Make Head and Neck Restraints Mandatory?

more from the source from the Harris Platform document at http://www.greatlakes-scca.org/node/501 (this was for the Area 4 Director - Great Lakes)


2. Are you aware that the SCCA’s Legal Counsel is also its Risk Manager?
His salary is partially paid by commissions from the insurance carrier he
recommends. I am not implying there is anything criminal about this
arrangement; only than it is clearly a conflict of interest. Insurance
represents 20% of the club’s operating budget and we have not bid this
contract in many years. We have an insurance committee, but they never
meet. We must have separate functions of legal representation and
insurance procurement. SCCA’s President has also noted this need.
Click to expand...
 
Jake,

is this you?

4. Require egress times (Gulick). This might be in conflict with the American Disabilities Act.
Click to expand...



since the HANS may not be the best protection and the HANS is sometimes deemed dentrimental to exit times, what are to we to conclude?

being concerned about being in conflict with ADA as reason for not requiring a minimum egress time but seeking input on if we might have to use a potentially inferior device strikes me as odd......


 
That was me. I was attempting a "pre-emptive strike" if you wil,l at establishing a standard that would, I hoped, give us a footing should the SFI38.1 thing ever come up again. A little foundation work, but....Foiled, drat!
 
i decided that since i race in multiple divisions/areas, i would send a note to directors in adjacent areas.

however, i could not find a good accurate summary of this at SCCA.com. the site did not reflect the most recent elections. also, some links said what area they were and others did not.

so i grabbed the link for all via [email protected] and sent the following;

All,

I have decided to share my thoughts with all of the Board because I have hopes of running races in many areas in the future. My current goals are to run at least one event per year outside of division at venues that have a long history. Thus my travels to Road Atlanta this year for the ARRC.

I think that the fundamentals of H&NR are crucial. Please study up on this issue and require the CRB to do the same.

Any H&NR requirements that ignore the physics involved should be resisted. I know that some feel that the HANS is needed because NASCAR and Formula 1require them. However, to make no distinction between 200 mph cars that run in packs of 40+ or cars that can pull ~5 G's and Improved Touring C or Showroom Stock C shows questionable judgment.

I purchased what I thought was superior Head & Neck protection (even if it does not meet SFI 38.1). Similarly, I let my NASA membership lapse because I thought I had selected the superior road racing club. Please confirm my faith that SCCA is a member-driven organization rather than following in the footsteps of a business driven NASA. .

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Tom
Click to expand...
 
received a response from one director. the gist was

"For what its worth you have my support. The lawyers will have their say and we’ll see what can be done"
 
I'm guessing I got the same director ;)

I don't have the info to show that this device is superior to the HANS
(which is the competitor I'm sure you're referring to) and I would think
there's a reason why practically every major racing organization mandates
the HANS. That is another argument for another time.

However, I am in agreement with you that each driver should be able to do as
they please. And if you feel better served with your current system, than I
support your right to use it.

Of course, Insurance co's speak louder than directors (or anyone!!) so we
shall see. I will definitely argue to keep the current rules.

Thanks for the input.
Click to expand...
 
Head restraints

Gee....do ya think that further regulation of HANS DEVICES will make those people that don't wear a helmet on their motorcycle to
reconsider? More legislation is not the answer. You can't regulate stupidity!!

Have us all sigh a waiver that we are aware of the safety concerns of not wearing the restraint and leave it at that.

Perhaps we should mandate mandatory rotor,brake pad and hub inspections before each practice by tech inspectors to protect us from our own stupidity if we don't police our own cars....yeeesh...what next.

There is an item at SPEED's website about a 20 yr old professional racer who is in critical condition in the hospital because he crashed his truck on a highway and was thrown clear of the vehicle because he didn't have his seat belt on!

Seatbelt use is mandated in every state but stupidity will always kick in.:shrug:
 
Here is my comment sent to ALL the BOD members, CRB members, and my area director. Let us make a choice!!!!!!


"Thank you for reading my comment on mandating a head and neck restraint system for SCCA Club Racing.

