Prosecution of a MTB downhill race organiser and Marshal at LLangollen

Home Forum Bike Forum Prosecution of a MTB downhill race organiser and Marshal at LLangollen

Viewing 6 posts - 121 through 126 (of 126 total)
  • Prosecution of a MTB downhill race organiser and Marshal at LLangollen
  • maxtorque
    Member

    mehr

    If the HSE were that concerned no one should be allowed within 10ft of the track and be behind a fence, which is probably what will happen if they’re found guilty

    And what happens when someone is killed next time (it will happen eventually)? Perhaps then we make it 100ft and a bigger fence?

    Wouldn’t it all just be a lot easier if we all just took on some personal responsibility for once?

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    And what happens when someone is killed next time (it will happen eventually)? Perhaps then we make it 100ft and a bigger fence?

    Perhaps we have a case of exaggeration with no real experience of what the HSE actually want.

    Wouldn’t it all just be a lot easier if we all just took on some personal responsibility for once?

    Yes, but expecting everybody to suddenly become experts in risk both seen and unseen is a bit much hence we ask that people in charge take responsibility for the people that they are inviting in.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    Didn’t something like this happen in the past with with car rallies?

    will be the death knell of cycyling

    Woah there, easy tiger.

    Wouldn’t it all just be a lot easier if we all just took on some personal responsibility for once?

    The issue is that an individual might not foresee the risk of doing something because they don’t have all the information. To take the case to an extreme hypothetical level, what if it had been some random rambler and the course wasn’t taped at all with no marshals? At some point between that scenario and “100ft [run off areas] and a bigger fence?” you can draw up a set of best practices that keep people safe as far as reasonably practical. That last bit’s the important bit in almost all H&S matters, you accept there is a risk but you take all reasonable steps to avoid/mitigate it.

    What does prosecuting an individual in this case achieve?

    I’m going to suggest all it achieves is to ruin another persons life, and potentially, should that prosecution lead to a, very likely imo, lack of volunteer marshals for events, to prevent a lot of people from getting a lot of enjoyment out of a sport they love.

    Well, no. If you are doing a job and mess up because you didn’t do it as you should then something has gone wrong. That could be he was just bad at it (his own fault) or because he wasn’t given adequate training (his employers fault). The HSE’s investigation will hopefully have identified which of those they think it is (presumably the marshal otherwise it would just be the employer/organizer on trial).

    For the past week I’ve been putting up scaffold towers to rig for a TV show. Now if one collapses and someone’s hurt I’d be up in the dock. So I make sure they’re put together properly. Ditto my boss would be in trouble if I’d not been trained properly in how to put up a scaffold tower and it collapsed. But in that scenario, I’d (probably) be OK as I wouldn’t be expected to know that I needed more training, that’s the job of the person doing the risk assessment and method statement. Doesn’t stop my boss from running a company or me from putting up the scaffold because we both know (and have done the paperwork, and stick to best practice) so we know the risk is as low as reasonably practicable.

    Premier Icon Phil_H
    Subscriber

    Didn’t something like this happen in the past with with car rallies?

    There’s an ongoing FAI into fatalities at 2 scottish rallies, the Snowman in 2014 and the Jim Clark in 2014.

Viewing 6 posts - 121 through 126 (of 126 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed, but trackbacks are open.

Skip to top