Jump to content

TT 2018


woody2
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, thesultanofsheight said:

Their comments are just typical. Nobody involved with, or associated with, the TT is responsible for death or injury ever. Looks like all the ranks are closing now the ACU and all the organisers are bricking it about the potential costs and liabilities. It’s very poor form. I’m amazed this event still gets riders to participate the way they treat people like shit the minute anything goes wrong. 

Actually it's worse than that because (as I keep on having to point out) the ACU has admitted responsibility.  In the Courts.  Before the Deemster.  So why some people are still trying to blame Mercer I have no idea.  Maybe once they get an idea in their head, they can never get it out again, even if it disproved by later events.

Of course if the ACU had disputed liability, it would have been obliged to disclose the Report they commissioned and all the witness statements and so on that were made.  So you can see why they might not want to dispute it, if the facts were such that even the most sympathetic court would still be obliged to say it was their fault, and the details of their negligence would be exposed.  This way no incompetence is exposed and no heads need to roll.

There is still dispute over the amount to be paid, but in the end the amount may not worry the ACU too much.  In the end it will be paid for by insurance, which is subsidised by the Manx government.  More important will be making sure that as little information gets out as possible, which is why they will want to keep everything in the Manx Courts.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Actually it's worse than that because (as I keep on having to point out) the ACU has admitted responsibility.  In the Courts.  Before the Deemster.  So why some people are still trying to blame Mercer I have no idea.  Maybe once they get an idea in their head, they can never get it out again, even if it disproved by later events.

Of course if the ACU had disputed liability, it would have been obliged to disclose the Report they commissioned and all the witness statements and so on that were made.  So you can see why they might not want to dispute it, if the facts were such that even the most sympathetic court would still be obliged to say it was their fault, and the details of their negligence would be exposed.  This way no incompetence is exposed and no heads need to roll.

There is still dispute over the amount to be paid, but in the end the amount may not worry the ACU too much.  In the end it will be paid for by insurance, which is subsidised by the Manx government.  More important will be making sure that as little information gets out as possible, which is why they will want to keep everything in the Manx Courts.

I agree that this is all tactical so that as little of what happened on that day is uncovered as possible. It’s despicable really given the injuries he suffered. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, the stinking enigma said:

The natural reaction is not to go "hang on a minute, according to paragraph 3 subsection b we are not supposed to do that". You follow the instructions of someone in authority.

Exactly. Authority. There is a question, as set out in my earlier post, as to the extent of authority that it's logical and reasonable to expect any individual to have/exercise. If a grunt marshal instructed me to undertake this highly unusual, potentially dangerous act, frankly I'd have been dubious as to its validity. For something this significant I like to think I'd have been looking for a senior person to tell me directly to my face. If the guy had said 'My name is Billy Sector-Marshal, I'm conveying to you a direct instruction from the Clerk of the Course to return to the Grandstand against the flow' I'd do it.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The criteria for classing someone as an authority goes down during a traumatic event, as this obviously was. A red flag usually only means one thing, some of them may well have seen the original scene. Humans are humans, its a very well understood trait. It numbs the ability to think critically.

Edited by the stinking enigma
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Actually it's worse than that because (as I keep on having to point out) the ACU has admitted responsibility.  In the Courts.  Before the Deemster.  So why some people are still trying to blame Mercer I have no idea.  Maybe once they get an idea in their head, they can never get it out again, even if it disproved by later events.

Of course if the ACU had disputed liability, it would have been obliged to disclose the Report they commissioned and all the witness statements and so on that were made.  So you can see why they might not want to dispute it, if the facts were such that even the most sympathetic court would still be obliged to say it was their fault, and the details of their negligence would be exposed.  This way no incompetence is exposed and no heads need to roll.

There is still dispute over the amount to be paid, but in the end the amount may not worry the ACU too much.  In the end it will be paid for by insurance, which is subsidised by the Manx government.  More important will be making sure that as little information gets out as possible, which is why they will want to keep everything in the Manx Courts.

I'm thinking that the ACU has admitted an all encompassing liability as the race organiser. I'm sure that the mistake was made elsewhere in the chain, despite there being quite robust formal procedures in place which should have prevented this. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, the stinking enigma said:

The criteria for classing someone as an authority goes down during a traumatic event, as this obviously was. A red flag usually only means one thing, some of them may well have seen the original scene. Humans are humans, its a very well understood trait. It numbs the ability to think critically.

Fair enough - not disputed, but I don’t think you can argue that absolutely all critical thinking can be suspended when you’re asked to undertake such a significantly unusual event. But don’t get me wrong - the ACU are at fault; and they know it, they’ve admitted it. I find it astonishing that such a catastrophic event can happen given that all the indications are that it wasn’t sanctioned. Surely there should be some kind of  control protocol. Let’s be clear; I’ve no idea what caused it, but it seems likely that an unauthorised person, or persons, (of whatever level of seniority) thought that they should instruct the riders to return as they did, or that doing so was a good idea. Firstly, what gave rise to such disastrously wrong thinking? Secondly,  how can that then actually be actioned without sanction? Something so significant should have a protocol to approve it and ensure that the CoC is aware and agrees. If the protocol doesn’t exist, that’s scandalous. If the protocol failed, that’s unacceptable and requires a thorough review and rectification. 

Edited by Uhtred
Typo
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Uhtred said:

Fair enough - not disputed, but I don’t think you can argue that absolutely all critical thinking can be suspended when you’re asked to undertake such a significantly unusual event. But don’t get me wrong - the ACU are at fault; and they know it, they’ve admitted it. I find it astonishing that such a catastrophic event can happen given that all the indications are that it wasn’t sanctioned. Surely there should be some kind of  control protocol. Let’s be clear; I’ve no idea what caused it, but it seems likely that an unauthorised person, or persons, (of whatever level of seniority) thought that they should instruct the riders to return as they did, or that doing so was a good idea. Firstly, what gave rise to such disastrously wrong thinking? Secondly,  how can that then actually be actioned without sanction? Something so significant should have a protocol to approve it and ensure that the CoC is aware and agrees. If the protocol doesn’t exist, that’s scandalous. If the protocol failed, that’s unacceptable and requires a thorough review and rectification. 

It may also be possible that having been given instructions by said marshal, SM thought that it had come from race control. Guess we'll never know

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Neil Down said:

It may also be possible that having been given instructions by said marshal, SM thought that it had come from race control. Guess we'll never know

Indeed.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...