2009 Stewards Proposal #19: SFI Belt Expiry

Thanks Kyle,

I can't agree with your assessment of no difference, or at least I'm not willing to put it to a test.

So I think it may come to that unfortunately, which is unfortunate, all over some pretty low hanging fruit.

kyle_nickels said:

There has been, nor likely will be any direct act of negligence on anyones part.

Click to expand...

Picture this: Someone rolls their car in 5B at Seattle. In the flailing about, the driver somehow breaks his wrist, something the seat harness isn't even there to prevent. The driver goes to the ER for X-rays and a cast, and then quite reasonably applies to his personal insurance for the bill.

Nothing malicious or even foolish on anyone's part, is there?

Then he gets a letter from his insurance company --as I did after a recent bicycle accident-- letting him know they've retained the services of a firm whose job it is to see if anyone might legitimately be at-fault for the accident.

In the course of the investigation, that firm finds that it was all the driver's fault and there were no other cars involved. The safety people all did their jobs correctly and so there was no additional damage to the driver's wrist due to their actions. Everyone did the right thing.

But, what's this? ICSCC allowed the insured party to race in seat harnesses that were TWO YEARS past the manufacturer's recommended life? Well, then, we'll need to pursue that organization for negligence so we can get back the $2200 we spent on ER visits and X-rays. These are tough economic times, after all, and insurance margins aren't what they used to be.

Of course, we'll also be looking to get back the $116,000 the investigators and attorneys have spent researching and litigating the whole thing...

Randy,

If I had to worry about whether, or not, I was going to get sued every time myself, or any on our Safety team dance around in "hot track' traffic to respond to a stricken race car, I would seriously question my personal application to the sport.

I suppose to CYA it, we should schedule and pay the local municipal fire dept.

The liability might just as well be perceived as great, and perhaps that one time, or any time, even in my time, that there could be a malfunction. Or maybe we just didn't get there in someone's perception of a reasonable time to put out the fire and a driver, or worker becomes injured within that time frame.

Your position is not unique, nor any more critical as a License Director as any other volunteer that serves on the ground as a Flagging, Communications, Safety, or Course Marshal.

This whole point of this related conjecture can go well beyond the way ICSCC approaches the regulations surrounding this one aspect of drivers' safety equipment.

Yup, I might have to find some other way to spend my weekends should this trend continue.

Can you imagine, sitting in a Safety Response Vehicle and saying, "Nope, ain't goin'. If I make a mistake, some obscure insurance claims lawyers will hunt me down, and take everything I own."

Minimize that liability for me, will ya?

Ken,

It's one thing to act in good faith and be protected by good samaritan concepts, it's quite another to flip off fate intentionally because of some philosophical objection.

I agree that this conjecture and perspective may go beyond this simple issue, that is indeed what's giving me pause.

OK, one last time, then I'm going to go get me a 4,,, no, dare I say,,, 5 shot 12 oz late (and hope I am not hit crossing the street, or trip on the raised edges of the sidewalk, or get hit by a low flying plane).

Steve, Your analogy of having a broken wrist and then getting hit up for the cost of the medical $ due to expired belts is a point to think about, but from both sides. Yes, the insurance companies will try anything to relieve themselves of the responsibility. Hence my dislike of them (I did not say hate!!!). It is this tendency that I am totally talking about. They try to not accept responsibility and pay for what they have been paid to do.

Please keep in mind, it is their responsibility to prove that the belts were the cause of injury. In your example the belts did not fail, nor did they have any connection with the injury.

I have stood my ground on several occasions in dealing with insurance companies which have used various means to not pay me what they owed me because they were trying to save money.

They don't like to pay money out and especially don't like having to eat the cost of trying to squeeze a dollar out of its customers, or someone else. They should learn that it will cost them a lot more in the long run to try to squeeze that orange to make grapefruit juice, but they just haven't figured that out yet. But if we keep buying it they will keep trying it.

