Risk Assessment Forms.... Ongoing?

[scorpa3]

I appologise for bringing this up again, I originaly mentioned this in November last year but has any progress been made?

Firstly I fully appreciate the need for Risk Assessment (RA)and agree with the ACU that we need it in trials to properly assess risks, reduce or eliminate them,keep a documented record and most importantly, to help protect ourselves from litigation.

However, there has been no formal guidance on this important task.

How can we (the unpaid volunteer Clerks of the Courses) be expected to complete RA to any reasonable standard without formal training? What is the standard?

Our first trial of the year is fast approaching and we are worried (a lot) about completing the RA form.

Has anyone else questioned the form? If so what was the advice? Has anyone not filled it in for their event?

I am genuinely worried about this, once the Clerk of the Course signs the RA form, he or she is responsible. I know the ACU's Insurance is the best available, but surely there is no point in producing such a generic form without putting a standard in place for it's completion. If the form is then found n a court of law to be incorrectly completed, the Assessor is then negligent?

I would welcome any thoughts or advice on the subject.

[sdc]

I can only speak for the East Midland Centre but we have an annual Clerk of the Course/Stewards licensing seminar and this years (March 14th) will include risk assessment.

[rabie]

having just sat the national clerk of the course seminar (trials and enduro) given by TEC chairman John Collins - I'll say its all included

in my pack i got there, there were three example forms

mk1 - very simple, 5 minutes jobby (covers your a*** in the fact you've done one)

mk2 - by Stratford club, bit more complex with a funky graph

mk3 - super complex foresty style form

the other bit of key advice John dispensed (IMHO anyway) was that risk we are judging are the one we "import" (ie the mountain was there, you can't change that, but building a grandstand is importing so RA must be done)

John did say that its a job for 2006, to further refine the RA issue

as for your last paragraph

a) the insurance covers you anyway

the act of filling one in at the very lest the most basic version on the most simplistic level is ***A step in the right direction***. i wouldn't worry to much about what your putting down

c) i don't AMCA trials people doing this

d) this is trial ! - nothing happens, its intrinsically a very "safe" form of motorsport compared to the MX and Enduros my club also puts on

so chill, do the basic version with some common sense and you're covered

rabie

[scorpa3]

the other bit of key advice John dispensed (IMHO anyway) was that risk we are judging are the one we "import" (ie the mountain was there, you can't change that, but building a grandstand is importing so RA must be done)

the act of filling one in at the very lest the most basic version on the most simplistic level is ***A step in the right direction***. i wouldn't worry to much about what your putting down

so chill, do the basic version with some common sense and you're covered

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for that Rabie. Unfortunately I don't agree with the part about the risks we are judging are the ones we "import" What about a barbed wire fence, a mine shaft, livestock or a steep cliff? There are many risks which might already be at a venue.

I agree that filling in the RA form is a step in the right direction but we really should worry about what we put down. If we identify a risk and then do not take the appropriate steps to eliminate or reduce that risk, we find ourselves in a worse situation.

I also agree that using common sense is the best way of completing the form, however we are all blessed with different levels of common sense.

Back to the mineshaft example; An Assessor might think it is enough to warn riders at the start that there are mineshafts at the venue and to look out for them.

An injured rider might argue in court that he didn't hear the warning.

A judge could decide that the reasonable duty of care should have been to rope off the mineshaft with bright tape. Costs awarded.

An extreme example it maybe but delete mineshaft and insert steep cliff etc etc and the outcome would be the same.

We should all be carrying out assessments to the same standard and the only people who can take the lead on this is the ACU.

I am a little worried that I will make myself unpopular over this but I am convinced that sooner of later one of these RA forms is going to be held up in evidence at a hearing and the person who is responsible for its content is the one whp signed the bottom. Someone like you or me, an untrained volunteer.

Edited February 17, 2006 by scorpa3

[rabie]

i appreciate where you are coming from

IMHO once you've warned them its down to them, they sign on to say they've practically signed their life away its down to them. at the end of the day the people who sunk the mineshaft are responsible in a way. as for a cliff that is nature, your riding off road.

if you believe you need to go the full hog, fill out the forestry form in its amazing detail

but *fundamentally* two different risk assessors are going to identify different risks and when they concur on the same risk they may rate it differently and chose responses to that differently.

IMHO the key is to do any form of RA, the extent is the next step

As far as i know (AFAIK), the ACU insurers will pay out in that example but if it has gone to court it probable will have taken up some of your time.

for example, a kid at one of our MX's went into a prohibited area, a bike went from the track and some mud hit the kid. the event was filmed on tape. the kid sued. despite us being in the right, we (the ACU insurers) settled out of court as it wasn't worth fighting (ie cost us more to fight, even though we're right). my point being is that no matter what you do some **** will try it on - that 21st century Britain

rabie