The State of NZ Motorsport.

[crunch]

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

Trevor.[/QUOTE]

That is it in a nutshell Trevor!
As we have been instructed by our legal advice, if MSNZ cocks up (or any of it's officials that we delegate responsibility to) that leads to a criminal case; the responsibility will rest with the Executive of the sport. eg. me!
Basically; follow the rulebook as Roger and Carl have stated and we all are OK.
Sorry if you took insult from a previous statement by me.

[RogerH]

[/QUOTE]

if MSNZ cocks up (or any of it's officials that we delegate responsibility to) that leads to a criminal case; the responsibility will rest with the Executive of the sport. eg. me!
[/QUOTE]

I presume that if an official acted irresponsibly or outside of the prescribed Manual then they could face personal charges. However, if it was a general situation where the established MSNZ procedures were found to be lacking then there could be damages against the MSNZ Executive but as the Executive are indemnified by MSNZ Inc, in reality any fiscal responsibility ultimately lies with all the member clubs ........

[Oldfart]

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

Roger, you asked me to "bush" up on my flags.
Please can you advise me where my belief is wrong with the attached paste from the MSNZ site.
Yellow Flag:
At all times:
(a) Single Waved: Reduce speed. Do not overtake. There is a hazard on or in
close proximity to the circuit.
(b) Double Waved: Reduce speed. Do not overtake. Be prepared to stop. There is
a major hazard on or in close proximity to the circuit.
(c) The no overtaking zone shall begin at the zone markers prior to the first flag post
displaying the waved yellow flag(s) and cease when the incident is passed, there
is a clear track and a waved green flag is visible to the driver at the next flag point.
Please, I am not being facetious. Are you saying that it is up to me to decide where the danger /hazard ceases to exist? If that were the case I could argue that there never was a danger so I could continue to pass wherever? My understanding is that I must wait until I can see a waved green before I resume "racing".
If I am correct, then if no green is shown anywhere on the circuit then everyone must hold position, and incidentally may not post a lap faster than any other lap(paraphrasing that rule) .
I am happy to be corrected on the Timaru situation, thank you. From a North Island VCC member perspective the cars involved in that incident do not fit VCC rules, pure and simple, and should not have been in the race. I was misinformed by the steward to whom I spoke.

[Carlo]

I presume that if an official acted irresponsibly or outside of the prescribed Manual then they could face personal charges. ........

Would you wish for anything different ?

[Trevor Sheffield]

Kia ora crunch/RogerH,

Yes in a nutshell. ---- MSNZ, you and others are all OK should a charge be directed your way, but the essence of the situation is that as someone else has pointed out #243, volunteers remain out on their own and a precedent exists.

I can not see how a volunteer co-opted spontaneously, could if personally charged prove that he is a delegated official, thus enabling him/her to pass the buck to MSNZ. What is more even if such could be arranged, the volunteer is likely to face substantial costs and hardship. Hence my original and repeated questions. ----

(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.

As a result of your earlier post, I have been awaiting your direct answers confined to yes and no, and your attention in this regard would be sincerely appreciated.

Trevor

[ERC]

It is a fine line between "irresponsible" and "an error of judgement" and I would not like to be in the dock accused of either.

An example from the McLaren festival: Just before the warm up lap, a ute went past a marshal's point and a broom fell off, landing in the middle of the track. The (experienced) marshals chose to ignore it and cars went past on their warm up whilst the broom was still on the track. (I have photographs and yes, I do know the marshals are regulars).

Whilst the cars were forming up on the grid, the marshal(s) still chose to do nothing, despite chants from the spectators. A spectating driver then hopped over the fence and retrieved the broom, to the cheers and applause of the spectators.

Now then. What would the situation be, if during the race, a car had run over that broom, snapped it, and the broken end had flown in the air, stabbed a following driver in the eye, who then crashed head on into a bank, snapped his neck and died?

The marshal was experienced. There had been a full marshal's briefing. The Clerk of the Course runs a good ship and in all other respects, the standard of marshalling was as good as normal.

Put yourself in the position of a widow, with a family to support and a hotshot lawyer. Who is in the gun sights and why? I am pretty sure MSNZ would be clean and the CoC would be clean.

[Trevor Sheffield]

Kia ora ERC,

The law is quite clear in this regard.--- 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."

Surely the marshal who did not pick up the broom or signal for the start to be withheld could be liable, as he did not discharge a legal duty as would be called for within MSNZ rules.

