overtaking under safety car rewarded?

[n3il123]

MadCaptainJack said:

Drumroll said:

Your original post said nothing was done...

Did it?

I think what the OP was expecting was the result to be changed with a time penalty rather than just the CoC giving the "offending" driver a verbal.

I guess if the OP felt strongly enough about it they could have ponied up the cash and protested the results of the race.

[Drumroll]

n3il123 said:

I think what the OP was expecting was the result to be changed with a time penalty rather than just the CoC giving the "offending" driver a verbal.

I guess if the OP felt strongly enough about it they could have ponied up the cash and protested the results of the race.

Maybe he was, but he could of said the driver was only given a verbal warning. ( but he was found guilty and that is my whole point. It is very different from "nothing was done")

[FNG]

I confess I thought the OP's point wasn't whether a warning had been given, but that giving a warning is a daft outcome.

1. it could result in other drivers ignoring yellows claiming they didn't see them in order to gain a place

2. regardless of whether the driver saw the flags or not, he shouldn't have passed, and it would have been extremely simple to apply a time penalty

Aside: I get the impression a warning was given pretty quickly after the fact, and the driver then spent much of his time arguing against that - and the answer was folded arms, not doing that, it would mean the driver gets points on his licence that the offence didn't warrant because it wasn't deliberate.

I'd get that the punishment wouldn't fit the crime, but the fault there lays with the feckin eejit who thought a verbal warning was ample measure to take against someone who's overtaken under yellows regardless of the circumstance.

I'd also argue that if the car ahead has slowed suddenly, you overtake (arguably yes he could have had a mechanical) and then find you're under safety car conditions, you'd damn well know why he slowed and you'd know you'd overtaken when you shouldn't have. So I don't even buy that the driver in 4th made an innocent mistake - he would have known what had just happened and should have given the place back.

But after this feeble punishment, well I got my podium and plastic trophy so fk it, I can try that again another time can't I...

[hartech]

So it would seem from your previous posts that you are an official at the circuit? and from your post on Tuesday 5th May that you support the benefit of "reporting issues" stating "must report if cars are not compliant if not you are part of the problem".

Pot and kettle comes to mind.

So the record from the Clerk of the Course (not sure how correct it is for that to become public knowledge without the participants approval?) shows that all the facts I presented were absolutely correct (not wrong as you so rudely imply).

The record also shows that the most lenient response for "failing to comply with a Safety Warning" appears to be a verbal warning and was applied (must have really scared the driver involved lol!).

Other options seem to include a stop and go penalty, being formally reprimanded, Loss of a lap time(Q), Grid place penalty, a fine, seconds added to the race time, Being disqualified from the results and being disqualified from the meeting?

I didn't reveal names or positions - just reported some facts that were accurate and my only opinion was to question if such a lenient response could set a dangerous precedent and to suggest that in view of it being a Championship, and the places ending up less than 0.2 of a second apart - a time penalty might have been more appropriate and invited the opinion of others.

I didn't realise that the public are not allowed to have an opinion (and perhaps that is part of the problem) and I didn't resort to abusive comments.

If you are an official I think your conduct should be brought into question and I am now going to take matters further - to find out if my post was indeed out of order or your response to it - not because I wanted to - but because your response is typical of the problem you alluded that I was causing.

If I am then found to be in the wrong I will withdraw my post and publicly apologise.

Safety issues should IMHO never be rewarded by it benefitting those responsible and whether you personally like it or not - officials do sometimes need to be reminded of their responsibilities and not feel so isolated from criticism that they can do whatever they want and abuse anyone questioning the outcome.

Just so we all know what part of your diversionary accusations we can ignore - for the record - please state that you think it is right to only receive a verbal warning for taking a place under a safety car and keeping it when the car in front slowed because of it (regardless of whether they saw it or not) and also say you don't think that could possibly set a dangerous precedent - then I will know how best to address the issues ahead.
.

[Drumroll]

FNG said:

I confess I thought the OP's point wasn't whether a warning had been given, but that giving a warning is a daft outcome.

1. it could result in other drivers ignoring yellows claiming they didn't see them in order to gain a place

2. regardless of whether the driver saw the flags or not, he shouldn't have passed, and it would have been extremely simple to apply a time penalty

Aside: I get the impression a warning was given pretty quickly after the fact, and the driver then spent much of his time arguing against that - and the answer was folded arms, not doing that, it would mean the driver gets points on his licence that the offence didn't warrant because it wasn't deliberate.

