2009 Stewards Proposal #19: SFI Belt Expiry

Folks this is all speculation and supposition. I asked earlier what the insurance company that Conference uses had to say about it. We pay them to take care of us, lets see what they think.
You can find contact information for the Conference's insurance adviser in the Policy and Procedures manual or in the Competition Regulations (or, maybe both). I won't answer for him, but he was in support of the change at the spring E-Board meeting.

As the say in Mizzourah, "Show Me".
Have you ever seen the sun rise in the morning, Kyle? Or set in the evening?
 
It's interesting to observe some of the opinions expressed here. Seems some stances are based upon the conviction that changing this rule is somehow conceding to a defeat of principles, with little contemplation or regard for the potential liabillity passed on to the volunteer officers of conference. These are the same people we all are constantly thanking and praising for their selfless efforts for the benefit of us all. Please keep in mind same could be named in a lawsuit in any number of potential scenarios. No, it hasn't happened yet. Seems a lame argument to support a stance, to say the least. We live, like it or not, in an agressively litigious culture. Devestating litigious claims do happen, and it can happen to conference, so what gives us the right to ask officers to risk their ass(ets) while they volunteer for our benefit? Personally I think it would be shamefully selfish and disrespectful for us to do so to the conference officers.

When the UPS man comes onto our porch my dog barks and snarls like he's the most terrifying man-eating beast ever to roam the earth - as long as he's on the inside of the glass door. If the delivery occurs when he's outside, not safely insulated from this intruder, his testicular fortitude diminishes to little more than a muffled 'woof' at a safe distance.

If someone feels the need to make a stand on principle against the insurance industry, or against litigious activity, then perhaps it needs to be done in a way as to avoid risking property and future earnings of those who may not share your choice of priority.

Racing is something we all do knowing there is always a measured amount of danger we're trying to mitigate. If an extra couple hundred bucks protects the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" of the volunteers that bust their butts to facilitate this passsion of racing, I'll gladly factor it into my budget somehow.

If I want to take a stand against the insurance industry, I'll kick a Progressive adjuster in the junk, and take my chances. I invite you all to join me in this endeavour.
Just don't sue me if he kicks you back.
 
Ok Mike, are you telling me that ICSCC insurance advisor works for the insurance carrier we use? I didn't think that was the case but I have been wrong (often and I do admit it).

As for the sun rising or setting, what does that have to do with anything here?? (BTW, I have lots of family who came from Missouri and many more that still live there). I am not being defensive, just don't understand the point you are trying to make.
 
Scott I couldn't agree with you more on everything but 2 points.
1) If we do not make a stand about what we consider right, and that means after all of us reaching an agreement or compromise, then big brother, the insurance companies, the tax gatherers, SFI, FIA, PGA, NFL, CBS, NBS, CIA, BP, NHO, and everyone else that can be thrown in the mix thrown in, will continue to DICTATE to us what we should or shouldn't do. That is what gripes me and makes my hide itch.
2) If we agree to drink Coors I'm all in.:D:D:D:D
 
1) If we do not make a stand about what we consider right, and that means after all of us reaching an agreement or compromise, then big brother, the insurance companies, the tax gatherers, SFI, FIA, PGA, NFL, CBS, NBS, CIA, BP, NHO, and everyone else that can be thrown in the mix thrown in, will continue to DICTATE to us what we should or shouldn't do. That is what gripes me and makes my hide itch.....

Kyle,

I LIKE youir attitude! :) I'll stand and fight by your side any day for personal freedom of choice or against any entity attempting to impose their will in to our lives.

On the other hand, I do not think risking the loss of Conference as a race sanctioning body is the place to take that stand. I'm sure we have some people in the club who have the financial resources (if we all pooled our funds) to fight a legal case over harness's all the way to the Supreme Court and maybe win, but it would still destroy the club in the process.

It is wiser to spend $300 every 5 years then to try and budget $5,000,000 in legal fees (maybe) over 20 years in case the worst does happen.

