BY:NORRIS MCDONALD - Kendall Hebert, a 17-year-old drag racer from southwestern Ontario, was killed last Sunday at Toronto Motorsport Park, south of Hamilton, when her "jet car" dragster went out of control at nearly 500 kilometres an hour (a tick under 300 m.p.h.).

When the Ontario Coroner's Office calls an inquest into her death — and an inquest must be held — let's hope the right questions get asked.

When I say the "right" questions, I don't mean the nuts-and-bolts questions about racing car safety (this wasn't a car wreck, it was a plane crash), or her experience. Neither of those, or similar questions, will get to the nub of what should be the focus.

There are, instead, philosophical questions that must be answered — questions that, unfortunately, may make some people uncomfortable.

#
Are children under the age of 18 too young to be driving racing cars?

Kendall Hebert was born into a racing family. There are hockey families and there are rock 'n roll families and hers is a racing family. Her dad races and owns a speed shop. The name of the team is Hebert Family Racing. It is their culture.

So, as it was with Walter Gretzky, who had Wayne out on the ice soon after he learned to walk, Kendall's dad taught her to drive when she was about 4 years old. He souped up a little toy riding car so it could go as fast as 40 km/h and turned her loose. From all reports, she had a heavy foot right from the start.

She was racing junior dragsters when she was 8 or 9. She was officially licensed to drive the family dragster shortly after her 16th birthday. She'd gone nearly 325 km/h (200 m.p.h.) in that car. She'd done maintenance work on the car between races and was learning the business side of the sport. She'd raced in Canada and the United States and she knew how to work a crowd. She was preparing for what was supposed to be a long and successful career.

In terms of commitment and ambition, she was exactly the same as Michael Schumacher and Ron Fellows and Paul Tracy and Danica Patrick and virtually every other top driver in the world today when they were her age. They all started as kids.

So, on paper, she was likely qualified to drive that jet car. She had the experience. She had the talent (Gretzky turned pro when he was 17, too). The people who owned the car wanted her in it. The family supported her. It would be a big step up. It would likely gain her even more fame and notoriety than she already had.

But, for all that, did Kendall Hebert, at 17 years of age, have the maturity, the inner-strength, to maybe — and I emphasize maybe — say no?

Did she have the self-assurance, the backbone that comes with self-confidence, to say, perhaps: "I don't know whether this is such a good idea. Maybe I should wait for awhile."

Does any 17-year-old possess those qualities?

Maturity and self-assurance and self-respect are things that only years of life can give you. Kendall raced competitively for eight years before she died. If she hadn't started till she was 18 — the legal age to drive alone on the roads and highways of most provinces — she'd maybe have been in her 20s before having to decide whether or not to strap herself into that rocket ship.

At 23 or 25 or whenever, she'd have known a lot more about life than she did at 17. Maybe she'd have made the same decision. Maybe not. But she'd have had more of a choice.

#
Should parents let their children race?

Thousands of children all around the world are being introduced at a very young age by their parents (usually their fathers) to a sport that could do them very serious harm and maybe even kill them.

None of us who love racing like to talk about it, but auto racing is a deadly game. If it can happen to Ayrton Senna and Dale Earnhardt Sr., it can happen to anybody.

Certainly, you can get seriously hurt playing minor hockey and high school football, but death is rare. And yes, racing, as compared to 25 or 30 years ago, is remarkably safer than it was when you take into consideration the number of people involved and the number of events held.

But — and it's a big "but" — racing can kill you. Kendall Hebert was killed last Sunday. Between eight and 10 top professionals (and dozens of other semi-professionals and amateur racers) have died in racing cars in the last 10 years (Greg Moore and Jeff Krosnoff among them).

Between eight and 10 top professionals and/or dozens of other participants have not been killed in any other major spectator sport in the last 10 years (baseball, basketball, hockey or football; don't talk to me about boxing).

So anybody who wants to argue that racing is in any way "safe" (as compared to those other sports) is mistaken.

Safety devices help, but they don't always work. Kendall was thrown from her vehicle when her restraining belts failed. In England just last month, the much-loved co-host of the popular driving show Top Gear, Richard Hammond, was critically injured during his attempt to break a land-speed record in another jet-powered car when it blew a tire at 500 km/h.

In that case, the driver's roll cage buried itself in the soft ground and Hammond's helmeted head was itself half-buried in the soil. After a touch-and-go period, he seems to be making a remarkable recovery in hospital, although the TV show's future is threatened by television executives who are nervous of the show's exposure to danger.

The hosts argue that they're adults and have made the choice to do what they do. They're experienced and aware of the risks and they know and accept, above all, that racing is inherently dangerous.

But do children?

In the "old days" — as recently as the 1980s — you had to be 18 just to get into the pits at most speedways or racetracks in North America. There was no question about getting behind the wheel because if you weren't old enough to get into the pits, you couldn't get into a car.

But then this thing called the "parental consent form" came along in which, once signed, the parent accepts responsibility for death or injury suffered by their child.

By doing this, are the parents being responsible?

Parents are supposed to keep their children out of harm's way. It could be argued that by strapping their crash-helmeted, fire-suited child into a go-kart or quarter midget and sending them into battle at the age of 8 (the age that the FIA, incidentally, will sanction races involving children), that these parents, in fact, are deliberately putting their children at risk.

It is against the law — illegal, to put it strongly — for anybody to even start to learn to drive a car on the street before they are 16. But a note from a parent makes it okay to do it elsewhere?

I have always been nervous about this. My now-adult children came to the speedways with me when I raced, we watched racing together and we talked about racing.

They always knew if they wanted to go racing, they would have my full support. But they would make their own decision — when they became old enough to drive legally on the street.

I left it up to them to race or not; it was not a decision I would make for them.

So, should a parent even be allowed to make such a risky decision on the part of his or her child?

Is it worth the potential price?
source: www.thestar.com