We are given to understand and would hope that MSNZ would accept responsibility, but notwithistanding the marshal would suffer considerable hardship and duress. In any event, the marshal holds no contract or guarantee that he is protected and will be dependent on the goodwill of MSNZ.

Trevor.

[Rod Grimwood]

This could be the answer, or were it would end.

[Trevor Sheffield]

A further interesting scenario:-

A bystander assists two boy racers by giving them a start signal and a crash results in a member of the public being injured. Though obviously involved, the individual assisting the racers is extremely unlikely to face prosecution. Identification is unlikely and no exacting legislation appears to cover their action.

By contrast, importantly within motor racing, a helper has absolutely confirmed and defined duties. In this situation an individual can be absolutely identified and remains in danger of prosecution as a specific law covers any and every misdemeanour. The very rules and regulations which protect MSNZ executives, in point of fact disadvantage volunteer helpers. N.B. ---

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."

A wide cross section of sporting codes have been represented within efforts to have the current law amended. Pertinent, reasonable question number three. --- Can MSNZ confirm that they have become adequately involved in these efforts?

[Steve Holmes]

OK, this thread appears to be going round and round in circles, and not really achieving an outcome. The current state of NZ motorsport is not why I started this website. The Roaring Season was created to celebrate both motorsport history and modern day historic car racing, and I'm struggling to see how this thread fits in. I can see why you're asking these questions Trevor, but could this not be more simply answered with a quick phone call to the right person?

[Trevor Sheffield]

Kia ora Steve,

I sincerely regret that this thread falls outside of your endeavours which are very much appreciated.

Unfortunately phone calls would be pointless. The questions have been placed before the right persons, notably without reply. A precarious situation has been firmly confirmed and I am content to rest my case and I thank you for the opportunity you have made available. Hopefully some of those who contribute to MSNZ coffers, will take the matter further.

Trevor.

[ERC]

There are very few forums Steve, where these issues can be debated, so don't worry. There are plenty of other threads within this board more closely aligned to what your intentions were.

For too long, the Classic & Historic fraternity hasn't had much of a say and there are issues that should be openly debated by the rank and file. We shouldn't overlook the numbers involved in our section of the sport and the income we generate. Any circuit race organiser knows that the second biggest cheque of the meeting goes to MSNZ for the levies.

Sure, we may have been hung up on one aspect for a few posts, but that doesn't matter to me. We can all walk away when we want.

[Rod Grimwood]

Yep, as a competitor and a Sports Sedan Assoc. commitee person I did in late 80s. Just walked away. (found fishing) This is a subject that will go on forever amen.

[crunch]

Kia ora Steve,

I sincerely regret that this thread falls outside of your endeavours which are very much appreciated.

Unfortunately phone calls would be pointless. The questions have been placed before the right persons, notably without reply. A precarious situation has been firmly confirmed and I am content to rest my case and I thank you for the opportunity you have made available. Hopefully some of those who contribute to MSNZ coffers, will take the matter further.

Trevor.

I did reply Trevor, you just didnt like my replies.
Put your three questions in writing to The Executive, MSNZ PO BOX 3793 Wellington and then you will get an answer that will be informed as it will come from the sports legal people.
How about now we talk about some positive stuff instead of just bashing the governing body?

[crunch]

For too long, the Classic & Historic fraternity hasn't had much of a say and there are issues that should be openly debated by the rank and file.

You actually get an equal say to any other part/facet of the sport at the Executive table.
You have an advisory commission that has what I consider some of the best brains of H&C racing in the country.
On top of that; I co=opt 3 other individuals to sit in on our H&C Commission meetings for their area of expertise.
At our last H&C Commission meeting/catch-up at the conference in Auckland, I let numerous people from any club sit in and they had the opportunity to ask questions.
Towards the end of this year the H&C Commission will meet in Auckland and we intend asking anybody to attend an open discussion over a few beers with the aim of identifying what H&C needs for the future. We will also be doing this in Wellington and Dunedin
It is not a closed shop, that would be irresponsible governance. Where in the above paragraph that I have written can you find where the competitors in H&C motorsport hasnt had much of a say?
Honestly; if it can be improved, tell me how.
Cheers
Raymond Bennett

[Kiwiboss]

I haven't seen or been at the "coal face" as some of you in this much discuss'd post, and there's always room for improvement and that's not just in motorsport, but i must say considering the state of the world, Europe(other countries) and the economy in general i tend to think NZ Motorsport is in not a bad state(for 4.5 million people), not saying the governing body should rest on its laurels but when i look around at the NZV8/Supertourer fiasco(which i have no interest) and the other tier 1 groups onwards and down there's still plenty that want to chuck money in, and be involved in their chosen hobby, and in the Historic/Classic's groups there are those building/buying/importing vehicles, just look at the growth of Formula Junior's as an example!! so when i weight it all up the futures looking bright!! or maybe im just too damn positive and need a quick slap to wake me up!! But really, come on!! motor-sport is our chosen craft, so lets deal with the chosen hand we got and get going before we can't do it any longer!!

