73 replies to this topic

[wheel]

I have had a Hans for years, but I don't wear it every time I go on the track. I wear it more in the ASedan than I do in the Miata. Some times I even race with an open faced helmet. Personally, I hate the mandate rule. I think it should be optional. As for my vote. I did not get a vote on the issue. This is from the BOD.

wheel

[pitbull113]

I have had a Hans for years, but I don't wear it every time I go on the track. I wear it more in the ASedan than I do in the Miata. Some times I even race with an open faced helmet. Personally, I hate the mandate rule. I think it should be optional. As for my vote. I did not get a vote on the issue. This is from the BOD.

wheel

thanks jim

[Jim Drago]

I'm curious wheel, how'd you vote on this?

Steve
With regard to majority/mionority... I stood at an SCCA meeting at PRI two years ago and the question was asked how many wore a H&N, in a room with over 100 people all raised their hand except Bob Dowie, the CRB Chair I think this thread is also indicative of the representation in this matter, pro and con.

I think it was and still is the right move. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion. I have heard many, if not all the arguments, but I still feel like mandating is the right solution. The ship has sailed, it is done. If you are racing in SCCA,( or NASA I believe?) You will be have to wear H&N from 2012 forward.
Jim

[pitbull113]

Steve
With regard to majority/mionority... I stood at an SCCA meeting at PRI two years ago and the question was asked how many wore a H&N, in a room with over 100 people all raised their hand except Bob Dowie, the CRB Chair I think this thread is also indicative of the representation in this matter, pro and con.

I think it was and still is the right move. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion. I have heard many, if not all the arguments, but I still feel like mandating is the right solution. The ship has sailed, it is done. If you are racing in SCCA,( or NASA I believe?) You will be have to wear H&N from 2012 forward.
Jim

jim you should read my threads on improvedtouring dot com and rr autox dot com. alot different over there

[Jim Drago]

jim you should read my threads on improvedtouring dot com and rr autox dot com. alot different over there

It is sure different over there I will take a look
Jim

[dtfastbear]

This debate reminds me of the old saying, "Everyone that drives faster than you on the highway is crazy and everyone who drives slower than you is an idiot."

We all have a personal risk-reward line that we draw for ourselves when it comes to the safety gear we buy and use. Anyone who does less is reckless, anyone who tries to impose more is safety-nazi. No right and wrong here, guys. The line is personal. BUT, the sanctioning body has to draw its own line for liability reasons, and it's going to draw the line above some personal lines and below some others.

I think it's great that you're trying to influence the SCCA to get the line closer to your own. I did the same thing with the seat-slider rules where I'm on the other side of the argument (I think the SCCA has gone too far). But understand that you're unlikely to get anyone to move their OWN personal line.

Just a thought.

Dean

[pitbull113]

This debate reminds me of the old saying, "Everyone that drives faster than you on the highway is crazy and everyone who drives slower than you is an idiot."

We all have a personal risk-reward line that we draw for ourselves when it comes to the safety gear we buy and use. Anyone who does less is reckless, anyone who tries to impose more is safety-nazi. No right and wrong here, guys. The line is personal. BUT, the sanctioning body has to draw its own line for liability reasons, and it's going to draw the line above some personal lines and below some others.

I think it's great that you're trying to influence the SCCA to get the line closer to your own. I did the same thing with the seat-slider rules where I'm on the other side of the argument (I think the SCCA has gone too far). But understand that you're unlikely to get anyone to move their OWN personal line.

Just a thought.

Dean

dean i agree with you 100%. if you notice i've never argued my point here,i know better. All i did here was ask guys against the rule to write letters. To go on record i was going to buy an isaac because i think it's the best head and neck system out there but it won't be legal because it's not sfi rated.

[fishguyaz]

I had a slower speed front impact (~30-40) into another car racing my old SM.
My HANS device did exactly what it was supposed to do, i felt the tethers tighten up.
My body felt fine, other than my jaw which got a bit disjointed and sore from the hit. I guess i should have been wearing a mouthgaurd, which i now do.

someone very close to me broke their neck and is now quadraplegic from the injury. I know what life is like when you are hurt like this. $600 is nothing for what a H+N device offers you. Plus they hold their resale value very well.

Rule or not, I couldnt get into a racecar without one on.

I have never once heard a good argument against wearing one.

[john mueller]

I have heard many, if not all the arguments, but I still feel like mandating is the right solution. The ship has sailed, it is done. If you are racing in SCCA,( or NASA I believe?) You will be have to wear H&N from 2012 forward.

It's been mandated for a few years in NASA, as well as a halo seat or a right-side net.

[Cnj]

You guys for this rule are in the minority. The majority of SCCA club racers are against this rule. I guess if you had your way cigerettes would be illegal along with salt and alcohol right? Because they're unsafe as well.

