Unlikely that the HANS was a factor in that type of accident.
Printable View
-
Hard to believe anyone would argue about a piece of equip that is there for their own good. Over reactions as if this government is taking away your rights and freedoms by making you protect yourself. We are not talking politics guys (i think some of you think that)!
This has nothing to do with politics for me at least. I think this has to do with insurance companys dictating how our sport is run. If they want H&N restraints now, what will they want next? Will we get to the point that there will be no way to "protect" ourselves enough to make an insurance company happy enough to cover us?
At this point, I really would like to hear from Phil Creighton or Mr. Allen on how and why this deal went down.
It essentially boils down to: (1) many people don't like being forced to comply with something, and (2) While you may be able to force compliance, you will be regarded much better if you supply the reasons behind the decision. I know that I'm not against wearing an HNR device, but I'd certainly like to know how many neck injuries were sustained over the past year (or 5). Forget all the BS about slobbering drool. I'd like to know actual numbers and not emotional, hand-wringing drivel.
Larry Oliver
I never updated or finished this, but it tells a story even as it is...........
http://www.racesafetydata.info/mandate.html
I made this reply to a competitor's E mail earlier today and had not looked at this thread since the vote so I'll jump in and give you my opinion. We made the spec SFI and FIA standard and are aware that there are devices out there that do not comply with either.
The two year lead time will perhaps enable them to get the appropriate certification as well.
Phil
"After much debate the SCCA BOD decided to make H & N restraints mandatory for 2012 to FIA or SFI spec. Why did we push the button? We are practically the last man standing in road racing organizations that does not require a device to be worn which certainly ups the risk of exposure to the Club. While it was not adopted by others one could argue that it was not the industry standard but now we are on our own - NASA ,HSR, Porsche Club have gone down that road . We have been getting the same legal advice for the last couple of years - its only a matter of time till you have an accident that the family will take action in case of a head injury or worse to sue on the grounds of negligence, in spite of the waiver. In this case it would be to not adopt the standard of safety that every one else has gone to could leave us liable.
Our insurance has not dictated that we do this or else and its not K & K for the record. We pay premiums largely based on risk and loss ratio so one could say that being prudent in a decision like this will save injuries and perhaps lives down the road. That translates into premiums and cost of events for all participants - I would also say that the SCCA's policy is pretty good coverage for this type of activity.
We did decide to make it 2012 and were aware that there are now 8 devices registered with SFI in the US as meeting their specs and at various price points. I know that we as a Club have put pressure on those manufacturers that we know to reduce prices for the membership to smooth the transition but it seems that market forces are already doing that anyway. The majority of our members are using a H & N device currently according to our surveys. With a two year lead time it gives participants notice of what the standard will be - we have always tried to give an adequate lead time for our members on issues like this. As far as legal exposure in the mean time, it will be less of a risk than not mandating it and more defendable should it come to it.
The fact that the 'members didn't want it' and the 'CRB didn't recommend it' have been tossed about in various forums and letters. We received letters and had input at meetings from a few people that did not want us to mandate H & N restraints for a number of reasons such as fit , personal freedom or my device does not comply with SFI. In fact, a couple of BOD members had issues with fit and don't wear a device. The majority of the letters received were probably against mandating it but to say that was a majority against it is very misleading. Over 60% of our members have already voted with their wallets and acquired a device already and these folks didn't vote - people will rarely express the effort unless it affects them. The CRB was not ready to take the step of recommending it but had the wording of the proposed rule ready for the BOD as this was always going to be their decision.
I think we had little choice in the matter - we have to mandate safety equipment and standards to stay in business and this one has been coming at us like a train for 2-3 years now. I liken it to the motorcycle helmet street debate - its an issue of freedom of choice vs the cost if something catastrophic happens. There are also questions of continued coverage if negligence is determined as well.
It was not an easy decision but I will be honest in that I believe it had to be done - I made the motion to approve making it mandatory."
Phil
Phil,
Many thanks for your insight. I will challenge you in one MAJOR WAY.
I have an SFI certified H&N. I wrote a letter AGAINST this mandate. You include me in the 60% majority who 'voted with their wallets'. Sorry, inaccurate. VERY inaccurate.
Just because I have one doesn't mean I want to dictate what my competitors have to buy. Just because I don't believe in abortion doesn't mean I want to dictate a womens right to choose. Just because I may remain silent on some issues doesn;t mean I want to revoke anyones right to free speech.
Just because I choose to do something that I feel makes my situation better, faster, safer - doesn't mean I have 'voted' to make that manditory for others.
Andy,
You may be the exception that proves the rule. It seems highly likely that the vast majority of racers who already use a H & N devices would either (a) not respond, or (b) respond favorably. It should be rare that one would do as you have done. So, SLIGHTLY innacurate, and certainly not a factor in the statistics of the issue.
Where did the data come from that says 60% of our members use a device?
If there was a survey, how many people voted that they used one, when they actually didn't? (under the guise of social pressure).
Quote:
I never updated or finished this, but it tells a story even as it is...........
http://www.racesafetydata.info/mandate.html
Looks like more organizations do not require a device than those that do.
You should really be comparing the organizations that are primarily road racing oriented, as that is the "industry standard" that would be questioned.
And what "social pressure" are you talking about? I've never felt peer pressure to wear my HNR.
