The State of NZ Motorsport.

[ERC]

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.

Great! We are running a one day meeting the Sunday after Roycroft next year, also at Hampton Downs. I am happy to offer the VCC a grid if they are interested and as long as there are no MSNZ issues. I don't want to devalue the Roycroft in any way at all but my thinking is that if we can get more South Island cars up to Roycroft, maybe they would consider it more worthwhile staying for the week.

Maybe this should be a separate thread... I'll go ahead and repeat this message in a new thread.

[Trevor Sheffield]

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.

Kia ora crunch,

Having been unable to secure a difrect answer in respect of an important situation, I now direct my questions to you. Please, first off with no preamble, a direct answer, yes or no and yes or no.

(1) Are spontaneous volunteers made aware of their precarious position as a result of the law and (2) does MSNZ offer them any degree of cover.


You state ---- "follow what the rule book states and do not stray from it and you will not face the same consequences" (Conversely, otherwise you could very well suffer the same serious consequences.)

Are all volunteers provided with a rule book, or made exactly aware of the contents of the rule book? Are they in truth aware of the possibly serious predicament they face?

The law as it stands. --- “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.”

Although endeavouring to abide by the rule book a volunteer who by chance “omits to discharge any legal duty” remains at risk, particularly as it can be proven by the book that “such act or omission being (is) one which he knew would endanger the lives”. In point of fact the rules hang him rather than offer protection. Bully for the administrators.

A new flag marshal on a club day confronted with an accident, flustered confused and without real experience inadvertently in haste grabs and waves the wrong flag. As a result other points do not immediately display the correct red and a disastrous pile up results involving the public as spectators. Alternatively, a crowd marshal does not prevent a spectator invading a dangerous area. There are endless similar dicey situations, in all of which it would appear that the marshal involved stands alone facing an ill defined law.

By contrast,those at the top, having provided adequate rules and instructions, remain isolated from any alleged unlawful act and what is more are no doubt covered via MSNZ public liability insurance. The unpaid marshal or helper, can well be left carrying the can. Just where do these important volunteers stand if they were to face litigation.?

Trevor.

[markec]

Like Queenstown Trevor, out on their own.

[Carlo]

To put it in simplestic terms, if I as a clerk of course empower an incompent person who does not follow their instructions and training that maybe I should have provided then that is my fault. The guys at the bottom of the heap are ok, it is the ones at the top who are in strife if underachievers and the incompetents of our world go out on their own agenda cause we let them. If we follow the rules and documented procedure then everyone is safe. If the procedures are wrong then everyone can learn from that and changes will be made. The problem occurs when you go outside of the requirements. It is exactly the same in industry, follow the rules and impliment a practise of continious improvement

Our biggest mistake is that we feel sorry for people and as any good old garage proprietor will tell you. the moment you feel sorry for someone, back off as it will hurt you in the end, their problem is their problem, don't make it yours.

[Trevor Sheffield]

Like Queenstown Trevor, out on their own.

Thanks markec,

Exactly as had I had assumed. The diversion and side stepping by others is starting to tell its own story and confirm an unfortunate situation.

Trevor.

[crunch]

Thanks markec,

Exactly as had I had assumed. The diversion and side stepping by others is starting to tell its own story and confirm an unfortunate situation.

Trevor.

Hello Trevor

My personal understanding is that a flag marshall or similar should have a briefing at each meeting they attend. Within that briefing should be a review of what their function is and how to do it. Anything less would be irresponsible.
Attendance (and hopefully listening & understanding the briefing) is all that is required so that can function in that role.

At the end of the day; the "buck" stops with MSNZ Licencsed officials. That is the CotC.

I will contact our legal advisor to get a more legally worded reply.

[crunch]

And to you and Markec, I am not side-stepping any issue as you insinuate. I am endeavouring to get a correct reply.

[Trevor Sheffield]

Greetings crunch,

The questions are simple and straight forward and every executive member of MSNZ should be aware and capable of providing the required yes or no.

With due respect it can surely now be safely assumed that. ----

(1) Are spontaneous volunteers made aware of their precarious position as a result of the law, (i.e. directly and specifically.) NO they are not.

(2) does MSNZ offer them any degree of cover, (e.g. insurance cover, guaranteed legal assistance or a written disclaimer.) NO it does not.

No “legally worded reply” can alter what is fact, no matter the jargon employed. The crunch of the matter involves where blame will start, not where at the end of the day, the buck stops.

Trevor.

[ERC]

I am glad you raised this issue Trevor. Each licenced driver gets a rule book when they get a race /rally licence. Volunteers do not.

In the days before I started racing, I'd be on a flag point at Whenuapai and Pukekohe and have many happy memories of those times. I know that current flag marshals' briefings are very comprehensive compared to what we had and whenever possible, you have an experienced point chief, who basically controls the point, but not always.

However, I know I am not the only one in this forum who has been competing at a race meeting and heard the call for volunteers to assist, as there are insufficient flaggies to man all points and the meeting cannot start until the points are covered. I just wonder how many on those flag points are indeed inexperienced?

