Apples and oranges. You can't compare rules of public roads to a sanctioned race event where vehicles and drivers are pushing their limits in a competition. Would it be reasonable for a pedestrian to walk along the double yellow @ Daytona while cars speed past at 220mph? (Per rules, the are not allowed to cross during the race).

 

The lawyers have said something to the effect that the children were too young to agree to waive liability because of some Texas state law.

That's the part I have trouble with. I don't think just because he is at a track event, its all fair game. Even tracks know that if you are under a certain time, you need a helmet. If you are under another time, you need a cage. Tracks do have rules, and try to keep it safe, but the truth is you never know until someone goes. Tracks can black flag those and remove them from a course if they are a hinderance to others. Its really not a free for all, and there are rules, its just that most people have a minimum amount of common sense to use them, and this person didn't.



I think the point of what they were quoting was that there is more of a gray area then, drugs or drinking. Its still a two ton bullet, that people are required to be responsible for. This is why we have cell phone laws, and distracted driving laws. You are required to maintain awareness and control on public roads, that its a little more involved than, can you keep it in the lanes and make it from point A to point B without hitting something.




If we take the pedestrians out of the scenario, and say the mustang driver does that same thing, but instead hits the driver next to him, its still the same scenario (for the point I'm trying to argue for). If you think the pedestrians are doing it at their own risk, then so is the driver next to him. If you got on a track, and somebody clearly never had control of their car from the start of the race, loses control, and hits the driver next to them, what the other side is saying is that the driver that got hit took responsibility for not only themselves, but also the other driver as soon as they got on the track. I just disagree with that completely. The pedestrian/other driver didn't cause the wreck. They are not responsible for the wreck. The other side sounds to me, like they are blaming the pedestrians because of a chance of injury. How is this not like blaming the passengers of a plane wreck, because planes can crash, and you have more control if you drive your own vehicle. There's an inherent level of danger in everything you do. The part that really gets under my skin, is not as much the victim blaming, but the responsibility that seems to just be dismissed from the driver because of WHERE he was, and that some how means, WHAT he did has no significance.

 

Drag racing might be different, I am not a drag racer- but on the road course I ABSOLUTELY have responsibility for the other cars. Whatever the reason may be- mechanical failure/ attention failure/ lack of skill/ track debris: if I hit another car, I (or my track insurance) is responsible for that damage. As our cars often occupy the same area, this is important. In drag racing, the cars never should be occupying anything but their own lane

There is a race series that I've considered joining (SARA Home - Sandia Speedway | Albuquerque, NM | Motorsports Complex | Clay Oval, SWMS Road Racing, SMRI Motorcycle Racing, NMDA Flat Track, Whiskey Garage Drifting, Charlie Fegan Driving Experience, Track Day, Time Attack!, PCA Autocross -Contemporary) and the rules explicitly say no-contact

Now, I am not sure if this info is for or against your point that it is all done at the participant's risk. While I don't feel sanctioned events are free for alls, I do feel that some liability is shared between participants. That is why we carry insurance and have gentleman's agreements. Some of that is bypassed when someone does something A) unpredictable or B) dangerously erroneous or C) obviously unsafe with no attention paid to the safety of others

I think I lost my point so let me try to summarize more concisely. I participate in motorsports events, I have first-hand knowledge in this. Whether my track can actually remove themselves from liability based on the waiver I sign is unknown to me- I sign a waiver that says I can't sue them or other participants. I have an obligation to operate in a safe and predictable manner to avoid collisions (this is explicit). I have the moral obligation to carry insurance to protect myself and others from my errors or failures as a mechanic and driver (this is not required at events I have participated in and is optional/elective). If I hit another driver, that driver (in my events) will have the same safety equipment I have and will likely be pissed, but alive and well enough to kick my *** afterward. If hitting something was the only option; hitting another driver would be the preferred impact. They are geared up and they are actively engaged in the risk. The spectators shouldn't have been at the finish line where the cars were going the fastest, but they also were not prepared for the risk. Does that fall on them for not preparing or on the event for not ensuring that the ppl they allowed to spectate were prepared? I don't know. I think its tragic, period. But emotions have little merit in cases like this

TLDR Im tired and I think lost my point: driver drove and accepted risk. Spectators spectated and accepted risk. Levels of risk were different, but accepted nonetheless. Responsibility to keep themselves safe fell on the individuals. I am sure the driver put his seat belt on, for example. When you go to events- do you wait for them to tell you to put safety glasses on and ear plugs in, or do you just do it because you want to care for you?

