What was he thinking?

[simes43]

Championships now need to self-police their own competitors driving standards and use an independent to review incidents. Relying on the blazers to see or act upon dangerous driving is a lost cause for numerous, already highlighted, reasons.

[staceyboy]

simes43 said:

Championships now need to self-police their own competitors driving standards and use an independent to review incidents. Relying on the blazers to see or act upon dangerous driving is a lost cause for numerous, already highlighted, reasons.

I agree. Also, I like what some Karting series do where you have to have a camera on board. And make folk sign to say it must be available for officials to view.

[mattmk391]

staceyboy said:

I agree. Also, I like what some Karting series do where you have to have a camera on board. And make folk sign to say it must be available for officials to view.

I don't know about other clubs but the BRSCC made in-car cameras mandatory this season for us. You get a yellow card if you can't produce the footage when asked then a red card and championship points taken away if it happens a second time.

Any contact reported by observers has been investigated post race, including calling in the driver of any following car for an outside perspective. It's worked well, time penalties where someone has gained an advantage through contact etc, although IMO some big decisions have been avoided and put down as 'racing incidents' in the interests of paddock harmony.

[covboy]

From all the different viewpoints being expressed on here perhaps it can now be seen how difficult it is for the "blazers" to come to their decisions. You'll not please all the people all of the time.

[NJH]

simes43 said:

Championships now need to self-police their own competitors driving standards and use an independent to review incidents. Relying on the blazers to see or act upon dangerous driving is a lost cause for numerous, already highlighted, reasons.

Agreed 100%. The builders of my car and friends up in Brum formed the new Puma Cup with driving standards and safety right at its heart. Overly aggressive driving makes a mockery of the low cost ethos of a lot of club level motorsport, not to name names but all of us have seen certain championships whose cars sat in the paddock all have dents on them with many held together for the next race with gaffer tape. Its not low cost if one is spending several £k per season fixing damage on the car and its not fun any more when psychopaths set out to win by all means.

[spyderman8]

NJH said:

A guy effectively tries to kill a fellow competitor in a race yet gets away with a slap on the wrist whilst on other occasions guys are being penalised for damaging bits of Dr Palmers grass verges. This sport has got all its priorities completely arse about face.

Very well said.

Chris.

[simes43]

covboy said:

From all the different viewpoints being expressed on here perhaps it can now be seen how difficult it is for the "blazers" to come to their decisions. You'll not please all the people all of the time.

Ten years ago contact between cars would mean a discussion with the blazers and penalties awarded if appropriate.

It is not the case today.

The threat of litigation by competitors to argue their case has made the blazers very wary of making the right decisions when needed.

Four wheels off, yellow flag infringements are far easier to handle than little Jonny's cheque waving dad.

If the Btcc package was clerked properly, it would be poor TV but a clear statement of what is expected.

[staceyboy]

100% agree. You'd have to be living on the moon not to have seen the track limits info. About time they did something on driving standards.

[simes43]

Perhaps the ARDS test should be longer and include practical
examples of good and bad driving standards?

An expensive resit of the ARDS test for blatant poor driving
would deter offenders too, especially if it had to be completed prior to being allowed to compete again.

I won't hold my breath!

[steeviegeebies]

simes43 said:

Yep the old racing incident nonsense.

SO true. Having been collected by a spinning car that was punted from the rear it beggars belief how these things are deemed racing incidents.

[Mark Benson]

simes43 said:

Perhaps the ARDS test should be longer and include practical
examples of good and bad driving standards?

An expensive resit of the ARDS test for blatant poor driving
would deter offenders too, especially if it had to be completed prior to being allowed to compete again.

I won't hold my breath!

Problem is, those doing the shunting are often the ones who can afford the repairs, so hitting the wallet could just be seen as a necessary expense.

The blazers need to be given back the powers and protection they once had to discipline drivers with bans and exclusions without fear of retribution. Now cameras are within the reach of everyone (£20 on ebay if you're really strapped) they should be mandatory and the MSA should back up decisions made by trackside officials.

No, I'm not holding my breath either.

