Good to see common sense at last
Printable View
Good to see common sense at last
The VCC / MSNZ matter is a bit of a minefield but as Racer Rog has pointed out, it is being slowly sorted. In a pure form the VCC field should stop at 1960 cars (or continuation cars the same as a 1960 model) - after that, the MSNZ structure takes over even though the MSNZ Appendix K rules cater for cars back to those built before 1930.
I think MSNZ has enough trouble getting it's mind around the particular requirements for 1960 cars (race gas issue, roll bar issue etc) without trying to cope with earlier cars. On this basis the VCC is a better structure to deal with these earlier cars. However, it is pretty evident that the VCC clubs do not have the experience of running circuit meetings and this is an area that needs improvement, if only for their own protection. At a recent unnamed VCC event (not Roycroft) I had my log book signed off for a scrutineering audit without anyone setting eyes on my car!
The mixed grid at the southern tracks earlier this year did cause a few problems and eventuated in a complaint to the Clerk of the Course on safety grounds. To their credit it was resolved but grids of more like cars usually get around these issues. We are in contact with Formula Junior drivers in the UK, Europe and Australia and it looks reasonably positive that there will be a large contingent coming out here over January / February 2013. Hopefully we have enough cars to have our own grid. Interestingly, when the Juniors race at the Denny Hulme Festival in January 2013 it will be under MSNZ jurisdiction but when we subsequently go south with the same cars we will be racing under VCC jurisdiction.
It seems to me that there a few "seeds of confusion".
RacerRog has said "a deal was done that would allow members of the VCC to race in the correct class with the need to belong to a MotorSport NZ club, they decided not to honour that agreement for reasons unknown". Now I may be prepared to try to understand this, but I think a few more details are needed. If there were members of VCC who went and raced in other meetings in violation of this, surely it was the officials of that meeting who allowed them to do so, so the officials should have insisted on the appropriate membership, and of course this implies licences.
If they did not have the right licences it is even worse. And of course you can not have either a VCC competiton licence, nor an MSNZ one without being a member of an affiliated club.
In regards "my proposed class" I am happy to restate, all cars will be only allowed to compete as long as they have a VIC (vehicle Identity Card) issued by the VCC which shows a pre Dec 31 1960 date. I have been considering actually moving this date older, ie (or eg) pre 1959 as it is pointed out in the VCC constitution that you can not prevent any member competing as long as they have an appropriate dating on their vehicle, so having a rule banning 105/109e and minis would violate this constitutional right.
I do have to say that if some of my money for my National MSNZ licence is used for training, for example flag marshals provided at HD Roycroft meeting, the training needs re-visiting. I am not prepared to publically debate this issue, but would accept emails via the PM system.
In regard the true VCC cars, I cannot but agree with Racer Rog, with the small proviso that there are some cars which do not have anywhere else to run. My own Buckler, now being taken back to pre 60 format being an example, and there are a fair few others.
The numbers of both car clubs and members of those clubs who do not belong to MSNZ is a wonderful red herring. There are a huge number of "Car Clubs", most based in Auckland, who have zero interest in Motorsport, eg's which spring to mind are Peugeot, MicroCar, etc. They have no need to belong, and the cost would have a significant negative impact on them for no benefit whatever. Our beloved govt calls this cost/ benefit ratio I believe.
I guees that it is great that we have a forum to debate this, we just all need to remember why we do this!
Oldfart, I made a mistake when I typed that out, what I meant to say, was, "with out belonging to a MotorSport NZ club" my mind was racing away from my fingers at that point, but the short and sweet answer to that was, the VCC circuit competitors would get a MotorSport NZ licence, ( Level Playing Field in terms of cost) and MotorSport NZ would make a couple of changes to their log books and both log books would be recognized by the auditors and the meeting and races would be run by MotorSport CoC etc, thus ensuring the level of protection needed in case of major accidents. What this meant was the present age barrier to competition, post 1960, for the VCC, was then negated, as vehicles would then be placed in the appropriate class, problems solved, as I think there would only be about 20 to 30 VCC competitors that don't already hold MotorSport NZ licences I personally did not see a big deal in all this, but they changed their minds, and pissed a few off in MotorSport NZ for their troubles, and soured the relationship they once enjoyed.
Roger H, you will under MSNZ governance at the ENZED Classic, the only field that will run under VCC will be there mixed bag field if they run at all, we are trying to encourage some of the true VCC cars out, but who knows?
