Make Head and Neck Restraints Mandatory?

[tderonne]

Re. NASA and HANS.

How come HPDE entrants don't have to use one? Same car (sometimes), same track, same day, same insurance policy, but no H&N required?

[dj10]

Re. NASA and HANS.

How come HPDE entrants don't have to use one? Same car (sometimes), same track, same day, same insurance policy, but no H&N required?

HPDE is not a race.......therefore you can't get hurt.

[tom91ita]

.... NASA had absolutely nothing to gain by their decision,

i disagree a bit. i think NASA's "business" model of a racing organization vs. the "Volunteer / Club" model of SCCA means that NASA wants the cost of more protection to always rest with the driver rather than NASA. e.g., hire more corner workers is a cost to them, etc..

Re. NASA and HANS.

How come HPDE entrants don't have to use one? Same car (sometimes), same track, same day, same insurance policy, but no H&N required?

the better question is why Time Trial cars, that are competing for best time, do not require cages, window nets, etc.

actually, see "business" model above because it would mean fewer entrants and less $$. this is a very fundamental difference in how the organizations behave, imho.

[JohnW8]

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.

[Philip Creighton]

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

[tnord]

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?"

[tom91ita]

......
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.......

Phil,

thanks for jumping in. but with regards to other standards, there is RSI (Racing Safety Institute);

http://www.racingsafetyinstitute.org...estraints.html

[Knestis]

...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

[raffaelli]

ADA compliant race cars? Seriously?

[jjjanos]

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.

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.

[raffaelli]

ADA requires reasonable accomodation.

In a race car? Huh?

[gsbaker]

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.

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.