Make Head and Neck Restraints Mandatory?

When ever I run in a PDX I wear my race gear (firesuit, nomex undies, gloves, etc., etc.)and other drivers might point and laugh at my get-up, while they have short sleeve shirts and jeans on, I tell them the potential fire in the car doesn't know this is only a PDX. That usually shuts them up and sends them off looking for
a long sleeve shirt.

As for the head and neck, i want it to be my decision and not
a club mandated requirement. I will err on the side of safety, everytime.
 
Response to Evan Webb

Its a pity that my further response was not added so here it is:
Evan
Thanks for the detailed reply - Most people believe that in this litigious society that having a standard for a mandated safety device largely eliminates the need to argue the standard yourself if it came to court. It has certainly been the case with helmets over the years. The freedom question tends to be ignored by heirs and assigns when their loved one is dead or injured and legally I don't think your perception is correct.
As you say standards evolve and maybe by the time anything is done there may be other standards than SFI out there, or a different SFI standard.
I take your point about education but I'm not sure what form that could take in our Club - we could make a strong recommendation in the GCR but beyond that I would assume that the competitor infrastructure would do it by word of mouth.
Phil

I would add this,
I have no doubt that the wave of sanctioning bodies mandating something will eventually carry us along if we are the last one standing,so to speak - in spite of all our homegrown experts we do get advice on liability issues and the law and I stand by the issue of "industry standards". Read my post above. I am not sure which devices meet any recognized standards or whether other standards are applicable at this point - I leave that to the CRB to analyze and make recommendations. I understand from the posts that the ISAAC is not SFI approved and why.
Phil
Area 12 Director
 
Philip -

1) Most importantly, it's NOT an industry standard, it's a HANS standard. they wrote it.
2) Do you want to tell us how many lawsuits are brought against SCCA currently? Do you really think that will change by an idiotic SFI mandate? Would you like to share the basis of any of those lawsuits? I bet there have been exactly -0- on the basis of no HNR requirement.
3) in my best motherly tone of voice....."if all of your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?"
 
...or Phil, we could adopt the PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS from the "industry standard" - the only ones that should matter - and not buy into the market-restraint and innovation restricting design architecture rules of 38.1.

SFI proponents suggest that these restrictive design features are about getting out of the car but if we care about egress, which I've argued for ages we should, we do that with a separate rule that really gets to that point.

Jake G. proposed that and got some silly reaction about being ADA compliant. We already waive rules to allow hand controls where appropriate and the same could be accomplished with egress requirements, if we were so inclined.

By the way, I got picked at "random" (with my Isaac) for the NASA bailout test at a race last spring. I got out of my car from everything hooked up (except my drink tube, since it was a qualifying session) to on the tarmac in less than 8 seconds. Only about 1/2 second of that was disconnecting the head restraint.

I could draft the rule for you in 10 minutes if you want an example. Eight of those minutes would be finding the current rule in the GCR to cut out for modification. :)

K
 
Knestis said:
Jake G. proposed that and got some silly reaction about being ADA compliant. We already waive rules to allow hand controls where appropriate and the same could be accomplished with egress requirements, if we were so inclined.
Click to expand...

ADA requires reasonable accomodation. Hand controls are a reasonable accomodation. Being required to allow the blind to race is not. Allowing pro golfers to use carts between holes is a required accomodation - though the PGA disagreed. The question is whether egress requirements are reasonable. Civil Rights litigation is expensive. If you win, you pay your own costs. If you lose, you pay for the costs of both parties and maybe even damages.

Some think being able to get out of a car in X seconds would be a reasonable requirement because of fire. What a court would rule is less certain. Given the low incidence of fires, there's little benefit in applying the rule even if you win a potential case.

That's also why the single-point release rule is stupid. There's no reason to have it.
 
jjjanos said:
ADA requires reasonable accomodation. Hand controls are a reasonable accomodation. Being required to allow the blind to race is not. Allowing pro golfers to use carts between holes is a required accomodation - though the PGA disagreed. The question is whether egress requirements are reasonable. Civil Rights litigation is expensive. If you win, you pay your own costs. If you lose, you pay for the costs of both parties and maybe even damages.

Some think being able to get out of a car in X seconds would be a reasonable requirement because of fire. What a court would rule is less certain. Given the low incidence of fires, there's little benefit in applying the rule even if you win a potential case.

That's also why the single-point release rule is stupid. There's no reason to have it.
Click to expand...
Well put. Nevertheless, there is value in underlining the importance of egress, which is why some have suggested a subjective measure, e.g at the annual inspection the driver demonstrate that they are exiting as rapidly as possible. This approach can reasonably accommodate everyone.

This entire SFI/egress thing has been inverted for years. People have it backwards. Kirk can invest 0.5 seconds in disconnecting his Isaac systems and be guaranteed his H&N restraint won't trap him in his car. Ask the guys half way down this page if they think that's a good idea: http://www.isaacdirect.com/SFI.html

And with incidence of fire so low, why jeopardize impact protection by possibly losing a belt? If you die on impact you don't care about egress.
 
raffaelli said:
In a race car? Huh?
Click to expand...

