NEW PCA Best Practices for DE (Rant!)
12-06-2018, 05:55 PM
#61
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Mid-Atlantic (on land, not in the middle of the ocean)
Posts: 12,454
Received 3,803 Likes
on
2,200 Posts
Which is exactly my point, known as "the law of unintended consequences". Without real study all you have are opinions of the form "jest makes all sorta sense ta me!"
Experiments are expensive, but doing things because they "jest make sense" is a lot more expensive.
Experiments are expensive, but doing things because they "jest make sense" is a lot more expensive.
12-06-2018, 06:02 PM
#62
Rennlist Member
Lots of research has been done on why a HANS is needed when using a harness. Think F1, NASCAR, Indy, etc. They have experts and budgets to look into this stuff. The only possible unintended consequence I see with using a HANS, if using a harness, is that the driver may feel more protected and therefore take more risk. But I think it would be very difficult to make the case that the net effect of using the HANS is that the driver would be less safe overall.
A helmet might help someone using a three point belt, or no belt, but it will kill someone using a harness. If helmets weren't required in cars, they wouldn't be required in cars with harnesses. It isn't the helmet or the harness that's at fault; it's the helmet and the harness. The law of unintended consequences.
12-06-2018, 06:23 PM
#63
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Mid-Atlantic (on land, not in the middle of the ocean)
Posts: 12,454
Received 3,803 Likes
on
2,200 Posts
Sure, but you miss the point.
A helmet might help someone using a three point belt, or no belt, but it will kill someone using a harness. If helmets weren't required in cars, they wouldn't be required in cars with harnesses. It isn't the helmet or the harness that's at fault; it's the helmet and the harness. The law of unintended consequences.
A helmet might help someone using a three point belt, or no belt, but it will kill someone using a harness. If helmets weren't required in cars, they wouldn't be required in cars with harnesses. It isn't the helmet or the harness that's at fault; it's the helmet and the harness. The law of unintended consequences.
And I don't follow your logic. PCA isn't saying that a helmet + harness is ok, they're saying that if you use a harness, it needs to be helmet + harness + HANS.
12-06-2018, 06:23 PM
#64
Rennlist Member
"Standing" is a legal concept; it establishes your right to make a complaint about something. It has nothing to do with what you think "makes sense" or "is reasonable". It has to do with a legitimate claim to being harmed.
12-06-2018, 06:28 PM
#65
Rennlist Member
To all the racerboys ,Why are you installing a race seat and 6 point belts if you are not going to complete the setup with a head and neck restraint. This backlash to upgrades of the minimum PCA standards is just weird . As far as belt aging, some standard had to be set and 5 years is it.
I here that Friday night circle track racing is real cheap and dose not require a lot of safety equipment.
I here that Friday night circle track racing is real cheap and dose not require a lot of safety equipment.
12-06-2018, 06:35 PM
#66
Rennlist Member
Helmets were adopted in car racing before cars had seat belts.
Seat belts were added, they were compatible with helmets.
Three point belts were added. They were compatible with helmets.
Harnesses aren't compatible with helmets. It took time to figure that out because no one really studied the combination. Eventually it was figured out by trial and error.
You can remove the harness or the helmet. Either works. They don't work together. Law of unintended consequences.
Seat belts were added, they were compatible with helmets.
Three point belts were added. They were compatible with helmets.
Harnesses aren't compatible with helmets. It took time to figure that out because no one really studied the combination. Eventually it was figured out by trial and error.
You can remove the harness or the helmet. Either works. They don't work together. Law of unintended consequences.
12-06-2018, 06:39 PM
#67
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Mid-Atlantic (on land, not in the middle of the ocean)
Posts: 12,454
Received 3,803 Likes
on
2,200 Posts
Helmets were adopted in car racing before cars had seat belts.
Seat belts were added, they were compatible with helmets.
Three point belts were added. They were compatible with helmets.
