From what you described, your son committed an infringement of the rules, in that when 3/4 passed he decided take a line to the exit. If he was not passed and clear, this would have meant that he 'squeezed' the other kart.
Equally, if the other kart had gone with him on the outrun, would your son have left him at least a kart's width on the outside of the track.
"But the lad he was passing had still refused to give"
There is no requirement to 'give' at all to an overtaking kart. Indeed, if you maintain your position one kart's width from the inside kerb, it is the inside kart that has to slow down, because he probably cannot maintain his position on the inside line without contact.
Of course, you aren't allowed to crowd the overtaking driver off the inside of the track either.
The rules no longer explicitly lay the onus on the overtaking driver to ensure that he is past and clear before the overtake is complete, but the same requirement is implicit in the 'no contact' rule.
I agree it is very difficult to 'prove' that the following driver did not 'turn' into your driver, and even more difficult if the outside driver followed the curve further round than he might usually do, forcing your driver to slow down because it would look as if he turned in even if all he did was maintain his track.
It seems that part of the intention of the wording was to stop the fairly common 'late lunge' going up on the inside more or less relying on the other driver being forced to give way or act as a brake for the lunging driver who is not at that moment in control of his kart.
From the other driver's legal point of view, your son deliberately 'headed' him off (and yes, we have all been in both positions and we don't usually think exactly what the rule book says at that moment.)
So, yes, technically worth a warning flag, advising your son that doing it again might carry a penalty.
|
|