Ok, coffee time folks,,, who is with me?? I'll buy.

Belt failure is not necessarily the webbing tearing in half. A failure would more probably be considered webbing stretching past their intended design distance, or the mechanicals failing (camlock, etc).

kyle_nickels said:

Steve, Your analogy of having a broken wrist and then getting hit up for the cost of the medical $ due to expired belts is a point to think about, but from both sides. Yes, the insurance companies will try anything to relieve themselves of the responsibility. Hence my dislike of them (I did not say hate!!!). It is this tendency that I am totally talking about. They try to not accept responsibility and pay for what they have been paid to do.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with you.

kyle_nickels said:

Please keep in mind, it is their responsibility to prove that the belts were the cause of injury.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the cost to ICSCC of arguing with the insurance company COULD (probably, would) be a real financial burden.

kyle_nickels said:

In your example the belts did not fail, nor did they have any connection with the injury.

Click to expand...

I wrote that example very specifically. Whether the belts failed or not, or even if they didn't stretch (much), the issue is simply that ICSCC was negligent in allowing participants to use equipment beyond the manufacturer-recommended service life. In what OTHER ways could ICSCC have been negligent?

Again, even if we're "right" and can prove it, the sheer financial burden of "being right" could be enough to end ICSCC as we know it. (Sure, that's a hypothetical, but it's one borne out by many cases of the "little guy" fighting the "big, faceless corporate entity.")

I worked at a place that did a lot of business in Istanbul. The Turkish office had a tile front walkway. I asked the owner (who was related to my boss) when it rained how he could keep such a slippery tile on the walk from causing his customers to slip and fall, and then filing suit. He looked at me like I was crazy, told me he would charge the person for falling on his tile, as he was given two legs and feet to walk with and two eyes to see with, what was the matter that he did not know it was raining and could not walk on his tile without falling.

This is a no BS story. This is what is wrong with us Americans now. We look the wrong direction for responsibility and who should pay anymore.

A sad day in my opinion.



WOW,,, that coffee sure got me going.... think I'll go rebuild my Supra tonight cause I'll be up all night (Now there is another subject- should they have sold me that 6 shot latte????)

I'm in for some joe Kyle. Maybe we could discuss politics or religion, or the military-industrial complex, or how 9/11 was in inside job. Or maybe how cool it is that drivers make the rules in Conference.

Randy - I know you can take the heat so here we go. You are 100% wrong.

If a commercial jet returning from high altitude has a leaky toilet resulting in a 100# block of frozen urine stuck to the exterior and passes over the track dislodging said lump just at the right moment for it to fall 10,000 feet and smash an unsuspecting Miata and driver to pulp at the exit of turn two are you honestly stating that we should build a 50 million dollar roof as a frozen pee projectile guard over the whole track? There is your one in a kajillion chance, and a response equally unlikely. What is the threshold between probable, possible, and concievable. Do we have to guard against anything that anyone can think up? Stop thinking everyone or we might get sued! Your imagination will ruin it for everyone!

Let's face it - as many people have been killed in Conference by yellow meteors as out of date belts.

If this is something we really need then I should be pretty easily convinced in spite of my slightly below average intellect. If it isn't something we need, then I have other uses for my hard earned dollars. I need to get value for the money I spend so I am no more likely to buy "nothing" for $100,000 than I am for $1.

I want to vote with you guys - really! All it takes is a little proof that this isn't just a case of folks being expected to take out their wallets with the idea that they will be safer as a result and having that not be true.

What do you have against Miatas Rick? I'm pretty sure you need to apologize.

I don't know, I'm just glad the drivers get to make the rules.

Your example is completely specious, Rick. Let's take something a little more cogent:

WHAT IF (as long as we're talking hypotheticals) Hoosier stated that, under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should anyone run an R6 tire at greater than 50psi hot. Hoosier's testing shows that, should an R6 sit in the blazing sun for 12 seasons, anything higher than 42psi COULD cause the sidewall to blow.