How do you know the majority of club racers are against this rule? Just wondering cause I don't remember a public SCCA vote and I certainly have not voted.

Cnj

[john mueller]

I guess if you had your way cigerettes would be illegal along with salt and alcohol right? Because they're unsafe as well.

Somewhat of a different argument (IMO)... The organizations we race with must have insurance in order to rent the tracks we play on. If you choose to abuse cigarettes, salt and booze it's your personal finances (and life & family) that gets hosed. IMO this is being pushed by the insurance carrier(s). I'd bet the premium cost of not mandating H&N is significantly higher than if it becomes law.

I don't care if someone makes the choice to be more vulnerable to serious injury, let'em. But as soon as their choice makes it more expensive for me (and everyone) then I start to care.

[pitbull113]

How do you know the majority of club racers are against this rule? Just wondering cause I don't remember a public SCCA vote and I certainly have not voted.

Cnj

the SCCA requested member input over a year ago. almost 70% were against. there are better options out there that are not sfi rated

[pitbull113]

Somewhat of a different argument (IMO)... The organizations we race with must have insurance in order to rent the tracks we play on. If you choose to abuse cigarettes, salt and booze it's your personal finances (and life & family) that gets hosed. IMO this is being pushed by the insurance carrier(s). I'd bet the premium cost of not mandating H&N is significantly higher than if it becomes law.

I don't care if someone makes the choice to be more vulnerable to serious injury, let'em. But as soon as their choice makes it more expensive for me (and everyone) then I start to care.

do you really think the reg. fee for races is going to be reduced after the rule takes effect?

[dstevens]

I'd bet the premium cost of not mandating H&N is significantly higher than if it becomes law.

Possible but NASCAR local series and K&K insured events aren't requiring it. The insurance card gets played but so far no one has been able to substantiate it.

[john mueller]

do you really think the reg. fee for races is going to be reduced after the rule takes effect?

Nope, it will go up next year. But I my guess not as high as it would without the mandate.

[dmathias]

I don't buy the whole burden to society argument. If you bite-it when you're young-ish then you've just saved the tax payers a bunch of Medicare. But if limiting the club's liability lets me continue squandering income chasing a plastic trophy then I'm all for mandating HANS.

Mr. Sae 113, You say the majority of SCCA members are against this rule? I assume you have data.

Smoke'em if ya got'em.

-Denny

[davew]

I was at the same meeting as Drago at PRI a few years ago. Virtually everybody in the room wore some kind of HN device. Yet most did not want them mandated. I don't understand. "I wear one, but don't want to be told to wear one" ?????

The driver of the black car totaled at Atlanta wears a HANS. His left hand was sore where it must have bounced off the steering wheel. Otherwise he was uninjured. No bruises, no neck soreness, no NOTHIN'. That was 115mph into a concrete wall!!!

If this rule was pushed forward by risk management, I am sure they are afraid of eventually getting sued. Insurance rates may not change because SCCA institued this rule. But the lawyers/bean counters look at it differently. If a driver ever gets severly injured when NOT wearing a restraint, his family will get a lawyer and go after SCCA for not requiring a restraint. F1 requires it, NASCAR requires it. So does every other race they watch on TV. Even NASA requires it. Therfore SCCA is negligent in requiring the best safety equipment. SCCA looses, and our insurance company pays out a boat load of money. SCCA goes on, the region goes on, until next year. When the insurance company raises our rates to a point where entry fees go through the roof.

If SCCA does not require you to wear a HANS, your wife should.

Dave

[Danny Steyn]

^^^ +1

[Tom Hampton]

I was at the same meeting as Drago at PRI a few years ago. Virtually everybody in the room wore some kind of HN device. Yet most did not want them mandated. I don't understand. "I wear one, but don't want to be told to wear one" ?????

The driver of the black car totaled at Atlanta wears a HANS. His left hand was sore where it must have bounced off the steering wheel. Otherwise he was uninjured. No bruises, no neck soreness, no NOTHIN'. That was 115mph into a concrete wall!!!

If this rule was pushed forward by risk management, I am sure they are afraid of eventually getting sued. Insurance rates may not change because SCCA institued this rule. But the lawyers/bean counters look at it differently. If a driver ever gets severly injured when NOT wearing a restraint, his family will get a lawyer and go after SCCA for not requiring a restraint. F1 requires it, NASCAR requires it. So does every other race they watch on TV. Even NASA requires it. Therfore SCCA is negligent in requiring the best safety equipment. SCCA looses, and our insurance company pays out a boat load of money. SCCA goes on, the region goes on, until next year. When the insurance company raises our rates to a point where entry fees go through the roof.

If SCCA does not require you to wear a HANS, your wife should.

Dave

+1,000,000

Very well, and succinctly said.

What I was trying to say above, but not very well.

[Zauskycop]

Paramedic for a wife...I wear a HANS, and she would kill me if I didn't