, as Daphne points out, requires the fine and makes suspension optional...while the other was under unsportsmanlike conduct...a completely different set of penalty options.

It appears the Steward did not believe that Mark's offense rose to the level of unsportsmanlike conduct, based on the evidence presented.

Bruce

 

[Steven D Perret]

It would seem to me that both penalties suit the conduct. The $100.00 fine is clearly spelled out, unlike many other things in the rulebook..

I think the real issue is how do we make it so the "Red Cross" is not over looked in this type of situation..

We all know that there are a lot of sensory inputs when coming up on something like this, at speed you have to determine several different things like if you need to alter your line, your braking or many other obvious factors which could effect the situation, all of which happens as you are looking at what little picture they are holding in there hand.. Dust, sun and rain also play a part in this!
It is complicated by competitors who have had an off and wave your speed down for an incident that is clearly off the road and not going to be an issue. (ok I wont bring that one up)
I am not sure how you could over look the possibility of a Red Cross here but it seems that it was.

Is it necessary that we implement a "Red Cross Flag" that could be kept next to the C/D triangle? A flag would be pretty hard to miss, and would not require the time spent looking for that little picture. This could also be something displayed out the window if you cant get out of the car fast enough.. Just a thought..



Steven Perret
Car# 226
Driftin4 Racing
[email protected]

 

[ORG Mike]

Niall comments...
>
>Trying hard to make sense of this incident and the penalty
>that the BOD has imposed on the competitor at fault.
>As i understand it Laughlin O'Sullivan catches up to a car
>on the stage that he knows should not have been there. He is
>able to get the car stopped, discovers that this car somehow
>got on to the stage by mistake, his co driver immeadiately
>displays the red cross to the next car on the road..Nelson
>and Bradley they stop..are advised of the situation and per
>the rules proceed to the next radio control to inform
>organisers of the problem...the next car did not stop at the
>red cross, and passed Nelson and Bradley at speed. .....

>This incident in my opinion is the most serious that has
>happened in U.S. rallying...and it has been brushed under
>the mat. .....

>Lets suppose that a second car turned right instead of
>left... and you can all fill in the blanks
>
>
>As i was not present, if i have any parts wrong please
>correct me but i would welcome any input from other people
>on this incident.
>
>
>regards
>niall donnelly

Well Niall, I too, as clerk of the course at Oregon Trail, am curious about the investigation of the errant PGT Surbaru #81 who found his way onto SS9 some 20 seconds in front of Lauchlin. Ukrainian driver, Maciukevicius and his co-driver missed the stay right at SS8 instruction #13, passing over banner tape. Although the next mile of SS8 has three instructions (complete with numbered arrows at roadside), this team traveled more than 2 miles of stage locked road, through at least two hairpins, on un-rallied roadway, without any arrows or rally paraphenalia present. No one else missed the turn, or at least figured out the error in short order. Upon eventually arriving at the junction with the SS9 route, he then proceeded to blast through double banner tape to enter onto SS9.

Apparently there was no light available at all to come on in their collective heads. Who would travel that far without figuring something was wrong? Reports I've heard say that Maciukevicius commented that he never saw any of the (200+ numbered course) arrows all weekend! Maybe the 20+ cars in front of him all got lost! Coming upon double banner tape at SS9 instruction #5, who would have proceeded beyond that point?

The issue of Mark Uhtecht passing a displayed red cross has been overly addressed here. The issue to me is Lauchlins choice to throw a mid-stage non-medical red cross. OTR officials warned PRB member, Edstrom, prior to STPR that giving drivers the choice for throwing non-medical emergency red crosses, would be very controversial. Obviously, O'Sullivan was losing time running behind a PGT competitor. Force majeure' comes to mind. By stopping the competitor mid-stage, he hindered the expedient notification of officials at the STOP control, by waiting for the following car (Nelson), then sending them to the end with second hand information at at reduced speed. This non-medical emergency red cross in the hands of competitors is a very hot topic with me.

I would have preferred car #6 have completed the stage at speed. STOP control would have figured out #81's idiotic presence, and notified net control of an issue. But then car #6 would be down some precious seconds on SS9.

