Quote:
|
Originally Posted by canam
Bob, are you going to cover the additional insurance premiums or litigation costs arising out of spectator injury--particularly in the US where rampant lawyerism is an integral part of life (sadly).
The question "why did not the circuit owner, team owner, sanctioning body or driver take action that would have reduced the chances of this accident happening as it is a fact that blah blah blah."
When it is acknowledged that having air con can improve concentration and reduce the chances of exhaustion, any insurer or court of law would require that best practice be followed. It has got very little to do with the driver being comfortable (although in my book that it a real benefit) and more to do with keeping the insurance companies happy.
If may be your right to not have to have air-con, just underwrite the bill and, as I presume you won't, air-con is required.
|
You are going on assumptions and presumptions not based on history but panic, and fear.
Courts have so far viewed cases with the fact that racing is dangerous and viewing racing is dangerous, otherwise it would have been shut down a long time ago.
This is paranoia at its worst, based not on history but unsupported fear.
IF you are correct, then auto racing will stop, as it will then be judged that unless you can give a one hundred percent certainty that no one, will ever get hurt, much less killed or crippled, the risk is too great and the task should cease.
It may reach the point you fear, because of people who operate under the umbrella of fear, and if that is true, then go balls-out until the lights are turned off.
As bad as US courts are, it seems concerning auto racing, some courts in Europe are even bigger joke.
Bob