revtothelimit - motorbike forum

KungFooBob wrote: Wed Dec 04, 2024 2:57 pm Probably worth remembering that Shakey was at work, not riding for the fun of it like trackdayers and club racers.

Does that work-hobby distinction make any difference, or occur, anywhere else?

Horse wrote: Wed Dec 04, 2024 3:29 pm

KungFooBob wrote: Wed Dec 04, 2024 2:57 pm Probably worth remembering that Shakey was at work, not riding for the fun of it like trackdayers and club racers.

Does that work-hobby distinction make any difference, or occur, anywhere else?

It should do. A novice trackday rider is not an expert and cannot be expected to accurately assess risk. He should be able to rely on the organizers to mitigate more extreme risks. A professional racer IS an expert, and can be said to have seen and accepted the risks.

Cousin Jack wrote: Wed Dec 04, 2024 3:52 pm

Horse wrote: Wed Dec 04, 2024 3:29 pm

KungFooBob wrote: Wed Dec 04, 2024 2:57 pm Probably worth remembering that Shakey was at work, not riding for the fun of it like trackdayers and club racers.

Does that work-hobby distinction make any difference, or occur, anywhere else?

It should do. A novice trackday rider is not an expert and cannot be expected to accurately assess risk. He should be able to rely on the organizers to mitigate more extreme risks. A professional racer IS an expert, and can be said to have seen and accepted the risks.

I was concerned about the opposite situation - ie (if I read KFB properly) that an amateur shouldn't expect the level of protection afforded to a professional.

From my work experience, which sometimes involved members of the public, there would be no differentiation in risk to either public or staff.

FWIW, when Silverstone was remodelled (15-20 years ago?) run off areas etc were designed around likely places that vehicles might leave the track and distances they might be expected to travel.

Horse wrote: Wed Dec 04, 2024 4:52 pm FWIW, when Silverstone was remodelled (15-20 years ago?) run off areas etc were designed around likely places that vehicles might leave the track and distances they might be expected to travel.

Well yes, however then cars and bikes got wayyyyy faster and more powerful, so may be not as valid now

weeksy wrote: Wed Dec 04, 2024 5:04 pm

Horse wrote: Wed Dec 04, 2024 4:52 pm FWIW, when Silverstone was remodelled (15-20 years ago?) run off areas etc were designed around likely places that vehicles might leave the track and distances they might be expected to travel.

Well yes, however then cars and bikes got wayyyyy faster and more powerful, so may be not as valid now

Yup, it was possibly part of the redesign to slow them down too.

But the principle was: risk assessed, identified and mitigated.

Cousin Jack wrote: Wed Dec 04, 2024 3:52 pm

Horse wrote: Wed Dec 04, 2024 3:29 pm

KungFooBob wrote: Wed Dec 04, 2024 2:57 pm Probably worth remembering that Shakey was at work, not riding for the fun of it like trackdayers and club racers.

Does that work-hobby distinction make any difference, or occur, anywhere else?

It should do. A novice trackday rider is not an expert and cannot be expected to accurately assess risk. He should be able to rely on the organizers to mitigate more extreme risks. A professional racer IS an expert, and can be said to have seen and accepted the risks.

From Alan's track day thread:

Alan PBTD wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2024 7:23 pm Been a great run but to be honest - with costings all heading upwards and the Shakey aftermarth to come into effect - well, we've had the best out of it.

Seems this could have a wide effect.

Horse wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2024 8:02 pm From Alan's track day thread:

Alan PBTD wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2024 7:23 pm Been a great run but to be honest - with costings all heading upwards and the Shakey aftermarth to come into effect - well, we've had the best out of it.

Seems this could have a wide effect.

I'd say that Shakey has (probably unwittingly) lobbed a gurt big hand grenade into the UK Track day marketplace.

mangocrazy wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2024 8:06 pm

Horse wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2024 8:02 pm From Alan's track day thread:

Alan PBTD wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2024 7:23 pm Been a great run but to be honest - with costings all heading upwards and the Shakey aftermarth to come into effect - well, we've had the best out of it.

Seems this could have a wide effect.

I'd say that Shakey has (probably unwittingly) lobbed a gurt big hand grenade into the UK Track day marketplace.

Unwittingly? I very much doubt that, unless his legal team never thought to say "Errr, you do realise ... "

Horse wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2024 8:20 pm

mangocrazy wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2024 8:06 pm

Horse wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2024 8:02 pm From Alan's track day thread:



Seems this could have a wide effect.

I'd say that Shakey has (probably unwittingly) lobbed a gurt big hand grenade into the UK Track day marketplace.

Unwittingly? I very much doubt that, unless his legal team never thought to say "Errr, you do realise ... "

Guess so; racers are a selfish breed and looking after number one is always top of their agenda. He could rapidly achieve pariah status...

On the Shakey format I think the following applies - and currently don't know the answer - and it's my thoughts

1.0 There's no differance in the safety facilities provided @ circuits whatever the bike event ( i.e BSB / Club Meeting / TD's ). If there was ( say air bag fencing ) it would never stand up in court. As we've seen....
Claimants have up to 6 years to file a claim and now Shakey's case will be quoted in all clamis - which as the judge ruled incorrect barriers were installed the time of the accident (and I wonder who made that decision at that point in time ???)

