Any Updates on Head and Neck Restraints from SCCA?

"No sir, Mr. Counsler. We produce 2 versions of the Issac currently. The first, which the Plaintiff was wearing, meets the highest industry standards for safety to date, and is the miaximum (as it were) required by the sacntioning body he was running with. The second, exceeds all current standards but is currently not certifed for use by said sanctioning body."
[/b]
Click to expand...


Gregg I got to say I love your company, however I do have to agree with Andy on this one.

Advertize in advance the two (or three) products you make and advertize that the better product(s) are available but are not SFI sertified because they do not meet the 1 release requirement and thier for are not legal in SCCA, Nascar, American Le Mans, etc...

This might help sales to the people racing in series that do not have a requiremnts and this would put pressure through public advertizements out that says that ALL (NOT JUST SCCA) is keeping us (drivers) from being as safe as we could be.



Raymond "If Isaac had a SFI model I would have given my CC # a long time ago, but with these additional rulings I think I made the right choice to hold off a bit" Blethen
 
OK,

Here's my "Holiday Inn Express" knowledge again. Andy, your reply in court might work in "regular" court, (but I doubt it), like the initial OJ Simpson trial (sorry, best example I could think of) but if everyone remembers, he was found guilty in civil court. In civil court, percentages of responsibility are what is considered when awarding damages (some small experience here). A quick example would be if a lawyer asks the jury " Mr X was wearing Mr Bakers product when he died, what percentage of responsibility does Mr Baker have, when he sold Mr X that product, knowing full well that Mr Baker knew was not the safest product his company sold?". I am personally responsible for a sticker on a product now, that is the equivalent to the labels on blow dryers that say "Do not use this product while standing in a tub of water".

If the family sues for $100 million in a civil suit, and Greg is found guilty of 20% responsibility ( the family sues the tire company, the car manufacturer, the SCCA, etc. a tactic called the "shotgun lawsuit" approach),
Greg is responsible for $20 million, and even if he has $10 million insurance coverage, he will be responsible for the rest.

A really crude example, but I hope you all get the picture. We have a lot of stupid people who serve on juries out there.

My 2 cents.

Mark
 
Mark,

Cool example but I will disagree (not with the % and money stuff because I know nothing about that) in principle.

I just don't buy the 'but it wasn't the safest product your company sold'. There are plenty of products and manufacturers that sell stuff in teirs...

What if a Motorcycle rider dies in an accident? Does he have grounds to sue Bell becasue he was wearing a DOT certified unit instead of the 'better' Snell certifed unit?

The best helmet may not guarantee survival in all accident situations, but on the basis of ongoing research done by the Snell Memorial foundation since 1957, a Snell-certified helmet is indisputably better in severe impact conditions than one not meeting this standard. In fact, Snell requirements are among the most stringent in the world — much more stringent than the legal D.O.T. standard.[/b]
Click to expand...

Can you win a suit if someone wears a half helmet (skull cap) as opposed to an open face? How about open face vs. full face? What if that rider drives off the road and dies because he got hit in the eye with a rock? Bell responsible for his death because they sold him the 'lesser' helmet - even though his DOT skull cap met the laws for the state he was killed in?

Maybe my anti-letigeous nature is clouding my perception of the reality of this.
 
Andy & Raymond,

You guys are a hard sell, I gotta admit. Well done.

Have a good weekend!
[/b]
Click to expand...

Gregg,

I'd add my voice to the SFI model too, not because it's the best, but because it's what's required already by the BMW club, and soon SCCA. Now I agree that there's a huge conflict of interest, but, I've got to go with what's already approved. So it looks like I'll probably go with an R3 as we've got a local source, and I'll need it by the end of September...

James
 
Andy,

While I agree with the principal of what you are saying, and is the IMHO correct way of looking at things, it is not what happens in real life. I am with you on the anti lawsuit belief, but in todays society, nobody is responsible for anything they do, especially when it comes to injury or death. It is ALWAYS someone elses, or some products fault. In my case, a young person fills her compact car with gas and is under the influence of an excessive amounts of drugs, and alchohol. She drives to her grandmothers home (where she lives also) and pulls into the garage, and shuts the garage door. She gets out of her car, enters her house, and goes to sleep with her boyfriend. Her grandmother is in bed, also asleep. Oh, did I mention that she was so messed up that she LEFT HER CAR RUNNING IN THE GARAGE WITH A FULL TANK OF GAS??? I (my company at the time) installed the A/C and heating system in that house. All three are found dead 2 days later of carbon monoxide poisoning because SHE LEFT HER CAR RUNNING IN THE GARAGE, and the exhaust seeped in thru the furnace. In your (or anyone elses) opinion, am I responsible for the 3 deaths? (as a side note, the grandmother was a WWII Jewish survivor of the Nazi gas chamber death camps) Her family lawyer used the "shotgun" method, and sued the homebuilder, my company, the furnace manufacturer, the car manufacturer, the door manufacturer, and several other companies involved with the building of the home.
I know that my companies, the builders, and the furnace manufacturers insurance companies rolled over and paid MILLIONS to settle out of court, as they determined that it would be twice as expensive for it to go to trial, and have average jurors determine the settlement amount. As I said, you don't have to be found guilty of anything, just partially (in someones screwed up mind) at fault.

