Cameras may not be mounted to competitors’ helmets.

Quote
john vanlandingham
You do lie. And to quote the rules which you shit on, you lie intending to harm. That's why I respond to you like a piece of shit, because you act like a lying piece of shit and who could show any respect to a lying piece of shit who knowing lies with intend to harm?

You know what John. Find me ONE example of where I lied - or knowingly lied - with intent to damage your reputation and I'll go away and never come back.

I'll agree that I was under the impression that you created this forum when you were banned by Special Stage. You corrected me on that and I've never suggested that you created it since. I've even gone as far as correcting others on that perception outside of this forum.

Quote
john vanlandingham
I have explained repeatedly, we discussed the rules and agreed that words INTENT is the primary thing and not if we say shit fuck piss.
You lie with intent to damage "my reputation" so your INTENT is far more offensive to everybody I talk to, who speak pretty much as I write.

I FULLY agree that intent is of primary importance. Your language and approach is 'intended' to intimidate and 'bully,' which is why everyone I talk to thinks it is out of line..."but it's John so you have to expect it."

Quote
john vanlandingham
Why do you come here when you have other forums where you can impress people with your sparkling wit and expansive wisdom

For the longest time I thought this forum wasn't worth the time to sort through the noise to find the interesting and valuable information. I'm not a fabricator or builder and the focus, for a very long time, was much more on that than rally in general. I joined because of a specific thread on pace-notes and co-driving that was getting interesting and one where I thought I could contribute a different experience and perspective. You IMMEDIATELY shat on me, even though I had people thanking me for joining the conversation.

Quote
john vanlandingham
Liar.

Repeating a lie, no matter how forcefully, doesn't make it true. I am not a liar, never have been, and no-one who knows me would say I am.

---

First Rally: 2001
Driver (7), Co-Driver (44)
Drivers (16)
Clerk (10), Official (7), Volunteer (4)
Cars Built (1), Engines Built (0) Cages Built (0)
Last Updated, January 4, 2015

Quote
john vanlandingham
Blame is for idiots. losers.

You knowing lie every time you say I treat customers badly, and you know that. I treat customers very well and take big efforts to make sure I am doing what they want and what they need.

Good bye, have a day.

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

I simply assummed he meant me being the troll Keith.

Nonetheless, I don't think it's necessary to defend yourself. Anyone who knows you does know you only speak the truth and sound advice... even if I may argue about it with you from time to time

Quote
john vanlandingham
You knowing lie every time you say I treat customers badly, and you know that. I treat customers very well and take big efforts to make sure I am doing what they want and what they need.

Give me an example of where I said that, particularly on this forum. I've never done business with you so I am not in a position to say you treat your customers poorly or not. If asked, I generally suggest people talk to others who have done business with you before committing to buying from you but that's the same as I do for any company. That said, I've heard enough stories from enough of your customers to be confident in saying that, at times, you treat customers badly. In no way do I suggest you do so with intent or malice.

That's why, last year, when someone called you a crook and a thief in conversation I stopped them and said that was unfair as 'crook and theif' suggests intent and that I honestly beleive you intend to provide good product and good service. I regularly praise your knowledge and experience - within your scope of reference - and suggest you're a great resource for certain items.

---

First Rally: 2001
Driver (7), Co-Driver (44)
Drivers (16)
Clerk (10), Official (7), Volunteer (4)
Cars Built (1), Engines Built (0) Cages Built (0)
Last Updated, January 4, 2015

Quote
john vanlandingham
Blame is for idiots. losers.

Quote
HiTempguy


I simply assummed he meant me being the troll Keith.

Nonetheless, I don't think it's necessary to defend yourself. Anyone who knows you does know you only speak the truth and sound advice... even if I may argue about it with you from time to time

No, wasn't referring to you; you're just a cocky 24 year old. He repeats the commonplace, presumes only he knows everything about everything and he does lie intentionally, and repeats his lies with intent to deceive.

Say bye to him since he said he'd leave.

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

Quote
Morison

Quote
john vanlandingham
You knowing lie every time you say I treat customers badly, and you know that. I treat customers very well and take big efforts to make sure I am doing what they want and what they need.

Give me an example of where I said that, particularly on this forum. I've never done business with you so I am not in a position to say you treat your customers poorly or not. If asked, I generally suggest people talk to others who have done business with you before committing to buying from you but that's the same as I do for any company. That said, I've heard enough stories from enough of your customers to be confident in saying that, at times, you treat customers badly. In no way do I suggest you do so with intent or malice.

That's why, last year, when someone called you a crook and a thief in conversation I stopped them and said that was unfair as 'crook and theif' suggests intent and that I honestly beleive you intend to provide good product and good service. I regularly praise your knowledge and experience - within your scope of reference - and suggest you're a great resource for certain items.

The mark of a real troll and liar is the "I've heard enough stories---something you incessantly repeat---with never a detail , only that constantly repeated allusion.

Bye.

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

Quote
EricW
Since watching this on RA's site is painfully slow...

