Matt,
With all due respect and nothing personal, there has been no official word
that our insurance carrier is in any way involved, so you're championing a
speculative reason. However if they should get wind of all this they just
might start getting interested. (MY speculation)
IF, and that's a BIG speculative if, it is the insurance carrier, then
someone from home office that is in charge of our insurance needs to step up
and ask "Why?" of the underwriters before going any further towards rule
changes.
"...because things get quite (sic) around the holidays."? Home office is
composed of people, and people occasionally make mistakes or leap to
conclusions. As much as they are revered as GODS by some, they are not
infallible. YMMV
Can we stick to discussing facts?
Peace
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Murray" <mattm@optonline.net>
To: "Chuck" <golden1@britsys.net>; "autox mailing list"
<autox@Autox.Team.Net>
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: Insurance, was: Potential new helmet rule
> 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.
|