We allowed to dicuss the Todd Wilkes case yet?

[fro]

At the very least until the full coroners report is released what is the PF community going to add to this apart from their set-in-stone opinions, likewise retorts, and the odd conspiracy?

Agreed. While the discussion hasn't been too bad, it would be much better with less emotion, and more confirmed facts at hand.

I await the full report of the coroners findings.

[Spac]

A quick hypothetical:

Imagine Todd had lent his car to someone, and they were entered in a Supersprint at EC. Imagine that someone got to the end of the main straight at 300+kph, and didn't lift their foot as they turned into Turn 1 - they'd skipped over the kitty litter and plowed into the wall on the outside of the corner.
Imagine that they hit the wall hard enough to kill themselves.

Who would be at fault then, and why?
And how would it be different to what actually happened?

(Fro, Saru, Edo, etc, I know this is largely a rhetorical question for you guys...)


Like I keep saying, I'm not attempting to remove the indisputed responsiblity that the organisers failed to exercise, just asking for a little more logical thought, and a little less irrational emotion.
I'm not asking anyone to not feel for Todd, nor to pretend that they don't feel their loss, just to be a bit more rational.

[coyote]

I just wonder what people think the repercussions will be for grass roots motorsport regarding safety issues and insurance ect?

Cal.

I'm waiting for a someone other than spac or fro to actually realise what the original question was.

If, as it would appear no-one can, then I agree with crx2gen.

[fro]

I just wonder what people think the repercussions will be for grass roots motorsport regarding safety issues and insurance ect?

Just so everyone knows, I called the number at the bottom of the CAMS Press Release about the coroners report. CAMS has no compiled information on what the recommendations were, or how they will effect CAMS sanctioned motorsport yet, but are "likely to deliver something soon".

I called from the aspect of an Event Director and competitor, and it very much sounded like they didn't think anyone would contact them about it.

So now I not only await the full Coroners Report, but also a statement from CAMS about what this will effect, how, and what procedures and facilities will be put in place as a result.

[Grumpy Rooster]

I found this on the WSID site.

http://www.wsid.com.au/default.asp?ArticleID=26

ANDRA haven't released anything on their site. But that's normal for them.

[fro]

I found this on the WSID site.

GR, I saw the same press release earlier on http://www.dragster.com.au.

[Cal]

I'm waiting for a someone other than spac or fro to actually realise what the original question was.

If, as it would appear no-one can, then I agree with crx2gen.

Thanks Tony. I really couldn't be bothered asking again.

Cal.

[smee]

It can only be speculated at this time what the repercussions will be. The coroners report can act on the information that has been gained from the incident, but will not go 100% and include the victims side of the story.

Maybe one recommendation could be that all vehicles competing on a “Race Track” (Rallying, Drags, Drifters TerVel etc) be fitted with a recording device to at least offer some information in the case of accidents.

We do know that a number of mistakes were made and involved various people. This included CAMS, Organisers and Competitors.

Will a requirement for competitors to have experience with their vehicles at speed and threshold braking, and I don’t just mean zipping down the highway and slowing before a radar be mandatory. Currently you need to do 2 observed tests before you are let loose in a rally. Circuits I thought were similar and L and P plates had to be displayed for a number of events whilst being observed.

Did anyone, Competitor/safety marshal et.al question the director about the changes to direction. Did anyone pull out speculating it was not safe.
Currently some rally directors ask competitors at the drivers briefing, that if they feel unsafe or are not sure then they can withdraw and the entry money will be refunded. I know a few years ago I withdrew from the Bathurst Rally as it had rained for the 2 days prior and was still raining on the day. The roads leading into the start venue were slippery enough, and starting well down the field would only make it worse. I let the director know my reason for withdrawal, but he basically called me a coward. After heading off and getting halfway home I received a phone call from Fro to let me know the event had been canned. The course cars had become bogged and the 0 car just said to forget it. Some people have a “run at any condition mentality” duty of care gets thrown out the window. Maybe the CAMS official was forced into the reverse direction scenario.

