This really surprised me, particularly after all this time- am guessing that he's either got a big bill come in and is a bit short, or maybe he's just been persuaded that there's money in it by some ambulance chaser, and maybe thought Palmer is creaming it and I'll have some of that ?
Either way, it's from me- am really not comfortable with this for many reasons and hope that he does not win the case, although if I had to bet on it, my money would go on it being settled out of court...
Tricky wrote: Tue May 14, 2024 8:38 pm
This really surprised me, particularly after all this time- am guessing that he's either got a big bill come in and is a bit short, or maybe he's just been persuaded that there's money in it by some ambulance chaser, and maybe thought Palmer is creaming it and I'll have some of that ?
Either way, it's from me- am really not comfortable with this for many reasons and hope that he does not win the case, although if I had to bet on it, my money would go on it being settled out of court...
Hum...doubt if he'll be continuing his commentating job for the interim..
People have up to 6 years to make a claim - obviously they see something in the claim so am watching with interest. Can see main point of claim but overall concern - for everyone will be the potential knock on effect for all Motorsport venues - what ever the verdict - potential expenditure of improved safety fencing / PL insurance - and as someone said why are the safety facilities any different for Superbike Riders @ BSB compared to Joe Public on a TD..
There's lots of factors that might come up - Riders expressed concerns previous event / on the day ( complaint recorded ? ) and the data from the bike - or they might just go for the fact that Shakey thinks / thought the barriers were ''insufficient for purpose''
He had approached the accident corner on the same line as he had done on the previous lap, in which there was no accident, he continued.
"Therefore, the speed and position cannot be criticised as being at fault for what happened," he told the judge.
Erm, if his speed and position were the same as the previous lap, in which there was no accident, then there still should have been no accident, surely? I guess his team is trying to obfuscate things a bit. The reason he ran off the track is nothing to do with the case, which looks to be about adequate crash protection
As much as I like him, is he really Britain's "Most decorated" and "greatest ever" rider?
This has more than likely ended up in Court because Dr John has dug his Heels in.
I hope for everyone’s sake that Shakey loses. It’ll cost him a fair Penny if he does. He’ll have to pay out from the pile that Msv threw his way annually to turn up at their Circuits. How ironic.
McNab wrote: Wed May 15, 2024 3:23 pm
As much as I like him, is he really Britain's "Most decorated" and "greatest ever" rider?
Statistically in terms of BSB I think so.... arguably, i'm not convinced in any other context. I'd put him behind a fair few like Fogarty, Hodgson, Walker, Rea, heck even riders like Hislop, Reynolds, Toseland i'd give a run for their money in it, but deffo first 3 as they made a decent fist of it in other classes
I would imagine the activity took place under a commercial contract which should cover such eventualities. Not unreasonable to seek damages having received significant injuries with significant consequences.
MyLittleStudPony wrote: Thu May 16, 2024 8:02 am
I would imagine the activity took place under a commercial contract which should cover such eventualities. Not unreasonable to seek damages having received significant injuries with significant consequences.
MyLittleStudPony wrote: Thu May 16, 2024 8:02 am
I would imagine the activity took place under a commercial contract which should cover such eventualities. Not unreasonable to seek damages having received significant injuries with significant consequences.
On what grounds ?
It would depend on the contracts in place, which I am not aware of, and exactly what happened, which I'm not aware of.
Lawyers and courts aren't some sort of mean spirited con, they simply apply the law and agreements in place.
MyLittleStudPony wrote: Thu May 16, 2024 8:02 am
I would imagine the activity took place under a commercial contract which should cover such eventualities. Not unreasonable to seek damages having received significant injuries with significant consequences.
On what grounds ?
It would depend on the contracts in place, which I am not aware of, and exactly what happened, which I'm not aware of.
Lawyers and courts aren't some sort of mean spirited con, they simply apply the law and agreements in place.
My point is, on what grounds do you think seeking compensation is not unreasonable ? Hundreds of thousands of laps have been ridden around there, by thousands of riders, racers.... Yet he's the first. He's not the first to crash and i doubt he's the first to crash on that corner... but using the "well it was fine on the previous lap" basically means anytime anyone crashes they can blame the circuit for it.
Presumably he was aware that there was a tyre wall on that corner before he started the session? Curious to see why he felt forced to go out on the bike... was there someone holding a gun to his head?
Unfortunately the US taste for litigation every time someone has a problem has spread to the UK. It will eventually kill all sorts of activities.
It is not so much the law being a problem, there is already an English law principle that if you do something that you know to be dangerous then you have accepted that risk willingly, and it is your own fault. The problem is ambulance chasing legal firms, and insurance companies who roll over and pay up. Together they will push costs up until activities that might be slightly dangerous are just priced out of reach.
It would depend on the contracts in place, which I am not aware of, and exactly what happened, which I'm not aware of.
Lawyers and courts aren't some sort of mean spirited con, they simply apply the law and agreements in place.