I hope that throws a bit of light on the subject for people, there was a couple of other things but really of a minor nature, and made no difference either way. Any Questions?
Roger
It would seem that there are always some individuals who will sour things for the majority, and this seems a good example.
I think you would be very wrong in your 20 to 30, my suspicion is closer to 10 times that number. We move in different circles!
VCC certainly recognizes the MSNZ licence and logbook, reciprocal does not appear to be the case.
If it did "piss off a few in MSNZ"....
I would think that at the Roycroft meeting about 80% of the competitors didn't have MSNZ licences, so I tend to agree with Oldfart that the number is much greater than 20 to 30.
Does the VCC actually issue a log book? If not, how do they record scrutineering and car audits?
You could be right, its hard to know, what I do know is that a few let their MSNZ licences go when they learned that the vCC would accept their vehicles and that a licence cost $35 for 5 years or something along those lines, but that only applied to circuit racing, not trials or hill climbs, which would appear that they have been the traditional facets of VCC competition as I understand it, but I am only speaking with knowledge of the South Island, and the VCC does not recognize a MSNZ licence down here , but most Auditors will use their log books.in fact I believe that a vehicle should only have one log book this is just from a safety angle, and personally I don't care who's it is, as long as there is a record of competitive events the vehicle has been entered in and any faults that may have been found corrected etc but that was part of the deal that was rejected, I did thnk it was a win win for all concerned, most other countries have the same licence for competion, in the UK the RACMSA handles all those.
Roger
Yes to both Rogers, VCC do issue log books after the issue of a VIC. The VCC licence applies to VCC Speed events. If they are run by a MSNZ club solely, obviously the appropriate MSNZ licence is needed. If it is a combined event then the licence can be for the event (or part of) you entered. Roger H like the Taupo December meeting, you used your MSNZ, I used my VCC.
Log book, total agreement that should be only one for a particular vehicle.
Apparently Brian Lawrence has been appointed by Motorsport New Zealand to sort out the classes and to undertake the promotional duties within the The MSNZ Promotional Company. Wasn't he one those who stuffed it up originally and was the reason MSNZ now are the owners of what to all intents and purposes is an illegal organization.
I thought that Brian Lawrence had been employed by MSP (MotorSport Promotions Limited - the old re-named TMC). However on reading the press release on the MSP web site I'm not too sure :Quote:
Originally Posted by markec
Marketing Management – Brian Lawrence
After 11 years in Australia Brian returns to Auckland as Marketing Manager for NZV8 Touring cars working in conjunction with MotorSport Promotions Limited.
It actually says "working in conjunction with MotorSport Promotions" which does not necessarily mean working for them. If he has been directly employed by MSNZ then this would be another example where MSNZ has lost sight of who's interests they are meant to be acting.
From my recollection Brian was the GM of Global Promotions who ran Tier 1 many years ago. They got into strife and MSNZ had to bail them out. In the process they increased their (actually member club's) shareholding from 40% to 60% and levied a "one-off" $50 charge on all competition licences to pay for the bail out - however the $50 surcharge was never revoked and we are still paying it today!
Keith Jones was the GM of Global Sports & Promotions and they were involved with a number of sports, Athletics, Soccer & Netball just to name a few, remember the Countrywide atletics meetings on TV, well that was all promoted by Global Sports & Promotions.
Brian Lawrence was their Motorsport man, John Adshead was their soccer man and I think that John Walker may have had something to do with athletics but I can not be too sure.
Keith was an absolute bundle of drive and energy and if I recall correctly, and I do stand to be corrected on this, some serious health issues affected his ability to run and control the business and he was unable to secure some of the sponsorships needed and some groups were left with activities planned and just about under action but without the required funding of the sponsorships. This in turn lead to the formation of TMC by the circuit owning clubs and MSNZ as they set about trying to recover the situation. Remember too that this all happened about the same time as the cars were on the water from the USA & UK etc for the summer series so there was no time to be lost.
All part of history now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markec
You could also be forgiven for mentioning Global's efforts with the World Superbikes at Manfield, or the varying misfortunes of DJR a few years back... Brett Stephens Racing...one would wonder what the successful cv entailed when the position was allocated.
