But, "real world" insurance companies, dictate others actions. I understand
your point. We might not be getting all the info (the devil is in the
details). As I said before, I don't think our club would issue that note,
without knowing there might be some negative feedback. They were not doing
it because things get quite around the holidays.
Matt
At 11:07 AM 11/20/2004, Chuck wrote:
>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.
|