I'd get that the punishment wouldn't fit the crime, but the fault there lays with the feckin eejit who thought a verbal warning was ample measure to take against someone who's overtaken under yellows regardless of the circumstance.

I'd also argue that if the car ahead has slowed suddenly, you overtake (arguably yes he could have had a mechanical) and then find you're under safety car conditions, you'd damn well know why he slowed and you'd know you'd overtaken when you shouldn't have. So I don't even buy that the driver in 4th made an innocent mistake - he would have known what had just happened and should have given the place back.

But after this feeble punishment, well I got my podium and plastic trophy so fk it, I can try that again another time can't I...

Again I say you don't know if there was any other evidence was presented. I get it you feel aggrieved and I am not saying it was right. But with all things like this we are only getting your version

I can guarantee that drivers will still claim they didn't see the flag( whatever the colour) and even if they had suspended the other drivers licence it would still go on.

Just remember that feckin eejit gives up his time so you can race.

[FNG]

I'm not aggrieved in the slightest. If you re-read what I wrote, I was giving my interpretation of the OP. The fact you are at odds with the OP and haven't necessarily understood his position fully doesn't make pointing your finger at me have more merit.

I do however wonder how it's ever reasonable to punish overtaking under yellows with a verbal warning. Yellows protect a bunch of blokes who also spend their free time so people can go racing.

I think protecting them (by taking any overtaking under yellows seriously, and penalising appropriately so that it's never rewarded and doesn't ever become a thing that's rewarded) takes precedence over pretty much everything else at a race meeting.

[mcdjl]

FNG said:

I'm not aggrieved in the slightest. If you re-read what I wrote, I was giving my interpretation of the OP. The fact you are at odds with the OP and haven't necessarily understood his position fully doesn't make pointing your finger at me have more merit.

I do however wonder how it's ever reasonable to punish overtaking under yellows with a verbal warning. Yellows protect a bunch of blokes who also spend their free time so people can go racing.

I think protecting them (by taking any overtaking under yellows seriously, and penalising appropriately so that it's never rewarded and doesn't ever become a thing that's rewarded) takes precedence over pretty much everything else at a race meeting.

Most post chiefs who get the job of reporting these things tend to view overtaking under incident yellow/double yellows and as the safety car board goes out a bit differently. A bit of leniency might get given to the latter, less so when approaching people on track. Once the boards are out and established though they should still be reported. Unfortunately fewer drivers seeing flags is leading to more red flags/safety cars.

[hartech]

Where did I say "nothing was done" which you have quoted me as posting? this is the problem with those who think they are above criticism - stick to the facts please and don't attribute words to me that I did not post.

Now back to the salient point - do readers think a verbal warning is right, sufficient, fair and correct in all the circumstances or not?

If most think it is sufficient then I am proven to be out of touch with the majority (and I can accept being wrong) i am old and as I explained right at the beginning I accept that times might have changed.

If most think I am right - then the officials need to give more thought to their decisions.

Due to this being escalated by someone who appears to be an official - I will find out what Motorsport UK think about it as well (just in case I am completely in the wrong to dare suggest such things need thinking about) and if they agree with the decision then I am also happy to apologise (something others would do well to reciprocate).

I should also add that nothing in trying to discuss the protection and the safety of drivers means I do not include the officials as well and can I state clearly that really appreciate ALL the people who give up their time to support racing - I do and in many ways my post was trying to protect them rather than criticise them. However doing things for nothing doesn't give others the right to make poor decisions that influence a driver taking part in a points Championship who without them and the funds they pay in and the contribution of their own sponsors - there would also be no need for officials anyway.

Edited by hartech on Tuesday 8th June 15:03

Edited by hartech on Tuesday 8th June 16:44

[Drumroll]

hartech said:

So it would seem from your previous posts that you are an official at the circuit? and from your post on Tuesday 5th May that you support the benefit of "reporting issues" stating "must report if cars are not compliant if not you are part of the problem".


Pot and kettle comes to mind.

Really don't see this I ventured an opinion as I have on this subject

So the record from the Clerk of the Course (not sure how correct it is for that to become public knowledge without the participants approval?) shows that all the facts I presented were absolutely correct (not wrong as you so rudely imply).
the link I put up is from the "virtual notice board" that anybody can access

The "facts" you presented were not absolutely correct. The driver was given a verbal warning, this is a penalty under the judicial system.

The record also shows that the most lenient response for "failing to comply with a Safety Warning" appears to be a verbal warning and was applied (must have really scared the driver involved lol!).

