| Author |
 Topic  |
|
| |
Current Topic Rating:  | Join the Forum to Rate this Topic at: Classic Motorcycling Australia Forums
|
|
|
Allan
Site Moderator
National
599 Posts |
 Posted - 14 Jul 2003 : 10:08:28 AM
|
MA are looking at Racers to CERTIFER their Bikes in writing that they meet all regulation's! and wot next, the same thing as to SCRUTINEERING, GOD look at what some bring as raced prep bikes now i would not ride some of them down to the local pub!
|
Allan Greening |
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jul 2003 : 7:51:46 PM
|
This b*llsh*t has been proposed in the car racing world. I don't think the insurers would be too impressed, neither would the coroner, if/when someone bites the dust.
What it might do is remove some of the responsibilty from MA, and put it back on the owner of the bike, so that any injury claim resulting from machine breakdown, would be defeated in court.
If that resulted in greately reduced premiums, might not be too bad - FAT CHANCE! |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
 |
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jul 2003 : 8:03:26 PM
|
Another thing about 'certification'. The fundamental idea is that certification should be carried out by a 'competent authority'. In short it's ridiculous to believe that a racer can certify his own machine. What are the competency requirements - do we need an engineer's report- if we are going to do this properly?
The other day I scrutineered a sidecar at a race meeting. The rear suspension rocker arm had been shortened, severly increasing the load. The welds were cocky sh*t, but the owner believed the mod was safe. Who's going to tell him differently. The guy wouldn't even know how to 'qualify' his welds, let alone do a stress calculation. What a joke? |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
|
|
|
john
Forum Moderator
Victoria
3130 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jul 2003 : 08:32:19 AM
|
| Maybe there is something about taking resposibility for your own actions. If that Gent with the sidecar suspension mods believes its ok and it is not obviously bad, then he should wear the resposibility. But I am aware the legal eagles have managed to distort reality and put the resposibility on the scrutineer. Unfairly in my mind. Perhaps scrutinering should not be called a safety check, somethig else so that nobody can claim it is a "safetly and structural examination" |
John Daley Sidecar #68
' there are those who do, those who dont do and those who undo. We must lampoon the latter." |
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jul 2003 : 5:54:42 PM
|
John, you might like my definition of the term 'safe':
'A situation or condition where risks are minimised to a level tolerable to all stakeholders, where risk is measured/assessed in terms of likelihood (probability) of an incident, and consequences (severity).'
Where does that leave that sidecar riders family? |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
|
|
|
john
Forum Moderator
Victoria
3130 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2003 : 07:47:05 AM
|
| What are you getting at Alan? |
John Daley Sidecar #68
' there are those who do, those who dont do and those who undo. We must lampoon the latter." |
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2003 : 8:02:55 PM
|
It's OK for a rider to certify his bike as being 'safe', however his family are also stakeholders. If a claim (in the event of a death)against the insurers fails because the rider has 'falsely' certified his bike, the family are the losers.
Another thing, under current law you can't sign away your (or your families) right to sue, with a 'liability waiver', which is what the 'certifying' activity effectively becomes. |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