[stevieturbo]

Furyblade_Lee said:

Sorry, but I thought they were involved in a race? Yes the Clio driver "could" have backed out but why should he? They are racing. It's not a f****** trackday.

Is it not obvious from the video why ?

Can you win...or indeed finish a race buried in a barrier ?

Again, there is blame on both parties, perhaps some more than others

But with self preservation in mind, the Clio driver obviously claiming the Porsche was driving dangerously...so what would you do ?

Maintain a close enough distance he can hit and crash into you ? Or hold back a little until it is 100% safe to pass ?

[radical78]

he porche driver needs to use his bloody MIRRORS before moving across . the clio driver needs to learn when to back out of a potentially dangerouse situation

[Adam205]

radical78 said:

he porche driver needs to use his bloody MIRRORS before moving across . the clio driver needs to learn when to back out of a potentially dangerouse situation

Thats how I see it.

[Oilchange]

I think there's a difference between jossling for the lead and deliberately ramming someone off the track. It is clear what he did here.
He deliberately rammed the Clio off the track.

[Dan Friel]

Adam205 said:

radical78 said:

he porche driver needs to use his bloody MIRRORS before moving across . the clio driver needs to learn when to back out of a potentially dangerouse situation

Thats how I see it.

If that's the way people see it, then it's the end of amateur motorsport. You are always in potentially dangerous position when racing, however, you don't expect another racer to make sure that the position actually becomes severely dangerous... How would anyone ever get alongside and overtake fairly?

It's clear that the Porsche driver was at 100% at fault, and this is how the MSA saw it. Case closed. The only real debate is whether the punishment is adequate.

[Mark Benson]

Dan Friel said:

Adam205 said:

radical78 said:

he porche driver needs to use his bloody MIRRORS before moving across . the clio driver needs to learn when to back out of a potentially dangerouse situation

Thats how I see it.

If that's the way people see it, then it's the end of amateur motorsport. You are always in potentially dangerous position when racing, however, you don't expect another racer to make sure that the position actually becomes severely dangerous... How would anyone ever get alongside and overtake fairly?

It's clear that the Porsche driver was at 100% at fault, and this is how the MSA saw it. Case closed. The only real debate is whether the punishment is adequate.

What rot. End of amateur motorsport indeed!

Believe it or not, driver skill and often superior machinery is required to overtake cleanly, and a certain amount of circumspection.
Nudging one's way into position does not require skill, doing so to a competitor who's clearly hell-bent on stopping you, fair means or foul does not show circumspection. What's sad is that someone who claims to be a marshal can't judge the difference, I hope you're never asked to observe when I'm racing.

Let's be clear, the Porsche driver was responsible for putting the Clio into the pit wall, what he did was appalling and should not be tolerated.
However, the Clio driver, in my opinion and several others was not the paragon of virtue they claim to have been, he took to the grass and forced the Porsche's rear wide at Barn, something (supposedly) not condoned in club racing, although the responses of many lead me to believe the BTCC is becoming the yardstick for driver conduct, sadly.

[Dan Friel]

Mark Benson said:

Dan Friel said:

Adam205 said:

radical78 said:

he porche driver needs to use his bloody MIRRORS before moving across . the clio driver needs to learn when to back out of a potentially dangerouse situation

Thats how I see it.

If that's the way people see it, then it's the end of amateur motorsport. You are always in potentially dangerous position when racing, however, you don't expect another racer to make sure that the position actually becomes severely dangerous... How would anyone ever get alongside and overtake fairly?

It's clear that the Porsche driver was at 100% at fault, and this is how the MSA saw it. Case closed. The only real debate is whether the punishment is adequate.

What rot. End of amateur motorsport indeed!

Believe it or not, driver skill and often superior machinery is required to overtake cleanly, and a certain amount of circumspection.
Nudging one's way into position does not require skill, doing so to a competitor who's clearly hell-bent on stopping you, fair means or foul does not show circumspection. What's sad is that someone who claims to be a marshal can't judge the difference, I hope you're never asked to observe when I'm racing.

