04/19/24
August 29, 2010
13-Year-Old Racer Killed in Motorcycle Wreck at Indy: Peter Lenz, a 13-year-old motorcycle racer, died Sunday after falling off his bike and being run over by another motorcycle at Indianapolis Motor Speedway. Lenz had been racing since age 5 and was one of the youngest ever racers in his sport. He was leading in the USGPRU's MD250H class at the time of his death. "He passed doing what he loved and had his go fast face on as he pulled onto the track," his dad wrote on his Facebook page. Last year, Lenz discussed racing in a video while recuperating from a severed radial nerve and broken leg and arm suffered in a crash.
I'm not advocating it, but could you charge the parents with criminal neglience? The kid had just suffered some pretty heavy-duty injuries, and there he is, right back out there.
posted by wfrazerjr at 08:33 PM on August 29, 2010
Same debate as with the young sailor...when is young too young?
posted by dviking at 08:39 PM on August 29, 2010
He was clearly a talented kid who had a bright future ahead of him in that sport, or some other form of racing.
But when your kid is racing motorcycles at age 10 at speeds up to 95 mph, it seems to me like parents pushing a kid too much, treating him like a future meal ticket and living through him vicariously. When I watch that video I see JonBenet Ramsey on a motorbike.
I know we're going to be told that he was living his dream and we're just a bunch of keyboard jockeys afraid to live life to the fullest, but bah humbug to that. If you can't legally drive at 13, why is it OK to race motorcycles at high speed in competition? What am I not getting?
posted by rcade at 09:44 PM on August 29, 2010
If you can't legally drive at 13, why is it OK to race motorcycles at high speed in competition? What am I not getting?
I agree wholeheartedly.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 10:49 PM on August 29, 2010
Yeah dad. brilliant move there to deflect any child endangerment or negligent charges that anyone with a coarse mind, might think should be directed to you
But of course you dear dad just toss out that old chestnut, "well, he died with his boots on, doing what he loved best. I am sure that the family will want to scatter his ashes on the track in turn 2 right before the next race.
because as we all know, there caint be negligence if the child died doing what he liked no matter how terrible the consequence. Sleep well dad. you too mom.
posted by irunfromclones at 05:51 AM on August 30, 2010
He passed doing what he loved? He loved getting his head split open like a melon by another motorcycle? Some people really don't need to be parents.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 09:10 AM on August 30, 2010
He passed doing what he loved? He loved getting his head split open like a melon by another motorcycle? Some people really don't need to be parents.
Well, obviously Dad meant racing motorcycles rather than dying while racing motorcycles, but that kind of illustrates just why that is such a stupid, thoughtless phrase. No one wants to die doing what they love, they want to live doing what they love. Moreover, there are plenty of parents whose kids are involved in sports (whitewater kayaking, sailing, equestrian sports) where there's a realistic risk of death or serious injury if you take it to a certain level, and who seem to not have some huge difficulty in keeping their kids back from the "probably fatal if you make one tiny mistake" edge -- nor do their children strike me as living horribly circumscribed, joyless lives into which no risk ever comes.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:22 AM on August 30, 2010
The problem I am having is that his death was not caused by his age. It is always tragic when someone dies. Is this more tragic than say dying in a motor sports race at age 20? Someone still looses their life to racing, a family still looses a son or daughter, the person who dies still is doing something they choose to do. Actually a young person with the mentality to be a top motorcycle racer, is probably safer in organized competition than they are left to their own devices as speed and risk taking are part of the mentality. Plenty a teenager has lost their life to recreational vehicle accidents away from competition on a normal weekend of fun. This appears to be an accident.
This is another example of a very young but very capable person taking on a behavior that is risky to any participant. Whatever happened to this kid or Abbey Sunderland, was part of the normal risk anybody experiences when engaging in these activities. The young sailor proved by her actions that she was as capable as any adult to deal with the potential problems of ocean sailing. Insinuating the parent is negligent is pretty harsh. Would you blame a parent of a kid killed or crippled in a cheer leading or gymnastics routine, can kids snow board, play hockey, is surfing ok ?
There are a lot of youth racing programs around the US and I wonder if anybody has any statistics proving youth racing is any more dangerous than say adult racing or if it proves to be safer than many other more common youth sports like football, hockey etc.
posted by Atheist at 11:20 AM on August 30, 2010
We don't know yet that his death was not caused by inexperience. He fell over his handlebars in a wipeout and raised his hands to warn other racers not to hit him, then attempted to stand to be more visible when he was struck by a 12-year-old. The photos on that CBS video link show him holding his hands up with his back to the racers behind him, not attempting to get out of the way or see who's coming.
posted by rcade at 11:41 AM on August 30, 2010
Jalopnik: "[O]ur problem is with 12-year-olds and 18-year-olds competing side-by-side. It creates huge disparities in skill, talent and experience that encourage risk-taking by the youngest racers in order to maintain competitiveness."
posted by rcade at 11:44 AM on August 30, 2010
The problem I am having is that his death was not caused by his age. It is always tragic when someone dies. Is this more tragic than say dying in a motor sports race at age 20?