Save the battle crys for something we can win. Like when SFI or somebody else STARTS to impose a new rule or requirement upon us. OR help Tim Eyman with his next tax reduction initiative! :) That's where the funds for new belts should come from :cool:
 
Richard, you are right. I just get ruffled when stuff like this comes up. We may not want or be able to make a stand here and change the way things are, but then again, maybe we can by at least telling them all to back-off, or at least let them know we do not appreciate their dictating methods.

OK, I will hush-my-mouth now.
 
I fully support you taking a stand for us Kyle. The simple solution to this assault on our rights is to change the rule to say;

"SFI belts are good to use as long as Kyle Nickels says so"

Easy schmeazy
 
Last edited:
Kyle,
At the risk of offending you, 300 -400 licence holders aren't even a hiccup to what would be needed to take a stand.

And yes, I have a dog in this fight, so to speak.

As a officer/director of ICSCC, my name, and several others, would be on the list of people to sue, as the powers to be use the scatter gun method. (yes, they probably can get me even in Canada)
Risking our income, future income, property and possesions, investments.........for the sake of someone not wanting to replace, or being able to afford, new safety gear??????

The list of officers and directors are listed publicly, and it's our butts that would be on the line. We not hard to find.

"The belts looked just fine" "They've only been used 6 times" "But he/she said the car was always garage kept"......won't work.

The expirey dates are what they are. EXPIRED 2 years/5 years doesn't matter.

This may not make your gripe or itch go away, and will probably tick you off some, (sorry about that) but in the grand scheme of things, it pales in comparison.

This proposal was not put forth to cause hardship to anyone, but for the protection of everyone.

We don't always have to like some of the rule changes, or the rationale behind having to make them, but there they are.

Lynn Rimmer
ICSCC Race Officials Division Director
aka: Volunteer
 
Ok Mike, are you telling me that ICSCC insurance advisor works for the insurance carrier we use?
I scrolled back through the thread and can't find where I, or anyone else, told you, or anyone else, any such thing. You've asked for information about Conference's insurance; the insurance adviser is the best guy to ask for that information. Either you're serious about getting that information, or you're not.
 
Last edited:
Kyle,
At the risk of offending you, 300 -400 licence holders aren't even a hiccup to what would be needed to take a stand.

On an individual basis, $300 to $350 every 5 years for FIA belts doesn't seem like a lot in the grand scheme of racing.

However, just in ICSCC that means 400 drivers will spend $120,000 EVERY 5 years on belts. That is where the rub comes in Lynn.

NOT saying it shouldn't happen but it does seem like an SFI conspiracy when you realize the SFI is under the DIRECTION of the manufacturer members :confused:

NOTE:
For 5 year FIA belts you're going to spend about $300 to $350. For SFI 2 year belts, you're going to spend $150 to $200. So, in the end you save some $$ by using the FIA belts. And, the change out hassle only occurs less then 1/2 as often :)

I fully support you taking a stand for us Kyle

"SFI belts are good to use as long as Kyle Nickles says so"

Easy schmeazy

LOL, Randy. Good idea :)
 
Last edited:
yeah, we're just a frog in front of the liability steamroller on this one-
we don't even have a lawyer on full retainer...

Mine will set me back less than $60 to reweb- that's $30 a year.
They say, as, long as the metal's not really worn, they can do it indefinitely.
AND if things are worn, they'll replace just the parts that need it.

In less than ten years, that's about a tire. Compared to what I
spend on better (!!!) beer than Scott, it's less than a drop in the bucket...

Now go check your lugnuts!

heh

t
 
Apples to apples;

400 drivers x 1 typical race entry x 12 races a season x 5 seasons = $6,000,000. And the clubs don't really make any money to speak of, it mostly goes to the track owners, now there is a conspiracy!

$120,000 is basically 2% of your racing expense when using entry fees only as a basis. Not taking into account transportation costs to and from the track, gas for you race car, tires, race car systems depreciation, other consumables, and so on...
 
