Question about a Proposed Rule Change for 2011

"If it is well thought out, discussed and written properly then it will pass,..."
I agree with that Wes.

Disregarding the socialist blah-blah, because the whole 'club' thing IS a social system. Perhaps more, or less social to some than others. Registered voter apathy is not lost in our micro-society. Better get the word out there. Start a "Beer Party".

Status quo-mongers must be shaken, if not stirred with the suggestion/implementation of a regulation change/addition. You don't have to be a race car 'driver' to know that every organization has been, or is looking down the barrel waiting for this bullet to come out. Some have already dealt with it and moved on.

Even here in the isolation of our Great Northwet, the snowball effect of this issue has been cascading down the valley, and it's interesting that it has sparked such sudden indignation amongst some of those in the ranks.

This is good, because without that controversy NOBODY pays any attention. Perhaps now there can be some stand of solidarity on the issue, where those that are ignorant of it may be edified, and with others, further encouraged to participate in the solutions for progress that an organization like the Conference requires to remain response-able to its constituency.

Stagnation smells of the morning's stale beer, and cigar smoke.

Personally, and if I were in a position to vote on the issue, I would vote 'No' too. But that is with the knowledge the that this issue is larger than my individual perspective, and these regulations must meet the needs of the many.

the_needs_of_the_many____by_jochimus.jpg

So ask yourselves, "Who are the 'many', and how would they know?"
 
Last edited:
Not a personal choice huh? Well, I guess I will just move to a Socialistic system, oh, wait, they have that. Its called SCCA. I would be that person agueing that forcing what is essentially the removal of our individual choices on us. And how is it an obligation?

Socialism and the SCCA? Oh dear...
 
(trying to get to page 6 because Lynn threw down the challenge)

I wear one. I wasn't in 2006 when I walled it and that hurt. I have some hope that if I ever do that again it won't hurt quite so much or for so long.

There are a thousand other things I might do to myself that will hurt and the $850 thingy around my neck won't help a bit.

But I still think the thingy was worth what I paid for it, so far.

I don't think the 3- year old harnesses I had on when I walled it did a bad job, either.

I DO think that I should get to choose whether or not to wear the thingy.
But then, I also think that I have a pretty good idea when my harnesses are getting
old, too...

I REALLY think that if this rule change proposal had not mentioned a particular brand of thingy
then we'd have to think carefully before voting...

I predict that it will not pass. This year.

A thought- how many cases of heat stroke have we had in the last 20 years?
Heart attacks due to excessive heat? Accidents due to driver fatigue caused by heat?

Then balance that against those of us who've actually had to use the fire- retardancy built into our hot suits...

I really wonder how those numbers (if the data had been kept) would balance out.

Vote on your rules change proposals, all... well, all drivers!

Toby
 
There won't be a crash cause the inflatable balloons and avoidance devices which will be made mandatory will not allow that to happen.
 
So Toby, in a round about way are you a proponent of cool suit systems? Any particular brand?

only ones that meet SFI 3.40.22, those are ok... hee...

bubble- proof fire wrap!

Seriously, it's all tradeoff. Just like the rest of life.

t
 
So here is another scenario. IF (and I use that word with a lot of emphasis) this passes should ICSCC purchase a bunch so that those of us who can't afford to buy one right away rent them at the track? Exactly like the transponders. You get to be the one to tell the registrars they get to handle them!!!
 
Great idea Kyle! I'm pretty sure IRDC voted this down, and hopefully so did Cascade so we can do it properly next year.
 
By properly, you mean allowing the drivers of Conference to make their own decisions about how much one of these device will affect their level of safety? No action required for that .....

To those who think these are essential to your personal safety - good for you, buy one and wear it. There - doesn't that feel better than expending all of this effort trying to impose your will on others?
 
doesn't that feel better than expending all of this effort trying to impose your will on others?

What's missing from this debate is informed discussion of this point:

Do you suppose that ignoring this issue might severely weaken ICSCC's position in any negotiations with those "insurance powers that be" (K&K, or whomever) when attempting to keep their 'assumed' liability costs of insurance down?

