Seems like he's a sue happy twat waffle and there is way too much coincidence in that Forbes article. In this day of "social media"(aka...write your own fairy tale) induced fame hungry hounds, what are the chances of the majority of this stuff, other than the actual crash and lawsuit, are made up for the story? I've seen other "incidents" involving attention whores lately that read more Hollywood action script than "here's how it happened." Some get a lawsuit, some get a GFM... Should I start working on a foil lined hat or am I just conscious of the evolving humanoids?
It reads as a paradox... Perhaps he was using the trackday as some kind of expense write-off and the sympathy for his injuries as leverage for media coverage.
I think the second part of that is most definitely true. It looks like Forbes basically took his word on the details of the accident and ran with it. He's getting a ton of promotion out of this.
Where was the other vehicle he was trying to avoid? Maybe somebody at Forbes should watch the video. Don't they have a responsibility to vette the facts of a story?
Someone should contact Forbes about the lawsuit finishing up and taking the track day business down. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m pretty sure the lawsuit isn’t finished. Last time I saw it was still pending. Insurance wanted to settle, Keigwins didn’t. And I can’t imagine that folding a business gets them out of a lawsuit like this.
What's the story with the sandbags? They were only a couple yards off the outside of the track. Haven't read anything on details yet. You can see tons of erosion nearby so I'm assuming there was some heavy rain prior? He certainly wasn't avoiding anyone when he ran off the track though...
Obviously riding over his head. Gave up on the corner and target fixated. Watch his helmet and where he's looking. But those sand bags are in a shit spot. If you wouldn't put a wall there? Why would you put a sand bag there? Bad idea even for a track day. Like mongo said, if someone can hit it, they will. I will say this, it seems the general consensus here is those sand bags were safely positioned. I would have never said to put something like that there. But I also would have made sure to let everyone know they were there at the riders meeting and to make sure everyone knew to have a look on the sighting lap and to make the decision themselves if they felt they could ride with thier abilities in that corner. I feel like any time I've been to the track, anything like that has always been brought to our attention before anyone suited up. "You'll notice something new there. Take it easy. If you don't like it, we understand and we're happy to issue a refund or voucher for another event" I'd be surprised to hear it wasn't mentioned.
i dunno. based on the comments, it seems that the majority doesnt even know about the sandbags. the mob defaults to "shouldnt have crashed, asshole" even though i doubt that matters to a lawyer or judge. IIRC, the judge from the first trial against Laguna decided the sandbags were there to increase safety of the track, probably by reducing erosion onto the track surface. we could argue for days on that decision, especially because of the other stuff that u brought up. and thats what the appeals are for.
Again, I could be confusing the two lawsuits, but I seem to recall that one of the other arguments being made was that the sandbags were referenced at the riders meeting. However, dipshit didn't attend it. Even that could be argued as a fault against either party at the end of the day though.
I hadn't heard that the sandbags were talked about at the riders meeting. I did hear that he missed the riders meeting.