Screwdriver ------”I choose to use a nom-de-plume as it is too easy to throw stones at the messenger instead of listening to the message. It is not a form of cowardice, but sometimes you have to play devil's advocate to generate robust debate. No progress was ever made by agreeing with everybody on every issue.”
Pull the other tit.
Trevor.
Agree with what Roger H and Screwdriver are saying, and it is a concern, having run a few meetings over the years now, I can tell you all, no matter how many times you do it, at the debrief, you will always find that there was something missed, or something that could be done differently, or better, eg, the forms you used at the last meeting may have changed for the next, you have to check all the time, and I don't think that a lot of people (competitors) could even dream about the amount of time is involved, as has been noted earlier, we try to make it like it was, in a relaxed manner in Historic and Classic meeting, but have to be mindful of living in the real world, when it all turns to shit, it is at this point I have serous concerns, about the VCC having the procedures and traing in place, to be able to avoid another Queenstown.
Roger
Queenstown wasn't about the organizing it was about those who were directed to do a task, then were lax in fulfilling those duties.
As one who was involved, I can assure you, it was a little more than that, I had the Police chaseing me all over the South Island at various stages and spent two days being grilled in the Police station in Q/T after the event, Eric Swinbourne and myself did extensive reports on the car involved, the others involved could not beleive just what was happening, but it all came down doting the "i's" and crossing the "t's", and it has changed just how MSNZ does things, and a very expensive and mind boggling experience for all involved, plus some very very strange happenings.
Roger
Although I was not involved in the Queenstown incident (unlike Roger), I have seen the repercussions that have impacted the way we have to organise meetings. Much of the process is bureaucratic and onerous but it does serve to protect clubs and club officials in the event that something goes wrong.
Motor sport is inherently dangerous and incidents do occur from time to time - VCC type cars and events are not immune to this and that imposes potential risk on the VCC, VCC clubs and those club officials. My concern is that while MSNZ has reacted to the Queenstown outcome and established protective procedures, the VCC has not enacted similar processes.
While VCC events such as the Roycroft meeting are positive contributors to the sport and are proving increasingly popular, the potential risks do not seem to have been addressed. In recent times I have competed at VCC circuit events where the processes in place were such that in the event of an incident the organising parties would have probably been found culpable.
We don't want to detract from the relaxed atmosphere of these VCC events but that doesn't mean that the proper procedures need to be ignored. The "behind the scenes" processes can be properly done and the meeting can still run in an outwardly relaxed manner.
It would be a terrible outcome if these welcome VCC events unfortunately became the subject of another Queenstown incident.
All the initial Police input was disorganized and misdirected, being pushed by a then MANZ steward. If good investigating had been done from the start without all of the emotionalism that took place, MANZ would have been included in the charges instead of having to admit to having some responsibility, when those accused were found not guilty.They were found not guilty as the directives they had made were correct to the International Motorsport laws, as I said in an earlier post the duties of some of those involved were not carried out effectively.not those who organized the event but by those who chose to take on duties running the event.
Originally Posted by Racer Rog
Some interesting factual information is available. Click here. -----
http://rivers.org.nz/article/crimina...-in-recreation
N.B. the included statement. ---- “As the law in New Zealand stands at present, (i.e. 2004) criminal nuisance can arise from ordinary errors of judgement. In Britain, Canada and Australia, gross negligence is required.”
Has there been any amendment in the law, or does this situation still apply? In the event that the law stands, it is surely idiotic for any person to become involved with organising a motor racing event, given the current attitude of the police in pressing ahead with doubtful prosecutions.
Trevor.
Last edited by Trevor Sheffield; 07-05-2012 at 04:43 AM. Reason: Hot address
I can well remember the Officier in charge, who was a rising star in the Police at that time, arriving on the scene, and he knew more about Motor Sport regs, than the CoC and Stewarts, and the fact that there was Police personal involved in the accident( ask Karen Clearwater about that, she was the point marshall, and this is where things got very strange), but that man was on a mission to make a name for himself, I guess when looking back on the whole thing, we where lucky it was not worse, and it was a wke up call, but one that Motor sport, was really not fully prepared for, but I must say now, there are systems in place, and are being continually evolved as a direct resault, so that is one positve point about Motor Sport NZ today.
Roger
Trevor, as I understand it, from a lawyer mate( if they ever have mates) that is correct.
Thanks Roger,
I gather that you are advising that the law still stands in its original form with no amendments, in which case:-
Section 145 of the Crimes Act 1961 states, under the heading “Criminal Nuisance, --- “Every one commits criminal nuisance who does any unlawful act or omits to discharge any legal duty, such act or omission being one which he knew would endanger the lives, safety, or health of the public, or the life, safety, or health of any individual
Does the work of a non paid volunteer involve a legal duty and just how much specific knowledge is an individual expected to have? All and sundry appear to remain culpable and the extent of possible liability is endless. Anyone in any way receiving remuneration traceable to a payment made by a competitor or spectator, would surely be in shit street.