Anyway, onward and upward...:cool:
Thank goodness someone who was there can confirm my opinion of the Roycroft. There were crucial manning positions totally overlooked - and it wasn't a shortage of manpower.Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerH
RogerH is well aware of how most local classic meetings run and how well they run when manned correctly. AMCO72 may well be surprised at these omissions, but it is to the credit of one or two non VCC people that the meeting ran as well as it did as they were drafted in or had their original roles expanded. Outsiders (meaning those who have never actually run a meeting) are always blown away the first time they get involved as from the driving seat, meetinmgs "just happen".
HRC and TACCOC for example, make it all look so smooth and easy, as they have well honed system and personnel, who know what they are doing. The development of the internet and the on line entry system for example, has made race organisation so much easier, as no longer do organisers have to print and circulate 400+ sets of regs for every meeting.
VCC elected to do everything manually and this in itself creates problems for those who have an involvement and need comprehensive and accurate information. Just as an example, the 2011 Roycroft programme didn't even have the VCC driver's Christian names published and there were several instances of the same car race number being used more than once in a race grid! (That still happens now and again at many meetings and is up to the meeting officials to sort out before the programme is published. No fun for a marshal or race official, dummy grid marshal, timekeeper, scrutineer, commentator, race reporter, photographer or even spectator.) Thankfully 2012 was slightly better.
Ironically, post Roycroft, I am not sure that the organisers have those manning omissions covered for next year. I would have thought that the logical thing to do would be to have a debrief from those from outside the VCC who got stuck in to make the meeting run and add to the knowledge base.
We look forward to the DVD of the meeting.
Perhaps if Screwdriver would be kind enough to email me privately and explain what he is actually talking about, the VCC might just be able to "have those manning omissions covered for next year." Yes it would be logical to have a debrief from those from outside the VCC who got stuck in to make the meeting run and add to the knowledge base if only we knew who they were. This is all a surprise to me as the meeting was run with close consultation with the Hampton Downs management who I believe are very close to the same HRC that you say make the meetings run smooth and easy.
Graeme Banks
Secretary Treasurer
Waitemata Branch Vintage Car Club of NZ
email. waitemata@vcc.co.nz
Would do Graeme!
But:
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
waitemata@vcc.co.nz
Sorry should be waitemata@vcc.org.nz
I feel the need to respond to Screwdrivers "copy and paste" from another thread.
Please be aware that I have almost no involvement with the organisation, but am a very willing participant, so I am not defending the organisers, just expressing a view from one who participates.
Please have a look at the origin of the piece you pasted from Roger Herrick, and make sure that you have not taken it out of context.
You make mention of "doing everything manually and this creates problems...." now I am curious who these people are who need such detailed information. There are no prizes, no results, handicaps are treated with no seriousness at all, so who really cares?
In 2011 there were NO lap times taken and the entrants gridded themselves where they liked, generally finding others with whom they could play, and the vast majority, if not all, loved that.
In 2012 there was an offer from someone to manually time, this offer was accepted (and help offered) and as far as I could see it worked just fine.
In regard programmes, please remember that the "spirit" of the event is what matters, and if you can find programmes from the "good old days" they rarely (if ever) had other than initials, perhaps this is what was intended? If you look at the "advertising" in the programme it was likewise period, does this come in for criticism as well?
I also think you need to discover who it was that asked if they could cover the on circuit manning BEFORE you make further comment in this regard. (And I won't comment on the ability of some of those either)
I do have criticisms, some of these relate to the abilities of the on track officials, some are at a management issue, but I have taken the (unusual?) step to address them to the organisers, rather than a forum, and also used my name.
The running of an event is not an easy task - from a competitor and spectator perspective it all seems pretty straightforward if things run smoothly. However, if things go wrong the repercussions can be very significant if proper procedures were not followed.
Having attended (as a competitor) many events over the years, it is evident that the standards of race organisation varies considerably. The VCC type events are usually more "relaxed" and while this may be part of the "spirit" I fear that this relaxation and lack of officialdom may be a bit of a time bomb.
Through my committee involvement with TACCOC, I know of the extent of effort required to put on a meeting. TACCOC has a well proven system honed over several decades. The system works well and relies on a lot of volunteer input but a significant part of the system is ensuring that if anything goes wrong there is no room for comeback on the club or officials.
The VCC events (such as the Roycroft meeting) are a very welcome addition to the calendar and I hope that they grow in popularity. With that growth in popularity comes demands for greater efficiency and the requirement for slicker event structure - this may impact on the relaxed atmosphere, at least behind the scene.