Yup.
Actually a young person with the mentality to be a top motorcycle racer, is probably safer in organized competition than they are left to their own devices as speed and risk taking are part of the mentality.
And where else is a 13 year old going to be able to ride a bike at 100mph?
This is another example of a very young but very capable person taking on a behavior that is risky to any participant. Whatever happened to this kid or Abbey Sunderland, was part of the normal risk anybody experiences when engaging in these activities. The young sailor proved by her actions that she was as capable as any adult to deal with the potential problems of ocean sailing...There are a lot of youth racing programs around the US and I wonder if anybody has any statistics proving youth racing is any more dangerous than say adult racing or if it proves to be safer than many other more common youth sports like football, hockey etc.
This was all discussed at the time, Atheist -- and at the time I pointed out that you may be able to make an argument that a younger person has judgment and capability equal to an older person (there's pretty good data against that argument, from what I understand, but we'll let that slide), but you can't make the argument that they're old enough to die. Statistics won't help you, even if you do have them. It doesn't matter if a youth racing program is statistically "safer"; what's at issue is whether someone that young belongs in that situation at all, and the answer to that question is no.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:46 AM on August 30, 2010
The problem I am having is that his death was not caused by his age.
Yeah, I have to agree. I really don't see his age being a factor or that his parents were pushing hard for him to be involved in competitive racing as some have speculated. Accidents tend to happen no matter what age you are, it's part of life. Dale Earnhardt raced for 26 years and was one of the most experianced NASCAR drivers in the sport and still died from an accident. It's still a shame.
.
posted by BornIcon at 11:50 AM on August 30, 2010
Indiana sportswriter Ben Smith: "If the series Lenz was riding in is, as it's characterized, an entry-level series, what the hell was it doing running at Indy? There is no way, none, an entry-level series should be running at a place like that. The MotoGP pros can barely handle running there. But you're going to let 12- and 13-year-olds?"
posted by rcade at 11:53 AM on August 30, 2010
No one wants to die doing what they love, they want to live doing what they love.
Truer words have never been spoken.
If you can't legally drive at 13, why is it OK to race motorcycles at high speed in competition? What am I not getting?
It's a closed course where all of the very limited amount of participants have passed some kind of test (more difficult to pass than 75% correct out of 25 multiple choice questions)?
posted by MrFrisby at 11:55 AM on August 30, 2010
The person I feel the deepest sorrow for is Xavier Zayat. I can't even begin to imagine how he is feeling or how this unfortunate event will affect him.
.
posted by MrFrisby at 12:07 PM on August 30, 2010
LBB - you must have missed my point as I never argued someone was old enough to die. I was making the point that everybody killed in an accident, dies too young.
I am only arguing that blaming the parents in this case is inappropriate. Focusing on these parents is difficult as they have made judgements regarding their son that will affect them for the rest of their lives. Suggesting they should be punished further is not productive. Actually if people feel they endangered their child and should be held accountable to the law, then every parent of every child who raced should be also charged with child endangerment as the fact that their children were not hurt, does not change the fact that they allowed them to incur the same risk.
The whole argument boils down to how much government we want to have. Sure you can have a law like child endangerment which can be called on in extraordinary cases where an activity is not common and clearly is negligent. But child endangerment laws cannot work without considering the legality of the activity. For example- if we determine it is child endangerment to allow children under the age of X to race motor vehicles, then surely every organized event is in violation of the law and all its organizers, participants, and sponsors are all culpable and should be charged. I just don't think you can have laws that allow junior racing but then say all participants are engaging in the illegal behavior of child endangerment.
Not recognizing that reasonable people can disagree on what is acceptable or not for their own children is what concerns me about those on one side of this discussion. I believe taking a child to church, temple, mosque, or other place dedicated to the brainwashing and indoctrination of those yet to reach the age of informed consent is child endangerment. I suppose some would say one man's child endangerment is another mans proper upbringing.
posted by Atheist at 01:03 PM on August 30, 2010
I believe taking a child to church, temple, mosque, or other place dedicated to the brainwashing and indoctrination of those yet to reach the age of informed consent is child endangerment.
