In todays era of mega health and safety standards, and the litigation that can follow as a result, it is mind blowing that a simple Risk Assessment has not been enough to sort this problem out.
With the amount of publicity this topic has had over the last 12 months, I am stunned that anyone at the MSA has the b***s to simply pass the nose cone at suitable. The basic risk question is " Can the shape of the nose cone 'possibly' cause another machine to be launched" ?
The very simple answer is 'yes it can'. Therefore the person carrying out the risk assessment is putting his nuts on the block by thereafter allowing the potentially injury causing item to be used, especially when there is a suitable alternative readily available.
Is this a case of having to wait until a cadet is badly injured before the parents take this to the courts, or do we just have to wait for ZiP to run out of stock of their 'killer cone' ?
I know what the sign says about 'Motor Sport is Dangerous' , but so is crossing the road, and it that case they have reduced(not removed) the risk of injury by introducing pedestrian crossings.
There are sop many comparisons that can be drawn here:
Car crash --seat belts/air bags
Sailing -- Life vests
Flying -- Parachutes
Falling on steps -- Anti Slip products
None of the above are remedies, but they are steps taken to reduce the possibility of injury, and fitting a flat front nose cone, which lets not forget is in the regulations, is a simple step to take that will reduce the possibility of injury through a kart being launched.
Sort it out MSA/ZiP
|
|
