Jump to content

TT 2021 ??


NoTail
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 2/11/2021 at 7:11 PM, joebean said:

In my opinion the MGP/Classic TT will not go ahead for all the reasons already stated in this thread with the addition that the TT Course has not been set up for the TT. The August event usually rides on the shoulders of the TT as the course safety equipment is already set out. Any visitors attending the August event are a bonus given that the costs of course set-up have already been incurred. The costs of doing this are hardly justified by the comparatively smaller numbers of visitors attending in August. 2021 is a write-off for road racing. Effort needs to be concentrated on making 2022 viable.

Will the prom be finished for 2022 ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/15/2021 at 8:27 AM, Zarley said:

For what it's worth...

I know three marshals. One comes over every year for the FoM (race week only), and the other two are a married couple who come over for both, for the whole fortnight in both instances.

The fella who comes for the FoM loves the island and is very dedicated to marshalling. He and his wife would like to move here eventually and even got married on the summit of Snaefell a few years ago.

He'd like to see marshals being granted free travel as encouragement to come over. 

The couple started out only doing the FoM, but in recent years have come over for both. They also do some marshalling at meets across and he does some racing himself as well (not here though).

They would like to see both travel and accommodation part subsidised, but not paid for entirely. Their thinking is perhaps 50% towards travel and £10-£20 towards accommodation per night. I don't think that's unreasonable.

They'd be happy with any help to defray the cost but don't expect a free ride. They figure it's what they choose to use their holiday entitlements for, but would like to be shown some appreciation for what they do. I don't blame them.

They have also been thinking of moving over and they are both in jobs that are in demand here. They were actively pursuing a move when the pandemic hit, but that's on hold for now. 

 

Im sure the insurance payout by Auto Cycle Union Ltd, from the incident at the bottom of bray hill, ( which is still ongoing ), http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=55894&headline=TT crash victims claim damages&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2020 which has resulted in ( *currently only one claim so far ) will have massive increase in the insurance premium, so may well make the running of the TT un-economical / un realistic in financial terms/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LightBulb said:

Im sure the insurance payout by Auto Cycle Union Ltd, from the incident at the bottom of bray hill, ( which is still ongoing ), http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=55894&headline=TT crash victims claim damages&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2020 which has resulted in ( *currently only one claim so far ) will have massive increase in the insurance premium, so may well make the running of the TT un-economical / un realistic in financial terms/

The increase relating to that incident will have been imposed over the following years. It will have no effect on the current and future insurance position.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LightBulb said:

But will it not increase the current / future insurance premium ?

No LB, the insurance company will have accrued for potential claims arising from that incident. They have some complex formulas for working these things out. It is quite rare luckily, that there are unusual claims such as this. Injuries and deaths of competitors do not attract massive payouts from the event insurance.  

I think courts are tending to take a view that you must take reasonable precautions for your own safety just lately? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Max Power said:

No LB, the insurance company will have accrued for potential claims arising from that incident. They have some complex formulas for working these things out. It is quite rare luckily, that there are unusual claims such as this. Injuries and deaths of competitors do not attract massive payouts from the event insurance.  

I think courts are tending to take a view that you must take reasonable precautions for your own safety just lately? 

& very probably it's been spread around the reinsurance market.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Max Power said:

No LB, the insurance company will have accrued for potential claims arising from that incident. They have some complex formulas for working these things out. It is quite rare luckily, that there are unusual claims such as this. Injuries and deaths of competitors do not attract massive payouts from the event insurance.  

I think courts are tending to take a view that you must take reasonable precautions for your own safety just lately? 

"Reasonable precausions your own safety", how does that realate to travelling down bray hill at 180 mph, does that mean you need to go slower, or is that ment for the "spectator" to take precautions for own safety ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, LightBulb said:

"Reasonable precausions your own safety", how does that realate to travelling down bray hill at 180 mph, does that mean you need to go slower, or is that ment for the "spectator" to take precautions for own safety ?

Spectators and others really. More limited to standing in prohibited areas when told not to than anything else. It's still made clear that motorsport is dangerous though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Spectators and others really. More limited to standing in prohibited areas when told not to than anything else. It's still made clear that motorsport is dangerous though.

John may correct me but I don't think you can get round lacking safety precautions for spectators by sticking a sign up saying its dangerous.

The organisers have a duty of care to protect the spectators/ public from crashing bikes. Catch fencing like at the pits would be the kind of thing. In a court case if the spectators were shown to have ignored advice for example that would be contributory negligence and would be taken into account in any payouts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Boris Johnson said:

John may correct me but I don't think you can get round lacking safety precautions for spectators by sticking a sign up saying its dangerous.

The organisers have a duty of care to protect the spectators/ public from crashing bikes. Catch fencing like at the pits would be the kind of thing. In a court case if the spectators were shown to have ignored advice for example that would be contributory negligence and would be taken into account in any payouts.

Yes. You can’t exclude liability for personal injury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, John Wright said:

Yes. You can’t exclude liability for personal injury.

I studied law many years ago but never practiced it and would be interested in the opinion of someone who has.. whilst it’s established that  the principle that the voluntary acceptance of risk can’t be relied upon in a defence against liability claims, how do you think the creation of prohibited areas impacts liability? I have pondered this question from time to time. If an assessment is made that certain areas are unsafe to stand in would it not be construed that the fact that an area is not subject to any restriction would give a spectator the impression that it was safe? This might give added weight to any claim for liability for injury. I suppose it’s academic since liability was accepted in the Bray Hill incident and that area was not, at the time, subject to any spectator restriction. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, joebean said:

I studied law many years ago but never practiced it and would be interested in the opinion of someone who has.. whilst it’s established that  the principle that the voluntary acceptance of risk can’t be relied upon in a defence against liability claims, how do you think the creation of prohibited areas impacts liability? I have pondered this question from time to time. If an assessment is made that certain areas are unsafe to stand in would it not be construed that the fact that an area is not subject to any restriction would give a spectator the impression that it was safe? This might give added weight to any claim for liability for injury. I suppose it’s academic since liability was accepted in the Bray Hill incident and that area was not, at the time, subject to any spectator restriction. 

It’s a question of fact, with a bit of law, in each case. How well it’s marked, how securely fenced, how well its policed. Putting up a notice and a bit of a barrier isn’t enough.

The outcome may be different depending who got hurt, young, old, etc., the location.

Lots of interesting cases with youths accessing railways and building sites.

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...