Without going into the passionate points that have made by many, myself included, there are just a few pertinent points to remember:
1) There are very few actions, no matter the percieved positives, that don't have some kind of negative outcome associated with them. I choose to wear a HANS device most of the time because of the high potential of my car - it just feels like it has the ability to create higher kinetic energy situations that might result in the kind of physical loads that it was designed to protect against. On the other hand, I know that it makes it harder to get out of my car in a hurry if I was in a situation that required me to escape a fire so I have to weigh those trade offs.
2) I feel that I am at least reasonably safe whether I wear one or not based on the fact that in the history of Conference we have neither had anyone burn to death nor die from a basal skull fracture in thousands of miles and decades of racing. I am happy to listen to the stories of those who feel that the device may have prevented or reduced injuries in accidents that have happened in the last few years and of course I am estatic anytime one of my fellow racers has a good outcome from a bad situation but we can't ever really know with certainty what "might" have happened. It's one of those urban myths like jobs saved or created .... At the very least we know we didn't have any of those fatalties in the very long time before HANS devides exisited.
3) In spite of the SCARY INSURANCE MAN and LIABILITY MONSTER being used as a boogie man intended to scare everyone into somebody's desired way of thinking, they really don't force us to do anything. Our insurers typically take a look at the premeiums we pay compared to the track record of payout costs we create to decide whether they are willing to insure us based on potential profitability. Of course they like us to take reasonable measures to reduce liability, we should do that just because we care about our fellow racers and want to be having fun with them for years to come. What you have to decide is what is a reasonable measure?.
We can continue to mandate more and more safety equipment at more and more cost until a significant percentage of our members just can't afford to race anymore if we want. We can make ourselves feel good by deciding that others aren't smart or responsible enough to make good decisions for themselves and simply make decisions for them. How much ends up being enough? This is the classic slippery slope. Mandating antilock brakes and traction control would statistically make racing far safer than wearing a hans device as would limiting top speeds. Requiring engineer designed cages with tested crumple zones and energy absorbing apparatus throughour the structure would do the same. When the only raceable car is a million dollar 8000 pound 15 mph top speed Volvo with computer controlled accident avoidance radar and autopilot will that finally be enough? Or are we doomed to experience racing sitting on the couch twisting a plastic controller so when there is an accident the only thing that gets dented is electrons?
The only way to pursue this insane desire to protect against accidents that might never happen to it's logical conclusion and make racing completely safe is for humans to not be involved at all. I make rational, well informed decisions about me own safety and all reading this should do the same. It is hard enough to worry about yourself these days, stop trying to mandate what others do.