Mandatory H&N restraints again!

[stonebridge20]

The December Fastrack (which is the largest I have ever seen) makes mention of the mandatory use of head and neck restraints again. I would suggest sending emails to the BOD and CRB again!

[Matt King]

I'll keep wearing mine whether they are mandatory or not!

[kea]

Mike,
Why bother writing them. They are going to vote how they feel about it, not the members who are personally involved.

[EYERACE]

Perhaps if the people that actually run the SCCA [because it sure isn't the members] would do something like what I mention below, there would be greater acceptance of rules that add significant cost to racing [like buying a HANS]

thought:
When the SCCA proposes any new rule that requires all racers to buy a new part/equipment costing more than "X" or more often than every 18 months then the rule can only be put into place when the SCCA has priorly arranged a discounted bulk purchase of said part/equipment so that the new part/equipment is available through the SCCA for sale at the same unit cost for say six months thereafter to its members - the SCCA will make no profit from the sale of parts/equipment designed to make the job of Timing and Scoring easier, it will make no profit from the sale of parts/equipment deemed in the interests of safety.

Depending on the sale price picked, the SCCA would have been required to arrange for us all to get transponders through them at a saving....? or maybe the HANS later......or maybe who knows what.....it sure would have had an effect on the two year seat belt rule.

The real benefit to the members of such rule is it would make the people that actually run the SCCA think long and hard about springing a rule quick to be unpopular because of significant cost to the racer.

Can you see the handwriting on the wall??????.........what do you think?.....five years after ramming it down Club Racing....some "do gooder" might impose a HANS rule later on Solo and people would drop out in droves due to expense pure and simple.

[Stan Clayton]

Why bother writing them. They are going to vote how they feel about it, not the members who are personally involved.

The last several times this rule has come up for consideration the BoD have turned it down after receiving overwhelming negative input from competitors...but don't let the facts alter your perception of reality.

[stonebridge20]

Cost being put a side. I don't freakin fit in my car with a Hans! Period, end of story!
I think the Hans is a fantastic product and anybody that wants to wear one, should.
I'm just about at the end of SCCA jamming sharp objects up my a$$.

[Steve Demeter]

While I would not set foot in a race car without my Hans,I still believe that it should be up to the individual beyond a certain point when it comes to mandatory safety equipment.

I think mandating a HNR does go beyond that point because of all the differences of opinion among very knowledgeable people as to which one is better than the other and there are probably some still out there that do not agree that they do any good.

Replacing belts every 2 years might go a bit beyond that, but that was largely an insurance driven thing, regardless of what anyone says.

By mandating a HNR, one opens up the can of worms about liability issues, especially if a particular one is mandated.

I think that a HNR of the individuals choice should be highly recommended but not mandated.

[Wren]

Mike,
Why bother writing them. They are going to vote how they feel about it, not the members who are personally involved.

When has that happened?

[Josh Pitt]

By mandating a HNR, one opens up the can of worms about liability issues, especially if a particular one is mandated.

I think that a HNR of the individuals choice should be highly recommended but not mandated.

I agree, i am one who will not get in a car w/o my HANS on, but it is my choice, and i dont need rules telling me to have a H+R, a seatbelt, or a helmet.

the liability issue that i see would be what if someone crashes, and feels that THE DEVICE caused them harm(say a side impact and caused neck injury or something like that), then tries to sue the SCCA.
this potential possibilty will screw the SCCA big time, and IMO is reason to keep it to strongly recommended status.

[Daryl DeArman]

IMO, there is a huge difference between mandating a HNR and mandating the HANS device.

[Bill Steele]

Now that I have a HANS, I would not get into my race car without it. Having said that, I don't think they should be mandatory.

I also think the belt expiration thing is nutty as well. Before they had expiration dates, for decades, I never even heard of a belt failing. On the other hand, my brother in law is a top rock climber. He saw a friend die recently when his harness failed. The dead climber had planned to replace his harness the follwoing week.

I will write the BoD expressing my opinion that H&N restraints should not be made mandatory.

[rickb99]

....the liability issue that i see would be what if someone crashes, and feels that THE DEVICE caused them harm(say a side impact and caused neck injury or something like that), then tries to sue the SCCA.....

