Msa Approval For Road Trials?

[rabie]

like the police team at the SSDT, we have police officer riding as part of the event (although not on a police team as such) and on several occasions we have had kent police's "off road team" (6x WR450F in battenburg graphics) ride around. Now that because we have good relations with that part of the police, doesn't mean there still aren't problems that have to be surmounted.

as above the onus at all events with road work is for the competitors to be road legal, so i pay to be pro active and weed out the obviously non compliant bikes, yes the wisdom of Solomon re number plates does apply. i personally believe that one should ensure that every rider take out the extra RTA insurance cover (unless that apply explicitly saying they have existing RTA cover like the MSM policy).

as for political lobbying, i wish John luck, and hope some sensible deregulation takes place, however as above, this has been the law since the 1960's we should have been on the ball and either way we are meant to be complying until such time as changes take place.

[john collins]

I am not going to try to explain everything here on TC – basically as at present that would not necessarily be a good thing to do. I would suggest that there is some good advice in some of the posts such as Andat, but some of you are going to need to use a bit of common sense

My problem, is that when anyone from ACU tries to explain it, we come over as defending it – we are not. We are appalled by it – how much more clearer can I make it?

Practically all the T & E Committee are heavily involved in running trials which we suddenly find now seem to require this authorisation. Many of us have for years ridden in the same such events. So in simple terms – We ain’t happy, and if anyone thinks we have just rolled over and do not care about any of this – they are idiots – full stop.

The Act that is at issue did indeed come into force in 1969. I am no legal eagle but we have

( and are still) taking legal advice on this. It does seem that it is not a particularly well worded or well drawn up document and there certainly seems to be some ambiguity in its wording.

Of course, some will immediately jump on bandwagon and declare that this “ ambiguity” should have been challenged and put right 43 years ago . Really? Are we sure about that?

For sure, however I think we will all declare that this Act was not intended to unduly influence motorcycle trials who only used the road to get from Farmer Jones farm to Farmer Smith etc. Personally I would think that the time to challenge such an Act was then ie 1969 , and possibly this was done, but it does seem that this was to no avail.

Being that it was generally agreed ( and certainly as been since) that this Act it was really intended to bring some control to events like car rallies which often seemed to run through the night etc and have scant regard for people living close to route etc , it does seem that we should not have been involved in first place. However, legislators and politicians were probably not that bothered, and frankly have not been since.

I would equally suspect that at a time when there may have been a serious challenge to the very possibility of Motor Vehicles using the Public Highway in any shape or form when in an event , may have resulted in the RAC being more than thankful that such an Act was passed.

Where do the RAC ( now MSA for purpose of our interest) come into all this? Well the Government decided that in order to take advantage of the ACT and be legal when using the Public Highway – events would have to have “ Authorisation” and the body they decreed to do this was the RAC/MSA

I know I simplify, but space dictates this

As the years have gone by possibly this “ ambiguity” or probably a much better word is “ interpretation” has been used.

Many quote from the “ guidelines” shown on MSA web site, but we do need to remember that they are just that i.e guidelines and it is the actual Act that will be enforced

Let us however quickly look at the 4 guidelines that concern us . They are listed as A, B, C, D, and detail that these events would not require “ authorisation”

For purpose of this debate I think we can discard A ( events with under 12 competitors) and

D ( events for Armed Forces etc). C : Refers to a Road Safety event ( and I wish to leave this – for now)

We have until latter part of last year always believed that our “ interpretation” of part B enabled us to run an event ie Trial , where we actually only used the Public Highway to get from Farmer Jones farm to Farmer Evans farm.

Now this is where it is all going wrong.

Basically, if most of us read this part B :

An event on which no merit is attached to completing the event with the lowest

mileage, and in which as respects such part of the event is held on the Public

Highway, there are no performance tests and no route, and competitors are not timed

or required to visit the same places, except that they may be required to finish at the

same place by a specified time.

We would be of the opinion that as there are no performance tests etc this part confirms we do not need authorisation for a Trial. You will notice however that a few other words creep in ie No route, not required to visit same places etc

The long and short of it is that until latter part of 2012 the MSA were willing ( that does not mean to say they agreed) to concede that our interpretation allowed us to run our events as we have done for last 40 years.