As it worked out, OTR officials, led by NORPAC safety officer, Rich Olmstead from SS9 spectator locale, halted further starts and two cars at spectator. SS8 starts were now completed and the only available entry point for the errant car #81 was plugged and SS9 was swept secure again. Olmstead then turned the stage back over to the stage captain who had all of the remaining competitors lined up at the ATC. At that point only about 6 cars would have been without a proper stage time for SS9. The ProRally Series Manager then declared the stage cold and instructed the stage captain to send the rest of the competitors down a ready and secure stage at transit speed, instead of at rally stage speed. Past 1000 disgruntled spectators who had anxiously awaited at the super acute spectator corner. And we wonder where ProRally is headed? x(

By the way Lauchlin, did you file an incident report? Mr Olmstead has not received it.

Mike
(The future of rally depends on YOUR positive actions)

 

[markn]

>>The issue of Mark Uhtecht passing a displayed red cross has
>>been overly addressed here. The issue to me is Lauchlins
>>choice to throw a mid-stage non-medical red cross. OTR
>>officials warned PRB member, Edstrom, prior to STPR that
>>giving drivers the choice for throwing non-medical emergency
>>red crosses, would be very controversial. Obviously,
>>O'Sullivan was losing time running behind a PGT competitor.
>>Force majeure' comes to mind. By stopping the competitor
>>mid-stage, he hindered the expedient notification of
>>officials at the STOP control, by waiting for the following
>>car (Nelson), then sending them to the end with second hand
>>information at at reduced speed. This non-medical emergency
>>red cross in the hands of competitors is a very hot topic
>>with me.
>
>I would have preferred car #6 have completed the stage at
>speed. STOP control would have figured out #81's idiotic
>presence, and notified net control of an issue. But then
>car #6 would be down some precious seconds on SS9.
>

It's very disconcerting to listen to every self-appointed expert chiming in their 2 cents on what happened. However, the information Niall posted was COMPLETELY accurate.

Sorry Mike, but considering you were the clerk of the course, this is an inappropriate response, especially in light of the tragic accident on Saturday.

I do have a few questions though:

1a) Would you mind telling me how we received "second hand" information when both cars 81 and 6 were stopped and the situation was explained to us by Christian?

1b) By your definition, what exactly constitutes 1st hand information??

2) Let's consider this - what if car 81 had decided to turn the opposite direction onto stage 9, and thus is now heading straight on for car 6 (Lauchlin and Christian) Would this have been enough to consitute a red cross had there been an accident?

3) Also consider that the banner tape on SS8 is now effectively knocked down, and since there are no road marshalls, following cars could EASILY have made the same mistake now that there are effetively 2 open roads. What would have been the situation if another car inadvertantly crossed over from SS8 to SS9 (while SS9 is still hot)?

Especially given Saturday's events, and however car 81 got onto SS9, I firmly agree with Lauchlin and Christian's decision to throw the red cross. This was a serious safety issue - how is any competitor to know what the circumstances are that would cause a car from another stage to wander onto a different hot stage?


>As it worked out, OTR officials, led by NORPAC safety
>officer, Rich Olmstead from SS9 spectator locale, halted
>further starts and two cars at spectator. SS8 starts were
>now completed and the only available entry point for the
>errant car #81 was plugged and SS9 was swept secure again.
>Olmstead then turned the stage back over to the stage
>captain who had all of the remaining competitors lined up at
>the ATC. At that point only about 6 cars would have been
>without a proper stage time for SS9. The ProRally Series
>Manager then declared the stage cold and instructed the
>stage captain to send the rest of the competitors down a
>ready and secure stage at transit speed, instead of at rally
>stage speed. Past 1000 disgruntled spectators who had
>anxiously awaited at the super acute spectator corner. And
>we wonder where ProRally is headed? x(

You have got to be kidding me...

You're posting an extremely hostile response to factual information - are you simply trying to wield some authority??

>
>By the way Lauchlin, did you file an incident report? Mr
>Olmstead has not received it.
>
>Mike
>(The future of rally depends on YOUR positive actions)

What positive actions are you taking? This is EVERYBODY's responsibility. Please do not take this personally, but consider the forum in which you are posting and try to THINK as if you were in each of these competitors' positions as well. The first thing that was on everybody's mind Sat. afternoon and Sunday was safety!

I don't post on this board very often, but I will not put up with the "my $hit doesn't stink" philosophy. Mistakes are going to be made - I have tremendous respect for those who admit them AND work to rectify them.

