[Wichita-SCCA] Last Weekend HPT

[davard at aol.com]

Just out of curiousity, how many of those events (held at race tracks) 
were held in a parking lot, and and how many were held on the track 
itself (like TMS)?

David Avard

________________________________

Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:17:37 -0500
From: "Mike Dickerson" <mdickerson at scca.com>
Subject: Re: [Wichita-SCCA] Last Weekend HPT
To: "Wichita Region SCCA." <wichita-scca at wichitascca.org>

Rocky,

The policies of individual site owners are something the SCCA does not
and should not have any control over.

Further, HPT is not the only one who does this. It seems in a very
unscientific study I did a couple of months back that Regions holding
events at race tracks are required to have the ambulance on site for
Solo events, and of course the regions have to cover the associated
fees. There are at least ten venues/regions with that issue.

Do I agree with this? Heck no. But this is an individual requirement by
track managers and their legal advisors. Regions have the best chance of
negotiating this out of a contract. Simply because HPT is down the
street does not meant the SCCA staff has any more influence, nor should
they, on negotiations between the region and track owners for region
events at the track. This is a regional/HPT issue, and yes it affects me
and several of us on staff as a competitors in Kansas Region events.

Emotionally it easy for anyone to say "SCCA needs to get involved". The
practicality and reality is members are the SCCA, and the reaction does
not address the nature of business relationships.

Mike
________________________________

From: wichita-scca-bounces at wichitascca.org
[mailto:wichita-scca-bounces at wichitascca.org] On Behalf Of Rocky
Entriken
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 12:30 AM
To: Wichita Region SCCA.
Subject: Re: [Wichita-SCCA] Last Weekend HPT

It is my understanding the ambulance was required by HPT's insuror.
Which makes it no less stupid and IMHO SCCA itself should be leaning on
both HPT and its insurance agent/carrier to bring some sanity to the
situation -- not the least being that HPT as site owner is covered by
SCCA's liability insurance. This is nothing more than a way to create
income for the insurance carrier by forcing its customer (HPT) to meet
requirements that are neither standard of the industry nor supported by
decades of data.

Have accidents ever happened (even fatalities) at solo events? Of course
they have. Is the incidence of such accidents high enough to warrant
such precaution? Not even close. I would bet that the incidence of
accidents per 1000 persons is higher for people crossing the street, and
we don't have ambulances parked on every street corner.

--Rocky Entriken

    <snip>

     I really wish we had a site that nice, but I'm glad we don't have 
to
     deal with the lot fee.  Most of the price increase from last year 
is due
    to having an ambulance there for the whole day.  That is just
     ridiculous.  I'm still upset because I'm paying for a stupid 
ambulance
     and it's personnel to sit around all day waiting for the nothing 
that
     will happen.  What a waste of their time and my money.  I 
understand the
     requirement was made by the site owner and there was no talking him 
out
     of it - but I don't have to like it and I do have the right to 
complain
    about it.

    -Brian Meyer

________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free 
from AOL at AOL.com.