"There is a huge gulf between the MSA and competitors, that gap needs bridging, here is the ideal chance to have your say and hopefully make a difference. "
As stated elsewhere, you are going to have to be absolutely clear about what you want to achieve and how you are going to go about it.
One of the problems will be the fact that any association will have to be scrupulously unbiased and distance itself from some of the wilder allegations that this forum encourages.
Another problem will be that there will be times when the association will be as unable as the MSA to respond to what some people will see as a pressing issue, quite simply because the association becomes a body of authority.
Another problem will be that the association will have to remain silent on issues some people think should be aired, because there is a division between opinions.
What do I mean?
Well, how exactly is one going to represent the current issue to the MSA? Clearly the MSA know about it and have told people they know about it and that the current evidence is not conclusive that the Zip nosecone is the cause of the incidents.
if the DIY testing comes to the same conclusion, then what?
Secondly, there have been a number of accusations made which are more or less acceptable only because they are made by opinionated individuals. IF KRDA were to say "This equipment is not safe" , as a figure of authority it becomes liable to action. (If the equipment proves to be safe, then expect to pay compensation). So a number of people will accuse the KRDA of being in the pockets of trade.
Then address the issue of kerbing to the MSA. It is wide open to interpretation, but some drivers are convinced that it is cheating or evidence of being out of control while others think that it is entirely legal. Now, I suspect that there are more dangerous incidents in karting caused by drivers taking the kerb than could ever be caused by the shape of a nosecone. Why would the KRDA represent one safety issue and not the other?
There have been several attempts by various bodies to be a "better MSA" but they break down when they cannot meet the initial expectations.
It may be a worthy cause, but exactly what do you expect to acheive when the outcome isn't clear.
For example, if the crash testing proves inconclusive, then the next most likely cause of the cadet incidents is driver behaviour. What action would you be looking for then and how would you enforce it?
|
|