The question that should be asked AND resolved now is how can we make sure that this situation of a car getting onto the stage, doesn't happen again? Let's fix the problem and move on.

regards,
-mark nelson

 

[ORG Mike]

>>>The issue of Mark Uhtecht passing a displayed red cross has
>>>been overly addressed here. The issue to me is Lauchlins
>>>choice to throw a mid-stage non-medical red cross. OTR
>>>officials warned PRB member, Edstrom, prior to STPR that
>>>giving drivers the choice for throwing non-medical emergency
>>>red crosses, would be very controversial. Obviously,
>>>O'Sullivan was losing time running behind a PGT competitor.
>>>Force majeure' comes to mind. By stopping the competitor
>>>mid-stage, he hindered the expedient notification of
>>>officials at the STOP control, by waiting for the following
>>>car (Nelson), then sending them to the end with second hand
>>>information at at reduced speed. This non-medical emergency
>>>red cross in the hands of competitors is a very hot topic
>>>with me.
>>
>>I would have preferred car #6 have completed the stage at
>>speed. STOP control would have figured out #81's idiotic
>>presence, and notified net control of an issue. But then
>>car #6 would be down some precious seconds on SS9.
>>
>
>It's very disconcerting to listen to every self-appointed
>expert chiming in their 2 cents on what happened. However,
>the information Niall posted was COMPLETELY accurate.
>
>Sorry Mike, but considering you were the clerk of the
>course, this is an inappropriate response, especially in
>light of the tragic accident on Saturday.
>
>I do have a few questions though:
>
>1a) Would you mind telling me how we received "second hand"
>information when both cars 81 and 6 were stopped and the
>situation was explained to us by Christian?
>
>1b) By your definition, what exactly constitutes 1st hand
>information??

Sorry, perhaps "second hand" is the wrong term, but Lauchlin made a call,and you were asked to explain it for him. The info over the radio left our safety officials to think that O'Sullivan was at the STOP control making the call.


>2) Let's consider this - what if car 81 had decided to turn
>the opposite direction onto stage 9, and thus is now heading
>straight on for car 6 (Lauchlin and Christian) Would this
>have been enough to consitute a red cross had there been an
>accident?
>
>3) Also consider that the banner tape on SS8 is now
>effectively knocked down, and since there are no road
>marshalls, following cars could EASILY have made the same
>mistake now that there are effetively 2 open roads. What
>would have been the situation if another car inadvertantly
>crossed over from SS8 to SS9 (while SS9 is still hot)?

I understand all of that, but the throwing of the red cross in mid stage failed to hasten any action to solve the concern that Lauchlin had. Safety is still foremost, and you seem to gloss over the actions of car #81's crew. They could have also headed off toward Timbuctu on their own, endangering who knows who.

>Especially given Saturday's events, and however car 81 got
>onto SS9, I firmly agree with Lauchlin and Christian's
>decision to throw the red cross. This was a serious safety
>issue - how is any competitor to know what the circumstances
>are that would cause a car from another stage to wander onto
>a different hot stage?

>
>>As it worked out, OTR officials, led by NORPAC safety
>>officer, Rich Olmstead from SS9 spectator locale, halted
>>further starts and two cars at spectator. SS8 starts were
>>now completed and the only available entry point for the
>>errant car #81 was plugged and SS9 was swept secure again.
>>Olmstead then turned the stage back over to the stage
>>captain who had all of the remaining competitors lined up at
>>the ATC. At that point only about 6 cars would have been
>>without a proper stage time for SS9. The ProRally Series
>>Manager then declared the stage cold and instructed the
>>stage captain to send the rest of the competitors down a
>>ready and secure stage at transit speed, instead of at rally
>>stage speed. Past 1000 disgruntled spectators who had
>>anxiously awaited at the super acute spectator corner. And
>>we wonder where ProRally is headed? x(
>
>You have got to be kidding me...
>
>You're posting an extremely hostile response to factual
>information - are you simply trying to wield some
>authority??
>

NO Mark, nothing hostile here, nor any authority thing. Just noting that the organizers took the concern seriously, identified the breach point, and secured the stage again. We worked hard to put on a good event, and our fans and the rest of the Club Rally folks loose out in the end.