Last edited:
Apples to apples;

400 drivers x 1 typical race entry x 12 races a season x 5 seasons = $6,000,000. And the clubs don't really make any money to speak of, it mostly goes to the track owners, now there is a conspiracy!...

But, a 'typical' weekend has about 200 to 230 entry's and some of those are at a discounted 2nd race fee.

STILL, I agree. The people 'making' money are the tracks. And maybe that's okay when you take in to consideration the alternate land-use value at at least 2 of our track locations.

THREAD REDIRECT :)

Which is why ICSCC/IRDC should be looking at a way to build an alternative (local) track for the clubs benefit. Get the CLUB that week day/no race weekend rental revenue and provide a venue that will be there long in to the future :)
 
Ok, I said I was going to hush-up but notice some questions/comments directed at me so the Okie in me is up and going.

OK, so Mike: concerning the insurance contact. Done so. Will keep the info to myself to keep the thread from going to the Energizer Bunnie.:p

And Randy: No problem, and I thought your comment funny too. But at least spell my name right.;)

Lynn: Nope you didn't make me angry (I don't get angry or mad - not healthy). Your points are well taken and spoken. As for the 300 to 400 drivers, well yes, it would seem we are but "small pawns in the game of life" (Mongo - Blazing Saddles) yet it has to start somewhere. As for being held personally liable as a non-profit, volunteer organization?? Not sure this is actual and would be very curious if liability was ever awarded except for gross or willful negligence.

Now with all that said, I ask you all to understand I was not writing any of this to cause controversy or dissention or piss anyone off. Nope, not me. If I did offend anyone my apologies. I would not advocate putting ICSCC or its member clubs at risk in any sort or fashion.

BTW: I replaced my belts this year due to the expriation and the fact that the old one showed some wear along the edges. I have a policy of keeping my blood inside my body.

Now, I speek no more (today, on this subject, but reserve the option of spewing forth again to your all enjoyment and possible irritation, willfully and with smiling response at my expense, at a later date).:):)
 
Last edited:
Kyle,
At the risk of offending you, 300 -400 licence holders aren't even a hiccup to what would be needed to take a stand.

And yes, I have a dog in this fight, so to speak.

As a officer/director of ICSCC, my name, and several others, would be on the list of people to sue, as the powers to be use the scatter gun method. (yes, they probably can get me even in Canada)
Risking our income, future income, property and possesions, investments.........for the sake of someone not wanting to replace, or being able to afford, new safety gear??????

The list of officers and directors are listed publicly, and it's our butts that would be on the line. We not hard to find.

"The belts looked just fine" "They've only been used 6 times" "But he/she said the car was always garage kept"......won't work.

The expirey dates are what they are. EXPIRED 2 years/5 years doesn't matter.

This may not make your gripe or itch go away, and will probably tick you off some, (sorry about that) but in the grand scheme of things, it pales in comparison.

This proposal was not put forth to cause hardship to anyone, but for the protection of everyone.

We don't always have to like some of the rule changes, or the rationale behind having to make them, but there they are.

Lynn Rimmer
ICSCC Race Officials Division Director
aka: Volunteer

Hi Lynn,
I have followed the comments on this subject for a little while and certainly appreciate the different perspectives of those involved. However, it struck me as odd that you believed you could be held personally liable for negligent acts or omissions of ICSCC or a local club. In general, officers, directors, members, shareholders, etc cannot be held personally liable for acts or omissions of a limited liability entity except for limited circumstances surrounding bad faith, gross negligence, etc. Additionally, the liability insurance would be obligated to defend and pay up for you if need be. Obviously this does not absolve an individual from liability for their own negligent act (i.e. running over a pedestrian in the parking lot), but that personal liability generally cannot be transferred to other individuals - to ICSCC or the local club maybe. In other words, regardless of the decision on the belt issue, your individual assets would not be at risk. I just do not want you losing sleep thinking that everything ICSSC or a local club does can impact everything you have worked for over your life. I am not saying that ICSCC or a local club would be risk free, but you as an officer/member typically would be.
With that being said, I cannot find where ICSCC is registered with the WA Secretary of State as a non-profit corporation. IRDC is, but I find no reference to ICSCC. Anyone know more about this?

