Matt-
I disagree about the lawyer comment. Nothing at all clear cut about this.
Benefits to full face, but possibly a concern here with the air bags, no
definitive answers. There is a strong presumption that you assume the
normal risks of participation in any sporting activity. You'd have to
demonstrate that the SCCA negligence in rule making created a non-normal
risk. I can't see it. The last case I saw brought on a racing incident by
a driver against a track and sanctioning body (as opposed to suits brought
by passengers or spectators or crew), was dismissed on summary judgment.
And that was plaintiff friendly Kalifornia.
I see this as something where SCCA references the papers and research in
warnings, but does not create a rule. There simply isn't any definitive
evidence that there is a problem. Yet, I have witnessed injuries resulting
from having only an open face helmet. There is a trade-off here, and those
sorts of trade-offs are best left in the hands of the participant.
What if SCCA enacts a ban on Full Face helmets despite no definitive
research and somebody is injured in a way that could have possibly been
prevented by a full face helmet. Now the SCCA has left themselves open to a
lawsuit claiming the introduction of a non-normal risk for banning a
potentially more protective safety device without definitive research to
support the ban.
We're a no Open Face helmet family. A close friend of the family ate a
steering wheel in a racing incident when I was a young kid. Dad threw our
open face helmets away. And we've all used Full Face helmets since.
-STE
>The
> lawyers would have their way with us. I'm wagering it will happen
> sooner than later.
>
> Matt Murray
|