By agreeing and disagreeing makes it just prefect

Dale M

[Trevor Sheffield]

I did reply Trevor, you just didnt like my replies.
Put your three questions in writing to The Executive, MSNZ PO BOX 3793 Wellington and then you will get an answer that will be informed as it will come from the sports legal people.
How about now we talk about some positive stuff instead of just bashing the governing body?

Crunch or whoever, whatever?

As a matter of courtesy towards Steve, I endeavoured to bring this debate to a conclusion, but now can not let still further side stepping go without correction.

You are correct in pointing out that I did not and do not like your obtuse, irrelevant buck passing replies. You put aside what is an important, positive issue, claiming the bashing of the governing body. I prefer a straight forthright approach.

N.B. ---- Your reply post # 246 “I will contact our legal advisor to get a more legally worded reply.” --- No legally worded reply has been forthcoming. What is more, in spite of ongoing requests no direct answers have been posted

There is no need for me to extend inquiries. The content of this thread and the lack of answers to simple questions, by default, provides ample evidence as to the true position. No legal clap trap as a means of excuse can alter what is fact and points to negligence by way of MSNZ.

The forum is still waiting for three simple answers of 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.

It transcends that. --- (1) Spontaneous volunteers are not made aware of their precarious position as a result of the law and (2) MSNZ does not offer them any degree of cover.

Post #269. A wide cross section of sporting codes have been represented within efforts to have the current law amended. Pertinent, reasonable question number three. --- (3) Can MSNZ confirm that they have become adequately involved in these efforts?

Any member of the executive should be aware and able to answer the above simple question (3). Therefore by default it can be taken that MSNZ have not been adequately involved in these worthwhile efforts.

It would have been encouraging if at the outset, we had been informed simply, “MSNZ is aware of the indicated shortcomings and the matter is in hand.” The silence is telling.

Trevor Sheffield.

[ERC]

Crunch, bearing mind we had tremendous suppport for the meeting in Auckland a couple of years ago, you challenged us to rewrite T & C as we thought it should be. We invested a lot of time, effort and consultation and had a consensus of opinion representing about 200 local classic drivers.

You took on board some of what the drivers wanted, but we still have several sticking points that you are well aware of. We, Alfa and probably many of the BMW fraternity are working happily within "our" rules. We are happy enough accepting the spirit of T & C even if not the rules as written.

We are always happy to discuss, but have not been persuaded to change our stance.

[Carlo]

I too would like to see this subject ended and focus on the things near and dear to us all which is of course the real stars of the show the cars themselves and the characters and stories around them

However I can not resist this continual head bashing by people who obviously are not aware that sometimes you have to take ownership of the problems that you yourself create and stop expecting evryone else to tidy them up for you afterwards

People continue to use the words "Spontaneous volunteers" to describe situations in questions of the sport so perhaps someone could enlighten me as to What Why and Who

Are these people required because the organisers of an event have failed to ensure that they actually have organised sufficient skilled and trained people to man their event?

If so is this the fault of Motorsport NZ or the event organisers?

The real question is, What effort have the organisers of the event done to cover the point raised Are spontaneous volunteers made aware of their precarious position as a result of the law

I would expect that any responsible organiser would have ensured that sufficent training had been undertaken with these " Spontaneous volunteers" to ensure that they undertake the duties that are asked of them correctly and safely so as not to place either themselves, the competitors, any spectators, the Clerk of Course and / or the Event organisers and as a consequence Motorsport NZ and it's membership at risk.

The question is "Do we have responsible organisers of these events?"

Once we have answered that can we please get back to the cars and the stories..................Please

[ERC]

As far back as I can remember, ALL people who entered a UK race track, either, signed on the dotted line, as officials or drivers OR, had an entry ticket with a warning on the back, reinforced by strategically placed signs, saying "Motorsport is Dangerous" and therefore by being there, you accepted the risks in whatever capacity.

Although it might not satisfy OSH or the courts, in the pre-litigation times, it seemed to work well enough. Maybe we need to step back a wee bit to those times, but I can't see it happening.