Locally, the Motorsport Club has made huge strides to get people involved on a more structured basis, but we are always going to get inexperienced volunteers and even then, even experience doesn't mean you always make the right decision.

I sincerely hope we never hang a low level volunteer out to dry for an error of judgement.

As an aside, I still believe that before anyone gets a race licence, that they should spend at least two or three days on a flag point at a national meeting.

And another aside, I believe that even Mike Pero earlier this year, didn't realise that flaggies and officials were unpaid.

[Trevor Sheffield]

Thank you ERC,

You wisely comment --- "I sincerely hope we never hang a low level volunteer out to dry for an error of judgement."

The very point if this exercise is that it is the law which will decide and then due to factors beyond control. Therefore unsuspecting, unpaid helpers, should be protected. Current NZ law renders the situation you fear a very real possibility. I very much suspect that argument from the MSNZ camp will centre on and be limited to efforts to show that volunteers are not in fact vulnerable and therefore do not require protection.

Trevor.

[crunch]

With due respect it can surely now be safely assumed that. ----


Trevor.[/QUOTE]

An old mentor of mine (Rob Lester) use to say to me when somebody uses the above statement, they actually mean "with no respect whatsoever"

Personally; volunteers in my opinion do not face the "brunt of the law" as you suggest. That is differnet to your view and lets hope we never have to test it.

[richard lester]

With due respect it can surely now be safely assumed that. ----


Trevor.

An old mentor of mine (Rob Lester) use to say to me when somebody uses the above statement, they actually mean "with no respect whatsoever"

Personally; volunteers in my opinion do not face the "brunt of the law" as you suggest. That is differnet to your view and lets hope we never have to test it.[/QUOTE]
you are so right crunch...we as robs kids grew up on that logic.....this has been an absorbing thread about a not really likely scenario....and seemingly to a degree fuelled by this general dislike of MNZ regardless of the topic .....this thread is of no interest to me at all but watching people grind away is interesting..... i guess if i was affected too much i would stop jumping on airplanes and certainly give up driving on our roads.....(no insult intended to anyone here BTW)..

[ERC]

Whilst it would be nice to think that volunteers do not face the brunt of the law, NZ has a "we must find a perpetrator or someone to blame mentality", driven by a mixturre of OSH and a battery of US influenced lawyers. The police have to find someone to put into court and then let the court/jury decide if they are guilty, so I wouldn't be too complacent.

Even if found not guilty by the court, the stress and mental strain (and possible financial strain) of having a trial hanging over your head for a year or two, does not bear thinking about. Juries are a strange mix of individuals (I spent enough time as a dock officer in places such as the Old Bailey, to really worry about some of them!) and I think we do need a categoric answer (from an MSNZ lawyer?) to state that we stand behind those volunteers, as without them, there ain't no racing.

This is by no means a criticism of MSNZ, just a desire for an open answer and some clarification.

[Trevor Sheffield]

With due respect it can surely now be safely assumed that. ----


Trevor.

An old mentor of mine (Rob Lester) use to say to me when somebody uses the above statement, they actually mean "with no respect whatsoever"

Personally; volunteers in my opinion do not face the "brunt of the law" as you suggest. That is differnet to your view and lets hope we never have to test it.

crunch & Co.,

“With due respect” has exact meaning, regardless of what your old mentor instructed in error and by way of opinion, i.e. I have respect for you, what you say, your opinion, your views. I do not resort to sarcasm as you have done and there is never anything to read between my lines. I resent your insidious side swipe.

Contrary to your implication, I have not suggested that the volunteers will face “the brunt of the law,” but rather that they are in peril of becoming involved in expensive lengthy contentious litigation, possibly leading to a conviction.

Your words, “let us hope that we never have to test it,” exactly confirm the situation affecting volunteers. It is significant that in such an instance of hope, only the “us” will stand protected and and an error in your personal opinion would not effect your well-being.

P.S. Meantime I am carrying out my own research concerning the exact degree of risk involved.

Trevor.

[Trevor Sheffield]

An old mentor of mine (Rob Lester) use to say to me when somebody uses the above statement, they actually mean "with no respect whatsoever"

Personally; volunteers in my opinion do not face the "brunt of the law" as you suggest. That is - to your view and lets hope we never have to test it.
you are so right crunch...we as robs kids grew up on that logic.....this has been an absorbing thread about a not really likely scenario....and seemingly to a degree fuelled by this general dislike of MNZ regardless of the topic .....this thread is of no interest to me at all but watching people grind away is interesting..... i guess if i was affected too much i would stop jumping on airplanes and certainly give up driving on our roads.....(no insult intended to anyone here BTW)..

It is clear that the MSNZ officials have been carefully diligent in keeping themselves safe. However my concern centres on individual volunteers, who as it has been pointed out, form an essential element within NZ motor sport.

By default, as a result of a failure to provide an answer to my simple questions, ---“Are spontaneous volunteers made aware of their precarious position and does MSNZ offer them any degree of cover.” *It has now become clear that
volunteers are not made aware of their precarious position and furthermore are not offered any degree of cover. Granted, there is a limited degree of risk, but volunteers should be devoid of and protected against, any possible risk. Morals are involved.