Nahhhh... my comment had nothing to do with Phil's comment. I appreciate Phil explaining the situation and the vote openly on this board. Agree that stratification must include only those racing organizations similar to ours.
For a living, I am a professional operations research analyst. From experience, I am highly suspicious of data and any inherent bias. Cause and effect are way to often assumed to be true, when the data won't statistically show it with a reasonable confidence level. My comment about "social pressure" influencing the data reflects my concern about bias. I question if there are any responses to a survey where the respondent answers that he does wear a device when he actual does not - to prevent anyone from telling him he is an idiot for not wearing one.
That's all...
Of course, all surveys can be gamed. I tried this one last year
http://www.racesafetydata.info/survey.png
as i've stated before, i'm another one that has "voted with my wallet" but only because i needed said device to run in the f2000 pro series. i do not wear my hans when doing nationals.
i've also asked this question before. if we are trying to eliminate "risks" no matter how small, how is everyone going to feel when full rollcages are mandated on all formula cars? i feel more at risk from cockpit intrusion, or landing upside down on a guardrail than i do from sustaining a neck injury.
mark d
Once again, Andy's sage(good stuff, IMHO) advice on another forum. Way too much big brotherism by do gooders trying to control our every move. How many years ago did SCCA mandate firesuits and guys still wear 1 layer suits with short sleeved cotton t shirts, no nomex longjohns or balaclavas because it's too hot outside? No one inspects us in the pits after tech inspection or on the grid, so this is a rule to meet the letter but not the reality of safety.
We wear a H&N because personally we think it will make us safer. Some of us would wear a motorcycle helmet even in states that don't mandate it. It's a choice like smoking or not smoking, drinking or not drinking. When will SCCA advocate no drinking and follow that up with a drug test for all drivers?
You can't legislate safety, only practice it.
There is one big difference once you mandate a safety device and the owner chooses not to take advantage of it - that's if the drivers nearest and dearest try to overturn the waiver we all sign after something bad happens. We have incidents and injuries on a regular basis and we depend on the waiver and insurance to keep the sport going - SCCA is a not for profit 501 corporation so we don't make a large profit anyway.
Sooner or later this was going to be an issue - we made the decision sooner and the implementation later. As a BOD you have a duty to the organization that you are elected to represent that sometimes will go against the will of some of the membership. They are usually not easy decisions because at the end of the day there is a cost involved.
I don't have second thoughts about this decision looking at the big picture. Plus, I have real world experience with these devices in adverse circumstances and there is no question that they work.
Phil
Fair enough, Phil.....There are 2 sides to the coin and I respect anyone who has a different opinion on this subject than I do. The bottom line is I choose to wear a Hans and others have access to all the data to make a choice. Happy racing and Happy New year!!
An example of SCCA humor...
True story...Our buddy races a ITB Pinto with a stock fuel tank and it is legal.
I was comparing the weight of a real 1959 era racing helmet to the SA2000 one I'm using now....Wow!
I'm thinking the 'improved' 2010 helmet will be even heavier and If you don't wear a HANS....It will pull your head right off.
We are all going to look like Marvin the Martian.
Yep...1959 was the 1st year for the Snell rating...
Check this out...Interesting
http://www.smf.org/thestory.htm
FWIW, I'm in the same boat as Andy. I own a HANS because it was the only SFI approved device available when I started racing in Stage Rally with NASA who required an SFI device. I'd like to see SCCA not side with the SFI on this. I just got home from holiday - letter will be coming.
My HANS is here. Now I just need to drill holes and get the bloody thing mounted. Should'a done it years ago. Thanks, Phil! :thumbsup:
Phil,
As much as much as i like to give you a hard time, remember that I always respect you for stepping up to try to be a director that represents us. It's a bloody thankless job. Thanks for keeping us in the loop and representing us as best you can. :thumbsup: And especially, thank you for coming on Apexspeed and telling us what happened.
I'm sure glad i had a HANS on when I destroyed that Tatuus that is parked in your shop. ;)
In the beginning I was against the mandate but that was when HANS was the only real option. Now there are so many options that everyone should be able to find a good device that will fit them and the car.
We can not ignore the fact that the SCCA is at risk if we dont follow industry standards. Unfortunately we can not rely on that if someone wants to take the extra risk they can bear the responsibility. Our society does not do that. The SCCA is the professional group and they would be considered an expert and held to a higher responsibility over an individual.
So this was coming and we cant ignore the reality of our risks as a group and the benefit this has to our members and their safety. So I for one didnt send a letter in support of the rule but do fall in the % who wear one and support the rule
Mat Cutter
I realize this isn't necessarily on point (mandate HNR vs. not mandate), but it would be interesting to see the distribution of "age" (say age 35+ vs under 35), "for HNR" and "against HNR".
Having just gotten off the phone with one of the BoD members about this subject, it was told to me first-hand that since this subject had been announced in Fastrack many months ago, they have received less than FIVE letters concerning the inevitable mandate. There are obviously a lot of opinions to be found on internet discussion boards, but when it comes time to really back up what you say... I can't say that I'm surprised by the apathetic response, though.
Also, the SCCA surveys and polls have shown that already more than 60% of the wheel-to-wheel racers in the SCCA already wear H&N devices of some kind. So to say that "most" members of the club don't want this is a complete fabrication. We show that 90% of open wheel racers polled here already wear one or are planning to in 2010, so there is at least some data to show that "most" is not very accurate.