2.0 Any Circuit needs a permit / licence to operate. Race meetings are governed by ACU / MSA etc - TD's are governed by the circuit's general permits ( ie with landowners / circuit operators etc ) and the TDO's PL / Insurance policy.

Now this is were the fun starts. At the end of the ''claim chain'' it all comes back to the legal beagles and the insurance underriters / ins policy. They may say ( under guidence / further advise ) that XYZ barriers must be in place ( and signed off under inspection ). The circuits operators will argue the extent of XYZ as they will have to pay for it ( and then pass the costs on to their customers..)

3.0 So the permits / licences are issued to the circuits and the ''Hirers'' ( TDO / Race Club etc ) are potenitally faced with increased ''Hire Fees''

4.0 The the same with a ACU licenced / permit event - they have to have ins cover as well - and shedloads of procedures (aka ACU Blue Book )

5.0 And all these new procedures / Risk assesments etc have to be written up and checked by legal teams and signed off - so who pays for that ?

6.0 And for further fun - The circuit management will have to decide - if they increase the coverage ( length ) of air fencing ( or simular ) where exactly does it go and how much - length - they do. They know the high risk area's ( and I do at Pembrey ) but it's not straight forward.

7.0 OR they just have a chat about it - do some rough sums - conclude this is a lot of ball ache and then say ''We're not having anything to do with bikes''.

Which could happen.

Cheers !

Shakey's case judgement doc is here - an interesting read IMO, - provides a lot of detail and background.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl ... .11.24.pdf

Tricky wrote: Sat Dec 07, 2024 12:03 pm Shakey's case judgement doc is here - an interesting read IMO, - provides a lot of detail and background.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl ... .11.24.pdf

Long read, very interesting tho'

That's the bit of law I was trying to remember when I said disclaimers are basically worthless...

Further, I have to bear in mind section 2(3) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which reads:

“Where a contract term or notice purports to…restrict liability for negligence a person’s agreement to or awareness of it is not of itself to be taken as indicating his voluntary acceptance of any risk.”

Even if the defendants had satisfied me that Mr Byrne had signed one of their notices that day, I would not have concluded that the claimant had indicated his voluntary acceptance of the risks which I have to assess in this case.

Alan PBTD wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 2:20 pm
OR they just have a chat about it - do some rough sums - conclude this is a lot of ball ache and then say ''We're not having anything to do with bikes''.

Which could happen.

Cheers !

Sorry to read elsewhere that PB trackdays will no longer run at Pembrey. Thank you for all you did for us lot over the years, making new people feel welcome and generally being a top bloke

Cheers Bigyin - we've had some interesting chats over the years !

and on the Shakey topic - had a first read but got the impression that Shakeys team won about 4 - 0 and MSV etc had a right hammering. Compensation will be the next thing and it looks like MSV etc better have deep pockets as they are in for a hammering.

Do view Shakey in a slightly different light now - reading this and don't quite get why the case actually focused so much on the actual design of the corner and love the bit when the Judge states ''just because an accident hasn't happened ( at said corner ) it's acceptable that you do the minimum requirements''

There's a lot of fall out heading the circuits way...

Alan PBTD wrote: Sat Dec 07, 2024 8:52 pm
Do view Shakey in a slightly different light now - reading this and don't quite get why the case actually focused so much on the actual design of the corner and love the bit when the Judge states ''just because an accident hasn't happened ( at said corner ) it's acceptable that you do the minimum requirements''

There's a lot of fall out heading the circuits way...

I'm not a 'track,' person, but I recall a briefing at Thruxton which was, roughly, "there are only two places you need to brake hard. And they're the only places where barriers are close to the track."

And that seems to be the centre of the winning argument.

Track redesign
They're warned about insufficient run-off distances
Lackluster risk assessment
Poor record keeping
And, potentially, reliance on a disclaimer


However ... Can't help but wonder whether the claim was speculative, or whether he'd had some sort of inside information about all that?

One lad sued Focused Events after he crashed running onto the grass.
His case revolved about him not being told the grass was slippy.

After that, every briefing was filmed to stop folk making shit claims.

Yorick wrote: Sat Dec 07, 2024 9:23 pm One lad sued Focused Events after he crashed running onto the grass.
His case revolved about him not being told the grass was slippy.

After that, every briefing was filmed to stop folk making shit claims.

I remember that, kind of. Or similar. I was told it was one of Jim Whittam's trackdays.

KungFooBob wrote: Sat Dec 07, 2024 9:25 pm

Yorick wrote: Sat Dec 07, 2024 9:23 pm One lad sued Focused Events after he crashed running onto the grass.
His case revolved about him not being told the grass was slippy.

After that, every briefing was filmed to stop folk making shit claims.

I remember that, kind of. Or similar. I was told it was one of Jim Whittam's trackdays.

Deffo F.E. I was instructing at that time.