Tsr8 Question.

[rabie]

Data protection - if i remember correctly it is not as onerous as Christoff implies. a) your not collecting it electronically, your collecting it for a one time purpose (ie not using it to create a mailing list), c) there is some opt out/something or other for volunteer run sports clubs

we had someone in our club look into this very carefully when we put our membership database onto a PC and it was explained to our committee who were satisfied with the the research (as some were very worried about it)

[bikespace]

I'll let someone more knowlegeable answer your question correctly rather than me guessing. One or two of your quotes I've thought about before regarding whether our bikes are legal from the start. Look at the new Xispa and see if it fits in with rule 16. A guard must be fitted to the gearbox sprocket:

Xispa link

Not even looked at the others but this is one little difference I noticed from the Sherco - the guard is missing. On the Sherco it's an extension of the flywheel cover.

Any others?

The rear chain guard is barely adequate with:

"The guard must be constructed in such a manner that under no circumstances can the rider or passenger come in to accidental contact with the transmission parts."

I think John's probably answered most people's questions, and I think I may have just answered my own. I thought the Xispa looked like it wouldn't stand up to the ACU rules, but having had a look around the other bikes, it does seem to be compliant.

The Sherco and Beta seem to go for the full cover over the front sprocket (which was what I noted was missing from the 'alleged' Sherco copy), whereas the Gasser and Honda have gone for the small black plastic guard which just stops fingers going in to the top side of the sprocket where they would be dragged round.

[scorpa3]

We do not believe this needs people with qualifications

[john collins]

I understand where you are coming from Scorpa - and please believe me it is not always to give clear answers on a forum.

Basically however few years ago - each event - in its event paperwork, would receive a Technical report form - which would be filled in by someone at the end of the event - (it was still the same criteria for people as know).

What it would say was something like all the machines have been examined. Then it was sent off - and I was never sure what happened to it then, and now one actually gave me a satisfactory answer.

I suppose we could go down the route of having a common form - with say tick boxes - e.g.

Ball End levers Yes / No

Operating Brakes Yes / No

Trials Tyres Yes/No

Chain guard to Manufacturers Spec Yes/No

So - yes the appointed machine examiner would have this form - and could tick the boxes - but what have we actually achieved?

I can only presume - that if the answer was no to one of the questions - then the rider either had to fix it immediately or go home?

Where I struggle - is to really see what the difference is now - if the machine examiner - found that there were no ball end levers fitted - is not then the sensible outcome that the rider has to fix it or go home?

The sheet/form has made little if any difference to the actual result - other than giving someone a specific job to do - and of course the responsibility for doing it.

Yes - the formal recording of serious technical failures can be recorded - but this is the case now - where there is a form available to record these problems.

All this paperwork may look impressive - but at the end of the day - what have we actually solved?

Do we have a problem in that riders are competing on machines which are unsafe? Is there any evidence of this? Have our insurers expressed concern and asked us to do it?

As I am fairly sure the answer to these questions is no - then I am not really sure we should be mounting a paperwork exercise for the sake of it.

I do agree a

Edited December 16, 2007 by John Collins

[scorpa3]

Thanks for that John. I'm afraid that the situation doesn't really help with the problem which we now face ourselves.

We have been criticised by a Steward for not examining machines, so we started doing so.

However we don't have a qualified examiner, we aren't recording the findings and we're not even sure to what degree we should be checking. But the important thing is that we are checking.... providing we can persuade someone to do it next time that is.

[christoff]

John

Thanks for that, it certainly clears it up for me. Especially the riders responsibility and paperwork bits.

Thanks. Christoff.

PS Rabie.

The data protection act now covers computerised and clerical data. Club membership details are OK as this is data that the rider has given to you or in the case of the membership number data you have already issued to the rider. Collect anything pertaining to but not from the person involved, i.e. results from machine examination and you are very close to data protection responsibilities.