Insurance, in any industry, goes up when the underwriting insuror feels that an organization is ignoring recognized 'risk management' techniques, processes, or tools.

Hey guess what? ICSCC passes that cost to the member clubs. But everybody know that.

So then, will the cost to those member clubs be passed down to those individuals that seek to participate in their 'sanctioned' event with raised entries fees.

Pay now or pay later.
Does anyone know the extent to which mandating head and neck restraints will affect insurance costs (or Conference's insurability, period)? If the effect would be significant, then not mandating restraints would in effect be the no-restraints contingent forcing the rest of us to pay up so that they have the freedom to save a few bucks.
 
They affect us not at all. The insurance companies haven't even mentioned HANS devices. We are running around dumping water over our heads because we imagine the fire department will be pissed if we spontaneously combust and didn't take the proper preventative measure of "always staying wet".

If our insurance carrier reaches a point where they feel their liability will be reduced by the requirement of the use of Head and Neck Restraints, then they will offer us a DISCOUNT to use them and I will be much more willing to consider mandating their use. This will mean that their actuaries have finally identified statistically that there is a positive and proven relationship between the use of such devices and increased safety and are willing to transact business with us that will reduce BOTH PARTIES potential for loss.

Until then, we are proactively self-policing insurance rate increases that have not been asked for and higher equipment costs on ourselves that may have NO impact on potential loss. There has been NO requirement by insurance carriers to mandate the device nor increased rate suggested that I have heard of. This is drivers mandating what other drivers are required to have to race based on "feelings" - plain and simple.
 
If the effect would be significant, then not mandating restraints would in effect be the no-restraints contingent forcing the rest of us to pay up so that they have the freedom to save a few bucks.

Is it not about the "restraint" contingent forcing the rest of us to have to pay-up so they save a few bucks? Same argument, different twist. Though in my mind it is NOT about anything other than freedom of choice.
 
They affect us not at all. The insurance companies haven't even mentioned HANS devices. We are running around dumping water over our heads because we imagine the fire department will be pissed if we spontaneously combust and didn't take the proper preventative measure of "always staying wet".

If our insurance carrier reaches a point where they feel their liability will be reduced by the requirement of the use of Head and Neck Restraints, then they will offer us a DISCOUNT to use them and I will be much more willing to consider mandating their use. This will mean that their actuaries have finally identified statistically that there is a positive and proven relationship between the use of such devices and increased safety and are willing to transact business with us that will reduce BOTH PARTIES potential for loss.

Until then, we are proactively self-policing insurance rate increases that have not been asked for and higher equipment costs on ourselves that may have NO impact on potential loss. There has been NO requirement by insurance carriers to mandate the device nor increased rate suggested that I have heard of. This is drivers mandating what other drivers are required to have to race based on "feelings" - plain and simple.

This message brought to you by Rick's completely unbiased opinion. Sheesh.
 
So there it is, the 'Chicken, or the egg' portion of this issue.

We don't really hear much from our insurance carrier at this (entry) level. And we only have an ICSCC Insurance Advisor to contact, not a representative of the agency that the ICSCC writes the check to. Hard to get many facts from there. Then there's the 'trust' factor. How much does one trust those that have been put into a position, whether voted in, appointed, or otherwise volunteered, to make, and communicate those decisions that are crucial to the proper operation of this good sized organization?

Heard that one before?

So how does one, at the level of the end users (entrants) really know what factors into the negotiation for terms of liability vs. costs when they sit down to that table?

Who ya gonna call?
 
Last edited:
@Steve; So our insurance carrier HAS in fact mandated or required us to wear the HANS device?

Not to my knowledge, but that's not the point. If it became an insurance issue, I would expect a couple things to happen, neither of which has. But saying we SHOULD vote for this rule because of a possible issue with the insurance is no better than saying we SHOULDN'T vote for it because it's a case of some drivers trying to impose their will on others... well, they're both BS in my book. That, and Rick's "neener neener" attitude today was buggin' me.
 
Back
Top