I don't think we can expect a club that is new at this (eg: the Waitemata Branch) to come up to speed overnight. Clubs like TACCOC are happy to help (in fact, TACCOC provided assistance at the Roycroft meeting) but I think the VCC clubs putting on events need to balance the "spirit" and relaxed atmosphere with ensuring that they protect themselves in case something does go wrong and have a structure that can cope with the demands of putting on a large event.
The Roycroft meeting was a good and popular event and was an improvement on the previous one. There is room for improvement and I trust the organisers are aware of these issues. I'm sure that if they approached people like HRC and TACCOC who have considerable experience, they would be pleased to offer advice.
Agree with everything you say Roger, and there is ALWAYS room for improvement. One of the reasons I gave up on motorsport in the 70s was that there were clubs, some still in existance that refused to change, or learn from anything. One of the clubs you name has in the past accepted money for entries, cashed the cheques and then argued black and blue on the day that it had not been received, and this for more than one competitor who had travelled hundreds of kilometers, and it took some fairly hefty discussion to be allowed to compete. No apology, no acknowledgement and no results. Not every event runs smoothly, and for what it's worth this was not very many years back.
One of my comments to Screwdriver was in regard to computers and timing, I still have no reason to alter my stance on that.
Cheers Rhys
Just to expand. (as Roger has attempted to do).
Using the local computerised on line system (available to all race organisers) creates all the info needed for all the officials of the event - automatically. It relies on:
a) The driver supplying ALL details required - DoB, licence, contact details etc - just once
b) Someone supplying all the relevant car details - just once.
c) Selecting the appropriate car(s) for each meeting (if someone runs a saloon and a single seater, they merely select the correct vehicle).
Once these are in the system, it is all accurate (presumably) and therefore can be speedily extracted in various forms to suit whoever needs it. That includes several officials who need different info, the programme, the scrutineers, meeting secretary and so on. Whilst timekeeping may not be a serious issue at Roycroft, how do you think the timekeeper gets his information into his computer? Do you think he wants to sit there with an inaccurate programme and type everything in?
The system also records the date and time of entry, which makes it very difficult to deny a requested entry has been lodged. It doesn't guarantee the entry has been accepted, but it is there in black and white to say it was lodged.
How many of you are aware for example, that the secretary of the meeting, (certainly for National race permits) has to submit an age breakdown of all competitors? Male and female?
Whilst it may well be old English to refer to Mr G B H Farrington-Smythe, have you ever tried commentating or writing a race report from minimal information? Have you tried cataloguing your photographs accurately and comprehensively? OK if you know the guy as Gerard, know his car and know a bit about him, but the purpose of a race programme is to not only inform officials, and spectators, but over time, it becomes an historical document.
If there is race incident and you are a race marshal and have to radio it in, and you only have an inaccurate programme to refer to, it can lead to the wrong driver being put in front of the Stewards. (Yes, it has happened.)
You may have short memories, but the lack of structure and adherence to publishd ASRs, cost not only the Queenstown Officials a lot of grief and stress, but also cost all licence holders a substantial levy.
If you elect to run a race meeting in this day and age, you have to be aware of your responsibilities and as Roger states quite correctly, if you don't do the job properly you are putting yourselves at risk.
I know of one race series organiser and at least one club, who have been through costly legal battles with dissatisfied drivers - and this is supposed to be amateur sport for older guys with older cars? Another series organising committee was threatened earlier this year with legal action from a classic racer, so don't think that it couldn' happen at a VCC meeting.
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.
I share Roger's wish for a more professional race meeting, but still with the low key fun and participation. It is a common misconception that because any event is deemed low key, that it doesn't need to be slick and efficiently run and that the officials will never find them selves in the dock. This is not in any way a criticism of VCC or their committee, who are dedicated to putting on a great event, which hopefully will continue to improve, and I am sure it will.
Some contributors on here need to accept that whether we like it or not, organisers have a more onerous responsibilty than in the 1970s and earlier.
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. :eek: :)
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.
Quote:
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.
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. :rolleyes:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Sheffield
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.
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.:cool:
MotorSport NZ DID NOT appoint Brian Lawerence to any position and he does not hold any position paid or unpaid within MSNZQuote:
Originally Posted by markec
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by markec