Are you a bot? You keep repeating yourself. Of course I am. What else might I be? I'm arguing with you. It honestly takes a great deal of drunkeness to even consider you a worthy adversary in debate. What did you expect ?

 

I'm actually sort of thinking someone near you should stuff a sock in your intake Manifold? Maybe shove a potato up your tailpipe? Just to see what happens .

Sincerely,

 

 

 

I think car seats are OK. I like bucket seats better than bench seats even in trucks now. That took awhile.

I'm in favor of wind shields.

Shoes? That depends. I have lot's of different shoes for different purposes but sometime I still go barefoot. Now I'm older I usually wear socks anyway so I really don't go completely "bare".

What's your point son? If I want 'em I buy 'em. If not I don't. No reason for someone to tell me I need shoes. I can figure that out all by myself.

 

 

Well, there is a component that examines whether or not HANS works and we can't deny that part of the debate. If it weren't for the "scientific argument", there wouldn't be a rational argument at all, but the scientific argument is weak and undocumented. Like so many things these days, the decision to make rules based on the Precautionary Principal is rampant. I agree the entire debate is more philosophical than scientific/objective/rational. My personal philosophy is that, if a decision isn't based on science, it's just an opinion. I don't favor making rules that control the actions of other people based on opinion. Recommendations are fine, even strong recommendations.

That doesn't mean I won't buy and use a HANS device in my car; I think it's a good idea for me. But I have no evidence at all that says your decision one way of the other has any effect on me at all. Are you familiar with the legal concept of "standing"? I have no standing in deciding what's good or bad for you as long as it has no effect on me. It really is that simple.

Best Regards,

 

You need to stop arguing by absurd analogy. It's pointless. I'm not going to discuss seats with you and I won't discuss the utility or necessity of a HANS device as if it might be a seat or a windshield. What are you thinking? Go spend some time with your kids or dogs? Fix whatever needs to be fixed on your car. Baiting me isn't healthy for either of us.

I am designing a car that will be HANS compatible because I think it's a good idea. It's an experiment. It won't cost that much and it may save my life. I have no need at all for you to tell me I have to do it and I don't really think you know anything more about the subject than I do.

Thanks for your concern over my safety. Now go away?

Seriously,

 

For some reason I'm left with the impression that sentence just didn't come out quite right? Because this hasn't ever been about whether HANS devices "work"? It's about whether or not I have the right and privilege to make you to buy one even if you don't want to. We don't have a significant amount of data that we can use to demonstrate, unequivocally, that HANS save more lives than they cost. The data just isn't there. What we're left with is theory and opinion. I happen to subscribe to the theory, but that's just a personal opinion. There's no science behind it.

More specifically, it could be exactly how many square centimeters of skin I'll lose off my butt if you don't buy and use one?

 

Look, I'm sorry if this exchange has gone off the rails in any way. I don't know how to respond rationally to this kind of thing.

I just don't think we should be making rules about things that don't concern us. If you feel differently that's your position. I've tried to express mine and I suppose we've reached an impasse. No hard feelings?

Regards,

 

I'm likely speaking out of turn since I don't have any personal experience with HANS systems myself, but I noticed more folks seem interested in busting my chops than answering you so I figured I could at least pass on the result of my own investigations.

Near as I can tell the most popular HANS for 3 point systems seems to be made by Simpson, they call it the Racing Hybrid, it retails for about $450. I don't know its faults, the advantage seems to be it works with all "3+" (3 or more point) harness systems but I have no idea if it's comfortable or effective. It seems to be the choice of many PCA instructors that have to ride right seat in student cars with street 3 point belts.

Couldn't hurt to check it out. If anyone cares to review it WRT to 4+ designs I'd love to hear about it.

Regards,

 

Luigi -

I apologize for not giving your well considered response to my post more immediate attention. As you can see, I was very quickly swamped by challenges best characterized as reductions to the absurd. I admit I should have ignored them in favor of responding, but I have a personal weakness for the humor of Monty Python and so I'm preternaturally attracted to those conversations. Sort of a vice of mine really. You'll probably notice I'm also no virgin when it comes to snark.

It's been very informative reading your opinions based on your history of legal challenges and defenses involving insurance companies. In an early post (maybe on this thread) I asked that question; is there some insurance issue involved? Seems from what you write there probably is. That was my "worst case" evaluation of what we're seeing; that in fact this is something being imposed on us by folks who spend more time with actuarial tables than racing cars. In the old days we used to call them "bean counters". I think I also expressed the fear our club was under the influence of lawyers, but managed to choke out the idea; "blaming the lawyers" was an excuse I'd heard too many times.

You ask the question: "You think all these companies decided to innovate safety for the benefit of consumers?" and I have to say no, I don't. Fear of litigation is realistic. It isn't some paranoid fantasy, at least not for people who produce safety equipment. Earlier I talked a little about the assumption of liability that arises when a vendor expresses a warranty of any kind and I cautioned against the idea of an organization like the PCA stepping into that fray by suggesting in any way that a driver might be "safe" or even "safer" if they only adopted the use of technology "x", for example HANS or maybe HALO seats. Clearly neither the PCA or the hosting tracks are in any way responsible for the performance of those technologies, but by advocating them as a means to make high performance driving and racing “safe”, they voluntarily assume responsibility and become the targets of litigation. That doesn't seem wise to me. I'd certainly like to hear your opinion on that?

My concern is that insurance companies have been known to operate under the assumption of community standards and “best practices” without regard to objective evidence. I’d venture the difference between successful and unsuccessful insurance companies might be measured by their use of empirical data as opposed to “feelings” and “opinions” when it comes to those judgements. The result is we end up subject to the voodoo suspicions of that industry, which don’t necessarily reflect scientific observation. This then results in a helmet requirement in a 3 point harnessed car and people end up losing their heads over the ignorance of accountants?

That’s why I resist having our club get into the business of warranting safety; I think it’s much better for us, collectively, to admit performance driving, like hang gliding, is inherently dangerous and there’s no technology available that objectively reduces that risk?

Best Regards,

 

Thanks very much for relating your experience Jar, it makes a difference for me and maybe others. My only concern is getting out of the car if I'm wearing HANS. I have no doubt the HANS system will reduce my chance of being decapitated or living as a paraplegic. I've weighed that risk against being burned alive, but my assessment isn't based on hard data; it's just folklore. Stupid Pilot Investments are along the same lines.

I spent 4 years flying experimental aircraft with NASA so I admit to a morbid fear of being burned to death. I've been told its common among pilots.

 

My guests don't own my house. They have no equity in it.

Members of the PCA on the other hand are the PCA. It not as if the club exists as a separate entity; we are the PCA. You have difficulty with that and it's a very obvious problem. you write "have no right to impose rules for THEIR OWN events", but neglect to differentiate between "THEIR" and the club members. We are the PCA. We make the rules and we can and will talk about them. Capiche? OK with you?

We not only have the right to impose rules, we have the right to adopt them. Or not. It isn't all that difficult, the United States operates under the same basic structure, as do most public businesses. You've attended a stockholder meeting before yes?

Come on. Let's not be needlessly silly and argumentative?