You bet ya.

Under Title III, no individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability with regards to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.
- Wiki

It all hinges on what the trial judge, the Appeals Court and the SCOTUS considers reasonable accomodation for that particular business. Doesn't matter if it's bungee jumping, a restaurant or massage parlor.
 
jjjanos said:
You bet ya.

Under Title III, no individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability with regards to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.
- Wiki

It all hinges on what the trial judge, the Appeals Court and the SCOTUS considers reasonable accomodation for that particular business. Doesn't matter if it's bungee jumping, a restaurant or massage parlor.
Click to expand...


A race car is not a place of public accomodation, the race track park is.
 
So, there's quite a fiasco afoot it appears with the latest Sportscar magazines story on safety gear. It's SFI only. The writer and publisher state that they requested samples of products and the only companies to get theirs in before teh deadline were SFI, so the story morphed into an SFI only one. Isaac was in the process of shipping theirs, it appears, but the writer told them not to bother, it was too late.


Here's where the story is breaking:

http://www.roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?p=517120&posted=1#post517120

I suggest you read it.

I'm trying to remain unbiased, but the publishers remarks have been a bit flippant, and remaining objective is difficult.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that the entire Head and neck story is a very interesting one, and a real reporter would have dug deeper and presented all sides. I haven't read the story yet, but knowing that it's SFI only isn't a good start.

My greater concern is that the evident "company line" taken by the publication is an indication of the mindset of the Club.
 
You'll get different answers from different people (at different points in history), if you ask them about the degree to which SportsCar is an organ of the SCCA. Frankly, there's enough "strategic ambiguity" there to allow either folks to bend the answer whatever way fits their policy intentions.

K
 
Honestly, as good of a device as HANS is....I dont think they should make is manditory. when I first started to race, I didnt use one. I had to save up money for it. Entry fees, tires etc were all I could afford. I couldnt afford it and I know there are more racers out there that are working off a budget and all they can afford is the entry fees and tires.

I think that it should still be optional.
 
I read the SportsCar article.

I read the autoraceautox thread.

I also wrote a letter several months/a year ago when the "Editor asshat" wrote a SportsCar article specifying how to disable the ignition switch when the rule stated that one SHALL remove the ignition switch. Editor asshat got his undies all wound up & printed a cut version of one of my e-mail memos to him in SportsCar. Same magazine, same article writers, same not whole deal with no data, same crap.

***Asshats*** < I like that a lot.:D

Several days before receving the latest SportsCar I resent some H&N restraint data to my BoD member. He also received & responded to my H&N letter which was sent months back to the BoD. My BoD member responded stating that HE is in ageement that the SFI devices are not the only choice. HE spent MANY years driving a FV.

How about EACH of you ask your BoD member where they stand on the H&N restraint issue (SFI).

Oh crap I almost forgot there was someone identified in the autoraceautox thread as Mr. Ozment. Mr. Ozment is a Terry & Terry is not a guy. She is the SCCA VP of Club Racing. :o

Because the safety data directed my purchase I own an Isaac.
 
Last edited:
My areas's BoD member stated to me just this past Friday that, given the feedback that was solicited, the general feeling amongst the BoD is to recommend use of some sort of H&N equipment (not specific type, model, or trade group), but not to mandate it unless the insurance carrier makes it a pre-requisite for coverage.

But away from the reliance on SFI for H&N specs and now fire system specs, I find it troubling that SCCA is offering a "Club Racing SFI Tech Inspector Exam" and a "Shop Talk SFI Solo Exam" at the Nat'l Convention next week for a whole host of reasons.
 
Gregg said:
But away from the reliance on SFI for H&N specs and now fire system specs, I find it troubling that SCCA is offering a "Club Racing SFI Tech Inspector Exam" and a "Shop Talk SFI Solo Exam" at the Nat'l Convention next week for a whole host of reasons.
Click to expand...

Set the Way-back Machine, Sherman. There has been a "Club Racing SFI Tech Inspector Exam" program in place for a bunch of years. I took it for grins at a NEDiv Roundtable or MiniCon 4-5 years ago. Little did I know that I'd been given a ride on a black helicopter. Wonder if they used one of those "alien probes" on me ?
 
I've sent yet another "against mandated NHR" email to the BoD, copying my NEW area director. For those that have sent them before, remember that we have some new BoD directors that were not around during the last round of member comment.
 
Gregg said:
My areas's BoD member stated to me just this past Friday that, given the feedback that was solicited, the general feeling amongst the BoD is to recommend use of some sort of H&N equipment (not specific type, model, or trade group), but not to mandate it unless the insurance carrier makes it a pre-requisite for coverage.
Click to expand...
When the insurance carriers are made aware that SFI excludes superior designs they fall back on, "We just want no injuries," and find RSI certification completely acceptable.

If a mandate is put in place it should be for any product (there are no bad ones), or ones that meet FIA, RSI or SFI specs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top