With this in mind, and the fact that there seems to have been no problems whatsoever and as far as we are aware no Police prosecutions etc , I think those not trying to just score silly points would agree that the last 40 years have not been wasted, and that maybe, just maybe we were more than happy to use our interpretation rather than mount all sort of challenges. The sad fact also is – how do you mount a challenge to a legal Act?

Next – so what changed: Well in basic terms the Dept at MSA who without any shadow of a doubt are the ONLY people who can issue such authorisation , decided that they no longer accepted our interpretation of part D ( or anything else) .

They also decided to start checking on events ( we presume via web sites and Regs available etc) and where an event was found to be taking place that had not applied for Authorisation ( and please remember some of our clubs have been doing so for years) the MSA wrote to the organising club informing them that as they had not applied for authorisation, they were in fact running an illegal event . At same time the Chief Constable of area concerned was also informed, and in some cases we are aware that the Police then wrote to organising club informing them they should not be running such an event and were liable to prosecution.

Next : Why did the MSA decide to take this stance after so many years? Who actually knows ?

It may be that they decided that it was time the “ interpretation” was consistant across the whole area of Motor Sport. We have certainly been informed that all car events including Car trials have had to do it. In simple terms when we visited MSA, I think the message was “ We all have to do it, why not you”

I have heard some declare many things from the opinion that it is way of making money, justifying jobs, expanding a Dept and so on. I do not think it is appropriate for me to comment on these on a web site.

I will relate an answer that MSA have given us however, and I think we should take some heed of it. Basically the MSA are the sole body for Authorisation – no question. This is a role they regard as very important. Additionally they do not wish anyone or anything to in anyway jeopardise this role. They certainly described that in no way would they want to risk losing this right to “ Authorise” events, as it would have a dire effect on their own events.

Playing Devils Advocate: One could see the argument of why should they risk the right to authorise because they consider we have ballsed it up or not done it properly?

I do not know if there have been incidents reported by Police to the MSA with concerns about our events? Road legality, Insurance, Number plates and on – we have not been informed of any, but again we have to consider the bigger picture. It may be that a combination of many things have rattled cages – but rattled they have been.

So, there we have it. A meeting to discuss/explain where we are/were was called at ACU in Nov and many Clubs and Centres attended and will have information.

There are questions on site about will ACU issue Permits - Yes we will. If Clubs and Centres are happy that they do not need authorisation ( as they have done for all these years) then I think they will proceed.

The ACU as Governing body however now that it was being brought to our attention by Clubs receiving letters from MSA and Police could not just ignore it. It had to be brought to attention of our Clubs and Centres. I am sure they will take decisions to suit them.

Will /have we taken legal advice = Yes .

Are we continuing to look at the “ interpretation” that MSA are placing on our events = Yes.

Have we dug out all past correspondence on matters

( mostly “ opinion” I have to say ) = Yes

Have we explained to MSA what a Trial actually is ( that is about the daftest one I have heard – does anyone actually believe we would not have done that?) = YES. YES and YES

Has the ACU introduced this as just another level of bureaucracy = NO NO and NO

Does it only apply to ACU events = Absolutely not.

Do we have any easy answers ? = No. And we are struggling

Are the ACU prepared to spend money on this to take advice/mount a challenge to interpretation = Absolutely Yes.

Did ACU offer to put up a “ bond” so that clubs could just send in actual numbers after event +Yes but not acceptable to MSA

Did ACU offer to do it all our end and just issue authorisation for events ( and even still send money to MSA) = Yes – not acceptable to MSA

Did ACU offer to check routes with C/Course and organisers and make sure all was OK and not untoward = Yes – not acceptable

Is it being worked on = Almost every day ( usually by many of those people who constantly come in for criticism for knowing nowt about Trails and are oft described as out of touch etc – but are now expected to give up days and days of voluntary time)

Is it being worked on by professional /paid people and not just ACU people = Yes

I think that is all for now. The biggest problem by far is that when one reads the parts I have indicated ie Part B – it seems a fairly simple matter. It also seems simple to say that as it has not been a problem for 40 years, why should it be know, OR What has changed.

