News alert!!!

Extensive tests have revealed that openwheel racing is dangerous and can hurt or even kill participants and spectators. Starting in 2008, all sprints and midgets will now be peddle cars to reduce these risks. After concluding this study, the experts on IndianaOpenwheel.com have determined that the worst thing that can happen with the new cars is a sprained ankle.

You have your opinions and I have mine. Like KT said below, if he did get upsidown and burn to a crisp, how would that have effected you, me, or any of the drivers at the chili bowl?

For you to honestly think that I have no problem with people being killed or injured really bothers me. Especially off of a statement that has nothing to do with it. To mandate something like that, it's just not going to happen, and doesn't work. You cannot force me to wear something that I do not feel comfortable wearing. Sure, there needs to be some safety standards, but a Hans isn't one of them.

Injuries are in every single sport, and for those of us that strap into any type of racecar understands the risks that we take when doing the sport we love. If KO wants to race naked for all I care, as long as it doesn't effect me, then what's the problem. He's a grown man, and he can make his own decisions. I wear what I need to wear to feel, and be safe. Everyone has their own opinions on this stuff, but to say that I don't mind seeing someone hurt or killed, you sir are dead wrong. (No pun intended.)

I would venture to say the insurance underwriter addressed the situation with Mr. Hahn before the headers had cooled off.

I got it figured out.

We make all the cars radio controlled all the drivers stand at the top of the grandstands and race. Nobody gets hurt.:thumb:

To all of you who think that a driver should be able to wear/not wear whatever he wants in a race car: Buy or lease a race track. Tell everyone that this is what you're going to do. Then call an insurance co. to get coverage for your track. Oops! You're out of business. They won't cover you. Even if you would find an underwriter to cover you the premiums would be more than you could pay. Why? Because the same people (competitors) that you're trying to impress by being so "cool" about this would be the same people to sue you when they bust their azz or fry in the car. Insurance companies know this because they would be the ones to pay when you got sued. It is why we have insurance companies. It is why we have laws. To protect dumb azzes from themselves. It is why people such as Bill Simpson have devoted their lives to making racing safer. Racing is inherently dangerous but that doesn't mean you are required to take more chances than needed. :headbang::headbang::headbang:

Forget it Dwight. Obviously a lot of people here confuse concern with complaining. Of course no one has explained how driving a race car without a fire suit is more "fun" than driving with one. Or told us how that a drivers "individual" decision not to use safety equipment only effects him and not his family and friends. To think that "individual" decisions only hold potential ramifications for that one person is selfish and naive.
But there's no point in arguing further. Not with so many 'experts' celebrating the death of common sense.

The problem here has been the logic that what a person does in this situation is simply matter of choice that impacts them and them only. This is wrong on multiple levels. All the arguments about how the world should be are irrelevant - that's not the world we live in anymore and we all have to deal with it. Take insurance - when accidents happen - one way or another we all pay for it because in the end costs are passed on to the consumer. In racing if insurance rates go way up, pit passes go up, if pit passes go up, admissions go up, if costs go up, purses don't go up. Risk management is just that - it reduces the exposure the company and business faces to hold cost and litigation down. What would be the Public Relations damage from a particulary ugly situation -- and in a host enviromnent where Lanny and Emmett spent years fighting the neighborhood on noise- and then their complaints sent HAZMAT in with air qualtiy measures. The promoters worked hard wooing political support to minimize the risk that the event would be shut down. Imagine this scenario in a courtroom. Judge: Mr. Hahn, would you consider this to be in line with current standards of safety? Let's take a human scenario - You take your child to the track as I have - and here would be a likely conversation - Hey Reid, there's K.O. he is a really great racer, he's in the Hall of Fame - and a really great guy. Dad, is he that funny guy you talked to that had the monkey. Yes. Yes, racing accidents happen - I have lost count of how many fataliities I have seen, but they pale in comparison to my friends that are older than me and you wonder how many were preventable. I'm a hard core racer, and nothing shakes me from this - but I saw accidents - and accidents that involve fire, and one haunts me to this day ---- And finally, I don't want to think about midget racing without K.O. he's just as funny with a firesuit on.

Nobody wants to see anyone get hurt. But, who decides where you stop with the safety devices? Again, wings no doubt cushion the driver in a crash. Should we all run them? How about a nerf car that extends around the wheels? That would eliminate a lot of the flips. Mandatory halon systems would save folks from burning. Perhaps airbags that deploy with a hard hit? And on and on.....

My point is that somewhere in all of this, you can lose the "sport" of racing. It may sound bad, but sprint car racing is attractive to me because I know folks can get hurt, yet they still go out there and blast a cushion wide open. Thay harness the power, and face the danger. It's exciting. If we safetyfy it to the point that it's just a bunch of padded cars going around a padded track, I'm not sure anyone will want to watch it.

It's a fine line between keeping drivers and fans safe, and maintaining the integrity of the sport. I mean, fenders would certainly make them safer, maybe restrictor plates, safer barrier walls,...is this beginning to sound familiar?

I agree 100% that it is a slipperly slope for all the reasons you suggest --

Al; I understand your point but in this case we're not talking about adding MORE equipment, we're talking about someone who took a giant step BACKWARDS.
Let me use this example; Smoke detectors have been around for many years and it's been confirmed time and time again that they save lives.
They're cheap and most people have them. So let's say that the local fire dept. starts a media campaign for fire safety. They aren't suggesting every home be retro-fitted with sprinklers or fire escapes just advising that people check the batteries in their detectors. So some "individual" decides to go through his house and take the smoke detectors that he already owns down and throw them away. There wasn't anything wrong with them, he just decided that since his father didn't have them 40 years ago, he doesn't need them either. IMO, Kevin's decision was just as stupid.