The ONLY justification for this advisory by SCCA was the cited study. Any
other reasons is pure wild speculation and second guessing on the part of
the membership at this time. If there IS any other circumstances, i.e.
insurance carier pressures, actual documented injuries, other studies, etc.
for this otherwise IMHO backward safety advisory then it should be made
public to the membership so it can be understood and justified with real
facts. The mere fact that this advisory has already been moved to the site
archives while the Kumho recall for example was front page for months
indicates to me that it may be just somebody's overzealous OOPS! they are
hoping we'll soon forget about???
Where are the BOD and SEB members with info as to what is going on? Those
whose posts I've seen have been just as speculative as the rest. What info
and directives are they getting from home office? Lets hear PERTINENT FACTS
instead of wild speculation as to what prompted this advisory and where is
it headed.
PS: I don't have a dog in this fight, I use an open faced helmet, I'm just
tired of my mailbox being filled with off the wall arguments, it just
dilutes the real issues and makes it difficult to separate fact from
fiction. Sometimes these things take on a life of their own and become self
fulfilling, i.e. This seems to have support from the (IMO in the dark if
home office said it it must be so) members, so let's err on the conservative
side and go ahead and make it a rule.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Murray" <mattm@optonline.net>
To: "autox mailing list" <autox@Autox.Team.Net>
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 9:50 AM
Subject: Insurance, was: Potential new helmet rule
> So tell me what we do when an insurance company uses that info for their
> decision to write a policy? They become the final arbiters in this mess.
If
> SCCA cannot get insurance, we cannot play.
>
> Matt Murray
|