2018 Trackday Safety Requirements (includes rollover bar content)

[ECR]

An "arrogant tit" 

Got to admire his vocabulary though. I can't wait to use " tergiversating" in the local bar

[RogNeedham]

Good afternoon all,

In the light of the various statements and opinions contained in the thread and in particular those points raised by Ian, I would confirm the following:

The MT took a multi- faceted approach to this exercise. Certainly the decision to undertake the engineering assessment was taken on the back years of debate, dialogue etc. It has always been reasonable to believe that any bar with one or two diagonal bracing structures would be stronger than those without. The objective was to therefore assess by how much. Were the differences substantial or otherwise?

James' main article and other thread contributors noted that for any Club to recommend a lowering of the previously agreed higher standard would potentially have opened the Club and its' officials to legal scrutiny should a worst case scenario take place on a Club Track Day. Writing as a Director of the Club and personally, it is this element I took extremely seriously.

The steps taken to ascertain the legal perspective were as follows:-

1) I have spent 15+ years working in a large manufacturing business with a strong corporate ethic as regards Health and Safety. During this time i worked with a lawyer (he has absolutely no connection with the Club), who specialises in working the HSE in cases of potential corporate manslaughter involving construction site equipment.

2) Given the need to also set our engineering report against the potential risks associated with change, it was agreed that I would outline the Club scenario to this gentleman, to obtain some informal feedback. At the same time he outlined the steps the Club would need to take to obtain a full legal opinion.

The Club had two options a) seek a full legal opinion from a QC having first instructed a solicitor to engage said QC, b) seek out a QC, the vast majority of whom are based in London, who will take direct instruction from the customer. Both courses of action would have cost c.£10k.

The prime consideration governing this important Club decision is the Common Law principle of the Duty of Care. In summarising the lawyers comments, it was he who posed the question, "how would you justify to the judge/coroner that an individuals' injuries (or worse) occurred as a result of decision to relax a previously adopted higher standard."

And like it or like it not, that made me think very hard - perhaps I am overly risk averse.

Nor we were concerned with the standards other Clubs adopt - they make their own rules. Our standard, as James pointed out in the article, had been set for a variety of reasons 20 years ago. It was not going to be a simple question of "bringing ourselves into line etc"

So to the points:

• the question was not too difficult to answer - "ah yes the well trodden path of certain thread posters demanding responses to every post because they cannot accept a decision they don't like" 
• We agreed I would respond when my work travel schedule allowed - apologies if this was not in line with expectations 
• the decision was not poor that is just an individual opinion, to which of course that individual is entitled. For the reasons stated above I 100% stand behind the decision - endless repeating of the same point does not make your opinion right Ian. Nor will it make me change my mind.

1. the H&S advice is not is written form - see above
2. so you're wrong - the legal input was independent
3. this thread will remain on record as to the approach taken
4. correct - see above. On balance the Club felt that as the decision being taken was primarily a matter of conscience, supported by engineering assessment and reliable legal input, it was not necessary to obtain the full written legal report given the indicated costs involved.

For what it's worth I am regular trackday attendee and have been for c.15 years. My first car was a Crossflow with a very standard roll bar. After my first track day at Cadwell Park, a friend who was with me on the day, turned to me as we were packing up and said something along the lines of "great fun but I'd have been happier with something stronger to protect me"

Fair point thought I, so I bought a 'tall track day bar" and enjoyed the trials and tribulations of fitting it.

As General Secretary of the Club, I take the position seriously. I know that fellow members of the MT think the same of their commitment to the Club. With c.2800 members, we are never going to please everyone, but for such an important matter as this, I asked myself "what do I think is the right thing to do". 

For one I could not stand in front of the authorities and explain away the decision to reduce this important safety standard. Others may feel that they could. That will be a decision that another MT could make should they so choose. 

