Cameras may not be mounted to competitors’ helmets.

Quote
john vanlandingham
TELL US ABOUT THE FLIP FLOPS or its spankie time for YOU!

Sorry, it's kind of a non-story, since nothing really happened. Jeremey Wimpey (and his brother Josh) seem to spend most of their lives barefoot or close too it. (Damn hippies! ) Jeremey showed up to an RA event and codrove wearing flip flops. I don't know if he was told to put on shoes at the event or not, or if he completed the event with his flip flops or not.

As there was no rule in the RA books about footwear at the time, RA apparently felt one needed to be added and did so via Bulletin 5 in 2010:

1. Add the following to Article 5.2:
F. All competitors must wear shoes and socks while on stage. The shoes must cover the entire foot. The driving suit and sock must fully cover the competitor’s skin from leg to foot.
Rationale: This requirement was previously implicit. This new rule makes the requirement explicit.

My favorite part was the rational, which seems to say "The reason for this rule is, well, you should have guessed that this was a rule."

To simplify related discussion:
Have I ever seen Jeremy codriving in flipflops at a NRS event? Yes.
What is NRS's rule on this? We have no footwear requirements.
What are the statistics on related injuries? None on file.
How many burned rally boots have you seen? None. (although the rule does not require fireproof shoes, so I guess it's mostly about toe-stubbing protection)

I think flip flops are safer than bare feet. But shoes are probably safer than flip flops. But boots are probably safer than shoes. But steel toed boots are probably safer than regular boots. But motocross boots are probably safer than steel toe boots. But I think it's going to take a while to get in and out of the car in the safety gear required by our next bulletin... and setting up the triangles just got a whole lot trickier!

---

Grassroots rally. It's what I think about.

What about chest mounts?....

Good thing no one will notice me wearing these...
http://www.kjbsecurity.com/products/detail/glasses-camera/611/

---

Less talk. More rally.

Maybe a codpiece cam.

Quote
Anders Green

Excellent clear analysis..
Agree on new driving suit and suggest the space inside the car be filled with expandable building foam.


And no helmet cams.

---

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.

Prediction:

You will see a media change where, like photography, RA owns all rights to use competitor footage for promotional purposes free of charge. When you pay for your license (shrink wrap!) you are agreeing to all of their terms.

You can debate whether the helmet cam angle is stupid or annoying... but I see much further down the road to where this is merely setting the stage for how they want the *perception* of all RA events to be - more uniform mounts and camera angles which is more *professional*.

And since I'm a guy who loves to see the development of rules (and myself, have helped explicitly rewrite rules due to lack of clarity) - what is the *specific* safety issue that has occurred that requires to future-proof the rule? My guess, as noted above, is that there is no safety issue - merely an image/PR issue. This ain't no Sandal Scandal (yet).



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2012 10:38AM by EricW.

When it comes to the 'danger' of it all...

In a car without winged seats, or inboard nets, I thin there is a very real chance of injuring the other person in the car with the camera in a heavy off. Tehre is an even higher chance of injuring someone if the mount breaks during the impact, either with the stub of the mount on the helmet or on the now flying around camera.
Rules need to come into place once the risk has been identified, you can't wait for injuries to actually happen once you see they could happen.

When it comes to the rights for competitor footage. The FIA has led that charge for some time. You haven't seen competitors putting up their own incar footage because it simply isn't allowed. Competitors haven't even been allowed to put their own cameras in their cars historically. Now, that's a different 'game' played at a different 'commercial' level, but there is some validity for controlling the footage that gets out there. (In some cases saving competitors from themselves)

---

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
Morison
When it comes to the 'danger' of it all...
[snip]
Rules need to come into place once the risk has been identified, you can't wait for injuries to actually happen once you see they could happen.

Well, shit. Why do we even race? Why do we have RULES that REQUIRE that we devices that have PROVEN to save lives before we can race?

I would love to see RA make a statement regarding affixing a boom mike (sharp, long object, same adhesion method) to a helmet. Until then, it's all a farce. Safety Theater.

Rules exist to address problems that have occurred to clarify. I am responsible for changing the paperwork rule for traffic stops. Wimpey is responsible for the Sandal Scandal. Years ago, Kemp was responsible for the SCCA rule to limit vehicle age because he was shaming newer cars and it didn't fit in the 'image' of what Kurt Spitzner wanted to promote. Who's rule is this?

Every rule should have a clear reason that is backed up by data. If there were people being skewered by broken camera mounts on helmets, I would fully support it. But ban ALL modifications to helmets and require that we buy helmets that have pre-affixed HANS or other restraint systems. All or nothing.

It's possible to get hurt rallying, it should be banned.

Second thought, people don't get hurt rallying, they get hurt crashing, they should ban that.

What ever happened to individuals being responsible for themselves? If you feel safe strapping something to your helmet go for it. As long as your aware of the potential risks.

---

Less talk. More rally.

That's it. Crashes are banned. From here on out. No crashing. Or you'll get a big penalty.

---

Grassroots rally. It's what I think about.

Doctor's motto:
First do no harm

My motto for life, building, driving;
First do no stupid.