"Bushwah," everyone in Conference says, "everyone knows that R6s are just hitting their stride at 50psi, and we shouldn't pass a rule that MIGHT force someone to spend money on tires when they don't have to." We pass a rule that says drivers are welcome to run their tires at whatever pressure makes the most sense for their car and driving style. This rule doesn't take the age of the tire into account.

Later, someone blows a Hoosier R6 tire entering 5A at Seattle, hits the barrier and cartwheels over it, the car bursts into flames (like they do in all the movies), and the driver burns to death. Now... when the driver's insurance company pays out to the widow, and then sets the investigators loose to see if someone can be blamed so they can get "their" money back, were the drivers in Conference right for standing up for their right to spend their racing dollars as they choose, or stupid for allowing a big ol' negligence charge?

Steve Adams said:

Picture this: Someone rolls their car in 5B at Seattle. In the flailing about, the driver somehow breaks his wrist, something the seat harness isn't even there to prevent. The driver goes to the ER for X-rays and a cast, and then quite reasonably applies to his personal insurance for the bill.

Nothing malicious or even foolish on anyone's part, is there?

Then he gets a letter from his insurance company --as I did after a recent bicycle accident-- letting him know they've retained the services of a firm whose job it is to see if anyone might legitimately be at-fault for the accident.

In the course of the investigation, that firm finds that it was all the driver's fault and there were no other cars involved. The safety people all did their jobs correctly and so there was no additional damage to the driver's wrist due to their actions. Everyone did the right thing.

But, what's this? ICSCC allowed the insured party to race in seat harnesses that were TWO YEARS past the manufacturer's recommended life? Well, then, we'll need to pursue that organization for negligence so we can get back the $2200 we spent on ER visits and X-rays. These are tough economic times, after all, and insurance margins aren't what they used to be.

Of course, we'll also be looking to get back the $116,000 the investigators and attorneys have spent researching and litigating the whole thing...

Click to expand...

Steve,
Your injuries and associated bills for falling off the bike (trike?) are different. Every time we participate in a ICSCC event, we sign a waiver saying we (and our heirs, etc.) will not sue ICSCC or the local club for negligent acts. Such waivers are generally enforced in WA and most other states - if not, there would be no liability insurance for racing events, thus no racing events (sanctioned anyway). I assume you did not sign a liability waiver before riding the bike? That being the case, if someone was negligent and ran over you and your bike, they could be held liable and your health insurance could recover the medical bills from the responsible party.
If you signed a waiver, the health insurer is SOL. This is why it is critical, for purposes of ICSCC and local club continued viability, that the waiver forms are signed by everyone participating. While this will not stop someone from filing a frivolous suit, neither does a lack of negligence or liability.

Mike M.

So there would be no attempt to come after Conference in any way because of the clear case of negligence posed by the "old" belts? Really?

Thank you Randy, I was feeling a bit stung after your rather aggressive reply.
You know I've been doing this for over 35 years, so the changes I've seen and the escalating costs of our sport really concerns me, and always has. Perhaps I should shut up and just listen more often, but I'm afraid I'm not built that way. My passion for Conference may piss a few people off, but it's a genuine passion that I take very seriously.
We all know that the average belt system will go much further than 2 years, and I doubt there would be much argument about that. So do we live with it, or attempt to change it? Rick pointed out that this is self imposed, not insurance mandated, so how often would an insurance company even consider asking a seat belt question after a serious incident? Just asking.
I personally do not beleive that the average car with 2 or 3 or 5 year old belts would be an issue in the event of an accident. Problem is, we all know that belts will stretch at least 2 inches in a heavy shunt, maybe more, so how would an insurance company determine belt failure? I don't see how that determination could be made accurately in most instances.
So we take a stance or we go with the SFI, which is not an accurate barometer on a good day. I just want to be logical and keep costs down in any area that we can.
Conference has been a leader quite often over the decades, and always quite inventive and proactive, so can we challenge this ruling or demand a better testing procedure? Perhaps I'm being naive, but I'm asking.