Harnesses aren't compatible with helmets. It took time to figure that out because no one really studied the combination. Eventually it was figured out by trial and error.
You can remove the harness or the helmet. Either works. They don't work together. Law of unintended consequences.
Seat belts were added, they were compatible with helmets.
Three point belts were added. They were compatible with helmets.
Harnesses aren't compatible with helmets. It took time to figure that out because no one really studied the combination. Eventually it was figured out by trial and error.
You can remove the harness or the helmet. Either works. They don't work together. Law of unintended consequences.
12-06-2018, 06:39 PM
#68
Rennlist Member
12-06-2018, 06:40 PM
#69
Perfect Angel
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
This would be the reason for requiring a Hans device if you use harnesses and a helmet.
https://www.sportscarmarket.com/colu...or-4-5-million
https://jalopnik.com/this-track-day-...rac-1824270453
https://www.nj.com/camden/index.ssf/...inst_atco.html
https://www.courthousenews.com/widow...d-track-death/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/princ...dway-1.3141935
https://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/...171885751.html
https://www.sportscarmarket.com/colu...or-4-5-million
https://jalopnik.com/this-track-day-...rac-1824270453
https://www.nj.com/camden/index.ssf/...inst_atco.html
https://www.courthousenews.com/widow...d-track-death/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/princ...dway-1.3141935
https://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/...171885751.html
12-06-2018, 06:42 PM
#70
Rennlist Member
12-06-2018, 06:48 PM
#71
Rennlist Member
I've never gotten anyone sued.
You want safety? Don't race cars. That's it. You want to get sued? Try telling me or anyone else I'll be safe if I install a HANS system on my car.
Work that out for yourself. You understand liability? You tell me to do something for my safety, money changes hands, you just accepted responsibility for my safety.
Now, say for example you suggest I can maybe improve my odds by doing certain things but I have no obligation to do it, just an idea. Then maybe you rent me something, like a track. As long as you aren't negligent, the thing you're renting is suitable for purpose, and it's clear I'm renting the track for the purpose discussed, you're probably OK. You can get sued one way or the other, but it looks a whole lot better if you didn't charge me to tell me I'd be safe doing whatever it was I was doing.
No one can sign away the right to sue, but you can make the situation a whole lot worse by offering anything that looks remotely like a warranty.
You want safety? Don't race cars. That's it. You want to get sued? Try telling me or anyone else I'll be safe if I install a HANS system on my car.
Work that out for yourself. You understand liability? You tell me to do something for my safety, money changes hands, you just accepted responsibility for my safety.
Now, say for example you suggest I can maybe improve my odds by doing certain things but I have no obligation to do it, just an idea. Then maybe you rent me something, like a track. As long as you aren't negligent, the thing you're renting is suitable for purpose, and it's clear I'm renting the track for the purpose discussed, you're probably OK. You can get sued one way or the other, but it looks a whole lot better if you didn't charge me to tell me I'd be safe doing whatever it was I was doing.
No one can sign away the right to sue, but you can make the situation a whole lot worse by offering anything that looks remotely like a warranty.
Last edited by Otto Mechanic; 12-06-2018 at 07:04 PM.
12-06-2018, 06:58 PM
#72
Rennlist Member
I think the best argument is the simple one, the harnessses have an expiration date and we aren’t going to bother figuring out how much longer they’re safe to use in a club racing environment so instead we’ll just be conservative and trash them when the expiration date comes up. It’s not an unreasonable position to take and harnesses aren’t that expensive anyway.
I just really dislike urban myths like the UV damage concern. It’s not about UV damage and it never was. It’s much simpler - it will last longer than the five years but we don’t want to figure out how much longer because it’s hard/costly and in theory it could introduce a legal risk for PCA. So we just use the expiration date and buy new harnesses instead of worrying about it. Fair enough.
The seat thing is a bit of a fudge but that’s fine.