So around the 2 minutes mark is that someone wearing a helmet cam? Were they disqualified? This video looks like it is done by the Rally America PR team. Just curious how this came to be so shortly after the rule bulletin was issued?

Quote
john vanlandingham
... he does lie intentionally, and repeats his lies with intent to deceive.

Repeating your position that I am a liar doesn't make it true John.

Quote
john vanlandingham
Say bye to him since he said he'd leave.

If you gave me an expample of where I lied or knowingly repeated a lie.

Quote
john vanlandingham
The mark of a real troll and liar is the "I've heard enough stories---something you incessantly repeat---with never a detail , only that constantly repeated allusion.

Oh... I get it now. You're just having fun with me by really talking about yourself but seeing if you can wind me up. Prety funny John.

The reason I don't trot out details of the stories I've heard is becuse they would be second hand, coming from me, and while I know most of the people really well adn trust them to be truthful with me - and have no reason to lie - I'll give you there could be embellishment or exaggeration on their part. It happens naturally with stories. Bringing up the stories would only lead into you defending your actions and telling me how big of a weenie each of the friends were and there is no need for that.

The most famous case of you treating a customer badly would be your dealings with Morton. Regardless of who was right or wrong in that situation - and I'm not taking sides - your treatment of him and the way you dealt with him on this site was poor from a provider/client standpoint. (Even if he deserved to be treated poorly)

---

First Rally: 2001
Driver (7), Co-Driver (44)
Drivers (16)
Clerk (10), Official (7), Volunteer (4)
Cars Built (1), Engines Built (0) Cages Built (0)
Last Updated, January 4, 2015

Quote
john vanlandingham
Blame is for idiots. losers.

Quote
Andrew_Frick
So around the 2 minutes mark is that someone wearing a helmet cam? Were they disqualified? This video looks like it is done by the Rally America PR team. Just curious how this came to be so shortly after the rule bulletin was issued?

Yes, at around 1:55 in the referenced video, someone (Carl Decker, I think) was wearing a helmet cam.

Yes, the video was produced by the RA Media team. However, most or all of the in-car video is provided by the team's themselves. The RA Media team does not know the competition rules and does not enforce them. Apparently the competitor who provided them the video is not familiar with some of the rules either.

Was he disqualified? No. Why should he be? Is the penalty for all rule violations disqualification or exclusion? No.

The stewards were made aware of the violation and I presume that someone spoke with the competitor.

How could this happen so soon after the Bulletin was issued? Well, isn't that when you would expect violations to happen, soon after a new rule goes into effect, before everyone is aware of the new rule?

alan

Decker's moustache allows him to get away with infringements like that. The stewards were all afraid to say anything for fear of his wrath. They had to draw straws for who had to sign the email they sent to him on Sunday to let him know he was breaking a rule. Though in the end, they still made JB do it since he at least lives in a different time zone so might be safe.

---

Grant Hughes

Quote
tipo158

Quote
Andrew_Frick
So around the 2 minutes mark is that someone wearing a helmet cam? Were they disqualified? This video looks like it is done by the Rally America PR team. Just curious how this came to be so shortly after the rule bulletin was issued?

Yes, at around 1:55 in the referenced video, someone (Carl Decker, I think) was wearing a helmet cam.

Yes, the video was produced by the RA Media team. However, most or all of the in-car video is provided by the team's themselves. The RA Media team does not know the competition rules and does not enforce them. Apparently the competitor who provided them the video is not familiar with some of the rules either.

Was he disqualified? No. Why should he be? Is the penalty for all rule violations disqualification or exclusion? No.

The stewards were made aware of the violation and I presume that someone spoke with the competitor.

How could this happen so soon after the Bulletin was issued? Well, isn't that when you would expect violations to happen, soon after a new rule goes into effect, before everyone is aware of the new rule?

alan

So, some new questions come up. Yes, this has absolutely no bearing on my rally stuff out East, but I am genuinely interested on all things rules related. It's an intellectual hobby when I'm not behind the wheel.

Q: Since this rule is about helmets, should this have been checked at tech? Did it have a mount on it at that point? (My guess is yes, since there are other older videos from Decker online with the cam at the same location).

Q: Since this is related to 'car inspections', then 8.2.D is in effect?
Q: If the mount was NOT installed prior to tech, I would think that 8.2.D.1.a would be in effect?
Q: If the mount was installed prior to tech, I would think that 8.2.D.1.b would be in effect?
Q: If, according to 8.2.D.1.d, the violation is so minor to have no effect on performance [yadda yadda yadda], what is the penalty?

But, of note, 8.2.D.1.d doesn't have a provision that addresses safety - only issues related to performance or a result of an incident (real or contrived). My guess, the penalty would be a finger wag, a slap on the wrist, and be sent home with a nice clean helmet sans camera mount.


I want to reiterate - this *isn't* an argument about Decker - but it's about what would others think the penalties would be? Rules wonks?