C'mon now. There's child endangerment which means that the child is put in immediate peril of physical injury, and there's church. You might feel it's inappropriate to subject children to the pressure of organized religion (and there's a pretty damn good chance that I'll agree with you), but to call it endangerment is pretty hyperbolic.
posted by tahoemoj at 01:32 PM on August 30, 2010
Atheist:
I am only arguing that blaming the parents in this case is inappropriate. Focusing on these parents is difficult as they have made judgements regarding their son that will affect them for the rest of their lives. Suggesting they should be punished further is not productive.
Who suggested that "they should be punished further"?
The whole argument boils down to how much government we want to have.
No, it doesn't. That may be the only part of "the whole argument" that you care about, but to claim that that's the only issue is disingenuous, to say the least. It's not that simple.
Not recognizing that reasonable people can disagree on what is acceptable or not for their own children is what concerns me about those on one side of this discussion.
That's a strawman argument, wherein you characterize everyone who doesn't agree with you as broadly guilty of "[n]ot recognizing that reasonable people can disagree on what is acceptable or not for their own children". I suppose that naturally follows once you've characterized "those on one side" as wanting this kid's parents to be "punished further" and "held accountable to the law". Some people may feel that way, but no one has expressed this, so again...strawman.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:52 PM on August 30, 2010
I am only arguing that blaming the parents in this case is inappropriate.
They're adults. Peter Lenz was a kid who relied on their judgment and experience. There's nothing inappropriate about questioning their decision to put him on that track.
The whole argument boils down to how much government we want to have.
The state prohibits all kinds of activities for minors. If the U.S. or a state decided that putting young kids on motorbikes going 100 mph was too dangerous to be permitted, I don't think it would be some troubling new precedent.
When I see videos of Lenz and other participants and the adults interviewing them and handing them trophies, it makes me wonder how many of those adults ever asked themselves whether the sport's a good idea.
posted by rcade at 02:47 PM on August 30, 2010
rcade - I would not consider it a government intrusion if the activity was outlawed. Actually makes sense to me. My point was if there are no laws specifically against it, and it is legal to hold juvenile racing events, then how could a parent be considered to be endangering a child if the activity the child is doing is perfectly legal and permitted by government. Who is supposed to make this decision? I am comfortable with the parent making it.
I am playing a little of devil's advocate but if as a society we the people by consensus decided to outlaw or create a minimum age of participation for certain high risk activities and sports like motor racing, boxing, football etc, I have no objection. Personally my kid would not have been permitted to do this. My main point is that is a decision I have to make for my own family and I do believe reasonable people could disagree about what is and is not acceptable for a 13 year old when all factors are considered. I doubt there is a clear line and when in doubt I opt for the decision to be made by individuals not governments.
Should an adult be able to allowed to ride a motorcycle with their child on the back on a public street? Some people would do this and others would not. Every parent deals with risk assessment decisions every time they decide what to allow or not allow their children to do. Every time a tragic accident happens I am sure it forces all those involved in the same activity to reassess the risk factor and determine if they are comfortable enough to continue.
posted by Atheist at 05:10 PM on August 30, 2010
tahoemoj - my point exactly is that people do disagree as to what constitutes child endangerment. Surely immediate peril of physical injury might qualify but there is also emotional and psychological injury. Thus we are back to perception and judgement. Child endangerment covers a wide variety of negligence from leaving a kid alone in a car while shopping, or doing drugs in a house where children are present. Rarely would any DA consider parents to be guilty of endangering the welfare of a child if that child was allowed to engage in an organized sports activity with proper safety precautions that involved the participation of many other kids of the same age. The fact that many other parents were also allowing their children to participate in this type of youth racing, almost reaffirms a community standard that many parents feel it is a perfectly acceptable level of risk for their kids. I imagine if serious injuries become commonplace the activity would be the target of legislative action.
posted by Atheist at 05:32 PM on August 30, 2010
I was reading "child endangerment" as a term of art or legal cause of action. I guess you were using it in the literal "doing something potentially harmful to a child" sense. We were just speaking two different languages. I still disagree, but for a different reason.
posted by tahoemoj at 05:48 PM on August 30, 2010
LBB- while in one breath you are claiming
"That's a strawman argument, wherein you characterize everyone who doesn't agree with you as broadly guilty of "[n]ot recognizing that reasonable people can disagree on what is acceptable or not for their own children"
No I never said anybody was guilty of anything, I am only saying that reasonable people can disagree on what is acceptable for their own children. It seems that some want to decide for others where the line is drawn
You seem to be guilty of exactly what you are accusing me of when you say.