The honorary club secretary slips up by not checking that a competitor has presented a valid vehicle inspection, or a volunteer helping with the dummy grid lets out a car not properly verified. Subsequently the car brakes are found defective following a prang involving several spectators. Where in fact does everyone stand and are volunteers aware of possible liabilities? What sort of public liability insurance is put in place towards their protection?
Trevor.
P.S. We must presume that the medical profession remains outside of this law.
Last edited by Trevor Sheffield; 07-05-2012 at 07:20 AM. Reason: P.S. Added
I'm a newbie on here but have followed this thread for some time, even whilst travelling overseas.
My biggest fear as a series organiser and occasional promoter, is that there is a fatality either at the meeting or within our series. It haunts me, and some of my decisions, even today, are driven by the Queenstown accident.
The toughest decision I have made in recent years was suspending a likeable and friendly series driver, following a second incident within 5 years, plus a couple of other respected drivers' complaints. Had this same driver subsequently been involved in a fatal and I had done nothing, then in my eyes, let alone the courts', I would have been culpable. No doubt about that. (I spent six years working in the UK Prison Service and have no wish to be in one of Her Majesty's Hotels in NZ.)
VCC cars have a massive speed differential and some of the drivers may not be as track savvy as say the Formula Junior drivers and you do not need to be going fast, to be thrown from a vintage car with no seat belts.
Having been part of Roycroft for two years as an invited commentator, I can verify earlier comments regarding some aspects of the meeting. The programme was indeed improved for 2012 after I had explained that it was almost impossible to commentate without accurate information in 2011, and no pre-event info.
Fortunately, for me, I know most of the Formula Junior cars and drivers, so that race wasn't too difficult in 2011. Trying to commentate when you aren't familiar with the VCC cars or the drivers, with race numbers in the programme not always matching up was a problem. Fortunately, Graeme was a massive help trackside, and I then had to rely on memory when I moved to race control, in the apartment blocks, away from the timekeeper and the results.
For 2012, I was one of those who ended up doing something other than my primary role. As commentator, my job, as I see it, is to inform spectators (if any!) of what is going on, that they can't see for themselves. A task that was impossible when trying to call up the paddock to the dummy grid, as this job wasn't being covered by VCC.
The sound system at HD leaves a lot to be desired so I spent part of the time chasing latecomers to the dummy grid. Maybe that is what screwdriver was alluding to. For my part, with better info from Ian G, I did know a bit more than in 2011 and several cars were repeats, which helps.
This is a fantastic meeting with fantastic cars and Waitemata VCC are moving forwards, but I did wince a few times... I urge Graeme and his team to consider using the motorsport entry system, as it does indeed take a load of work away from the secretariat. Used properly it is a massive time saver.
I'd love to be able to promote a meeting with our regular classic grids and also a grid of VCC cars, as they are great to watch and 1000% better than the NZV8 and Tier 1 races.
Trevor, Think that If you were a volunteer, or a paid official, you would be liable under section 145, [B]IF you failed to discharge your duties as set down by your own regulations[B] so this why we are protected by our manual, step outside of that when it all turns to shit, and you do at your own peril, along with the added levies imposed on the rest of us to bail you out, but the short and sweet of it is that you could be looking out of a small window, in a small room with Bubba. I do know that there are many here that share these concerns, Motor Sport NZ has asked the VCC for a formal accident report, from a serous accident at Levels, to my current knowledge, this has not been done, the vehicles involved did not conform to the current agreement with MSNZ, the VCC respnse was very poor, at best, and it was MSNZ officials to took charge, and this accident was only a click of the neck away from having a dead competitor, in fact I think he has just got rid of the bits of steel that held his head on his neck!!, avery close call, while it still may have happened, its the Failure of doting of the i's and crossing the t's, and this is where Section 145 would have got them, and we may or may not have, been a party to any libility, as it could have been argued that we were aware of these facts, even though we are just being nice to the competitors. ( a problem I don't have, I'm not nice to anyone!!) BAH Humbug
Roger
One of the early lessons I learned in my Prison Service training, from a wise old Principal Officer.
"If you are in management, then you have to be prepared to be a b*st*rd when required."
So, yes, totally agree Roger. Being nice to competitors is fine until such times as you invoke the responsibilities of your position, be that as an event official, series organisor, or marshal. The book is there. We have to abide by it. Our series regulations or articles are only there to give me the backing for any decisions and also a degree of consistency. If that makes me/us unpopular, so be it and no amount of threats, legal or otherwise, from a disgruntled driver who has been excluded for dubious driving, is going to change it.
Hi Racer Rog, nice to see that my continual lectures at the post event Stewards meetings have been listened too and that we are reading from the same page.