Edit: More questions - isn't the RA media team comprised of past competitors who are on a lot of these forums, aka MJ?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/08/2012 12:48PM by EricW.

Quote
EricW
Q: Since this rule is about helmets, should this have been checked at tech? Did it have a mount on it at that point? (My guess is yes, since there are other older videos from Decker online with the cam at the same location).

I didn't do tech on that car, so I don't know.

Quote

Q: Since this is related to 'car inspections', then 8.2.D is in effect?
Q: If the mount was NOT installed prior to tech, I would think that 8.2.D.1.a would be in effect?
Q: If the mount was installed prior to tech, I would think that 8.2.D.1.b would be in effect?
Q: If, according to 8.2.D.1.d, the violation is so minor to have no effect on performance [yadda yadda yadda], what is the penalty?

But, of note, 8.2.D.1.d doesn't have a provision that addresses safety - only issues related to performance or a result of an incident (real or contrived). My guess, the penalty would be a finger wag, a slap on the wrist, and be sent home with a nice clean helmet sans camera mount.

I want to reiterate - this *isn't* an argument about Decker - but it's about what would others think the penalties would be? Rules wonks?

Obviously, if I saw a camera mount on a helmet, I would have said something. But not all tech inspectors are totally up to date on the rules. There were two instances where I had to correct the chief scrutineer at tech at OT. I misremember things and make mistakes as well.

As far as what should the penalty should have been ...

Generally, Art. 8.2.D applies to Art. 10 (class rule) violations. Besides, while they are checked at scrutineering, helmets, suits, etc. are not part of the car inspection or the car's equipment. They are checked as part of "additional scrutineering requirements" under Art. 6.4.B.

There are no defined penalties for violation of the helmet rule. The penalty is at the discretion of the steward.

Quote

Edit: More questions - isn't the RA media team comprised of past competitors who are on a lot of these forums, aka MJ?

Do you think MJ edits the videos? The guys who edit and post the videos are not former competitors. At least, not the ones that I saw in the RA motor coach at Oregon Trail on Friday.

alan

Quote
tipo158


Obviously, if I saw a camera mount on a helmet, I would have said something. But not all tech inspectors are totally up to date on the rules. There were two instances where I had to correct the chief scrutineer at tech at OT. I misremember things and make mistakes as well.

As far as what should the penalty should have been ...

Generally, Art. 8.2.D applies to Art. 10 (class rule) violations. Besides, while they are checked at scrutineering, helmets, suits, etc. are not part of the car inspection or the car's equipment. They are checked as part of "additional scrutineering requirements" under Art. 6.4.B.

There are no defined penalties for violation of the helmet rule. The penalty is at the discretion of the steward.

alan

Okay, I'm going to intentionally be argumentative right now. Please forgive me

What this is coming to, HIGHLY paraphrased... "We don't expect the video editors to know the rules, or the media team, or the racers, or the scruitneers." Who's responsiblity is it to know the rules? The only person not listed there are the Stewards and Organizers. I would think that a rule change, mid season, to address a safety issue that was worthy of its own bulletin would at least be checked and verified. By not doing so, the value of the importance/criticality of the rule change is diminished.

And, on the no penalty for helmets/not part of car equipment... consider this scenario:
Car passes tech with all equipment. Driver chooses to change from shoes to sandals or flip flops before the start of the rally. Penalty is...? Or, more safely... driver forgets/chooses not to wear their HANS. Penalty is...? Or not wear their nomex underwear when using less than a 3 layer suit? Penalty...?

All of these have no performance gain. Well, maybe the HANS since it's arguably easier to see/move/be more comfortable in the car.

I think most people would be in agreement that *some* sort of penalty makes sense for negligent, willful disregard of safety procedures. But that requires the steward/organizers to weigh each safety violation with their own set of risk criteria to create a corresponding penalty.

But what about non-willful disregard (eg, forgot a triangle on stage - oh wait, rules and penalties exist for that too)

Thoughts?

/argumentative

Once again... being argumentative to *discuss* these ideas and scenarios.

Quote
EricW

I think most people would be in agreement that *some* sort of penalty makes sense for negligent, willful disregard of safety procedures.

Up here, some higher up national competitors got in DEEP crap for not being buckled after they had to stop on stage before the car started moving again.

In fact, pretty sure they had to attend the rest of the novice meetings that year and help out with them...

Penalties are ALWAYS at the discretion of the Steward(s) or the Clerk of the Course, or sometimes both, Eric. I know you've only done some of Anders' ARC events, but that's true for NRS and RA, and the USRC's handling when events are a USRC event.

The main differences between RA and the others on that point is how hands-on the stewards are with respect to the operation of the event, but that's a philosophical point not germaine to this discussion.


There are often extenuating circumstances that may not be apparent to the non-participant. As an example, Jimmy loves to tell the story of a competitor who intentionally left a triangle in the road. There was no penalty applied as the triangle was at a crest and was a warning that there was an enormous rock in the middle of the road on the other side.

---

Self-righteous douche canoe