"what's at issue is whether someone that young belongs in that situation at all, and the answer to that question is no. "
You have stated the issue as you see it and answered the question for us and your answer is NO. Well I am saying reasonable people might disagree with your answer which you seem to feel is the correct answer because it is your answer. How is that not a strawman argument, or at least you implying that your opinion is the right one .
posted by Atheist at 05:55 PM on August 30, 2010
My point was if there are no laws specifically against it, and it is legal to hold juvenile racing events, then how could a parent be considered to be endangering a child if the activity the child is doing is perfectly legal and permitted by government.
I wouldn't expect any charges to be filed against the parents here, nor have I called for them. My focus is entirely on whether this is an excessive risk for parents to take with children who aren't even past puberty when they begin racing at speeds of 90 mph or higher. Lenz really trashed his leg from the looks of the external metal cast he was wearing last year. Fatalities are a fluke, but how many kids wreck their bodies in that sport?
posted by rcade at 06:03 PM on August 30, 2010
I would imaging more kids are injured seriously on ATV's or motorcycles away from the organized racing events than are hurt during competitions. This looks like a tragic accident and nothing more. Could have happened in any number of sports and has. Maybe racing a motorcycle on a track with proper safety equipment isn't any more dangerous statistically than numerous other sports. We just have a different comfort level with it.
posted by Atheist at 06:23 PM on August 30, 2010
I do feel differently about this than I did about the young sailor, but I guess that appears now to be pretty hypocritical. There is no way in hell I would let my kid do that, and if I changed my mind, I hope somebody would stop me.
If you're too good to stay at your age level, then just wait a while. You don't have to accomplish everything before you can legally see Inception without adult accompaniment.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:05 PM on August 30, 2010
Atheist:
LBB- while in one breath you are claiming
"That's a strawman argument, wherein you characterize everyone who doesn't agree with you as broadly guilty of "[n]ot recognizing that reasonable people can disagree on what is acceptable or not for their own children"
No I never said anybody was guilty of anything, I am only saying that reasonable people can disagree on what is acceptable for their own children. It seems that some want to decide for others where the line is drawn
You seem to be guilty of exactly what you are accusing me of when you say.
"what's at issue is whether someone that young belongs in that situation at all, and the answer to that question is no. "
You have stated the issue as you see it and answered the question for us and your answer is NO. Well I am saying reasonable people might disagree with your answer which you seem to feel is the correct answer because it is your answer. How is that not a strawman argument, or at least you implying that your opinion is the right one .
A strawman argument is one in which you attribute a statement, opinion, or point of view to someone else -- one that is patently absurd and easy to attack -- and then proceed to attack it. I haven't done any such thing with your views. Your statement, on the other hand, attributed to others a desire for legal punishment, which no one had expressed.
As for the statement you quoted, you've taken it out of context and changed its meaning from a statement of an issue in the context of a specific argument, to a sweeping general statement, which it was not.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:48 PM on August 30, 2010
I wonder what's the age limit for kids who can go hunting with a firearm?
posted by BornIcon at 09:16 AM on August 31, 2010
I believe it is 13 here in Montana.
That has what to do with this topic?
posted by BoKnows at 12:06 PM on August 31, 2010
LBB- I did not mean to say that anybody was calling for punishment for the parents but wfrazerfr did ask if the parents could be charged with criminal negligence, and Imfromclones suggested the father was quilty of child endangerment. I just assumed that if these issues were brought up then it might be reasonable that some felt action would be appropriate. Maybe I just got ahead of the conversation.
Thank you for the explanation of Strawman argument. I learned something today. Again I was not saying anybody had called for punishment but as soon as someone infers the situation could be equated with child endangerment or asks about criminal negligence then I just assume some punitive action goes along with that. Of course any court would probably consider the suffering of the surviving parents and family, a life sentence worthy of a time to be served suffering for their decision to be punishment enough.
posted by Atheist at 12:43 PM on August 31, 2010
No, I didn't suggest that the father was guilty of child endangerment. I just felt like he made that statement rather quickly about number 45 dying while doing what he loved best and might have made it out to head off what the coarse minded might say about his parenting skills.
I only found it odd that he had to use so many trite phrases to describe the death of one of his children; "he had his go fast game face on". The dad just strikes me as one of those guys who tries to live vicariously through their children because they never had the talent, guts, or opportunity to do it themselves.
posted by irunfromclones at 07:13 PM on August 31, 2010
FWIW, there was a sort of similar case a couple of years ago when an 8-year-old boy accidentally shot and killed himself while firing an automatic weapon at a gun show in Westfield, MA (similar in that it raised some of the same questions about parental responsibility, different in some important ways as well). It's easy enough to locate on google, if you're interested in these sorts of issues. I believe two charges of involuntary manslaughter are still pending?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:50 PM on August 31, 2010
According to his personal site, it cost $3,500 to $5,000 a week for him to race.