>I don't post on this board very often, but I will not put up
>with the "my $hit doesn't stink" philosophy. Mistakes are
>going to be made - I have tremendous respect for those who
>admit them AND work to rectify them.
>
>The question that should be asked AND resolved now is how
>can we make sure that this situation of a car getting onto
>the stage, doesn't happen again? Let's fix the problem and
>move on.
>

What is this Mark? Are you asking for something from me?
Now I do take exception. I have dedicated far too much time to making this a safe and enjoyable activity for the rally drivers to come out and showcase this sport. I refuse to accept responsibility for the stupid actions of car #81.

Mike
(The future of rally depends on YOUR positive actions)

 

[DonSwier]

>Ukrainian driver, Maciukevicius and his co-driver
>missed the stay right at SS8 instruction #13, passing over
>banner tape. Although the next mile of SS8 has three
>instructions (complete with numbered arrows at roadside),
>this team traveled more than 2 miles of stage locked road,
>through at least two hairpins, on un-rallied roadway,
>without any arrows or rally paraphenalia present

Pardon the unsolicited observation, but isn't THIS particular info from Mike (a pair of competitors oblivious to 2 MILES (!!!) of wrong road) much more important than a brief, unintentional oversight by Mark U. as he passed a couple undamaged stationary cars where (I assume) nobody looked or acted as if a medical emergency was occurring?

IMO, the only thing Oregon's careful, experienced organizers can do to make the event safer is to permanently ban any team lacking the common sense to know when they're off stage.

 

[Bjorn240]

Mike,

(This is a cc: of an email to you)

Please call me personally on 646-283-3088.

As I was the co-driver in the #6 car, I very much look forward to discussing the incident at Oregon Trail ProRally with you.

A report was submitted to the National Safety Steward and the ProRally Series Manager. I didn't cc: Rich Olmstead as there is no requirement or provision in the rules to do so.

Warm regards,
- Christian

Bjorn Christian Edstrom
Co-Driver

 

[Rallymedik]

>
>Especially given Saturday's events, and however car 81 got
>onto SS9, I firmly agree with Lauchlin and Christian's
>decision to throw the red cross. This was a serious safety
>issue - how is any competitor to know what the circumstances
>are that would cause a car from another stage to wander onto
>a different hot stage?
>
>
AMEN BROTHER

99% OF US FEEL THE SAME

 

[Don Kennedy]

>IMO, the only thing Oregon's careful, experienced organizers
>can do to make the event safer is to permanently ban any
>team lacking the common sense to know when they're off
>stage.
>
Is this the organizers responsibility or SCCAs?. It sure sounds to me like some kind of serious consequence is in order.

 

[Mad Mike]

I'm 100% with Mark Nelson on this one - You, Mike Nagle, are WAY off base with most of your comments.

Nagle said ...

>The issue to me is Lauchlins
>choice to throw a mid-stage non-medical red cross.

First - the ONLY thing in the rule book that directly ties the display of a red cross to a medical emergency is 7.11.D - "Upon notification of the red cross situation, the stage is immediately stopped and medical personnel are dispatched ..."

Due to a tragedy earlier this year it was deemed necessary to quickly implement a consistent way for a stage to be shut down by either competing teams or workers should the need (whatever that turns out to be) arise. It has been made abundantly clear to those of us entered at both STPR and OTPR that there certainly are non-medical situations where the display of a red cross is warranted, if not demanded. I realize that the red cross means 'medical' the world over, but given the timeliness of the response required and the unmistakable nature of the symbol I stand behind its use in the current situation.

Should we keep using the red cross for non-medical emergencies in the future? Probably not - but we need not rush into adopting a different procedure without due dilligence.

>OTR officials warned PRB member, Edstrom, prior to STPR that
>giving drivers the choice for throwing non-medical emergency
>red crosses, would be very controversial.

Given the number of uninformed, unresearched opinions flooding forums and lists these days, what isn't controversial? The trouble I've got is that, so far, the only person pointing a finger at Lauchlin and Christian is the one apparently delegated the responsibilty to secure the stages.

>Obviously, O'Sullivan was losing time running behind a PGT
>competitor. Force majeure' comes to mind.