Now, who do I bill for this?
Your friendly local lawyer,
Mike Mc.
 
Thanks Mike,

About every 5 years, or so, somebody starts clanging that "We could all be sued! We're all in danger! " bell, running in circles like their hair's on fire, so I'm so happy that you stepped up with your bucket and doused that little flicker of contention.

Now maybe the real topic can be picked up again to the level of how belts can be properly identified as having sufficient structural integrity to be considered safe for our racing.

Re-certifying the belt set through a reputable vendor that is equipped for, and in the profession of performing this task should be considered in the rule as enforcable evidence of compliance.

Ah, but compliance with what? That's what the regulation might stipulate.
 
Hey Mike Mc.

I believe that ICSCC is registered in Oregon(?)

When I was president of META in Vancouver, BC, we had to carry Officer and Directors Liability (we still do) as a safe guard against all eventualities, but the threat was still there if there wasn't enough to satisfy the plaintiffs.

But no, I am not loosing sleep and will continue to volunteer in whatever capacity I can, but I would just as soon not test the waters in this regard.

To have other volunteers put forward recommendations relating to safety is about all we can do to head off those untested waters.

Thanks for your input. As for the bill.......ummmmm
Lynn

PS: Kyle, I'm glad you not mad. I tend to do that sometimes.
 
With that being said, I cannot find where ICSCC is registered with the WA Secretary of State as a non-profit corporation. IRDC is, but I find no reference to ICSCC. Anyone know more about this?

Now, who do I bill for this?
Your friendly local lawyer,
Mike Mc.

From the P&P
5.1 EXECUTIVE BOARD REPRESENTATIVES
The Executive Board Representatives are the President’s liaisons with member clubs of ICSCC
who are actively staging ICSCC championship points races. These representatives are also the
Board of Directors of ICSCC, Inc., a Washington corporation

So maybe we're not registered as a NFP?
 
If I had a nickel for every time someone blamed an insurer for a rule, position, or requirement......
ICSCCs insurance places no requirements on our safety gear. They insure us, period. However, they continue to insure us, and set the price for our insurance based on their perception of our management and track record with our race program. If we had a bunch of claims over a year or two, our risk level would change and so would our insurability.

Some of you guys are arguing the merits of the certification process, and how belts should be certified. Go argue that with the certifying agencies. ICSCC isn't in the business of certifying products, or affecting certification criteria.

ICSCC adopted outside certification because it cannot answer the question: "What constitutes a safe harness?" Or, more accurately, we can answer: "one that meets FIA or SFI requirements." Unfortunately, last year, ICSCC adopted a rule that allows belts with no certification under certain conditions. If you buy an SFI rated belt, you are allowed to use it for several years after its certification expires. Once its certification expires, it has no certification.

This is just poor risk management. An injury to a driver wearing an unrated harness will certainly complicate any legal proceedings, making defense and possible settlement more costly for ICSCC. There are those of you in this argument that will disagree that ICSCC should set its rules to require FIA or SFI rated belts, within the certification period. To you I would ask: Do you carry ANY insurance that isn't required by law? If you do, why?

If you disagree with SFI's shortened life span, remember this: SFI is certifying belts that they have tested to be safe, not those they haven't tested. Perhaps they should test belts out to 5 years..... but they don't.

One of the realities that ICSCC must deal with is the requirement of our tracks that we have insurance. Beyond the limits required by the tracks, ICSCC has responded to the prudent risk management practice of carrying even higher limits and setting rules to minimize risk...both the risk of injury and the risk of being sued.

This argument isn't about what constitutes a safe harness, its about what can ICSCC prove is a safe harness by some legally acceptable standard. The rule change being submitted responds to a gaping hole in our acceptable standard.
 
Back
Top