Steve Adams said:

So there would be no attempt to come after Conference in any way because of the clear case of negligence posed by the "old" belts? Really?

Click to expand...

I was not responding to the belt issue, only the hypothetical you posed. Here is my $.02.
Will ICSCC or a local club be sued for something in the future, whether legit or not, yes - just a fact of doing business in a high risk activity these days. Does the ICSCC rules’ allowing the use of belts beyond the pull date increase the risk of suit, maybe. Regardless, it would sure be uncomfortable to explain to anyone (son, daughter, widower, jury, judge, insurer, etc.) why the manufacturer's recommended life span or certification dates were not followed. People have voiced good arguments on both sides of the belt issue, but my take is that the easiest to defend (even in a lawsuit - however unlikely) is that we followed the manufacturer's recommended whatever. Distasteful, yes. Probably better big picture though. Maybe a more effective place for this discussion is at the SFI level?

Out of curiosity, I tried to find the wording of the Release form we all sign when participating in (or volunteering at) an ICSCC event. No luck on the website, so I did a Google search. Came up with some funny things. One was an actual PDF copy of a CART waiver signed by Bruce McCaw in 2002, showing all kinds of personal information I’m surprised is allowed to be made public. Another was this interesting discussion in the (SCCA?) Spec Miata Community from August of 2003, which appears to be about this exact same topic ... six years ago!!!

Spec Miata Community: Safety Belts Expire After Two years

http://forum.specmiata.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/topic/43/1461.html

Interesting angle on this issue, even though it's a few years old. Didn't know it had come up so long ago.

Region: 11
Car #: 10
Year : 91
Posts: 67
Status: Offline
posted 09-03-2003 07:03 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just want to know why after twenty years of using up to five year belts this decision goes down. Testing due to elements is nothing new. There is no new technology. Why did they wait twenty years? Have we been using unsafe belts for twenty years? How many failures have there been?

The testing is the same, the manufacturing is better if anything, and we're not going any faster. The whole thing stinks. The manufacturers just doubled a market where there was no growth by way of an organization that they support financially. Stinks even more. Maybe the manufacturers expressed the possibility of cutting their support of SFI to save money because of their shrinking market and decreased volume and profits.

What's next? Gloves? Shoes? A new helmet every other year? They can pump their balance sheet at the drop of a hat. Bad precedent. Bad decision. Legal? A Liability waiver would cover it and suits are barred. It's called assumed risk and no one has ever beat it including the estates of dead people. No cross examination possible so it never flies and duress or fraud are the only extenuating circumstances. A failure due to manufacture would be the only case and the club can't be a party in that action. I'm paraphrasing my attorney's opinion but he calls it "crap".

A waiver would save us money and let us use the belts that haven't ever failed. But then, no one would make any money... This is just another dip into drivers' pockets for the benefit of a third party and a BoD that assumes we'll just pay it and forget about it after a while. Bull****.

Dang, that coffee is still kickin. Rebuilt the Supra, painted the house, cleaned out the barn, Added a room to the house, figured out the space time continuam (beat ya to it Ken!), washed the dogs and even took out the garbage... all after I got home.


Now, down to the subject at hand. I read that too Wes. And I have to ask Mike if this is true why do we need an insurance carrier at all. Just add every possibility to the waiver and have everyone sign it upon entry.

If this concerns you then I would advise not holding an official Conference or Club related position.

Click to expand...

Careful what you wish for. We are fortunate to have the leadership of the caliber that ICSCC currently enjoys.

Might I suggest we keep our comments in line with debate of the subject at hand, not digress to personal attacks that suggest those of opposing opinions should leave the playground?

Third time's the charm...