Even worse, if one applies for authorisation, we have to jump through numerous hoops, most of which were never intended for us in first place

All these are genuine and understandable questions . In regard to money. On a £50 entry fee for say a car event, £3 may not look too bad. On a £15 entry fee it looks a lot worse?

However, we can discuss all these matters till we are blue in face ( and I am sure we will) BUT – the MSA are the Authorising body – and will remain so . In simple terms, if you wish to obtain this authorisation they require xyz. If we do not like zyx ( and we do not) then you do not get authorisation.

The MSA did not make this law back in 1969, but they are the body that provide authorisation if we require it.

I have tried to put you in the picture.

[old trials fanatic]

Thank you John but i am still left wondering where are we at this moment in time? This year we had the opportunity to run a road trial but i turned it down not because of MSA approval because it was just before all this blew up but if i was offered the chance again until i knew EXACTLY what i would be required to do the answer would be most definately no.

I am sure there must be many organisers out there thinking the same and thank you again for doing your best to explain the situation but as of today i, dont know about anybody else, am still none the wiser what i would need to do to obtain MSA approval and after reading Petes posts i dont even know if it would be practical or possible to jump through every hoop.

I am sure as soon as you know you, or someone else from the governing bodies, will inform us but this is a sad state of affairs for Trials as we know it in this country.

I await the outcome if any with interest.

[pete_scorpa3]

John,

Thank you for taking the time to explain the situation as you (and the ACU) see it regarding MSA approval.

If (and I'm sure you have) read the previous posts in this thread, you will see that I am trying my very best to meet all of the criteria that has been laid out by the MSA for the Colmore Cup. It does seem a minefield and I have still to get a reply from every dept that I need to contact, depite sending stamped addressed envelopes, email addresses etc.

I am almost in the postion to reply to the MSA now, even if it is to say that the Police have been informed but not replied. It hasn't been easy, but I think I've done it right. The next few days will tell. I hope that the MSA won't ask me to do more, but if they do.... I will.

My question to you is simple but very important.

If I hadn't applied for MSA approval would the ACU still issue a permit for the trial?

Pete Barnett

Stratford-Upon-Avon MCC

[totalshell]

so having read the excellent response above ( how many other sports would a member of the governing body post on a public forum a frank and open explanation..)

so it seems we have 4 simple choices.. some less simple and some more expensive..

defend the staus quo and work toward a resolution with the msa as the acu are doing

ignore it and hope it goes away.. as the amca appears to ( for at least the next six months..)

run events as the msa currently requires and pay up the time and money

or run events that have no fixed route..

i can see an obvious choice..

run events with no route marking.. just an ordanance survey map with references for the location of the 1st section given out at signing on. you start anytime after you ve signed on.. at that first section give a reference for the location of the next section. and so on the route inbetween is completely free.. you can state a finish location and a time that the finish closes... as for navigating off road absolutely no issue with that being route marked..

so all that differs is.. you sign on as you start and you only know where the next section is and you have to carry an ordanance survey map with you.. or a photo copy of a small part of it.... cant see any problems with that.

or you could argue that the trials competition is held entirely on private land and the public highway forms absolutely no part of that competition other than a means of access. the public road plays no more part in a trial than the road used by a team on its way to a football match.

Edited January 31, 2013 by totalshell

[john collins]

All I can do I think is answer Pete question

Yes the ACU will issue you with a Permit

If you ( having been made aware ) of the situation and been directed to appropriate guidelines etc we will take the view that you actually know best. I think some of these other posts have given the options quite sensibly.

I would love to be able to tell anyone “ No you do not have to do it” or “ just ignore it” – I am afraid I cannot

Equally , I or anyone else at this juncture do not wish to say “ You must do this” If organisers are happy that what they have done in past is OK or if their interpretation of the Act gives them enough confidence to just carry on as they were, I think this is what they will do.

I know this may sound a bit like sitting on the fence – and that I am afraid is exactly what it is.

In all the years of involvement with ACU I do not think I have ever come across a problem where I could not see a solution. It may not have been the correct solution, it may not have been a popular one , but it has been a solution. This time I have to say I cannot see one.

