• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Danny Kim case update

Pleasant surprise.
 
"..trying to avoid a slower rider." That's some grade AAA Bullshit right there. I've seen the video and his claim just doesn't hold water. Even if there were a slower rider in front of him (debatable if the rider in front of his that was slower) and that rider had just absolutely parked it, which he didn't, there were still a lot more options that just riding off the track.

I'm pleasantly surprised that this turned out the way it did; however, how much money and time was wasted in the process? Reminds me of the guy who built a house next to Altamont Raceway and then complained about the noise. On the plus side to that one, he was indirectly responsible for the creation of the 24 hours of Lemons.
 
Good find John. Thanks for posting that!
 
Yup.

Pretty much stuffed all the sandbag comments in this thread where the sun don’t shine. :laughing

The Judge rightly called BS on the track being very negligent. There is hope that tracking will remain for a while.
 
John :banana

John :banana

Thanks bro.
 
budman said:
Yup.

Pretty much stuffed all the sandbag comments in this thread where the sun don’t shine. :laughing

The Judge rightly called BS on the track being very negligent. There is hope that tracking will remain for a while.
Click to expand...

Yeah, fortunately they wound up with a judge who was divorced from reality.
 
Divorced or engaged?

Like he rides.
 
"Wills also pointed out that crashing while riding a motorcycle, on or off the track, is an "inherent risk" that riders take."

I hate that sentence. Historically this thought process has been used in the past to lessen the responsibility of car drivers that have been involved in a crash with motorcyclists.
 
Enchanter said:
"Wills also pointed out that crashing while riding a motorcycle, on or off the track, is an "inherent risk" that riders take."

I hate that sentence. Historically this thought process has been used in the past to lessen the responsibility of car drivers that have been involved in a crash with motorcyclists.
Click to expand...

Potato - potahdo: It's inherently dangerous because of car drivers
 
Enchanter said:
"Wills also pointed out that crashing while riding a motorcycle, on or off the track, is an "inherent risk" that riders take."

I hate that sentence. Historically this thought process has been used in the past to lessen the responsibility of car drivers that have been involved in a crash with motorcyclists.
Click to expand...

While I understand why you hate the sentence, it’s nonetheless true, with or without cars. Unlike a car, a motorcycle will fall down unless the rider keeps it from falling down. This isn’t a matter of excusing anyone’s responsibility (though I know it has been used that way), it’s an acknowledgement that there are risks in riding that a rider accepts, whether they fully grasp them or not.
 
In a way, I feel vindicated with this ruling. I had a long drawn out "discussion" with another BARFER, who no longer posts, about this. A BARFER who also has never done a trackday, but utterly knew that the track and the provider were culpable and guilty and Kim was the victim.

It's a good decision, and hopefully will keep the sport going a while longer.
 
That type is still around. Even after the common sense ruling. Always someone else's fault now a days....

afm199 said:
In a way, I feel vindicated with this ruling. I had a long drawn out "discussion" with another BARFER, who no longer posts, about this. A BARFER who also has never done a trackday, but utterly knew that the track and the provider were culpable and guilty and Kim was the victim.

It's a good decision, and hopefully will keep the sport going a while longer.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
afm199 said:
In a way, I feel vindicated with this ruling. I had a long drawn out "discussion" with another BARFER, who no longer posts, about this. A BARFER who also has never done a trackday, but utterly knew that the track and the provider were culpable and guilty and Kim was the victim.

It's a good decision, and hopefully will keep the sport going a while longer.
Click to expand...

Agree. It's a great decision. I'm still surprised. I felt the argument that Laguna had managed a consistent seasonal reduction to track runoff would come into play. Good to see it did not.
 
Holeshot said:
I felt the argument that Laguna had managed a consistent seasonal reduction to track runoff would come into play. Good to see it did not.
Click to expand...

I'm not positive what you mean by "seasonal reduction to track runoff." If that means they put sandbags out every winter, it sounds like that did come up and the judge found that putting the bags out was a net improvement to safety over not putting them out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top