My point is, on what grounds do you think seeking compensation is not unreasonable ? Hundreds of thousands of laps have been ridden around there, by thousands of riders, racers.... Yet he's the first. He's not the first to crash and i doubt he's the first to crash on that corner... but using the "well it was fine on the previous lap" basically means anytime anyone crashes they can blame the circuit for it.
I'm not saying it's not unreasonable. I'm saying see where that risk sits in the contractual agreements.
Lots of people do certain things on a building site, but someone gets unlucky one day and gets injured doing that - and the employer typically has some liability. I'm not saying it's the same, it's just an example.
I think the basis for the claim is that Shakey's legal team are saying that the ''tyre barrier'' was insusficient for the type of event and if additional / different barriers ( EG air bags / rctelsel ) had been installed (as well) then the injuries potentially a rider would suffer would be greatly reduced. Now proving that will be a massive exercise involving medical / crash experts and they would have to state x injury etc would not happen if Y Barriers were installed. And I believe that's what the Judge will decide on.
Common sence says the more safety barriers u install the potentially less injury a rider may suffer.
Once the Judge has decided / agreed with this then he'll rule on the liability and if the organisers were negligent in not installing such items - and then the fun will start. If there were liable in the first place / and then the cost of compensation ( injuries sustained between actual and if items had been fitted )
Off the BBC :
Barrister Kiril Waite, representing the rider, said that after coming off the track at around 60 mph (97 km/h), the bike went across a grass run-off area and both the vehicle and Mr Byrne hit a safety barrier, sustaining "catastrophic" injuries as a result.
The barrier was known as a "Type D additional protective device (APD)", which consisted of tyres bolted together and was the minimum level of protection available.
Mr Byrne hit the barrier at between 15 and 25 mph (24 and 40 km/h), with Mr Waite telling the court that a "Type A" device, an air-filled barrier which acts as a shock absorber, was "the appropriate form of protection" and should have been in place at the corner, as it was elsewhere on the track.
Mr Waite added there was "no basis for the allegation that Mr Byrne rode incompetently" and it was "inherently implausible" that he rode off the track, instead claiming that there was "a loss of traction with the tarmac".
He said: "Mr Byrne's case is that, had Type A APD been fitted in front of the barrier, Mr Byrne would not have suffered the catastrophic injuries he did.
Lawyers for the three sporting bodies - Motorsport Vision Racing, which runs the championship, Motorsport Vision, which owns the track, and the Motorcycle Circuit Racing Control Board, a sport governing body - told the court Mr Byrne was to blame for the accident, and they were not at fault as a result.
In written submissions, their barrister, Malcolm Duthie, said Mr Byrne's injuries "are not caused by the absence of Type A".
He said: "There were no faults with the motorcycle or the track. It is, therefore, the defendant's contention that Mr Byrne was at fault for what occurred.
"But even if that is incorrect, the circumstances of his accident were unusual and the manner of his riding, even if regarded as an error of judgement and not contributorily negligent, was the substantial and real cause for why he came into contact with the barrier at all."
"The cause of his injuries was him striking a Type D hard-surfaced conveyor-belted tyre barrier."[/i
I kinda get it, but using that logic each and every crash that happens could have been decreased in some way. "They let me ride without an airsuit" or "if the grass wasn't grass and was a lake I'd not have hit the wall. Although I may have drowned"
Etc.
It's a shame he got injured of course but I don't think this is the answer
The barrier was known as a "Type D additional protective device (APD)", which consisted of tyres bolted together and was the minimum level of protection available.
I’m wondering if that’s meant to say “minimum level of protection required” as stating “available” seems a bit odd. Almost as if “this is all we’ve got so it’ll have to do”
The barrier was known as a "Type D additional protective device (APD)", which consisted of tyres bolted together and was the minimum level of protection available.
I’m wondering if that’s meant to say “minimum level of protection required” as stating “available” seems a bit odd. Almost as if “this is all we’ve got so it’ll have to do”
Well, minimum level of protection is just that - set down by the controling bodies and prob FIA / ACU etc.
''Available'' is a slightly different kettle of fish as I would imagine unless they ( the circuit ) purchase it themselves Barriers like Recticel or an Air Bag system could be in short supply ( depending on timing of the race meeting and what was going on elsewhere ( say TT / MotoGP etc ) as they may rent it from another circuit / facility.
You could say then if crash data say's there's never been a crash at x point / corner then why go to the extent of XYZ additional barriers - which a business could say is fine but it's always Ok until it goes tit's up.
Just imagine the expence of kitting out the whole circuit with air fencing - or even Brands GP etc and then it' s not fool proof and Air fences come with their own problems . Thruxton fastest circuit in the UK doesn't have much. As some would say, a lot of money for a couple of BSB meetings ?
In a simular sinario when they first built Wembley and had all the problems with the grass - they returfed it twice and then had to borrow the heat lamp lighting system off Arsenal ( I think ) 'cos they didn't have one.
WTF- Shakey jumps on the gravy train....
from me- am really not comfortable with this for many reasons and hope that he does not win the case, although if I had to bet on it, my money would go on it being settled out of court...
