new rules for helmets and HANS?

kyle_nickels said:
it is clear that the majority of drivers will obtain some sort of restraint device
Click to expand...

Now the officials of the ICSCC and the legal/insurance team has deemed that not making HANS type devices posed no greater risk the liability. This is my understanding at least. However, it only takes 1 driver who isn't wearing one to have the type of accident where he/she should have been wearing one to ruin it for all of us. If our legal/insurance team deemed that we were at an unjustifiable risk not mandating these devices then of course, the rule should have been set.

kyle_nickels said:
Do not regulate something that does not need regulated.

With that said, I will obtain one as soon as I am able, even if it means not racing 2 or 3 races this year.
Click to expand...

We're going to have to change Kyle's tag line from "The Okie" to "The Beck".... I expect to see some FOX NEWS sponsorship stickers on your ride Kyle! :p

As for missing 2-3 races this year... Really? Between Fuel, entry fee and "other" a very cheap race weekend for me is $700-800. If you're missing 2-3 races this year because you had to buy a $525 DefNder then perhaps you're doing it wrong? Unless you've figured out how to race 3 weekends with $550-700 between them then clearly, I am the one doing it wrong.
 
Last edited:
Can we please leave the political snarkiness out of this forum? Racing is what I do to escape all that crap, and the other useless realities of life.
 
Randy Blaylock said:
Can we please leave the political snarkiness out of this forum? Racing is what I do to escape all that crap, and the other useless realities of life.
Click to expand...

Agree with you Randy...but is "snarkiness" actually a word? If it is, I need to use it next time I play scrabble.....
 
Blame it on the Canadians! (via the Brits)

I'd allow it on my Scrabble board Bill. :)

Snarky
Adjective

Critical in a curmudgeonly sort of way.

The adjective snarky is first recorded in 1906. It is from dialectal British snark, meaning 'to nag, find fault with', which is probably the same word as snark, snork, meaning 'to snort, snore'. (The likely connection is the derisive snorting sound of someone who is always finding fault.) Most dictionaries label snarky as "Chiefly British Slang." But for the last five or more years, it has become increasingly common in American publications, maybe ones infiltrated by British or Canadian writers and journalists.

Snarkiness
Noun

The quality of being snarky.

[P.S. I think you're insane if you race without some sort of head and neck restraint.]

[P.P.S. Still miss you Bob!!]
 
+1,000,000 with Randy.

So sick of pointless partisan bickering and name calling which actually harms both sides and the middle for no concievable positive result. Racing is an opportunity to escape the oppressive grind of day to day problems and worries and spend time with friends who share a love of racing even if we share nothing else in common. In a very real sense history has shown that we will lose the participation of countless more racers through the creation of an unfriendly atmosphere than we ever could lose through the fractional increase in risk of not adopting ANY newly mandated safety device.

If you truly and unselfishly believe anything is in the best interest of your fellow drivers it is your responsibility to use your friendship, passion, and leadership to convince them that they want it rather than trying to prove you have the arrogance to unilaterally enforce your personal will. Leading the horse to water and allowing it's thirst to dictate whether it will drink is always preferable to dumping them in the lake and holding their head under until they take on water.

It's all about winning the hearts and minds of people you LIKE and RESPECT.
 
Last edited:
Really? Colin makes a short, one-sentence reference to Glenn Beck and people start getting bent out of shape about "politics" and "arrogance?" Seems a little overly-sensitive to me.

Not only is "snarkiness" a word, but Jon Stewart has made a career by skillfully employing it. :D
 
Years ago (1989) as I sat lodged in the tire wall at Firebird International Raceway, signaling frantically at a course worker to wave me back on the track, until he pointed to me and then to my rear wheel 50 feet removed from the car, I knew that I had hit pretty hard, and indeed I was sore for a week. Little did I know that at that moment I had laid the ground work for seven years of progessively increasing cronic upper back pain. Long story short a sports medicine group and a decision to get fit, finally provided relief, but they could not replace those years for me or my family. I would have gladly paid the price of the Hans 10 times over to have not lived through this. Not only was it painful, but I woke up every day with the distict possibility that it was going to be a bad day, very depressing.

Greg
 
I am always amazed at the "arguments" against using a HANS (or equivalent, if there actually be such a thing). The cost is a tiny fraction of the total cost of campaigning a car for a full season, especially if you enter two classes. And no rational person can claim that they are not a very significant piece of safety equipment.

The first time a driver gets killed or seriously injured from not wearing a HANS, the litigation will be interesting. Only the lawyers will win, but everyone connected with ICSCC will lose.
 
