You couldn't fit one of those noses to a TKM because (aside from the obvious) no other manufacturer would get a special dispensation.
The root of the issue isn't really about gaining an advantage or even about child safety. The root of the problem is that a regulation dealing specifically with safety is being ignored to the benefit (fiscal, sporting or otherwise) of one manufacturer.
The onus of proof should be on Zipkart to prove it is safe, not the MSA to prove it unsafe, since it is Zipkart that want to contravene the regulation.
I'm willing to bet the only reason the MSA have yet to take action is because, if withdrawn as being unsafe, all those that have been injured because of it would have a very strong case in court (and a very good reason to pursue it); it would confirm that the dispensation should never have been given in the first place. As it stands, it would be very difficult to build a body of evidence proving the nose cone to be unsafe so the MSA maintain the status quo.
|
|