Let's be clear, the Porsche driver was responsible for putting the Clio into the pit wall, what he did was appalling and should not be tolerated.
However, the Clio driver, in my opinion and several others was not the paragon of virtue they claim to have been, he took to the grass and forced the Porsche's rear wide at Barn, something (supposedly) not condoned in club racing, although the responses of many lead me to believe the BTCC is becoming the yardstick for driver conduct, sadly.

You seem to be mixing incidents. There was contact at Barn (now seen the longer video), I don't know whether this was reported or reviewed by the MSA at the meeting. Does anyone? Both cars stayed on the track, and both drivers know where each other was as they continued along the pit straight. The Porsche driver decided to drive the Clio off the track, and it's wholly unacceptable.

The Porsche driver could have ceded the position, and protested the contact at Barn after the race. I no longer marshal at BTCC meetings, and haven't for 10 years since James Thompson nearly took my head off. The mentality of "rubbing is racing" is so wrong and will end in something appalling. You can't have drivers weaving around the race track, the rules are clear.

[simes43]

It would be interesting to know if the intentional contact by the Clio to gain position was reported and acted upon.

I doubt it.

For the purposes of clarification, I would have gone up to the CoC and lodged an appeal if the Clio had passed me in that manner.

What happened before or after is irrelevant.

[Mark Benson]

Dan Friel said:

Mark Benson said:

Dan Friel said:

Adam205 said:

radical78 said:

he porche driver needs to use his bloody MIRRORS before moving across . the clio driver needs to learn when to back out of a potentially dangerouse situation

Thats how I see it.

If that's the way people see it, then it's the end of amateur motorsport. You are always in potentially dangerous position when racing, however, you don't expect another racer to make sure that the position actually becomes severely dangerous... How would anyone ever get alongside and overtake fairly?

It's clear that the Porsche driver was at 100% at fault, and this is how the MSA saw it. Case closed. The only real debate is whether the punishment is adequate.

What rot. End of amateur motorsport indeed!

Believe it or not, driver skill and often superior machinery is required to overtake cleanly, and a certain amount of circumspection.
Nudging one's way into position does not require skill, doing so to a competitor who's clearly hell-bent on stopping you, fair means or foul does not show circumspection. What's sad is that someone who claims to be a marshal can't judge the difference, I hope you're never asked to observe when I'm racing.

Let's be clear, the Porsche driver was responsible for putting the Clio into the pit wall, what he did was appalling and should not be tolerated.
However, the Clio driver, in my opinion and several others was not the paragon of virtue they claim to have been, he took to the grass and forced the Porsche's rear wide at Barn, something (supposedly) not condoned in club racing, although the responses of many lead me to believe the BTCC is becoming the yardstick for driver conduct, sadly.

You seem to be mixing incidents. There was contact at Barn (now seen the longer video), I don't know whether this was reported or reviewed by the MSA at the meeting. Does anyone? Both cars stayed on the track, and both drivers know where each other was as they continued along the pit straight. The Porsche driver decided to drive the Clio off the track, and it's wholly unacceptable.

The Porsche driver could have ceded the position, and protested the contact at Barn after the race. I no longer marshal at BTCC meetings, and haven't for 10 years since James Thompson nearly took my head off. The mentality of "rubbing is racing" is so wrong and will end in something appalling. You can't have drivers weaving around the race track, the rules are clear.

You can't separate the two incidents - same cars only seconds apart, do you not think the first incident had a bearing on the second? Did the (clearly irresponsible) Porsche driver think "Oops, got me there, I'll just back off and give you that one" and was the (clearly frustrated) Clio driver not so determined to capitalise on his nudge that he kept his foot in where it was probably the more sensible thing to back out and live to fight another lap, especially given the behaviour of the Porsche driver up to the incident?

As I said, neither driver comes out of that incident looking great and I don't believe you can separate the incidents into two discrete events, the first precipitated the second to some extent.

Other than that, I think we're agreeing - what I'm not saying is that the Clio driver was the architect of his own downfall, the Porsche clearly tried to close the door on a car that was alongside and that's not on.