Guess I took the target off my back.
I don't watch networks and news so am not concerned about your reference to someone named Beck. My tag is one I chose and am proud of it. If you have a problem with it tough.
No where did I say anyone should not wear a restraint. But I am a believer in freedom of choice. If you want dictatorship you are in the wrong country. Move.
Yes I am able to run a weekend for about that much because we have rules that enable low cost cars like mine to run and I still have tons of fun. Thank you to fellow drivers.
Please don't use the "threat" of an immenant event if some one dies if they are not wearing a restraint. That is BS. That is what is wrong with our Country. Too many career politician, lawyers and greedy people.

Take your best shot. I ain't been upset yet and am Okie enough to take whatever you can throw at me.
 
Last edited:
kyle_nickels said:
No where did I say anyone should not wear a restraint. But I am a believer in freedom of choice. If you want dictatorship you are in the wrong country. Move.
Click to expand...
Wow.... Anyway, the only problem with your so-called "freedom of choice" is that you expect those with whom you share your health insurance pool to foot the cost of your injuries incurred from your own choice. Or will you pay for your injuries out of your own pocket? I didn't think so.

Please don't use the "threat" of an immenant event if some one dies if they are not wearing a restraint. That is BS. That is what is wrong with our Country. Too many career politician, lawyers and greedy people.

Take your best shot. I ain't been upset yet and am Okie enough to take whatever you can throw at me.
Click to expand...
Exactly why is it "BS?" Do you think there's no chance of such an event? Or do you think there will be no lawsuit when someone is seriously injured or killed for lack of a HANS? In either case, you're dreaming.

I couldn't care less if someone is too aggressively ignorant to wear a HANS, if they were required to sign an effective waiver to the effect that they understand the enhanced risk from their choice, and agree to hold ICSCC harmless from any effects of such choice. Absent such a waiver, expect a huge, expensive lawsuit, for which we all will pay. Bye-bye low-cost racing. Or, more likely, bye-bye ICSCC.
 
LOL the great punch up between Bobby and Cale. I remember when that fight took place. It's what put NASCAR in every household in America when it made the Huntley/Brinkly news show.
 
I don't expect anyone to pay for my actions in any way. Period.

It is BS in the fact that our society has become so friggin willing to sue over the stupidest thing.

I am not dreaming at all. I feel a general sense of doom is being portrayed and this fire is being fed unnecessarily and too many "what if's" are being created.
 
All the above aside/freedom of choice-social conscience, sky is falling law suits/ it really hurt for 7 years! When the sports med guys said we think we can fix you for 75% of the time I wanted to kiss them.

No wheel chair, no death just, pain and depression.

On the upside I did determine that the instructions wrt alcohol on perscription grade muscle relaxers/pain killers were just serving suggestion, like white wine with fish, rather than warnings. lol
 
kyle_nickels said:
I don't expect anyone to pay for my actions in any way. Period.
Click to expand...
Excellent! So you have a million dollars or so to pay for any possible medical things that may happen to you from breaking or severely injuring your neck and surviving, so that you won't be using group insurance/medicare/government handouts? Good for you! The only problem, of course, is that I don't believe it. We will be paying the extraordinary cost of dealing with your broken neck. Of course, it's more likely that you'll just die in such a crash, so maybe it won't cost us so much.

It is BS in the fact that our society has become so friggin willing to sue over the stupidest thing.
Click to expand...
And it's silly to ignore reality. The reality is that there will be a huge lawsuit when it happens, which will seriously affect us all.

I am not dreaming at all. I feel a general sense of doom is being portrayed and this fire is being fed unnecessarily and too many "what if's" are being created.
Click to expand...
If you're not dreaming, you're burying your head in the sand, which is hardly a better state of affairs.

For ICSCC to allow people not to wear a HANS without signing a release is ICSCC officially blessing such a "choice." It is very easy to construct a legal argument that that is severe negligence on the part of ICSCC, at least partially responsible for the enhanced injury due to not wearing one. Even if insurance covers it, the increased cost of insurance will be devastating. And all this so that people can pretend that they're some sort of "freedom of choice to be stupid" champions? The decision to leave it up to the individual driver is as nonsensical as the decision by any such individual driver not to wear a HANS.

By your "freedom of choice to be stupid" desire, there should be no requirement to have a cage, or proper racing seat, or belts, or racing suit, or any other safety equipment. Nonsense. This is an inherently dangerous activity, in which all of society shares the risk. We have the responsibility to be as safe as reasonably, and failing to require a HANS is punting on that responsibility, for which there will be severe consequences when such an injury occurs.
 
Last edited:
Keep attacking me Mark. Thats the ticket. You are building up some points here. Not with me though. Not sure why you are being so venomous or hateful. I have said nothing bad towards anyone, and have in fact been very supportive of people wearing HANS.

You have no right to put words in my mouth or misquote me. At no time did I say "freedom of choice to be stupid". You are getting petty and silly.

BTW: My financial situation is for me to disclose if I chose to and I don't really give a damn if you believe me or not.

So whats your deal. Did I piss in your Wheaties one day or something? I don't even think we have ever met so am at a loss as to why you are degrading this thread with this sort of banter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top