Make Head and Neck Restraints Mandatory?

[924Guy]

Good call, Evan, about what this would likely mean to our rates... doubtful to think that they'd ever go down, only not go as high as quickly.

However, and this seems a little surprising from someone who's not only aware of but has in fact used an ISAAC, your rational theory concept does not include any factor for the fact that those of us who have already purchased safe, effective, functional, non SFI 38.1-compliant devices would be SOL if a mandate is applied, and out of pocket the cost of these devices, since we'd have to now replace them with compliant devices. So your model is in fact a bit over-simplified, IMO.

As for your follow-on question (if the ISAAC damper technology has been applied to a brace or collar type of base) - well, I don't mean to speak for Gregg, but I'm pretty sure he already pointed out that it's ruled out thanks to patents...

It's good to hear you'll be buying a device... but are you truly satisfied with the options available now? Will you still be if they have to be 38.1 compliant? Before the Defender showed up, I wasn't; now I'm a little more hopeful.

[evanwebb]

Hi Vaughan, just to clarify about the "rational consumer" thing; I wasn't necessarily expecting that a mandate to use a HNR would have include the SFI 38.1 compliance, I really hope it doesn't. I agree that if the mandate includes the SFI compliance then all ISAAC & other non-SFI solutions (Wright device, etc.) would be, as you say, SOL. And that would be a damn shame in many ways. I haven't looked at the RSI deal for quite awhile and I've forgotten what its all about, I'll have to look again: IMHO the standard the motorsports organizations are using should be on the ability of the device to mitigate the medical consequences of various types of impacts and that is not necessarily the exclusive focus of the 38.1 standard.

Of course most real consumers & markets have a significant percentage of irrationality acting much of the time ;-) I just thought I'd bring up the Econ 101 topic for consideration...

I'm kinda psyched about the DefNder considering its price but I would really like to see some feedback from people who have used it (or at least worn it for awhile...) The pictures sure are flashy!

Good call, Evan, about what this would likely mean to our rates... doubtful to think that they'd ever go down, only not go as high as quickly.

However, and this seems a little surprising from someone who's not only aware of but has in fact used an ISAAC, your rational theory concept does not include any factor for the fact that those of us who have already purchased safe, effective, functional, non SFI 38.1-compliant devices would be SOL if a mandate is applied, and out of pocket the cost of these devices, since we'd have to now replace them with compliant devices. So your model is in fact a bit over-simplified, IMO.

As for your follow-on question (if the ISAAC damper technology has been applied to a brace or collar type of base) - well, I don't mean to speak for Gregg, but I'm pretty sure he already pointed out that it's ruled out thanks to patents...

It's good to hear you'll be buying a device... but are you truly satisfied with the options available now? Will you still be if they have to be 38.1 compliant? Before the Defender showed up, I wasn't; now I'm a little more hopeful.