Harness restraint systems are manditory. If somebody is injured by their belts in an incident do the sue the SCCA? No, and a LOT of injury's do occur from harness's.

I cannot imagine racing without a head and neck restraint system of some kind. The KNOWN history of deaths from basal skull fractures are well documented. On the other hand, if somebody wants to roll the dice without one, that should be their decision.

Having been on the recovery crew of 3 serious, serious crash's where HANS devices in all liklihood saved the drivers life. I don't look forward to working one where the driver didn't wear a HANS

And I thank heavens that Jeff is perfectly comfortable in the Reynard with his HANS! He ran his 1st race ever without one then said, "I need a HANS".

[Daryl DeArman]

Harness restraint systems are manditory. If somebody is injured by their belts in an incident do the sue the SCCA? No, and a LOT of injury's do occur from harness's.

Key difference here is that the SCCA doesn't tell us which BRAND restraint system or even which spec (we have a choice) it must comply with.

For example: If the SCCA said we must all use a "Harness brand X" and someone had any kind of harness related injury they would have a strong argument that if they would have been allowed to use the harness of their choice the injuries may not have occurred. Especially if their is data out there suggesting that other options were better under certain circumstances. This shouldn't be a one size fits all type of thing.

I'd be likely to support a mandatory HNR IF I thought the testing/certification process was much better AND that we would be permitted choices of a number of devices.

[mike g.]

From the Dec fastrack:


The SCCA will no longer be using the crb@scca.com email address to submit letters to the Club Racing Board. A new letter submission and tracking system has been implemented. The new system will reduce the time required to process letters, allow you to track your letter, and give you the opportunity submit your email address for direct notification from the Club Racing Board.

CRB requests can now be submitted at www.crbscca.com.

[stonebridge20]

From the Dec fastrack:


The SCCA will no longer be using the crb@scca.com email address to submit letters to the Club Racing Board. A new letter submission and tracking system has been implemented. The new system will reduce the time required to process letters, allow you to track your letter, and give you the opportunity submit your email address for direct notification from the Club Racing Board.

CRB requests can now be submitted at www.crbscca.com.

Mike it's good you posted this info. Also take into account that you will only be able to access email notifications by loging into your SCCA account. Emails to the members will not go strait to personal email accounts.

[Matt King]

Only 2000 characters to submit your request unless you attach a document, so keep it pithy!

[dc]

From the December FasTrack:

The mandatory use of head and neck restraints will be discussed at the November CRB face to face meeting and a report will be generated for Board review at its December meeting.



Let's not let the facts stand in the way of our regularly scheduled winter complaining. They are talking about it, which they SHOULD do. If it was left up to the racers, we'd all still be racing without belts or helmets. They aren't only looking out for your neck.

[D.T. Benner]

Every few years like Helmets and Belts. If this was like the Government I would bet some Safety Industry Lobyist is taking someone on Free fishing Vacations

[archuzzi]

It shouldn't be in anyone's mind not to wear a HN restraint... cherish your life? put one on before you go racing.

[carnut169]

Some safety items should be manditory. Belts, helmets, and IMHO, H&N devices.

I don't agree with anyone saying which device (just like helmets/ belts, etc are open).

Perhaps the insurance rates would go down and entry/ membership fees could be reduced.

[924RACR]

Sent in my letter... supporting maintaining the current rule: recommended, not manditory.

I have TWO head and neck restraints, of different types, for different cars as appropriate.

Was pointed out: mandating the use of a H+N restraint isn't the same as mandating use of the HANS. This is correct. However, back when the rule was FIRST floated - it would've, by default. I won't go into further rant on the forum here, but realize that free market competition is the best for your safety - not a state-supported monopoly. Thank the last few years of SCCA-supported free choice for all the great different options we all now have available to us.

I will probably be buying a new HANS, to match my new car, within the next year or two. Because it's the best, I feel, for that application - not because anyone tells me I should buy that specific piece of plastic.

[mike g.]

Sent in my letter... supporting maintaining the current rule: recommended, not manditory.

I have TWO head and neck restraints, of different types, for different cars as appropriate.

