Tweet
Reduce the rhetoric -implement rigourous process
Nobody should want to throw out the rule book, go back to shorts/T's, a Nanny state/governing body, to restrict responsible alcohol consumption(Don, thanks for the biology course, I'll reduce to 10beers/day).
Everyone wants to race safe, lower premium/equipment costs, the guy in the next boat not to adversely impact their enjoyment/competition/safety.
Insurance Co's have self interest to enforce risk reduction, reduce payout potential, and will incessantly threaten with premium increases to drive their agenda, increase revenues/reduce loss payouts. It's a business, built on profit/return to S/H's through reduced losses, and we should always expect those demands. Their self-interest mandate needs to be resisted. But it's our responsibility to adequately self-police and demonstrate the implementation of current rules.
Safety is a motherhood topic, 'never too safe'. However, are we at a point of diminished returns? Implementing additional criteria/stipulations beyond current regulations may have minimal additional safety benefit, but significant increase to racer costs. Insurance Co will never admit this, or have little interest about racer costs(to a limit). Safety Cmtee needs to research cost/benefit, seek 'experts'(Wartinger), for informed facts/opinion, not racer hearsay/anecdotes.
Local club Inspectors must inspect gear beginning of season or each race. Either decline/approve a racers participation at beginning of season, and put questionable racers on watch/infraction list prohibiting racing until gear has been repaired, replaced and inspected, and removed from list. Need to prevent racers dodging inspectors, going to different venues to avoid consistent enforcement.
How can this be so difficult in this day/age? Club/Nat'l inspectors should have an Inspector-only access web database to add/remove racers with infractions; no access available to other racers, inspectors only. They must enforce consistent standards/interpretations nationally. Most racers with sub-standard/non-spec equipment is likely aware of their deficiencies, and racing on borrowed time/$; it will not be a surprise to them to be listed. Those currently w sub-std gear should be budgeting/ordering for repair/replacement now for 2011/12 season, rather than sliding by. The few racers abusing regulations put the rest at risk of higher premiums. If an accident/injury occurs due to sub-std equipment, we all pay. If they get hurt due to their own negligence, tough sh-t. Most racers understand the risks and we mitigate them with investing in proper gear.
Current rules/process must be enforced nationally, with a master infraction list accessed by all inspectors, and they need to be accountable to the responsibilities which their role demands.
To Inspectors, hard as it is to kick your buddy off the racecourse, do it for the rest of us. Most do a great job, and we're grateful, and support you! If they cannot afford gear then borrow from a buddy, otherwise stay off the course.
Q: Are the equipment manufacturers driving the frequent recertification agenda/requirement?... there are too few of them, with obvious vested interest to drive this. At the same time, we're grateful they supply our sport. The supplier re-cert step also reduces the inspector judgement call to pass/fail gear; do we want that?
Need to make a real effort with firm policy/process to enforce current gear inspection rules in 2010. SO Safety Cmtee to implement a nat'l racer safety registry. Why can't this be done?? APBA/SO can track all members/fees/classes/points, why can't an inspection pass/fail be tracked??...just need another column on the list.
If that's not working, only then seek remedy for new process. If due to behavioural inadequacies current rules are not being implemented, new ones will not be either, and it opens the door for Insco's to hike premiums. Shame on us if we can't do this.
Good luck in Detroit, and have a good 2011 season!
Nobody should want to throw out the rule book, go back to shorts/T's, a Nanny state/governing body, to restrict responsible alcohol consumption(Don, thanks for the biology course, I'll reduce to 10beers/day).
Everyone wants to race safe, lower premium/equipment costs, the guy in the next boat not to adversely impact their enjoyment/competition/safety.
Insurance Co's have self interest to enforce risk reduction, reduce payout potential, and will incessantly threaten with premium increases to drive their agenda, increase revenues/reduce loss payouts. It's a business, built on profit/return to S/H's through reduced losses, and we should always expect those demands. Their self-interest mandate needs to be resisted. But it's our responsibility to adequately self-police and demonstrate the implementation of current rules.
Safety is a motherhood topic, 'never too safe'. However, are we at a point of diminished returns? Implementing additional criteria/stipulations beyond current regulations may have minimal additional safety benefit, but significant increase to racer costs. Insurance Co will never admit this, or have little interest about racer costs(to a limit). Safety Cmtee needs to research cost/benefit, seek 'experts'(Wartinger), for informed facts/opinion, not racer hearsay/anecdotes.
Local club Inspectors must inspect gear beginning of season or each race. Either decline/approve a racers participation at beginning of season, and put questionable racers on watch/infraction list prohibiting racing until gear has been repaired, replaced and inspected, and removed from list. Need to prevent racers dodging inspectors, going to different venues to avoid consistent enforcement.
How can this be so difficult in this day/age? Club/Nat'l inspectors should have an Inspector-only access web database to add/remove racers with infractions; no access available to other racers, inspectors only. They must enforce consistent standards/interpretations nationally. Most racers with sub-standard/non-spec equipment is likely aware of their deficiencies, and racing on borrowed time/$; it will not be a surprise to them to be listed. Those currently w sub-std gear should be budgeting/ordering for repair/replacement now for 2011/12 season, rather than sliding by. The few racers abusing regulations put the rest at risk of higher premiums. If an accident/injury occurs due to sub-std equipment, we all pay. If they get hurt due to their own negligence, tough sh-t. Most racers understand the risks and we mitigate them with investing in proper gear.
Current rules/process must be enforced nationally, with a master infraction list accessed by all inspectors, and they need to be accountable to the responsibilities which their role demands.
To Inspectors, hard as it is to kick your buddy off the racecourse, do it for the rest of us. Most do a great job, and we're grateful, and support you! If they cannot afford gear then borrow from a buddy, otherwise stay off the course.
Q: Are the equipment manufacturers driving the frequent recertification agenda/requirement?... there are too few of them, with obvious vested interest to drive this. At the same time, we're grateful they supply our sport. The supplier re-cert step also reduces the inspector judgement call to pass/fail gear; do we want that?
Need to make a real effort with firm policy/process to enforce current gear inspection rules in 2010. SO Safety Cmtee to implement a nat'l racer safety registry. Why can't this be done?? APBA/SO can track all members/fees/classes/points, why can't an inspection pass/fail be tracked??...just need another column on the list.
If that's not working, only then seek remedy for new process. If due to behavioural inadequacies current rules are not being implemented, new ones will not be either, and it opens the door for Insco's to hike premiums. Shame on us if we can't do this.
Good luck in Detroit, and have a good 2011 season!
Comment