That's quite understandable but wholly unrealistic - if that were the case, you'd see anything from a "worthless" SFI 38.1 device to a stellar, home-engineered bungee-cord/rubberband neck-breaker. Without a certifiable standard, there would be no way to determine which device is theoretically safe and what devices are potentially lethal.
And this is a problem because? It was my choice and the manufacturer of shitty equipment is the one who carries the liability for his product.
The argument of "mine is better than yours" is about as valid as "I'm faster than you because I'm touched and you're not". Based on the SFI 38.1 specs (regardless of what anyone things about how they were developed), an H&N device is afforded a standard that the sanctioning bodies and their legal eagles can use as a base-line.
Nope. Ask the auto manufacturers if meeting
government requirements protects them from liability. More importantly, it isn't clear to me that SCCA would have any liability for my failure to wear a H&N system. SCCA carries liability for certifying unsafe tracks and for having faulty operational standards (i.e. releasing cars from pit lanes into a pack of cars, etc), but the safety equipment? I don't think so.
The only lawsuit of which I've heard anything was when SCCA specifically prohibited the use of a safety device in one particular category and I believe the person who won that lawsuit was one of the pioneers in the H&N world. I.e. You can be sued for requiring people to use specific equipment when it can be shown that other equipment would have prevented that injury
and SCCA was aware of that possibility.
Is it the perfect test of an H&N device? For the scenario set forth by SFI, the answer is yes. That having been said, is their such a thing as a perfect "text book" crash? Probably one in a million...
Wellllllll... the problem with the SFI standard has nothing to do with the crash scenario and everything to do with the design requirements mandated by the requirement.
I'm more than a bit embarrassed that SCCA is the last sanctioning body to mandate the use of an H&N device of any sort. It was painful to see SCCA taking out the long pearl-handled revolver, loading the silver bullets and pointing the barrel directly their their collective behinds. Apparently the concept of "risk adverse" spills over to "controversy adverse" as well. The harsh reality for SCCA (as it is for Stewards who must be the "Bad Guy" on occasion) is that not everyone will every be happy with every decision. Some people will scream and threaten, others will grumble under their breath and the vast majority will simply say "Thank you, may I have another".
Oh horse poop. There is absolutely
no reason for requiring the SFI standard other then wanting to be like the cool kids. This decision is going to cost the club members and entries for no measurable gain. You race without a H&N system, the cost is on YOU, not the club. License keepers are going to go away.
The letter I'll write to SCCA is "It's about damn time you made a decision - ANY decision".
You are aware that SCCA did make a decision roughly 2 years before adopting this asinine regulation? SCCA recommended the use of a H&N system and said they were not going to require one. Based on
that decision on their part, I now have an $800 piece of junk that offers me better protection than the piece of shit SCCA is shoving down my throat.