Was pointed out: mandating the use of a H+N restraint isn't the same as mandating use of the HANS. This is correct. However, back when the rule was FIRST floated - it would've, by default. I won't go into further rant on the forum here, but realize that free market competition is the best for your safety - not a state-supported monopoly. Thank the last few years of SCCA-supported free choice for all the great different options we all now have available to us.

I will probably be buying a new HANS, to match my new car, within the next year or two. Because it's the best, I feel, for that application - not because anyone tells me I should buy that specific piece of plastic.

Vaughan Scott - that rings a bell from my PorscheList days? Same Vaughan?

-Mike

[HazelNut]

Cost being put a side. I don't freakin fit in my car

[stonebridge20]

If I bathe in the stuff, will it shorten my arms and legs?

[Beartrax]

If I bathe in the stuff, will it shorten my arms and legs?

No, that will make you slim. You need to bathe in Crisco (shortening) to shorten your arms and legs.

Make sure you don't get it on any other apendages...

[924RACR]

Vaughan Scott - that rings a bell from my PorscheList days? Same Vaughan?

-Mike

There can be only one!

Yes, I've gone to the dark side too...

[M Schneider]

Whether or not to use a HANS seems like a no-brainer to me. I would rather not find out what it feels like to have my head pop off. It seems like there is plenty of evidence that H&R restraints save lives and do not pose additional safety risks. Why anyone would race without one is beyond me. And I don't want to hear "because it's expensive". If you can't afford proper safety gear, you can't afford to go racing. If people are still going to race without it, then I say it's their funeral. There is such a thing as natural selection

[carnut169]

There is such a thing as natural selection

Yes, and there are countless numbers of folks out there that if lost, would make the world a better place.
Racers are not in any of those groups.

Wear a H&N device, dammit.

or stay home until you can afford to buy one, then race.

Fire systems are required, yet I've yet to see a situation where it saved someone. Nomex helmets are required, belts have to be a certain date (??), cars have to be inspected, yada yada... all in the rules in the name of safety. When it is 100% proven that H&N devices save lives, and we all know people who have said Thank god for my Hans (Issac, Gforce, whatever- I don't care) why they are not required is beyond me.

If your to stubborn/ stupid/ cheap to wear one, the rules should make you, because we want you around next year!

[924RACR]

Hmmm... well, a good buddy of mine got hung up in his car this summer due to the HANS, and couldn't activate his fire system, sustained burns as a result, thankfully they were minor. Not to say he's gonna race without his HANS, but... there are tradeoffs.

[thomschoon]

If your to stubborn/ stupid/ cheap to wear one, the rules should make you, because we want you around next year!

Nice opinion and your are entitled to it, I will have to get a different car to wear a H&N, perhaps this is acceptable to you and others but it is a roadblock for me. It isnt about the money to buy one, it is simply that I can not fit in the car so the device will properly function, but I appreciate people that have alternate views wish others also did

[RussMcB]

or stay home until you can afford to buy one, then race.

Thank goodness not everyone shares this opinion.

[Tom Sprecher]

I did not read this entire thread, but at this point I do not use a HNR for several reasons. First, I don't have the money to race, let alone buy one. Second, I am not buying one until SCCA decides which model to mandate, so I don't buy the wrong one the first time and having to end up buying two. HANS seems to be edging out the others as far as being the chosen make for more than a couple of clubs, but some of the others seem to offer better side impact protection, so I'm torn.

Last and most important is I do not take kindly to anyone telling me what I can and can not do just because they feel they know what is best for me. When I want your opinion I'll ask for it, otherwise keep it to yourself.

Maybe it's just me and my growing lack of patience and compassion for my fellow man, but the older I get the more I find half the people I talk to are idiots. Which half are you in?

[carnut169]

Nice opinion and your are entitled to it, I will have to get a different car to wear a H&N, perhaps this is acceptable to you and others but it is a roadblock for me. It isnt about the money to buy one, it is simply that I can not fit in the car so the device will properly function, but I appreciate people that have alternate views wish others also did

Have you tried a Hutchens? I can't imagine that would prevent your fitting in the car.

[Daryl DeArman]

It isnt about the money to buy one, it is simply that I can not fit in the car so the device will properly function, but I appreciate people that have alternate views wish others also did

Perhaps you need to try different makes of HNR???