Other options seem to include a stop and go penalty, being formally reprimanded, Loss of a lap time(Q), Grid place penalty, a fine, seconds added to the race time, Being disqualified from the results and being disqualified from the meeting?

Not disagreing with you on any of those points and at no point have I said I agreed with the decision. My point has always been we don't know if there was other evidence presented at judicial that maybe put a different light on what you believe happenend

I didn't reveal names or positions - just reported some facts that were accurate and my only opinion was to question if such a lenient response could set a dangerous precedent and to suggest that in view of it being a Championship, and the places ending up less than 0.2 of a second apart - a time penalty might have been more appropriate and invited the opinion of others.

I didn't realise that the public are not allowed to have an opinion (and perhaps that is part of the problem) and I didn't resort to abusive comments.
[I have never said you are not entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine. [/b]

If you are an official I think your conduct should be brought into question and I am now going to take matters further - to find out if my post was indeed out of order or your response to it - not because I wanted to - but because your response is typical of the problem you alluded that I was causing.

Sorry don't really see your point on this one

I do hold a licence that has official on it, ([MSUK basically classes almost everybody who is involved in a meeting who is not a marshal as an official(some marshal roles also come under the official role (which is where my "official" comes from)) but firstly I have never posted anything in an official capacity, I certainly had nothing to do with the race meeting at Snetterton. In fact I was at another event (different discipline) over 100 miles away. My comments are influenced by the training days and seminars I have attended


If I am then found to be in the wrong I will withdraw my post and publicly apologise.

Safety issues should IMHO never be rewarded by it benefitting those responsible and whether you personally like it or not - officials do sometimes need to be reminded of their responsibilities and not feel so isolated from criticism that they can do whatever they want and abuse anyone questioning the outcome.

[b] there was no "reward" for the driver[b]

Believe me officials are constantly reminded of their responsibilities. Often by people who perhaps need to understand the rules (see mine and others posts relating to this)

I don't know any official who will say they have never made a wrong decision. I know I certainly have

Just so we all know what part of your diversionary accusations we can ignore - for the record - please state that you think it is right to only receive a verbal warning for taking a place under a safety car and keeping it when the car in front slowed because of it (regardless of whether they saw it or not) and also say you don't think that could possibly set a dangerous precedent - then I will know how best to address the issues ahead.

On the face of it my own opinion is that the decision was lenient. But again I quantify that by saying we do not know what was presented at the time.

I think saying it sets a precedent is being a bit dramatic This was one instance at one circuit. I know of many instances where drivers have been excluded etc for yellow flag infringements. I have also submitted reports where nothing has then happened.


I am sorry if you feel that "Maybe next time wait until you have facts before wading in." is abusive, it was never meant in that context

Edited by Drumroll on Tuesday 8th June 16:27

[hartech]

Thanks Drumroll, lets leave it at that shall we - both made our points and perhaps we could have been more thoughtful in our responses.

So can I possibly just get back to my original question which is what do others think about the situation in which a driver might eventually lose his Championship because someone overtook on a safety car (because he didn't see it) and then only received a verbal warning, kept the place he took and the extra points and therefore now has more points than he might have had if he had followed the safety regulations regarding a safety car warning.

More importantly - does that or does that not possibly send a message to other drivers that might make them more inclined to take the same chance in the same circumstances and as a result become more dangerous. Also if you think it could make things more dangerous (for officials, the public and competitors) is that is or is not setting a precedent that might lower safety standards.

If you agree it was too lenient - I am interested to know what penalty you would think is more appropriate and more likely to preserve safety standards and improve safety in the future.

If you think it was the right penalty - then times have changed and I need to try and change with them.

[mcdjl]

hartech said:

Thanks Drumroll, lets leave it at that shall we - both made our points and perhaps we could have been more thoughtful in our responses.

So can I possibly just get back to my original question which is what do others think about the situation in which a driver might eventually lose his Championship because someone overtook on a safety car (because he didn't see it) and then only received a verbal warning, kept the place he took and the extra points and therefore now has more points than he might have had if he had followed the safety regulations regarding a safety car warning.

More importantly - does that or does that not possibly send a message to other drivers that might make them more inclined to take the same chance in the same circumstances and as a result become more dangerous. Also if you think it could make things more dangerous (for officials, the public and competitors) is that is or is not setting a precedent that might lower safety standards.

If you agree it was too lenient - I am interested to know what penalty you would think is more appropriate and more likely to preserve safety standards and improve safety in the future.

If you think it was the right penalty - then times have changed and I need to try and change with them.