 

How I see it, what the mustang driver did was C) obviously unsafe with no attention paid to the safety of others, and created a situation that was A) unpredictable that led to this. My entire argument is based on the mustang driver spinning his tires all the way down. If that didn't happen / if he makes ANY effort to regain control of the vehicle, then he would have at least made an effort to control the situation, and its an accident. Instead he not only created, but continually increased the probability it would go out of control, until it did.

If you walk down the sidewalk of a busy street, there is risk. If you get hit by a car because it has a blowout or mechanical failure, that is an accident. If the driver is drunk, on a phone, sitting in the backseat of their semi-self-driving vehicle while making a tiktok video, they created excessive risk. If its all on the pedestrian to keep themselves safe, then they can't ever walk down any sidewalk anywhere. They can't drink any liquid, or eat food because they may choke on it. They can't ever drive a vehicle, because they might get hit by a semi. Yes my points are stupid, but they are in the same gray area.

For those who say "its at a track, its all good"; lets say: Someone going out shooting. They drive what they think is 50 miles out in the middle of nowhere. The in control person is setting up targets and shooting at the side of a hill. You all sound like someone could just shoot where ever they wanted to; at a tree, in the air, at a cloud, heck their 50 miles from anywhere. They RANDOMLY hit someone, your saying the victim is at fault for not preparing for someone to be shooting wildly because its out in the middle of nowhere. That's how you sound to me.

 

Adriver, you don't ever need to go to a racing event or anywhere the way you are thinking in that post. I garner that you think everyone is responcible for your safety but YOU. I'm not a nanny state kind of guy, I like freedoms. Competion is about going all out. Tracks are dangerous places, it's no secret...

 

Your shooting example is actually a good one and I'll tell you why

where I used to ride became a super popular spot to shoot, for whatever reason. It took me exactly one time riding there while hearing ricocheting rounds before I said "**** this I'm out"

So, while I can't speak for everyone or every situation it was ABSOLUTELY my responsibility to keep myself safe while I could physically hear rounds bouncing around over the sound of my bike motor

yes the shooter had responsibility too, but I wasn't willing to risk my life and trust some guy I can't even see to keep me alive. If homie popped me with a round I doubt he ever would have known and I doubt he ever woulda been found

and let's be real, there are no 50mi rounds. Let's be realistic and say 500yds

 

This is just a discussion about something that is relatively close to home for all of us, and topical for this website. This is the second time, you have been unable to just have a discussion, and instead make a stupid, ignorant personal comment (looks like your first one was edited). If this is too much for you, feel free to move on with your life.

ALSO, ACTUALLY, NO ITS NOT. You must be another genius that thinks you go faster if you just floor it all the way down track, and that getting traction with your tires doesn't matter. (Psssst, it does. You'll go quicker down the track if your tires can grip).


We're still not comparing apples to apples, if you only left AFTER hearing rounds. In that scenario, we would have to assume that at least one other vehicle wrecked at the drag race and they still decided to stand right there. I think we get how each other looks at it, just a difference of opinion. ( I wasn't saying the rounds shot 50 miles away, just that they thought they were 50 miles away from other people.)

 

Ok how about this one: What you are saying is that if a plane crashes, it doesn't matter whether the cause is a flock of birds flying into the engines and taking them all out; or if the pilot puts it on auto-pilot, goes to sleep and then the plane crashes into the side of the mountain. Its the passengers fault for not recognizing planes can crash, and finding some alternate form of transportation.

 

Just stay home, it's safe there, oh but wait, lighting could strike, tornado could take you out. You had better go dig a hole to hide in it...

You don't like my answers bc they contain common sense...

 

Don't agree with the plane example. You as a passenger have no control over your destiny. But one is a freak accident and one is negligent- def difference in cause

shooting example: I had control, I left
stand next to a track: I have control, I can move to a protected area or away from the cars
aluminum tube with 300 others: no possibility of control. Grab your seatbelt and pray

It's unlikely, but possible that mustang boi didn't know how to correct it. He may have panicked or thought snapping off the throttle would be worse. In some situations it is, from a car dynamics stand point

So while he is the low hanging fruit, it may be a bit crass of us to place 100% blame on him. There was a 2yr old who shot her dad and killed him at a range. It may have been private lessons, I don't recall. She grabbed the gun. She pulled the trigger. But they determined that if the gun had been safed before being set down, dad would be alive

I can find this link for you, I'm not making **** up

Responsibility isn't binary. Mustang wouldn't have been at the track if there was no event. Spectators wouldn't have been there either. The NHRA has a licensing program for car control situations exactly like this. The track had the duty to put barriers the full length. The spectators had the duty to not stand unprotected and the driver had the duty to control his vehicle

If any one of the above "duties" was obligated, ppl would be alive and it would be just another "Mustangs gonna mustang" video