[Martin Smith]

I agree, but: iRacing is popular popular enough for people  to pay money for it.

They join iRacing because they are willing to spend time in lower tier races to be able to race the "big boy cars" in a couple of months or even a year. They know they'll get there when they behave well on the track.

SRS isn't popular enough for that though. You either let people join the races they want to take part in or they don't join at all.

This is why SRS should use incident rating to split drivers into separate servers, instead of excluding them completely.
If there's more signups than available slots, split the worst incident average into the lower server. Yes, it will make the field less competitive than spliting based on performance rating, but you will retain more participants because people will be less frustrated by the crashers. It would more than balance out IMO.

The neat part of this idea is that is doesn't prescribe a hard limit for 'safety'rating. Just the worst incident drivers for each event get split away, regardless of whether it's a field of very clean drivers or very dangerous drivers. That way everyone has an incentive to always reduce their incidents, instead of just aiming for an incident rate number and then never improving.

The idea of using incident rating to clean up the racing is a suggestion that keeps coming back over and over but I suspect that if a million monkeys on a million typewriters made the exact same request for a million years, it would probably not happen. But on the upside, they'd accidentally write the complete works of Shakespeare, so that's cool.