Actually, it is now under 40,000 a year who get killed in road accidents. It used to be over 50,000.If your goal is to eliminate all risk from racing, I don't think that's reasonable. Indeed, in many cases a "safety airplane" has been found to be less-safe than a more-conventional alternative.
You've found one case of a crash due to hindered visibility. And one more (and thirty years old at that) attributed to wake turbulence. I don't see how these examples provide a call for significant change in racing. Airplanes crash. Airplanes crash even if they're not racing. It's absolutely impossible to eliminate risk from any endeavour - the race pilots could be killed on the drive to the airport as easily as in their highly-tuned, highly-inspected race aircraft.
40,000 people a year are killed in auto accidents in the United States alone. If your real goal is saving human life, why are you pursuing air racing (and Reno in particular) as some horrific risk about which "something" needs to be done?
What is your real goal with your posts here?
Seat belts, by the way, became standard equipment in cars because John Stapp discovered the Air Force was losing more pilots annually in road accidents than aviation accidents.