Another One For Coc And Observers

[bdmc]

You are briefed by the CoC before the trial. He/she informs you of the rules and then instructs you that the riders are not allowed to walk the section or have minders in the section as they (the riders) had checked them the day before.

Your section . - Large rocks to jump up on

Lap 1 day 1.. No problem the rider completes the section without any mishaps.

Lap 2 day 1. The section has altered a little and the rider asks if he can have a minder in. You follow the instructions of the CoC and refuse his request. Rider asks for a 5. You mark his card with a 5.

Lap 1 Day 2 – The rider again asks for a minder, you again refuse. This time he has a big off. Breaks his leg.

Lap 2 day 2 - Rider does not turn up

Questions :

Does the observer who is actually on site have the right to refuse the request from the rider whatever he has been instructed to do by the CoC.

Who is responsible for duty of care. The observer or the CoC?

If it goes to court who goes to court, the observer or CoC?

[mickwren]

Always a bit wary of replying to something which claims to be hyperthetical then it gets turned into an actual situation.

Personally If I was C of C or in whatever leading role I would never say that minders should not be allowed in under any circumstances. SAFETY MUST ALWAYS COME FIRST.

I believe that one minder should be allowed in, with the permission of the observer, to stand at a specific place where there may be safety concerns.

Whilst in the section they are there for rider safety only. Any attempt to alter the section or any other illegal acts should be punnished accordingly.

In answer to the question of who is responsible, or who goes to court my advice would always be never put yourself in a position where you might find out.

Safety first.

Please don't quote this out of context Ta

[firedfromthecircus]

Do riders not sign on at the start of the event to say they will abide by the rules and regulations set out by the CoC and any other official of the trial?

The option is always there to take a five. So the only person at 'fault' in that situation would be the rider. No?

So it shouldn't even get anywhere near a court IMHO.

[0007]

The answer to the court question is, the person with the most money will go to court, this is the insured parties who organize the event

Now add this one

The organizer says NO MINDERS

You allow a minder

The Minder gets injured

Now in court the organizers point their finger at you, you have no defense as you are the one who broke the rules

It's easy, you either make the rules or you follow them, don't waffle

[pete_scorpa3]

We used to run a single lap trail bike trial (with easy straight forward sections) where inspection was not allowed. The ACU instructed us that we had to allow inspection onthe grounds of safety. Surely by day two of a two day event, the sections might have changed enough to need an inspection?

Is this where reasonable care could be deemed to have not been taken by the organisers?

[gizza5]

Are you saying that because he didn't walk the section he broke his leg?

Are you saying that because he didn't have a minder he broke his leg?

Not sure if either is a reason because accidents happen, still think riders should be allowed to walk each section on every lap if he wants as sections alter.

Minders get rid of them!!

[jimmyl]

Don't think any acu ruling stops inspection of the section - for reasons pete - scorpa says above.

No rider has to attempt a section if not happy.

Also not sure what rule stops minders/catchers in the section. I think worst case is at observers discretion. If COC over rules standing regs and NSC then is in danger of being isolated in a case of law- hence regular COC seminars.

Not sure why any COC would want to stop section inspection and catchers.

PS Buck stops with COC ref duty of care - especially if they make specific instructions

Edited August 27, 2012 by jimmyl

[nigel dabster]

What trial in the British mainland prohibits rider inspection?

Pointless thread closed.

[breagh]

The Scott unless you want too get run over by 170 bikes.

Sorry,couldn't help myself.

[Andy]

What trial in the British mainland prohibits rider inspection?

Was wondering that myself. With the criteria given - inspect the day before, two day event, two laps per day, no walking the sections, no minder in section without permission, it could only be a world round.

[rabie]

a lot of the LDT types got it into their head that the riders couldn't walk the sections.

as above the insurance advice is that the riders must be able to inspect the section/race track/etc and say they are incapable of doing it (ie not be forced to do something they can't do) - BTW not sure how that works for enduro?

it doesn't stop you from laying out sections in such a way that most (99%) riders can't be bothered to walk it....

[nigel dabster]

The Scott unless you want too get run over by 170 bikes.

Sorry,couldn't help myself.

There is nothing to stop inspection on the day afaik

[hrc1]

Many of the Long Distance Trials don't allow section inspection.

[pete_scorpa3]

Out own LDT was "No inspection" until recently, it allowed the trial to flow faster and kept the sections wide and straight forward. But the ACU insisted that we allowed inspection, I will try to explain why.

We all sign a disclaimer when we enter a trial, and should an injury occur in a section then that disclaimer should protect the organisers from liability. Providing they have taken all reasonable care.

However, what if a rider attempts a section 'blind' and then finds an obstacle that they are not capable of negotiating and subsequently falls off and gets injured? The rider could claim in court that they would not have even attempted the section had they been allowed to inspect it before riding it.

Suddenly a case begins to build against the organiser.

What if the section in question had also been failed by the entire entry? This happens, sometimes the section plotters just get it wrong (or the weather changes etc).

The injured rider stands up in court and says they were injured attempting a section which was too hard for the level of competition.

The case for negligence starts to look even stronger.

Then the injured rider points out that the ACU handbook states in TSR18 that "No penalty shall be imposed on a rider who wishes to inspect the section before riding it."

As the Clerk of the Course, how can you defend your descision not to allow inspection?

Maybe FIM rules are different?

[nigel dabster]

Has any let rider ever had or needed a minder?

Do broken legs ever occur on ldt trials?