One also has to be very careful not to make things worse. I have spent about 3 to 4 hours this morning reading and re reading all the various papers and advice etc , and to be honest every time one thinks there is a if there is a solution, you read a bit more and find a stopper

e.g “ a specific route to be taken by competitors , or if a particular route is likely to be taken by competitors . As morning goes one you get more frustrated, especially as the bloody thing was never intended for us in the first place.

We are continuing to work on it, next week we have another important meeting and I am sure we will soon after that be having another visit to the MSA. If we can only make things less onerus I would be happier.

[pete_scorpa3]

All I can do I think is answer Pete question

Yes the ACU will issue you with a Permit

Wrong answer.

Issuing a permit when MSA has not been approved is not a good descision.

It does not reward those clubs who get MSA approval, it does not encourgae other clubs to go through the process and worst of all, the ACU are issuing a permit to an illegal event.

How can that happen? Surely we deserve clear leadership on this?

[john collins]

No, it is not the wrong answer. It is the only answer at present.

If you believe it is the wrong answer, then there was no real point in asking the question in first place ? Your concern must in first instance be with your own organisation before worrying about everyone else.

If your opinion is that the ACU should at this juncture refuse to issue Permits for events without authorisation , put this forward via your Centre as a proposition.

I think we need to make a distinction between leadership and dictatorship.

It may well be that in future we will have to make this decision, but we are not there yet. It may be close – but not yet.

If we have to take such drastic action in future, I believe we should at least do a lot more work in trying to ease the burden for organisers. We may not be able to change the Act, but we may be able to change the way it is implemented. We may be able to change the time scales, we may be able to change the charges etc

Many organisers sincerely believe that they do not need this authorisation and that their interpretation of the Act enables them to run as they have done in past. They may well be inclined to use the fact that there is documentation declaring that Trials should not have been included in first place as a defence should they be incorrect. They may well be inclined to use fact that according to our legal advice – which we would certainly make available to them , that the Act is badly drawn up and ambiguous ( as were many other Acts of that era)

I clearly stated at the outset that I was not going to dig a bigger hole for ourselves than we are already in , and that remains. If people are that worried about the ACU issuing Permits for an event that is illegal, the logical step forward is to also worry about issuing Permits for events without being 100% sure that the machines and rider are legal? Sometimes riders and organisers are going to have to make decisions for themselves. Sometimes we are all going to have to use a bit of common sense.

While we are still looking at all the possibilities, that is how it shall remain. While there is a chance that we can work with MSA to make it all less onerus – then we will continue working.

While we have recognised experts within a matter of days, still trying to see if there is a solution – we will continue to do so.

Unfortunately , it may well come to a situation where we will have to say No permit without MSA authorisation – but we are not there yet. It may be getting closer by the day but not yet.

Within a week we will be studying very closely a document that was produced by a recognised body that was of the opinion the Act should not nor was ever intended to encompass us. Surely it is worth trying to gather this all together and try to at least make further effort we before we pass out some typical ACU edict of old?

At the ACU we are damned if we do and damned if we do not. We have lots of emails declaring we should go easy on it all, and then posts saying we are lacking in leadership if we do so.

For me, the sensible option is to wait until the full hand of cards are played out. All organisers know the score, if they are worried they can either apply for the authorisation, or unfortunately as some have done , cancel.

There is no easy answer as I thought I had explained and it may well be that difficult decisions are going to have to be made, but they will be with our organisers rather than just thrust upon them.

It worries me a little that some people cannot wait to see a rapid decline in events we have treasured for years.

[pete_scorpa3]

John, I am not encourgaged by your answer, in fact I am rather surprised. From my point of view, it certainly means that the Colmore won't be cancelled due to lack of MSA approval (although the weather is a different concern) but that does make me wonder why on earth I've been spending all this time worrying about the MSA.

It also puts me in a dilema for our next two national road trials, for which I am the Clerk of the Course myself....... is MSA worth having, is it worth the risk of not having?

I will stop now, as I can see that this is likely to give fuel to the 'anti ACU' brigade, of which I certainly am not.

