lateapex911
Super Moderator
That's a very interesting point Dave.
I am trying to understand that as well as a few other points that are related.
Joe, and Arnie Kuhns are two of three mebers of the SCCA Saftey Commitee. I am unsure exactly what the safety commitee is charged with, and the limit, or power of their responsibility. It is obvious though, after researching a bit, and reading the notes in Fastrack, that they are involved in the recommendations that have resulted in harness and head restraint issues.
As you may well know, Arnie Kuhns is the President of SFI. SFI, for those who don't know, create, with the input of manufacturers, and other industry leaders and experts, standards that safety equipment must meet. Sanctioning bodies use those standards as minimums in order to conduct activities that are thought of by the court system as reponsibly safe, in an attempt to sheild themselves from liability.
(A standard of particular interest to many here is the 38.1 standard for head and neck restraint. SFI consulted with the designers of the HANS system to create the standard. There are those that find such a narrow consultation and the resulting standard that essentially mandates the basic architecture to be a bit "cozy" - clearly the standard promotes sales of the HANS system - and has as a side effect, the real world limitation of design of safer systems.)
I've asked for legal commentary to this point of a "liability sheild" before, and haven't had anyone add anything that was particularly illuminating, especially as to the mechanism of liability protection. But I digress....
I am very troubled that SCCA has decided to staff a commitee with the majority vote (2 of 3 members) that is so clearly biased. SFI makes it's money from manufacturers, and sanctioning bodies, and of course it is in it's best interst to promote SFI certified items and manufacturers. And of course, a retailer of safety devices has a very obvious vested interest as well.
That's not to say that Arnie or Joe are, or are not, purely serving for the safety of the sport with no concern to their personal profit, but that's nearly irrelevant when such obvious conflicts of interest exist, and the appearance of the impartiality of the commitee is long forgotten.
A side note as to the operation of the ITAC, the commitee I serve on. It is made up of, and this varies over time, 6 -9 members, and the makeup of the members seeks to result in a varied body with members from different IT classes and geographic regions. In cases where a specific member has a vested interest in the outcome of a vote, he is consulted for his opinion, but stays out of actual voting. It is rare that his vote would swing the tide one way or another in actuality as most votes aren't that close, but the mechanism exists to ensure commiteee impartiality. In a committe of 3, having 2 voters need to abstain effectively cancels the constructive effect of the commitee...the checks and balances just aren't there. It's hard for me to imagine many votes that the safety commitee could have that wouldn't be of particular interest to at least one, and probably two of it's 3 members. Now, I don't, as I said at the start, know the responsibilty, nor the operational mandates the commitee is charged with, or operates under, if any, so I can't say that the make up is a definate problem.
But..it sure looks that way, and that in itself is a huge problem.
I am trying to understand that as well as a few other points that are related.
Joe, and Arnie Kuhns are two of three mebers of the SCCA Saftey Commitee. I am unsure exactly what the safety commitee is charged with, and the limit, or power of their responsibility. It is obvious though, after researching a bit, and reading the notes in Fastrack, that they are involved in the recommendations that have resulted in harness and head restraint issues.
As you may well know, Arnie Kuhns is the President of SFI. SFI, for those who don't know, create, with the input of manufacturers, and other industry leaders and experts, standards that safety equipment must meet. Sanctioning bodies use those standards as minimums in order to conduct activities that are thought of by the court system as reponsibly safe, in an attempt to sheild themselves from liability.
(A standard of particular interest to many here is the 38.1 standard for head and neck restraint. SFI consulted with the designers of the HANS system to create the standard. There are those that find such a narrow consultation and the resulting standard that essentially mandates the basic architecture to be a bit "cozy" - clearly the standard promotes sales of the HANS system - and has as a side effect, the real world limitation of design of safer systems.)
I've asked for legal commentary to this point of a "liability sheild" before, and haven't had anyone add anything that was particularly illuminating, especially as to the mechanism of liability protection. But I digress....
I am very troubled that SCCA has decided to staff a commitee with the majority vote (2 of 3 members) that is so clearly biased. SFI makes it's money from manufacturers, and sanctioning bodies, and of course it is in it's best interst to promote SFI certified items and manufacturers. And of course, a retailer of safety devices has a very obvious vested interest as well.
That's not to say that Arnie or Joe are, or are not, purely serving for the safety of the sport with no concern to their personal profit, but that's nearly irrelevant when such obvious conflicts of interest exist, and the appearance of the impartiality of the commitee is long forgotten.
A side note as to the operation of the ITAC, the commitee I serve on. It is made up of, and this varies over time, 6 -9 members, and the makeup of the members seeks to result in a varied body with members from different IT classes and geographic regions. In cases where a specific member has a vested interest in the outcome of a vote, he is consulted for his opinion, but stays out of actual voting. It is rare that his vote would swing the tide one way or another in actuality as most votes aren't that close, but the mechanism exists to ensure commiteee impartiality. In a committe of 3, having 2 voters need to abstain effectively cancels the constructive effect of the commitee...the checks and balances just aren't there. It's hard for me to imagine many votes that the safety commitee could have that wouldn't be of particular interest to at least one, and probably two of it's 3 members. Now, I don't, as I said at the start, know the responsibilty, nor the operational mandates the commitee is charged with, or operates under, if any, so I can't say that the make up is a definate problem.
But..it sure looks that way, and that in itself is a huge problem.