Easier said than done-did.

---

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.

Eric you're just a hater and I can't see RA having to 'splain anything to you. I bet you have NRS tatooed on one butt cheek and Spalinds likeness on the other...

Not all rules are written in reaction to an incident, some are written to prevent an incident. Humans (in theory) are able to rationalize, reason and forsee to some degree. Maybe Homer Simpson repeatedly touches a hot burner but some of us don't have to.

As car interiors seem to become smaller, seats bigger and ever changing safety equipment design and purpose I certainly don't want to have to decide if someones camera mount is a good idea or not. We have enough to do in tech already as it is with little time to do it. If anyone really can't deal with a simple little rule like this then I guess go race NRS, simple solution.

I seriously hope you never have to lay awake at night and wonder if the fatality that just occured is from something you missed in scrutineering. I hope you never recieve 'the call' from your best friend hearing "well it happened" and the amount of sadness and dispair that can't be described.

Yup racing is dangerous and maybe some people are so callous they can actually say 'served the dumb bastard right' and move one with their life. Some of us aren't built that way. I hope to never see another ralliest hurt or worse, especially from something simple forethought could have prevented. But hey, if NRS needs to constantly chip away at RA to feel good about their program then oh well.

Quote
heymagic
Eric you're just a hater and I can't see RA having to 'splain anything to you. I bet you have NRS tatooed on one butt cheek and Spalinds likeness on the other...

Not all rules are written in reaction to an incident, some are written to prevent an incident. Humans (in theory) are able to rationalize, reason and forsee to some degree. Maybe Homer Simpson repeatedly touches a hot burner but some of us don't have to.

As car interiors seem to become smaller, seats bigger and ever changing safety equipment design and purpose I certainly don't want to have to decide if someones camera mount is a good idea or not. We have enough to do in tech already as it is with little time to do it. If anyone really can't deal with a simple little rule like this then I guess go race NRS, simple solution.

I seriously hope you never have to lay awake at night and wonder if the fatality that just occured is from something you missed in scrutineering. I hope you never recieve 'the call' from your best friend hearing "well it happened" and the amount of sadness and dispair that can't be described.

Yup racing is dangerous and maybe some people are so callous they can actually say 'served the dumb bastard right' and move one with their life. Some of us aren't built that way. I hope to never see another ralliest hurt or worse, especially from something simple forethought could have prevented. But hey, if NRS needs to constantly chip away at RA to feel good about their program then oh well.

Gene, we can agree to disagree. You have labeled me a 'hater' and no matter what I say you are going to roll your eyes, especially since I have now graduated to being in the same class as Dan. Much appreciated. Hopefully a thoughtful response will at least garner a similar thoughtful response from you.

While you may blindly agree with all rule changes, I cannot do so regardless of sanctioning body. Given *any* thoughtful rule changes that are substantiated with solid information, I will never question their interpretation. That said, my personality style is to always challenge all rule changes whenever they may impact me or the sport. It's my personality style. Respectful challenging of the norm is something that I wish more people did; I genuinely feel that the sport and the world would be a better place for it.

My general point is as follows - it seems that we're chasing an arbitrary safety issue here. My *belief* is that it's a professionalism/preference issue masked as a safety issue. I can list a number of changes that, while they add a small cost, can be substantiated based on past events in multiple sanctioning bodies and countries: fire gear.

Consider the following (in the name of genuine safety)...
1. Require nomex balaclavas
2. Require nomex socks
3. Require nomex shoes/boots
4. Require closed-faced helmets

All of those items have *real*, *measured* mechanisms of improving safety rather than a *perceived* improvement based on some arbitrary potential which has never been an issue. Additionally, the *probability* of a fire (in just my example). Do you, as a scruitneer, genuinely perceive the risk of death/injury by a 5.9oz plastic box (GoPro, battery, and housing) to be higher than from a fire in the passenger compartment? In the health and safety world, a common practice is to use a risk/augmentation matrix that forces one to do the following:

- Identify the severity. Assign it a severity index, say 1-3 where 1 is the lowest risk
- Identify the probability of the risk occuring, same scale.
- Take S*R = Weighted risk. Anything 6-9 is assigned a 'high risk' value and should ideally be the things you start fixing first.

For each item above you come up with a scenario (process, product, whatever) that you would apply to reduce the risk
- Identify the augmented severity value. Same scale as before
- Identify the augmented risk value. Same scale as before.
- Take augmented S*R.

The point of the exercise is that it forces you to properly and qualitatively evaluate changes to operations. If I had to compare a "Injury from fire in car" versus "injury from camera on helmet", a guess:

Fire in car - original severity, 2. original risk, 2. = 4
Augmented fire in car with some/all additional safety gear mentioned above - severity, 1. risk, 2 = 2. (additional fire clothing does not reduce the chance of fire, right?)

Camera in car - original severity, 1. Original risk, 1 = 1
Augmented camera in car w/o helmet cameras - severity, 0. Risk, 1 = 0.



