On The Bus Posted February 26, 2020 Author Share Posted February 26, 2020 30 minutes ago, Max Power said: I think you are just being a bit daft OTB, so he entered the course when the road was open, so no barriers to prevent him, nobody is disputing that fact? The dispute arises when he spun around and ignored the marshal trying to stop him. Would you not think that someone waving a red flag was trying to stop you? That is a recognised signal, better than waving hands I would think? To be fair, they could have let him proceed to Sulby Cross Roads where he could get home. I wouldn't want to be trapped at the Wildlife Park. Max we clearly don't agree. My issue is there were no barriers closing off what was supposedly a closed road. Your issue seems to be whatever did or didn't happen once he was on said road. There's probably no point arguing further as we will never agree. I'm happy this guy was found innocent and I do hope he sues the organisers. A generous donation to charity would be excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 9 minutes ago, On The Bus said: I'm happy this guy was found innocent and I do hope he sues the organisers. A generous donation to charity would be excellent. Are you not even vaguely concerned that this appears, without having read the judgement, that it could be another case of money talks in our justice system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 I'd certainly like to see this judgement in writing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milestone 11 Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 Absolute madness. I'd thought that judgements like this were peculiar to Jersey, clearly not. The IoM judicial system is devoid of any credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 1 hour ago, milestone 11 said: Absolute madness. I'd thought that judgements like this were peculiar to Jersey, clearly not. The IoM judicial system is devoid of any credibility. Is Jersey well known for its road racing road closures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 Well....something smells a bit. And it's not just the Wildlife Park..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On The Bus Posted February 27, 2020 Author Share Posted February 27, 2020 It's funny. Just because people don't agree with the verdict they are convinced there is some kind of conspiracy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Flint Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 I think it demonstrates there is a sufficiency of ‘grey area’ around the road closure legislation. As a consequence, there may be some wider ranging safety issues that will need to be reviewed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 When one looks back at some of the other recent sentences handed down for trespass on closed roads...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On The Bus Posted February 27, 2020 Author Share Posted February 27, 2020 11 minutes ago, Derek Flint said: I think it demonstrates there is a sufficiency of ‘grey area’ around the road closure legislation. As a consequence, there may be some wider ranging safety issues that will need to be reviewed. Thank you Derek, the voice of reason! Those with their TT-branded blinkers on are not able to see the massive grey areas surrounding the current arrangements. It's simple - if the barriers are no in place and secured then the road isn't closed. God forbid if an unsuspecting member of the public should stray onto the road because the barriers were not in position and end up being injured or killed. The TT 'course' has a 75.5 mile border with various roads joining. If the road is to be considered closed then the marshals need to have it locked down and 100% secure each and every time (no ifs, no buts) otherwise things like this will happen. Wondering why there is someone on the course while the barriers aren't in position is a bit like wondering why you're getting wet after you tear the roof off your house. The Road Racing Act clearly states A marshal, in exercising the powers and performing the functions of that appointment, is subject to the same liabilities, and enjoys the same immunities, as a constable - maybe they need to have a word with the police about getting them to help improve the basic standards of marshals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katman Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 No doubt all these opinions whether for or against the verdict have been reached without the benefit of sitting in court and hearing all the evidence and facts of the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 1 hour ago, Derek Flint said: I think it demonstrates there is a sufficiency of ‘grey area’ around the road closure legislation. As a consequence, there may be some wider ranging safety issues that will need to be reviewed. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 18 hours ago, On The Bus said: Max we clearly don't agree. My issue is there were no barriers closing off what was supposedly a closed road. The barriers don't go up until the road is closed, if people are still on the road they are guided off at the next junction. It appears that he drove past one marshal trying to steer him off and then did a U turn and went back to him when he was stopped further up the road. The fact that he was on the road in the first place is not the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Flint Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 1 hour ago, On The Bus said: Thank you Derek, the voice of reason! Those with their TT-branded blinkers on are not able to see the massive grey areas surrounding the current arrangements. It's simple - if the barriers are no in place and secured then the road isn't closed. God forbid if an unsuspecting member of the public should stray onto the road because the barriers were not in position and end up being injured or killed. The TT 'course' has a 75.5 mile border with various roads joining. If the road is to be considered closed then the marshals need to have it locked down and 100% secure each and every time (no ifs, no buts) otherwise things like this will happen. Wondering why there is someone on the course while the barriers aren't in position is a bit like wondering why you're getting wet after you tear the roof off your house. The Road Racing Act clearly states A marshal, in exercising the powers and performing the functions of that appointment, is subject to the same liabilities, and enjoys the same immunities, as a constable - maybe they need to have a word with the police about getting them to help improve the basic standards of marshals? The road is legally 'closed' at the appointed time. The barriers and other gubbins are the means of establishing that closure in a 'safe' manner. And therein lies a problem. Modern safety standards are onerous. The ability to achieve them for an event of this scale is getting ever more challenging. As for the 'constable' bit, it was with very good reason the police extricated themselves from trackside duty and the CC being the authority for marshals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piebaps Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 19 hours ago, Max Power said: Would you not think that someone waving a red flag was trying to stop you? That is a recognised signal. You might think that Max but it is not to be seen in the highway code which sets out the standards for driving. The red flag is a racing signal and if thick as pigshit doubled barreled name Englishman is stupid enough to think that roads close at any time other than 6.00 for an evening practice, then he is unlikely to know the intricacies of a racing signal. Similarly, if a Marshal was properly taught the intricacies of being a special constable, he would know what the stop signal was for directing traffic. Easy to see why his "reasonable excuse" was accepted. Now if he and all the other English here would just fuck off on the next available boat, we'd all be in a better place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.