Regards

Rog

General Secretary

[Golf Juliet Tango]

the well trodden path of certain thread posters demanding responses to every post because they cannot accept a decision they don't like

 

    

[MADMALC]

I have to confess I never got as far as 'tergiversating', as I was so appalled and disgusted by what I was reading that I moved on. I am normally a very tolerant person but there comes a time when enough is enough and I think that time has arrived.

[RogNeedham]

Indeed Malc - sorry to read that SLR no27 no longer seems to be around. I'm the proud owner of No 83. One of the best cars Caterham have made - but I may be biased*hehe*

Rog

[TomB]

Great post Roger 

[SLR No.77]

You're not biased Rog you're absolutely right .... although I might be biased as well!

And great post, time for us all to accept the decision and move on.

Stu.

[ECR]

I'm happy that "The man on the Clapham omnibus" would be content (The term was introduced into English law during the Victorian era, and is still an important concept in British law) and indeed may even commend the club's approach and reasoning given that it is an unpaid, part time amateur organisation.

Move on......

[Golf Juliet Tango]

And by commissioning a substantial technical study from a specialist engineering company which specialises in automotive matters showing exemplary responsibility.

[Ian B]

THANK YOU for replying Roger, much appreciated, and contains the information I had requested.
Had a similar reply been forthcoming sooner it would have avoided the need for the assumptions.
Communication is the key 

As garybee said "Surely nobody actually believed that the standard bar was going to be stronger than the trackday bar?  In which case this process could come across as an expensive and time consuming way of justifying an already entrenched position."

Given the above was my opinion as well, in my view the most important and telling sentence in the Low Flying article was: 
"This enthusiasm though was brought into check by the advice provided to the Management Team about the importance of the precedence created by the 1996 rule".
Given the importance and weight given to that "advice" I was simply trying to establish the source and accountability of it.
The tergiversating* nature of the replies to that simple request only served to heighten my concerns.

Regarding the tests, as "The objective was to therefore assess by how much. Were the differences substantial or otherwise?" it is extremely disappointing, as others have said, that the detailed results of the tests are not to be shared with Members. One may conclude from this decision that perhaps the differences are not great, but with the results being kept secret no one can make an informed opinion of the differences for themselves  

On the legal aspect, in an effort to try to understand the entrenched position of some MT members when this was discussed whilst I was on the MT, I also sought the informal opinion of a lawyer friend of mine regarding the likelihood of action action being brought against Club Officers, and their view was different to that of your friend, so I'm not convinced of the value of that "advice". However, as you say, to obtain the advice of a QC, if that is indeed what would be needed, would be prohibitively expensive for the Club.
This only goes to show the importance of basing such decisions, especially in the future, on accurate and professional advice, in order to hopefully avoid the situation we now find ourselves in regarding revoking them. Hopefully lessons have been learnt.

One final point that made me smile was your statement: 
"After my first track day at Cadwell Park, a friend who was with me on the day, turned to me as we were packing up and said something along the lines of "great fun but I'd have been happier with something stronger to protect me"
I therefore assume that your first trackday was not a Club one? This was the whole point of the original discussion, that Club members should be able to try out a Club trackday to see if they like it, and if they do then they can decide, as you did, to upgrade their rollbar if they wish.   

Thank you for responding to my questions.
Ian

*I came across "tergiversating" just before making the post, and although I'd never heard of it either, it seemed to sum up the responses I'd had so far extremely aptly 

PS. Stephen (GJT), given your behaviour regarding Area Flags, your re-quoting "the well trodden path of certain thread posters demanding responses to every post because they cannot accept a decision they don't like" is quite amusing, however, in this matter I have been following the advice in your signature that "Democratic dissent is not disloyalty, it is a positive civic duty"      

[DJ.]

Nice post Ian        No tergiversation that I could spot.

[Mark w]

Nothing to do with me but there’s a brand new FIA bar and petty strut for sale on the Facebook marketplace page 

Brand new never fitted imperial S3 FIA bar  & strut.

Jonathan 07971988735