Long story short - the decision appears arbitrary in light of other, real higher health and safety issues. Please don't say that RA is just adoption standard procedures in the name of safety. As others have pointed out, the FIA does it strictly for marketing reasons (which, I believe is the real root of the issue).

I like to reiterate - I challenge all rule changes. The difference with RA and NASA from my chair is that I'm often involved in much of the brainstorming and sanity checking of upcoming NASA changes... trust that the same level of inspection occurs on NASA changes and there are fewer changes that make you go 'huh?'

You know, it's RA's ball, let them play with it the way they like to. Sheesh.

And Eric, you ooze NRS Rah Rah out of every pore. And Gene is as neutral as they come.

I do think from a priority standpoint, however, that fireproof undergarments should be a higher priority. I do wear nomex socks and shoes to continue my suit coverage without the requirement, just like I wore a HANS before it was required. Personal perceived risk and cost/benefit analysis. No gloves or baclava though, but that is a codriver thing.

---

"Talk about drugs. Driving a car like that, going that fast, it’s like all the drugs at once." - Tommy Byrne

"Now, Pinky, if by any chance you are captured during this mission, remember you are Gunther Heindriksen from Appenzell. You moved to Grindelwald to drive the cog train to Murren. Can you repeat that?" - The Brain

Thou makest much ado about nothing!

---

Don Kennedy

"We have grown increasingly concerned with the practice of running Junior and Kid Kart engines at full throttle, on the stand in both the pit and grid area.


This has resulted in numerous instances of blown up rotors that, in some cases, ejected parts into surrounding areas. Additionally the practice of running on stands raises the issue of rapidly turning wheels just inches from the heads of junior drivers. We have been very fortunate that no serious injuries or deaths have occurred.


Accordingly we are implementing the following regulations for the grid and pit areas.


1) The practice of running engines at high rpm's for extended periods will no longer be allowed in pits, pre-grid or grid areas.



2) When in the pre-grid area no running is allowed


3) When in grid area the engines may only be run on the ground not on stands.


4) Kid Karts: At events where fuel is supplied will be allowed a minimum amount of low RPM running to ensure the fuel has reached the carburetor. This will only be allowed when under the direct supervision of a designated race official.


We realize that it is frequently necessary to run the engine after maintenance, This will only be permitted at modest RPM levels for limited periods of time. Extended running at RPMs above clutch stall speeds to preheat motors prior to racing is no longer permitted.



Remember safety first.


Failure to adhere to these revised regulations will result in disqualification.".......

So this is a rule change from the IKF in 2010. You can bet somewhere 2 guys with beers were standing out back of the garage pissing on the wall bemoaning the collapse of IKF. "Shit we ain't kilt no one with a flywheel"


OR this new rule...04/02/2012

Section 105.1.6.3.1: Change 1st sentence to read: Jackets of heavyweight leather, heavyweight vinyl, ballistic nylon material or other abrasion resistant material and full-length pants to prevent or minimize abrasions OR Driving Suits of one or two piece design constructed of heavyweight leather, heavyweight vinyl material or heavyweight abrasion resistant nylon material. Add as last sentence: No sweat pants.


NO SWEAT PANTS ??? Seriously, WTF are they thinking???


So lets keep it in perspective here..."we" techie people really shouldn't be deciding ig a helmet mounted camera is done properly or not. I've seen tech people struggle with seat mounts. "We" ralliests will have just as much fun with a camera on the roll cage or fender flare. This is racing not Cinematic 101.


Boom mikes are flexable, mounted near the bottom of the helmet, actually used as part of rally as it happens .

We could require proper nomex footwear, but RA is concerned with competitor costs and having someone ruin shoes pushing a stuck rally car out of the mud, well you have to look at the big picture.

Closed face helmets. In my opinion they should remain optional. Not everyone can get a CFH over their big head. They restrict vision. More importantly they restrict access to the airway from emergency crews. CFHs are a necessary evil for open wheel, open cockpit racing no doubt about it. Not so much for us.

Eric, yes we disagree on some things, no I don't put you down on the same level as Dan. You are somewhat of a nauseating cheerleader at times. I'm sure I'm obnoxious at times too, but as Wilson pointed out I'm about as neutral as can be.

The constant NRS is for grassroots competitors and the 'answer' is tiring. Look at the respective calendars for 2012. NRS has 8 events listed total. RA has 6 Nationals, 31 regionals, 20 of which are stand alone events. RA does care about costs and competitor safety and grassroots. Your NRS is pretty much a small regional standalone series and you can invent whatever rules you like. Just be sure to man up when shit happens. And fix the stupid roll cage rules....

Helmet cams absolutely do not make a competitor faster, safer or reliable. They are a current fad , ego stroking. So IF there is any risk of them being even remotely a safety issue then why have them? This issue isn't worth the ink wasted on it here. I suspect other sanctioning bodies will be dealing with this also at some point soon.

Responsible or reactive? Punch or counter punch? Prevent the first injury or death or wait for the next?

Rules are something we all abhor yet have to live with. Whether it is texting while driving or barking dogs or right of ways at intersections. Rules always benefit someone at anothers expense. Hopefully it is a fair and equitable tradeoff.