Am I bitter? Hell yes! I feel horrible about the families losses, but there are 179 other homes in that subdivision that were built in the exact same manor, following the exact same building codes, with the same furnaces installed 100% to the manufacturers instructions.

Please excuse the rant, but this is the way society operates today. It truly sucks, but anyone who thinks this doesn't happen EVERY DAY to someone is is badly mis-informed (no insult aimed at you or anyone). I also don't want any lawyer to think that I'm putting any blame on them...you are all just doing your jobs as well.
Crap, to answer your question, yes, anyone can sue anyone, or any company for anything...any time for any reason, all they have to do is convince a judge to allow them a hearing.

Thanks for letting me vent, I feel a little better now!
Mark
 
I am with you 100% and I know it works like this. Bottom line for me? I liken the 'rolling over' of the insurance companies to bitching about an illegal car and not protesting it. If you are innocent, prove it. If you think someone is guilty, prove it.

I know, I know...but I still feel Isaac can have two different levels of product, just like seat mfgs, helmet mfgs, etc.

AB
 
I just can't help but feel that you're asking Gregg to make an inferior product because of a badly worded SFI spec.

The single release clause has no more business being in the SFI 38.1 spec than a pants pocket specification would in the driving suit spec.
 
I just can't help but feel that you're asking Gregg to make an inferior product because of a badly worded SFI spec.

The single release clause has no more business being in the SFI 38.1 spec than a pants pocket specification would in the driving suit spec.
[/b]
Click to expand...
:happy204:

Agreed!!! I can't believe what I'm reading from Andy. I usually agree and trust in your responses, but your responses about dumbing down Greggs product line have me floored.

Gregg, stick to your guns and build the best products you can.

If the SCCA is sooooo scared about lawsuits, let's think about who the big bad lawyer would call up next after hearing Greggs response.

Big Bad Lawyer:"Mr. Baker, you mean to tell me that the sanctioning body wouldn't allow a safety device that was possibly better than the device that was allowed ?"
Mr. Baker: "That is correct"
BBL: "The prosecution would like to call to the stand (Insert name of perspiring SCCA person here)"

What about when the widow testifies that her poor husband wasn't allowed to use the device and it was sitting in the trailer after he was told to remove it or he wouldn't be allowed to race?

As I stated in my letter to the crb: I'll continue to wear my Isaac device. I bought it based on my own research before anybody was "suggesting" to wear one. When I'm told face to face that I can't race while wearing it, the SCCA will loose my membership fee's, and unfortunately, my region will loose my entry fee's, a fairly dedicated T&S Chief, Region Webmaster, Club Race Committee member and F&C fill-in. All because the higher ups have stuck their heads up their collective arse and won't change the way a rule is written.
 
...but I still feel Isaac can have two different levels of product, just like seat mfgs, helmet mfgs, etc.

AB
[/b]
Click to expand...
Ah, but SFI doesn't feel that way about H&N restraints. Sanctioning bodies that typically see lower impact levels have asked SFI to develop a second tier (for lack of a better phrase) spec for low impact environments. Our understanding is that the idea didn't fly.

Apparently only the best will do... but wait, that can't be right. Oh, I know, I know! It has to be really, really good, but not too good. Yeah, that would explain everything. :rolleyes:

Big Bad Lawyer:"Mr. Baker, you mean to tell me that the sanctioning body wouldn't allow a safety device that was possibly better than the device that was allowed ?"
Mr. Baker: "That is correct"
BBL: "The prosecution would like to call to the stand (Insert name of perspiring SCCA person here)"

[/b]
Click to expand...
Bingo. We're not sure that has sunk in. Some sanctioning bodies may remain clueless.

To be fair, however, don't forget how the CRB request started: Racers began showing up with homemade H&N restraints. So we now have this scenario...

BBL: "So ( Insert name of perspiring SCCA person here), you allowed the now deceased driver to race with his helmet chained to the roll cage, knowing that this could induce a dangerous head load as his body went forward during a crash?"
 
I hear you all. I guess I just don't see it as dumbing it down. I see it as building the best product you can given a set of parameters, and that parameter is the SFI spec required by SCCA.
 
I hear you all. I guess I just don't see it as dumbing it down. I see it as building the best product you can given a set of parameters, and that parameter is the SFI spec required by SCCA.[/b]
Click to expand...

Dumbing down or not, it seems like it doesn't follow precedent.

As I see it, my rollcage is mandated to use a specific material (DOM Seamless) and based on the car's weight, it is mandated a specific set of tubing parameters and it has to meet some general guidelines as to design. Mine is welded so it must meet American Welding Society's Structural Welding Code for Tubular Structures. But nowhere do I read that it must have an SFI stamp on it. Ironically, I could have a cage made of ERW if I registered it prior to 2003. But I cannot wear an Isaac Device from November 2002??? Am I stretching the parallel here?