I'm sure Lauchlin could have easily passed that car and continued to the finish at speed, but that would have been a criminally ignorant thing to do if it turned out that there was something causing more than just that one car to stray onto the stage. How could anyone in good conscience pass a demonstrably slower car that's suddenly mixed itself amongst the front-runners and just press on to the finish control?!? I think Lauchlin and Christian's decision and subsequent actions were spot on. I believe you, Mike Nagle, owe Lauchlin and Christian a sincere apology for even hinting that their actions at OTPR were anything but in the best interests of their fellow competitors, the organizers and the sport in general.

>By stopping the competitor
>mid-stage, he hindered the expedient notification of
>officials at the STOP control, by waiting for the following
>car (Nelson), then sending them to the end with second hand
>information at at reduced speed.

Not only is that the most preposterous thing I've ever heard, it flies completely in the face of written rules and the stuff we ClubRally Stewards teach newbies in the classrooms! But since you've brought it up, just how in F---ING HELL is a team onstage supposed to know what, on reflection, was the most expedient way to handle a given situation?!? There is no time for a team to sit around, mull over the variables, dream up a freelance solution and then implement it when a mess of rally cars are boring down on them! If a team thinks the situation warrants it, STOP THE STAGE ACCORDING TO ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES - PERIOD! There is NO place for freelancing in these situations.

>This non-medical emergency
>red cross in the hands of competitors is a very hot topic
>with me.

So?!?

>I would have preferred car #6 have completed the stage at
>speed. STOP control would have figured out #81's idiotic
>presence, and notified net control of an issue. But then
>car #6 would be down some precious seconds on SS9.

So who would you be blaming had the #81 car gone counter-stage direction and we were left with four competitors unable to share what happened to them?

>As it worked out, OTR officials, led by NORPAC safety
>officer, Rich Olmstead from SS9 spectator locale, halted
>further starts and two cars at spectator. SS8 starts were
>now completed and the only available entry point for the
>errant car #81 was plugged and SS9 was swept secure again.
>Olmstead then turned the stage back over to the stage
>captain who had all of the remaining competitors lined up at
>the ATC. At that point only about 6 cars would have been
>without a proper stage time for SS9. The ProRally Series
>Manager then declared the stage cold and instructed the
>stage captain to send the rest of the competitors down a
>ready and secure stage at transit speed, instead of at rally
>stage speed. Past 1000 disgruntled spectators who had
>anxiously awaited at the super acute spectator corner. And
>we wonder where ProRally is headed? x(

You really should read the rule book. PRR 7.11.E states that (right, wrong or indifferent) once the red cross has been displayed, "The competition on this stage is over and it will be scored according to these rules." The delay many of us suffered at that ATC was simply a waste of time. The ProRally Series Steward is "responsible for management of the SCCA ProRally Championship, acting as Event Steward at ProRally events." Why would anyone ignore a call masde by the PRSS when he's implementing - to the letter - a section of the ProRally Rule Book?

>By the way Lauchlin, did you file an incident report? Mr
>Olmstead has not received it.

Incident report? Yet again, PRR 7.11.G - "The driver of any vehicle involved in a rally related accident resulting in personal injury or poperty damage must fill-out an Incident Report Form and file as per 1.6.D." The only apparent injury or property damage you've mentioned was the banner tape that the #81 car ran through. Maybe you should insist the #81 crew from fill out an Incident Report Form and cease attacking a pair of upstanding competitors and gentlemen.

>Mike
>(The future of rally depends on YOUR positive actions)

You call the post you made positive???

Never mind ...

Halley ...
Owner/Driver ProRally #86 - world's first New Beetle Rally Car
RealAutoSport, LLC
http://www.realautosport.com

 

[MDBodnar]

Thank you Mike Halley for attacking all the correct issues.

Mike from Oregon, shouldn't your number one concern be: How did you let an errant car (rally or otherwise) onto a secure stage?

It seems the same situation occured at Maine and very similar actions were taken.

I was very suprised to see an Organizer attack a competitor for an issue with the root cause based clearly on the organizer's shoulders.

Mike from Oregon, we all look forward to your apology, your acknowledgement that the road was not secure, your understanding that the situation of an unsecure road is unacceptable, and your acknowledgement that your words on SS were out of line.

(All that said, we all agree that car 81 has clearly demonstrated they do not understand the basics of stage rally in the US and are therefore a Hazard to themselves, fellow competitors, and workers.)

Regards,
Mike