RE: The KISS principle continued.....
>
>My gut instinct tells me there will some day be a situation
>where a displayed red cross will not be appropriate. Can I
>cite a specific example? No, not at this time. Not because
>there is no such example, but only because I honestly don't
>have time to think about this in great detail right now. (I
>know that sounds like a real "cop out", but I have to do other
>stuff these days).
If that is the case, that is why you are allowed to protest. If it is found that it was used to gain an advantage in the rally rather than an emergency or a true blockage, that competitor (I'm sure) will be HEAVILY repremanded (sp?) and/or kicked out of rallying for unsportsmanlike conduct.
>
>What first comes to my mind is that the red cross is an
>internationally known symbol related to medical matters. Yes,
>it is also related to disaster relief, blood drives, and other
>stuff. However, I believe, most people's first instinct upon
>seeing a red cross is to think there is a medical situation
>going on. The red cross is not known internationally as a
>stop sign. It is known in the U.S. and (I believe Canada)
>rallying as a stop sign. (If it is use in Europe for that
>reason perhaps someone can enlighten me).
If you see a competitor or marshall holding a red cross, it will get you to stop, correct? Well, then it's done it's intended job. Whether you feel that it stands for medical or not is beside the point. It is used to get your attention and to get you to stop before you make the situation worse. Once there, you find out what it is. If a tree is down across the road, and it's big enough to require a chainsaw, you won't get by it anyways and the stage will be tossed. So who cares if it is perceived as a medical sign at that point. I'm glad that you would react fast upon seeing such a sign. But, in a few moments you would find it's not a medical problem and you would settle down.
>
>I am speaking for myself (not for more experienced or more
>situational aware drivers)... I get tunnel vision when I'm
>rallying. I have had MANY instances where my co-drivers (very
>good ones) comment to me about a car that was off that we just
>past, and I hadn't noticed anything! I have also had
>co-drivers ask me if I saw a red cross or OK sign; I couldn't
>tell them, because I hadn't seen anything... nothing! By that
>time we are too far down the road to consider backing up on a
>hot stage. We would tell the end control that we saw
>something at such and such a mile. Perhaps if I could afford
>to run many rallies I would have less tunnel vision and more
>surrounding situational awareness, but that isn't/wasn't the
>case.
I sure hope you are never behind me if I ever have an off!! If any sign is shown (OK or otherwise), you are at least supposed to slow down to make sure you don't kill someone that might be trying to get out of their car on the side of the road.
>
>Going back to 2 versus 3 signs:
>
>I instinctively *feel* that the red cross symbol should be
>used for medical emergencies/conditions only, and that another
>mechanism (perhaps what Mark mentioned about 3 triangles)
>should be used for non-medical conditions. If the consensus
>is that 3 symbols are too much and there should only be 2,
>then I *feel* the stop signal should be something other than a
>red cross.
Ok. Then come up with something that everyone will understand an recognize immediately that will not be misconstrued with something else out in the woods (besides what only the competitors would have on them) to indicate that the next competitor must stop.
>
>Utecht has been rallying for a long time and is a well
>respected driver. Although I don't remember all the
>circumstances, I do remember he was involved some how in
>stopping a stage in Maine a year or two ago where people were
>mistakenly looping around and coming down a hot stage in the
>wrong direction. He considers 3 triangles appropriate to
>***help*** stop a stage. So do I.
I have much respect for Mr. Utecht for many reasons as well. The only flaw in his theory is it is only for the competitors. What about the workers that need to stop the competitors because of a situation (spectators, medical or otherwise)? We would have to come up with another thing for them to use for non-medical emergencies, so now we're up to 4 signs to show drivers. If it's something that can be dealt with in a few minutes by a couple of competitors on site without causing anybody to be put in harms way, I totally agree with the triangle scenarios. But if it's a total blockage that noone is going to get around, then the stage will be thrown. So if the red cross is used for that, who cares if it is not medical. I too agree that the verbage has to be better defined in the rule books to state "a red cross being displayed means that there is a situation that warrants shutting down the stage" and "that the stage is stopped at that point" or something to that effect.