A lawyers opinion amounts to just that and will be subject to a watertight disclaimer and no guarantee. In no way will an opinion alter the situation and provide volunteers with true protection. As per established precedent the risk depends on the attitude of those implementing the law in respect of individual incidents. Investigation concerning possible insurance cover would determine in real terms, the risk factor involved. No work is called for, insurance reps will line up at the door. If as claimed the risks are small, the premium should be relative and viable.

* Ignorance of law:-
The fact that an offender is ignorant of the law is not an excuse for any offence committed by him.

The Law:-
Crimes against public welfare, 145 Criminal nuisance
(1) 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.
(2) Every one who commits criminal nuisance is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 1 year.

Trevor.

[Racer Rog]

In my version of how MSNZ operates, is this any volunteer, who is operating under MSNZ rules, are covered by those rules, and as been stated by others here,most if not all are given training to carry out these duties, yes I know there has been a call at some meetings for Flaggies, I have done it myself, but all have been briefed and understand the flags, and I would say 99.9% arein radio contact with the CoC, who is giving supporting advice. Now Trevor here is the hard part, with all the good intentions in the world, you are never going to get a real answer to your question, as when you get two Lawyers in a room, they will never agree, so what we really do is limit the damage, by following our written procedure, I have spoken long and hard with a Lawyer (yes he is a friend, just don't tell anybody) and it is a mine field, but put the hard yards in, also of note, the organizor of Le Race, won on appeal, but must have cost a fortune, this is why we pay the big bucks to MSNZ, in my own humble opinion, I don,t think the VCC has the same resources or experience to cover an "Queenstown", and recent experience would indeed confirm it. The Long and short of it is follow the rules, that is our level of protection, and esuring that this is done, is the job of the CoC, so he is the man in the hot seat, Trevor I know this is not the answer you would like, I don't think you will get one one or the other, for any answer you get saying yes, I will get another saying no, your best protection is follow the rules, I can't put it any simpler
Roger

[Oldfart]

Having pulled a post I wrote in haste last night..
I am not going to defend VCC over the incidents which the oblique references are made on here, I assume Timaru?
From what I understand these came about at a combined MSNZ and VCC meet?
I am also told by a steward that the cars competed with the agreement of both the MSNZ and VCC stewards present on the day. hat I m now asking is why it is that the VCC is having the finger pointed? Surely if both were involved it is a trouble shared?
I was told by a steward who was present, but not officiating that what he saw was a case of red mist. If that is the case, then is it not time that as drivers we take responsibility and stop blaming organisers? I have believed that since the late 60s when I first dabbled the standards of driving have deteriorated. In my book, "rubbing ain't racing", go drive at the stock cars if that is what is what you want. A driver who initiates an accident from over driving should bear all the costs of the others. Car damage, personal injury, loss of income etc. I suspect that might clean a bit of it up.
I was told when I first started, and I have NOT driven at any real level, but did flag to the GP level, that the flags are to help the driver make good decisions. As a sometimes driver now I find that the flags confuse me more than help. Yellow flags used when there is a car pulled well off the track, no greens to indicate the danger has passed, red flag when are car has pulled off and is in a place the drivers have known for the last couple of laps etc etc. And these were from a team who travel as flaggies, get re-imbursed for travel etc etc??

[Racer Rog]

OLDFART, please bush up on the flags before you go out next, and yes it was at Timaru, but it was a VCC race, their own permit, officials tec guys the lot, MSNZ stands aside when they race, but it wqas MSNZ that had to step in when it turned to shit.
Roger

[Carlo]

http://www.motorsport.org.nz/sites/d...07%2066-89.pdf

It would be good if the people involved in this debate were to read the section relating to Part 7 Officials and look at their duties and authority.
With those roles defined you can easily see where the responsibilty lies and whilst using the Clerk of Course as an example, they may delegate the responsibility for a task to be done they cannot delegate the responsibility for that task being undertaken correctly.

[Trevor Sheffield]

http://www.motorsport.org.nz/sites/d...07%2066-89.pdf

It would be good if the people involved in this debate were to read the section relating to Part 7 Officials and look at their duties and authority.
With those roles defined you can easily see where the responsibilty lies and whilst using the Clerk of Course as an example, they may delegate the responsibility for a task to be done they cannot delegate the responsibility for that task being undertaken correctly.

MSNZ can not eliminate personal responsibility as has been defined in law. Rules and regulations set out by MSNZ can do no more than protect MSNZ as an organisation, not individuals who must as such abide by the law. From the outset I have been fully aware of all ramifications involved in this issue. The facts of the matter stand.

Volunteers officiating at a motor race are placed at risk and are vulnerable due to the current law, no matter that the risk may be hopefully marginal. Many are unaware of their situation and remain unprotected, the degree of risk is beside the point.

Denying the situation by arguing as to the degree of risk, amounts to pissing into the wind.

Trevor.