Quote:
Originally Posted by bradleyland
You're making the same exact argument, but fortunately without the eye rolling and condescension  The problem is the you can't argue whether someone else should take on a risk. That's their prerogative. You can say, "I think the risk is minimal." OK, but that's a judgement call. The fact remains that the waiver is required, and the terms are onerous.
It can definitely be said that BMW has no track record of going after participants for mishaps. But this cannot be said:
"BMW would never go after a participant over an honest accident."
Only BMW can assert that.
This is the fundamental problem. No matter how much track record we have, BMW still requires that you sign a document that:
A) Puts all liability on you as a participant.
B) Causes you to assert that you have insurance coverage that you do not (in most cases).
Regardless of track record, that is the circumstance that you enter when you sign the agreement. Some people are OK with that, but others are not. No one should be talked down to for expressing that they're not comfortable with the risk. |
People are really making this a bigger issue than what it is. It just takes some thought and not the knee-jerk reaction of "OMG..we have no insurance from BMW".
I get it though, some states are more litigious than others and that dictates how people view things.