[carnut169]

I did not read this entire thread, but at this point I do not use a HNR for several reasons. First, I don't have the money to race, let alone buy one. Second, I am not buying one until SCCA decides which model to mandate, so I don't buy the wrong one the first time and having to end up buying two. HANS seems to be edging out the others as far as being the chosen make for more than a couple of clubs, but some of the others seem to offer better side impact protection, so I'm torn.

Last and most important is I do not take kindly to anyone telling me what I can and can not do just because they feel they know what is best for me. When I want your opinion I'll ask for it, otherwise keep it to yourself.

Maybe it's just me and my growing lack of patience and compassion for my fellow man, but the older I get the more I find half the people I talk to are idiots. Which half are you in?

I seem to remember you smashing into the wall pretty hard. Lucky not to get hurt. I am not advocating that SCCA forces everyone to buy a HANS. There are other, less expensive options. The GForce version is under $300.

and we are required to have some safety items. Things like belts/ fire systems/ apparel... I fail to see the difference.


Seriously, are you guys kidding? You want people getting hurt? A couple years ago Mike Eakin was in a terrible accident at the runoffs and said the Hans probably saved his life. Huge FC accident at this year's runoffs....

Russ... don't you already wear a Hans?

Maybe I am an idiot, but this just seems nuts.

[carnut169]

[quote=Tom Sprecher;236391]
Last and most important is I do not take kindly to anyone telling me what I can and can not do just because they feel they know what is best for me. When I want your opinion I'll ask for it, otherwise keep it to yourself.

[quote]


No offense Tom, but maybe you shouldn't be reading forums. Pretty much 100% people's opinions. Wake up on the wrong side of the bed?

[ric baribeault]

mike...a little less turkey tomorrow and a little more time in the gym and i think you'll find room for a HANS. if not the new piper is a little more roomy.

[dc]

A little testy in here today. I always find it odd when an organization or government mandates a safety standard or regulation and people get all bent out of shape because they feel like their civil liberties are being endangered.

Personally, I feel that if you are dumb enough to not care about the well being of your own body, then so be it. Seat belts, motorcycle helmets, FDA food quality standards, fire alarms in homes and offices are all things that have been set out as standards in protecting human lives. You may not like them, but they are there to protect you from yourself.

The comments about not wearing one because you can't afford one is frankly, really stupid. I'm sory for the bluntness, but anyone who participates in any motorsport is investing a large chunk of his or her disposable income in a hobby. For that individual to ignore or avoid purchasing things that are proven to save lives in race cars, because they "can't afford" something that costs less than a set of new tires, is downright ironic.


There are MANY options for H&N devices, for all sizes of people, and all types of cars and seating positions. Waiting to buy anything because you want to see where the SCCA mandates might go is a failure to recognize that something is much better than nothing, even if by some odd chance you might have to buy something else a second time.



Do yourself a favor, and find a H&N device that is SFI or FIA certified, and let the SCCA worry about how they decide to implement the use of required devices. The last thing we need is to lose ApexSpeed members from this community because they were too stubborn or cheap to buy and use a H&N restraint.

[RussMcB]

Let's see. I have extremely limited funds and the following race-related costs:

• Repair broken race car drive train
• Replace leaking fuel cell
• Replace outdated belts
• Replace old helmet
• Pay a race entry fee
• Pay for towing/race weekend expenses

Do you REALLY think I should buy a HNR before anything on that list? Cripes. I don't know how I'm going to pay for any of them. Much less a HNR.

C'mon. I just wanna race.

[Josh Pitt]

Let's see. I have extremely limited funds and the following race-related costs:

• Repair broken race car drive train
• Replace leaking fuel cell
• Replace outdated belts
• Replace old helmet
• Pay a race entry fee
• Pay for towing/race weekend expenses

Do you REALLY think I should buy a HNR before anything on that list? Cripes. I don't know how I'm going to pay for any of them. Much less a HNR.

C'mon. I just wanna race.

/\
signed,
someone who cannot afford to race.


truthfully Russ it should be put on that list just above pay a race entry fee.

what some people dont understand is that a HANS for example cost ~$850, and sells used for ~$500 very fast. so it is really only costing you $3500 to buy a new one, and for a used one at $500, it will cost you zero after you sell it for $500 when you are done with it.

not trying to start a fight, I am just saying.........................