Make Head and Neck Restraints Mandatory?

[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?

[jjjanos]

In a race car? Huh?

You bet ya.

Under Title III, no individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability with regards to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.
- Wiki

It all hinges on what the trial judge, the Appeals Court and the SCOTUS considers reasonable accomodation for that particular business. Doesn't matter if it's bungee jumping, a restaurant or massage parlor.

[raffaelli]

You bet ya.

Under Title III, no individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability with regards to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.
- Wiki

It all hinges on what the trial judge, the Appeals Court and the SCOTUS considers reasonable accomodation for that particular business. Doesn't matter if it's bungee jumping, a restaurant or massage parlor.

A race car is not a place of public accomodation, the race track park is.

[lateapex911]

So, there's quite a fiasco afoot it appears with the latest Sportscar magazines story on safety gear. It's SFI only. The writer and publisher state that they requested samples of products and the only companies to get theirs in before teh deadline were SFI, so the story morphed into an SFI only one. Isaac was in the process of shipping theirs, it appears, but the writer told them not to bother, it was too late.


Here's where the story is breaking:

http://www.roadraceautox.com/showthr...d=1#post517120

I suggest you read it.

I'm trying to remain unbiased, but the publishers remarks have been a bit flippant, and remaining objective is difficult.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that the entire Head and neck story is a very interesting one, and a real reporter would have dug deeper and presented all sides. I haven't read the story yet, but knowing that it's SFI only isn't a good start.

My greater concern is that the evident "company line" taken by the publication is an indication of the mindset of the Club.

[Knestis]

You'll get different answers from different people (at different points in history), if you ask them about the degree to which SportsCar is an organ of the SCCA. Frankly, there's enough "strategic ambiguity" there to allow either folks to bend the answer whatever way fits their policy intentions.

K

[ddewhurst]

I read the SportsCar article.

I read the autoraceautox thread.

I also wrote a letter several months/a year ago when the "Editor asshat" wrote a SportsCar article specifying how to disable the ignition switch when the rule stated that one SHALL remove the ignition switch. Editor asshat got his undies all wound up & printed a cut version of one of my e-mail memos to him in SportsCar. Same magazine, same article writers, same not whole deal with no data, same crap.

***Asshats*** < I like that a lot.

Several days before receving the latest SportsCar I resent some H&N restraint data to my BoD member. He also received & responded to my H&N letter which was sent months back to the BoD. My BoD member responded stating that HE is in ageement that the SFI devices are not the only choice. HE spent MANY years driving a FV.

How about EACH of you ask your BoD member where they stand on the H&N restraint issue (SFI).

Oh crap I almost forgot there was someone identified in the autoraceautox thread as Mr. Ozment. Mr. Ozment is a Terry & Terry is not a guy. She is the SCCA VP of Club Racing.

Because the safety data directed my purchase I own an Isaac.

[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.