What about seats? Does the Current GCR say anything about SFI approved seats? Last I recall, it only specified that my "FIA" seat doesn't require a back brace but I am fairly certain, nothing stipulates a seat meet any other specification if braced properly. Does the bracing require SFI approval or must it only meet the aforementioned requirements for welding?

Fuel cells are required to conform to an FIA standard, not SFI. Are belts and window nets the only thing - until this proposal - that had to meet SFI specifications? Even helmets - as was brought up a page or so back - need not meet an SFI specification do they? They must meet a Snell Foundation specification no? I am fairly certain that tires must meet a DOT certification but nothing above that.

I guess for me, if the SCCA wanted to implement rules pertaining to something like the Isaac device, they would be following precedent to specify the construction standards and the grade of materials used. They could, as it is for fireproof materials, specify alternative options "OR any SFI 38.1 approved device" or in the case of belts, specify an alertnate approval mechanism (FIA belts do not implicitly meet SFI 16.1 ourside of the GCR do they?). I would presume that Gregg would be willing to provide the SCCA with test results or make a unit available for independent testing. But the idea of disallowing the use of a device does not seem to follow how the SCCA regards other types of safety implements.

Not really trying to be an ass but this whole thing is kind of baffling to me.
 
Adam, your not being an a$$ at all. There was/is a GCR rule that ya can't drill holes & do other $hit to youir helmet. That is, untill the HANS came along & now IIRC ya can drill holes in your helmet at the discretion of the local SCCA tech inspector. Talk about people being an a$$.
 
Dumbing down or not, it seems like it doesn't follow precedent.

As I see it, my rollcage is mandated to use a specific material (DOM Seamless) and based on the car's weight, it is mandated a specific set of tubing parameters and it has to meet some general guidelines as to design. Mine is welded so it must meet American Welding Society's Structural Welding Code for Tubular Structures. But nowhere do I read that it must have an SFI stamp on it. Ironically, I could have a cage made of ERW if I registered it prior to 2003. But I cannot wear an Isaac Device from November 2002??? Am I stretching the parallel here?

[/b]
Click to expand...
I'll just address one, as I se them all as the same. - then I will step away as I am clearly in the minority.

The SFI stamp is the required certification for your H&N. Snell is the required certification for your helmet. There are plenty of other certs that have to be met.

As to the cage, you COULD build a safer one...but you are only allowed 6 points plus an optional 2 forward bars for a total of 8. If you had unlimited latitude on attachment points, do you think you could build a better unit? If you designed such unit for say, another racing series, for 1st gen RX-7's - would you then stop selling your SCCA version because it then became your 'dumbed down' version that was known not to protect as well?

I think the difference here is perception and the starting point. The 'better' product was here first so people think it's a big deal to build a different version to fit rules. Just because the first one was over-engineered to the current spec doesn't make the second one a liability. If you can't build a good one to the spec, then don't. Just because it isn't as good as the first doesn't make it crap. It just makes it the best you can do within the guidlines - just like the cages.

Again, philisopically, I am with you all. The cert needs to be fought and addressed but I just see it a different way in the end.
 
What Andy may do best, that makes him effective in his position, is approach questions like this pragmatically. I think that he sees the futility in windmill-jousint, while some of us are still struggling with thing outside of our influence...

K
 
Of course i understand the pragmatics of the issue...........

But I am enraged at the possibility that a lawyer, who honestly doesn't give two craps about my safety has allowed a specification that was intentionally written to create profits for one company, to dictate that I now have to reduce my comfort and safety level in the racecar.

It's a disgusting example of cloaked greed at every turn, and knee jerk protectionism in this final chapter.
 
Options:

A. Join the party line...........(The insurance/lawyer /SCCA/Andy :P .)

B. Be pi$$ed because the party line didn't allow wiggle room in the H & N restraint rule for equal or better H&N restraint systems.

Has the SCCA ever printed the load reductions of all the H & N restraint systems for member viewing ?

Has the SCCA ever asked the insurances company actuaries for their data that shows a need for a H &N restraint syatem that has minimal laterial protection ? If they have, have they shown the data to SCCA members ?

How many broken neck/deaths to date within the SCCA because of the lack of H & N system ?

What's accecptable ? 1 broken neck/death in a 1,000,000 accidents ?

What we need to do is quit bitching & look at some numbers. I don't have the numbers.

I also don't like the restrictions the SCCA has put upon WE the MEMBERS.


K, is that outside our influence or outside our control ? Always the soft approach....... :unsure:
 
Andy,

The pragmatic perspective is to minimize the Club's risk by voting No.

There is absolutely no evidence that a homemade design would injure a driver when he would otherwise be safe without it. He uses it, he dies; he doesn't use it, he dies. Where's the delta?

One need not be a rocket surgeon to see that all the risk is in voting Yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top