UK Karting - Notice Board (Combined Forum) : Re: None

Notice Board (Combined Forum)

Re: None
Posted by 'SimonS' on 23 Mar 2015 @ 15:33

| View Message Thread | Reply to this message |

SimonSJoined: December 2004
Total Posts: 4
[ View User Profile ]

As has already been pointed out, the problem may have been that the mother signed on at the end of practice so that they wouldn't have to sign on in the morning.

There is no protocol to 'edit' the signed-on PG once signing-on has taken place, though obviously it has always been a risk. Presumably this is because everyone considered it the same as the driver, once signed-on one cannot appoint someone else to 'take' one's place behind the wheel.

It raises the question as to the procedure to be followed if for any reason the PG fell ill or was injured during the day, as has happened. If the PG isn't there at the track, does the driver automatically get suspended for the rest of the meeting? If the PG is taken to hospital in the interval, can the driver take part in the final, especially if there's been a complaint?

Clearly, there should be a procedure for this eventuality and equally obviously, one can see why there isn't. 'Common sense' isn't an adequate answer because there's always someone willing to try it on.

There was another example of 'common sense' being tested recently. A driver was instructed by the scrutineer to get a new helmet because his current one did not fit adequately. The scrutineer admitted that the helmet was legal in all respects but did not provide this driver with adequate protection in his opinion. The driver has raced with this helmet for the past year without objections.

The two relevant passages from the Blue Book were:

K (Safety) 10.2

"Where there is any doubt about the helmet’s
fitness for its intended purpose then the Chief
Scrutineer is empowered to remove the MSA Approval Sticker and impound the helmet for the duration of the meeting."

This is one sentence in a much longer paragraph
and:
10.3.2 [Helmet] Fit and Security
(i) Satisfy yourself that the back of the helmet provides protection for your neck.

The scrutineer was of the opinion that this standard and stickered helmet sat too high on the drivers head, exposing his neck to possible harm.

It did, however, take him some considerable time to find a passage in the BB that fitted the 'crime', suggesting that he had taken the decision before knowing whether it was 'legal' though his 'common sense' suggested it would be. Nor was the MSA sticker removed until the decision was queried with other officials.

Now, would one consider this to be a decision made in the name of common sense? Would you change your mind if it turned out that the scrutineer and this driver had had issues a year ago; unrelated, but where the driver had been shown to be correct in challenging the scrutineer's ruling?

It's too easy to fog the issue with a biased viewpoint. Criticising the official for having a different view of the position, when most or all of us are unaware of the exact situation, is too easy, especially when the 'offender' cannot answer back in an official capacity.

Message Thread:

whats the point in the PG licence? by 'LoneRanger' (22 Mar 2015 @ 18:17)

Re: whats the point in the PG licence? by 'PaulMRotax' (22 Mar 2015 @ 18:38)

Re: whats the point in the PG licence? by 'richydehav' (22 Mar 2015 @ 19:44)

Re: whats the point in the PG licence? by 'PaulMRotax' (22 Mar 2015 @ 21:01)

Re: whats the point in the PG licence? by 'bodinski' (22 Mar 2015 @ 19:57)

Re: whats the point in the PG licence? by 'gashead' (22 Mar 2015 @ 20:09)

None by 'PhilipSharrocks' (22 Mar 2015 @ 20:11)

Re: None by 'SJTKart76' (23 Mar 2015 @ 0:28)

Re: None by 'dynamax' (23 Mar 2015 @ 12:03)

Re: None by 'PaulMRotax' (23 Mar 2015 @ 12:24)

Re: None by 'SJTKart76' (23 Mar 2015 @ 12:39)

Re: None by 'richydehav' (23 Mar 2015 @ 13:41)

Re: None by 'SimonS' << You are here!

Re: None by 'richydehav' (23 Mar 2015 @ 18:02)

Re: None by 'BobG' (23 Mar 2015 @ 22:36)

Re: None Dynamax by 'PortlandBill' (23 Mar 2015 @ 13:54)

Re: None Dynamax by 'alanrr' (23 Mar 2015 @ 21:10)

Re: None Dynamax by 'SJTKart76' (23 Mar 2015 @ 21:24)

Re: None Dynamax by 'LoneRanger' (23 Mar 2015 @ 21:43)

Re: None Dynamax by 'richydehav' (23 Mar 2015 @ 23:48)

Re: None Dynamax by 'SJTKart76' (24 Mar 2015 @ 0:06)

Re: None Dynamax by 'SimonS' (24 Mar 2015 @ 2:10)

Re: None Dynamax by 'alanrr' (24 Mar 2015 @ 10:06)

Re: None Dynamax by 'christkm' (24 Mar 2015 @ 11:31)

Re: None Dynamax by 'SJTKart76' (24 Mar 2015 @ 15:50)

Re: Dynamax re PGs and Portland Bill by 'dynamax' (26 Mar 2015 @ 10:20)

Re: Dynamax re PGs and Portland Bill by 'PortlandBill' (26 Mar 2015 @ 12:41)

Re: Dynamax re PGs and Portland Bill by 'FlyingCarpet' (26 Mar 2015 @ 20:49)

Post a Reply:

You may post a direct reply to this message which will appear in this thread.
To post a new or unrelated message use This Form. Top of Page
Notice Board Index

[ UK Karting Main Index ]


News	Karts & Karting	Notice Board	Market Place	Companies Directory	Tracks Directory	Events Calendar	Race Results	Photo Gallery	Links