from JR:
"I can't say which rules the AMA has made that should be rescinded and which are correct, but, I think the case is being made that safety can not be taken for granted and that some rules and regulations are a must.

In my heart I know the rules are for safety and not to deprive us of our fun. "


Fully agree with you in spirit, JR, save one issue. The AMA rules (specifically Safety Code) are for liability avoidance rather than safety per se. Not just a semantic difference IMHO. Your contract with AMA for liability insurance contains a condition that you are in conformance with the Safety Code, and furthur invokes as a condition any local club rules that are safety related. Non-compliance voids your coverage.
Here's the problem as I see it, from experience at my own club:
There have been many sensible recommendations for good practice in the interest of safety that are pertinent to our flying site from club members over the years. They have not been incorporated in club rules, and in fact some that were in the past have been purged - and I freely admit they were purged at my behest. Why? Because they expose our club to uncovered liabilty is why. Accidents happen due to carelessness whether or not rules are in place that proscribe the practices that lead to them. If an accident happens that results in a liability situation, you'll certainly understand why we don't want a rule on the books prohibiting the activity that led to its occurence.
Safety issues should be addressed separately from liability issues. No denial there is a relationship, but having them tied together directly as AMA has done can and does result in compromising safety to avoid liability. Case in point: the pylon cages thing. They weren't perfect, and therefore making them available exposed AMA to liability risk. Though imperfect, would they make pylon racing safer for the callers and race officials? Of course they would. Avoiding liability won over safety concerns, and this is far from an isolated example.
I'm one of the guys that has been vocal in opposition to the EC's continual tinkering with the Safety Code. Now you know why. Comments?

Abel