I have budgeted for a winter purchase of a system and a compatible seat for our IT7/ITA RX-7 which my son and I race in the Midwest Division. Having said that we have made the choice to do so without it being mandated as I see the value these safety devices add to our passion for club racing. My son, being all of 18, does not see things near as clear as dear old dad in these matters but he's my son and I'll do the best I can to keep him as safe as possible while pursuing our club racing careers.

I would hope that if such a mandate is implemented that we racers have the widest possible choice of such devices in price and functionality. Please do not let the existing SFI spec be the driving force behind the mandate as there are other devices available which do not meet the spec and may be better suited for our class and speed of competition. Please perform due diligence when analyzing even if such a need exists to mandate such regulation. I have yet to see any hard data on club racing accidents/injuries over the last 5 years from any source, including the SCCA, which would support such a mandate. I know I have not exhausted the available databases on a study as this but I would hope that my peers at the rulemaking arm of the SCCA would put forth the effort since this decision affects us not only in the safety arena but our pocketbooks as well.

All I ask is that a reasonable analysis be performed before any decision is reached. Thanks for your time and attention in this matter.

Bud Scott
Member 87061"
 
Letter sent to CRB and BOD

Response from my Director:

Dave, first of all, at this time, I totally believe that in the SCCA the use of ANY head and neck restraint should be at the option of the driver.

Secondly you hit the nail squarely on the head with your term, "artificial set of standards developed by a MARKETING ORGANIZATION promoting itself as a safety foundation.

Sorry but the SFI has no standing in my mind due to their position of conflict of interests. They did it to us on seat belts and now we are trying to roll over and do it again on restraints. Not good.


I am going to miss this gentleman......
 
Last edited:
Feedback that I have gotten indicates that there are some on the BoD that have concers about potential limitations of using an SFI mandate. I'm not so sure that this is the 'done deal' that some might assume.

Make sure to write your letters to [email protected] and copy them to [email protected] as well.
 
JoshS said:
Kind of like moving in to a house next to an empty field where there are already public plans to build a race track, then complaining about the noise when it happens.
Click to expand...

Well, no. They voted down the previous requirement. It's like building the house after the township already said a racetrack won't be built and then having them change their mind.
 
Dave Burchfield said:
Jake,

He is Larry Dent, current GL Director who elected to not run for the board again.
Click to expand...

Larry is a great guy and calls things like he sees them. I think he was featured quite a while ago in SportsCar. He has done a lot of racing.

He restored a Ford GT a few years back. It's a great story of how it was found under a pile of trash and yard wastes. It had been severely damaged in a fire and rolled to the back of the yard/lot and forgotten.
 
My response. short and to the point

From:
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 7:31 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Head & Neck Restraint comments

​
The November Fast Track asked for comments regarding establishing a requirement for a Head & Neck restraint system. The current allowance that permits each racer to make a personal choice as to the appropriateness of an H&N Restraint systems seems to this long time member and sometimes racer to be a totally adequate solution. There are many excellent options for this equipment that racers are free to choose and use. And racers are also free to forgo the system should they believe their own personal choice is in their best interest. Mandating specific systems or systems that meet certain arbitrary standards would deprive racers of the ability to select for themselves that type of equipment which they feel is in their own best interest.

Sincerely

Paul Gipson

131424
Click to expand...
 
I second that. We all need them, we all should be wearing them...but we should be free to "choose" not legislated to wear the restraint system of our choice.
 
Sent in my opinion. I would not like to see this be mandated. A recommendation is good and it allows drivers the ability to choose to use whatever they want.
 
My vote sent to the CRB:
Gentlemen,
I’ve been a user of a HANS device for three years but would like to vote NO on mandatory usage. I believe that drivers should continue to have a personal choice based on independent studies rather than an SFI selected product. As more test data has become available, I believe my next device may not be a HANS. As an early adopter of available safety devices, I would like to be able to continue to use the “best” based on empirical data.
Thanks for asking for our opinion.
Chuck Allard
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top