Yes the Clerk of course is responsible for the meeting from the moment that the regulations are released until his closing report is received. The C of C is reponsible for the actions off all officials working under their control be thet gatekeepers, scruitineers of flag marshals
When the Stewards sign off the clearance certificate at the beginning of a meeting they are confirming that the C of C has demonstrated to them at all the safety aspects of the event are up to the requirements of the safety plan and fully operational. The Stewards constantly observe to ensure that competition is fair, safe and conducted within the rule of the sport. This applies to all events be they hiilclimbs, sprints or race meetings etc.
As you can quickly see both the C of C and the Stewards have one hellave responsibility, a responsibility that should someone downstream of them not conduct their role or task as per the rule book will see that their personal liberty is at risk
Thanks again Roger,
Therefore anyone providing assistance at a motor race who does not know about, or fully understand MSNZ regulations, which would apparently set down the legal duty to be provided, unwittingly remains at substantial risk, even though normal diligence was applied.
My point, which I now rest. --- Are spontaneous volunteers made aware of their possible culpability and does MSNZ offer them any degree of cover? Having regard for the essential services provided by so many willing helpers, this is surely an important subject.
Trevor.
Trevor, you are right to a degree, but Carl has nailed it, it is the chain of responibility, and flows to the top,so when the Stewards sign it off for the meeting to start, there has been a lot lot of water flow under the bridge at that point, trouble starts if you do not follow the plan, so to speak, and this is where MSNZ spends considerable time money and effort, in training to get all officials reading off the same page, and I would say, in the most part they have done well in doing this, our rules and regulations are being looked at questioned etc all the time, to ensure the competitors and officials get the most upto date protection, in both a legal, as well as a physical sense ( current safty standards) For MSNZ to ignor, current safety standards, could in fact, have cause of action under Section 145.So just for fun racing is not quite so for running it, and as Carl has said, the debrief is a very important factor, and this is done so any issues can be addressed ( Yes I do Listen Carl) and systems improved.
Roger
BUT one thing I would say, is that althought all competitors get a manual, very few will carry it with them, or read it!!!
Again Roger,
Unfortunately I am unable to let the matter rest due to my two simple questions calling for a “yes” or “no”, not being answered. ---
“Are spontaneous volunteers made aware of their precarious position and does MSNZ offer them any degree of cover.”
At this point it must be assumed that volunteers accept responsibility and unwittingly place themselves in danger of serious litigation without insurance protection, which however is no doubt available to those receiving remuneration at the top.
Yes the chain of responsibility flows to the top, but it starts at the bottom where the can is in fact carried and where investigation will be initiated and blame first directed.
Trevor.
No and yes I presume.
Although I have attended many marshal's briefings and a fair few driver briefings, I would hope that every volunteer does his or her best and that MSNZ will back them.
As a long time flaggie, about to return to the UK (sadly), I'll pose a question to those of you with experience of running a meeting. Quite a few of you it seems.
Are you satisfied by the fire cover at meetings? Is the MSNZ book of words acceptable to you? If you adhere to the MSNZ directives, to the letter, then are you safe - or is MSNZ safe?
I ask this as my flaggie fire training was quite structured, in as much as the UK flaggies used to use a 4 x 2 system when dealing with a fire. (This was a fair few years ago. I know fire extinguisher technology has improved somewhat.) Two extinguishers were used to knock the fire down and two were then used to smother it. On arrival in NZ I was staggered to find that they only ever had one extinguisher per post and in those days, with single layer Proban suits, driver protection was minimal.
Suit technology has improved too, but your modern Flamecrusher suit is only good for about 30 seconds in a fuel fire.
So I ask again, are you satisfied that a single extinguisher on a post is sufficient and that the marshal, with thinking time included, say 10 seconds, can get to a fire and do something positive in 20 seconds?
Again, a fair few years ago, I drove a so called fire car in NZ. The roll cage wasn't even attached to the car.
Without crossing ALL the Ts and dotting all the I's, we can always improve our systems but motorsport will always have an element of danger, but we have to stand by our officials and unless they have been grossly negligent, I would hope we never have another Queenstown.
Last edited by screwdriver; 07-06-2012 at 09:11 AM.
Would be nice to see a grid of proper VCC cars, that are in the spirit of the VCC, as was the entry at the Roycroft meeting, at a regular MSNZ meeting
Could not agree more! That would be fantastic and after all; I assume what we all want.
MotorSport NZ DID NOT appoint Brian Lawerence to any position and he does not hold any position paid or unpaid within MSNZ
There were facets in this unfortunate saga that were due to a breakdown in organisation. Basically; "follow what the rulebook states and do not stray from it and you will not face the same consequences" was the lesson we learnt from Queenstown ...a harsh and expensive one at that.
Posting Permissions