Hopefully the clerks/stewards saw track footage. They might well have concluded that the overtaking car was unsighted due to the presence of the other car as the SC boards went out. If so then maybe a verbal warning was right, if they'd passed a few posts with boards out, then a harsher punishment would be warranted. It all depends on timing and positions

[indigorallye]

If he overtook under SC boards (as seems to have been proven by the judicial report) then a time penalty to rectify the positions would be appropriate in my opinion. That said, I am not aware of the MSUK guidance on this, or whether it is possible to give a time penalty for such an infringement.
I can see why the driver who lost his place would be aggrieved.

[hartech]

You see - in my logic - it doesn't matter if the driver behind did or did not see it - it is really probably impossible to know for sure - but the driver in front did and slowed and the driver behind had an advantage unfairly - so to my way of thinking - he only needs to give the place back or if he will not do that (and he didn't) then a time penalty equivalent to the relative positions would be the only fair result - not harsh at all - just redressing the balance without unfairly penalising him or discriminating against the driver that overtook.

Not doing so rewards the driver that overtook for not seeing the warnings and as he will have done so unfairly it discriminates against the driver that was in front and obeyed the rules and that to my mind is wrong and gives out a more dangerous message.

But them I am old fashioned I know! lol

[andy97]

I raced at Donington recently and was overtaken by 4 cars as the safety car came in, but before we had all crossed the start/ finish line. At the end of the race I was called to see the CoC to give my view of events (I had not complained but the incident was reported by observers at the marshals post) and confirmed that I had been overtaken by 4 cars.
Those four cars all received time penalties that put them behind me at the end of the race.

[hartech]

Thanks Andy, that is exactly what I think should have happened at Snetterton.

[FNG]

To me it's simple.

4th place sees 3rd place slowing unexpectedly.

He passes - fair enough, 3rd could be slowing for a number of reasons.

He then sees there's yellows and SC boards.

It's then abundantly clear why 3rd place slowed.

It's also abundantly clear that 4th passed when he shouldn't have.

He should have given the place back, he didn't make a racing pass, anyone racing in that situation will work out very quickly what happened, he didn't deserve the place.

Time penalty at the absolute minimum.

I don't care how many flags he passed without seeing them, I don't care whether he saw them or not, it should and would be obvious what has happened and if he doesn't give the place back himself, he ought to think himself lucky to only get a time penalty that puts him back one place.

In the event he's got away with it. I agree with the OP that the punishment isn't adequate and it may result in others taking the piss under yellows, and I think it's a bloody awful decision to only give a verbal.

[bucksmanuk]

BertBert said:

I think generally in UK club racing there isn't an appetite to strictly enforce some things. I think safety car infringements like this are common and are often overlooked in the interests of expediency and time. Doesn't make it right. Also eligibility scrutineering is often very poor (even pre-covid).

Crudely put - Competitors have 30 minutes from the moment the flag is dropped to get a protest in - after that - basically forget it..
Yep- lots of cheating going on at the moment, some competitors are getting really annoyed right now…

I’ve had a new competitor to the championship complain to me this year at being weighed after practice and after both races. Most championships would be happy at someone doing their job properly.
(Eligibility here)

[Dan BSCS]

This is clearly a very poor decision and as has been said already, the driver who overtook clearly would have realised why the car in front slowed and once it became apparent they should have given the place back. The fact that they didn’t means that if they ended up with points on their licence it was their own fault.

There is FAR too much overtaking under yellows going on at the minute. I am heartened to see that, with the club I do most racing with, this is usually dealt with by way of exclusion. People need to be more aware to keep marshals and other competitors safe. If they need to be excluded from a race to remind them of that then so be it.

I really can’t understand why Drumroll got his knickers in a twist and got so defensive. While there was clearly emotion from the OP, the facts were all there and there was no misleading information. But some people just like an argument.

[covboy]

bucksmanuk said:

Crudely put - Competitors have 30 minutes from the moment the flag is dropped to get a protest in - after that - basically forget it..
Yep- lots of cheating going on at the moment, some competitors are getting really annoyed right now…

I’ve had a new competitor to the championship complain to me this year at being weighed after practice and after both races. Most championships would be happy at someone doing their job properly.
(Eligibility here)

With my pedantic hat on It 30 minutes from the published time of the results

[n3il123]

covboy said:

With my pedantic hat on It 30 minutes from the published time of the results

And that is the important bit, as some clerks will hold the publication of the results until they have spoken to drivers etc so the 30 minute clock doesn't start until then.