I just really dislike urban myths like the UV damage concern. It’s not about UV damage and it never was. It’s much simpler - it will last longer than the five years but we don’t want to figure out how much longer because it’s hard/costly and in theory it could introduce a legal risk for PCA. So we just use the expiration date and buy new harnesses instead of worrying about it. Fair enough.
The seat thing is a bit of a fudge but that’s fine.
12-06-2018, 07:02 PM
#73
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Mid-Atlantic (on land, not in the middle of the ocean)
Posts: 12,454
Received 3,803 Likes
on
2,200 Posts
12-06-2018, 07:08 PM
#74
Perfect Angel
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I've never gotten anyone sued.
You want safety? Don't race cars. That's it. You want to get sued? Try telling me or anyone else I'll be safe if I install a HANS system on my car.
Work that out for yourself. You understand liability? You tell me to do something for my safety, money changes hands, you just accepted responsibility for my safety.
Now, say for example you suggest I can maybe improve my odds by doing certain things but I have no obligation to do it, just an idea. Then maybe you rent me something, like a track. As long as you aren't negligent, the thing you're renting is suitable for purpose, and it's clear I'm renting the track for the purpose discussed, you're probably OK. You can get sued one way or the other, but it looks a whole lot better if you didn't charge me to tell me I'd be safe doing whatever it was I was doing.
No one can sign away the right to sue, but you can make the situation a whole lot worse by offering anything that looks remotely like a warranty.
You want safety? Don't race cars. That's it. You want to get sued? Try telling me or anyone else I'll be safe if I install a HANS system on my car.
Work that out for yourself. You understand liability? You tell me to do something for my safety, money changes hands, you just accepted responsibility for my safety.
Now, say for example you suggest I can maybe improve my odds by doing certain things but I have no obligation to do it, just an idea. Then maybe you rent me something, like a track. As long as you aren't negligent, the thing you're renting is suitable for purpose, and it's clear I'm renting the track for the purpose discussed, you're probably OK. You can get sued one way or the other, but it looks a whole lot better if you didn't charge me to tell me I'd be safe doing whatever it was I was doing.
No one can sign away the right to sue, but you can make the situation a whole lot worse by offering anything that looks remotely like a warranty.
Are you drunk?
12-06-2018, 07:13 PM
#75
You may have a better opportunity to control the car after an incident occurs instead of being knocked unconscious or killed which might then allow your car to drift back on track in front of and collect up other participants as a consequence. That's how the safety equipment may possibly have a chance of keeping not only you but a fellow participant safer.
Secondly I don't want you to be injured or die which really sucks when it happens. It would negatively affect me and probably most of the other participants emotionally. I know that after my Wife's pretty horrific crash people quit for the weekend and seriously questioned their own safety equipment afterwards. Some even questioned their continued participation ever again. If she had been seriously injured or killed I promise we would have less participants than we do today the rest of my family and close friends included. Not only does it make everyone feel horrible but it could also affect the program as a whole and threaten it's continuation.
The more people that come into and start enjoying the sport the more opportunity there is for something to go wrong. The result is that it requires more safety rules that must be mandated in order to insure the safety of the participants that may not know any better.
It has been my experience that we essentially must protect people from themselves because in many cases when left on their own they will take the path of least resistance.
Secondly I don't want you to be injured or die which really sucks when it happens. It would negatively affect me and probably most of the other participants emotionally. I know that after my Wife's pretty horrific crash people quit for the weekend and seriously questioned their own safety equipment afterwards. Some even questioned their continued participation ever again. If she had been seriously injured or killed I promise we would have less participants than we do today the rest of my family and close friends included. Not only does it make everyone feel horrible but it could also affect the program as a whole and threaten it's continuation.
The more people that come into and start enjoying the sport the more opportunity there is for something to go wrong. The result is that it requires more safety rules that must be mandated in order to insure the safety of the participants that may not know any better.
It has been my experience that we essentially must protect people from themselves because in many cases when left on their own they will take the path of least resistance.