Pete Barnett

[lowbrow]

John, thank you for your reassurance that this matter is receiving the attention it deserves at ACU HQ. I am however surprised that you appear to dismiss exemption © so readily. Surely it is precisely the case that a trial is "an event in which, as respects such part of the event as is held on a public highway, merit attaches to a competitor's performance only in relation to good road behaviour and compliance with the Highway Code"?

The 1969 Stautory Instrument has not changed, our sport hasn't changed; the MSA's interpretation of one or both has changed and this needs to be challenged vigourously, in court if necessary.

Edited January 31, 2013 by lowbrow

[john collins]

This is the very point I am trying to make to Pete, there are many who believe that the interpretation the MSA have put on some things may be different to what others believe – and this is exactly why at this time we are more than a little reluctant to say all ACU events that in any way use Public Highway must have authorisation

I understand why you think I dismissed exemption ( not quite word but we all know what we mean) point C . The fact is I did not, I thought like you infer that this would enable us to carry on as we were etc. In fact it was my banker, and I have not finished with it yet

However, the MSA have said no. I have said, and I really mean it this time I am not going to discuss point after point in an open forum as in my opinion this weakens any defence that someone who inadvertently or otherwise, believed they did not need authorisation .

Part C is one I would particularly like to explore more, but I can only assure you 100% that when I raised at meeting we had with MSA I was informed it did not allow us to run within the Act as we thought it should

I also stated that we had taken legal opinion, and these posts are forcing me to start putting these on air – but in this particular case I will simplify and say that IF the event was only about riders conforming to the Highway Code and awarded merit for their performance then it could make use of Regulation C . The stumbling block is that the competitor is required to do more than simply comply with the Highway Code. By the “ more” there would be other regulations ( Trials) in place for that event and even if this part were off road – as we know it would be , and that part may /would /could introduce a route to be taken by competitors or if a route is likely to be taken by competitors . This is because the competitor is required to do more ( at some point) than simply comply with Highway Code. Personally ( and I stress this word) I think that a lot of this hinges on what is an “ event” and that needs more careful work

And so it goes on. I have not dreamt the above( unfortunately) and all Centres and interested Clubs and individuals were handed sheets which contained much of our legal advice on Nov 17^th.

At MSA, point C was not acceptable as a means to avoid the legislation. Once more we will take more advice on this interpretation, and I know I have simplified the words. All I can sign off with once more is to say none of this is acceptable, none of this really helps, and little of it is my original work, it has been gleaned for solicitors and speaking directly with MSA .

At present, I think that we will once more, probably over the next week or two after speaking and taking more advice, once more try to put all these points into a well reasoned and constructive argument and once more request another ( 4^th visit I think) meeting with MSA. Then each and every point can be examined once more, together with any additional advice and paperwork we have complied ( there is some important stuff) .

I do not know if this will go much good, but we will try, and so we should.

[lowbrow]

Thanks again John, and all power to your elbow!

[rabie]

re the ACU granting the permit without checking the club had received MSA authorisation, we must be very aware that we can't be "dictatorial" like days of old. there are an alphabet soup of other federations (sanctioning bodies) out there. for example - you could have been rejected by the ACU, set up an AMCA club and run the event anyway. it sounds outrageous but it's happened over much less down here (helmets, etc). it's only by being under one united umbrella that we can afford to get legal advice and start to explore how we resolve this issue.

[pete_scorpa3]

re the ACU granting the permit without checking the club had received MSA authorisation, we must be very aware that we can't be "dictatorial" like days of old. there are an alphabet soup of other federations (sanctioning bodies) out there. for example - you could have been rejected by the ACU, set up an AMCA club and run the event anyway. it sounds outrageous but it's happened over much less down here (helmets, etc). it's only by being under one united umbrella that we can afford to get legal advice and start to explore how we resolve this issue.

If the MSA choose to ignore events that do not have their approval, then this whole subject will cease to be an issue.

If the MSA decide to prosecute/fine/punish/ warn (or whatever they can do) then someone is in for a shock. I just don't want that someone to be us.

Others may relish the chance to fight. Lets wait and see.

[old trials fanatic]

I notice the Jack Wood Trial is going ahead in the events forum so wouldnt it be worth contacting them to see how they got on obtaining MSA approval? Perhaps they could be helpfull with some hints and tips ?

Just a suggestion after all we are all in it together arent we?