I have both Dirt and Tar experience and I would like to think I take a bit of common sense into it. This I feel is lacking in some people these days as they expect to be told what is safe and what is not. Speed in all aspects of motorsport in various areas has increased, and those who have not competed at these speeds really do not have the judgement required to offer instruction or direction. Terminal speed has not increased greatly, but the speed at which cars are getting to that terminal speeds and between points is much quicker and braking is commencing much later. Going and watching an event does not qualify you as an expert, no matter how many times you have been. People in positions of importance need current experience. I would say a minimum number of years competitive experience be required before you become a director, course car or safety officer, and then you can only proceed to senior positions if you keep your competitive experience current.

Only last week at Classic Adelaide I saw a competitor out brake himself. Classic Adelaide was not sanctioned by CAMS this year and at the prologue, they had empty water barriers at the end of the chicanes from pit straight (not acceptable as far as I am aware by CAMS due to there inability to stop vehicles and their ability to shatter) before they turned hard right and went back up to the infield loop again. Behind these barriers was a gutter and behind that red and white tape. Behind the red and white tape stood the spectators. Not a safe point in my mind even if there was concrete barrier in the way. We walked behind this area only when no cars were passing.
Without a tyre or brake warm up, the competitors accelerated down Pit straight and headed into the Senna chicane. On the outside of the chicane are a big tree and a creek. These were not barriered or bunted off. Immediately after this is a harpin. Most vehicles were wary of the severity of this corner after a fast blast on cold tyres and no brakes. A few drivers were. One person driving a Galaxy style car, could not pull up and ploughed through the plastic barriers, over the gutter and toward the bunting tape. Spectators ran and a bit of panic ensued. At no time did the competitors get out of the car, or the road marshals warn the following competitor that a car had gone off the stage and slow them down. I am unsure as to what the response was supposed to be from the marshals, but warning following competitors of the danger I am sure should have been high on the list.

[Cal]

Thanks smee, some very good points indeed.

Cal.

[Brenton_s15]

Cal, as you know, it is to easy for public discussions to wander off the intended path. Unfortunately, when this occurs, most people loose sight of the original goal, as emotive issues are always raised. In this thread, I have also been guilty of this and I would like to apologise. In an effort to steer the thread back towards it's origin, I think this recent message from CAMS says a lot...

CONFEDERATION OF AUSTRALIAN MOTOR SPORT (CAMS)
MEMORANDUM
22 November 2004

CAMS TO REVIEW ITS NATIONAL OFFICIATING PROGRAM

The CAMS National Officiating Program (NOP) is to undergo a formal review to ensure that it continues to meet the needs and expectations of event organisers, category managers, competitors, officials and affiliated clubs.

Since 1995 the NOP has expanded to include all disciplines of CAMS authorised motor sport and all categories of officials. With more than 9,000 volunteer officials currently accredited, training has been extended to include e-learning and a trial has commenced to reduce the processing time for officials' licences.

Whilst there is now more emphasis on the value of volunteer officials across all levels of motor sport competition, many other changes have occurred within the sport during this time. These changes include the growing commercialism at the elite level and an increased focus on risk management.

CAMS Chief Executive Officer, Dr Rob Nethercote, explains further.

"As part of the CAMS strategic plan, a comprehensive review of the NOP will be conducted and this will involve representation from all CAMS stakeholders. One of the real benefits of this process will be an increased sense of ownership at all levels," said Nethercote.

"The NOP is already recognised as a world leader in motor sport officiating and we expect the review to further enhance the international standing of CAMS as a professional and inclusive organisation."

The review process is expected to begin in early 2005 with workshops planned between January and April. Implementation of recommendations will commence during the second half of 2005.

---

Kind regards

Chris Terpos
Communications Officer
Confederation of Australian Motor Sport (CAMS)
Ph: (03) 9593 7768
Fax: (03) 9593 7700
Email: ChrisT@cams.com.au

After a careful reading of this message, my concern is that we will see even greater imposts in place for club-level motorsport in Australia. As it is, the current situation requires club level events to have Officials which are accredited to conduct events at a State Level. In many instances, it seems that this accreditation can be achieved without suitable training for the task to be undertaken. It appears to me that the training received is really aimed at attaining accreditation while learning how to dodge bullets. It also seems to me that while CAMS acknowledge the growing commercialism of motorsport at the elite level, their increased focus on risk management will occur at the grass-roots level.

Strangely enough, recent trends by CAMS have made club-level motorsport more difficult, yet a study of their annual report shows this is the level which provides the greatest income for CAMS, with the lowest expenditure and/or risk.

I have seen this start to creep in as recently as this weekend, where it was necessary for officials to sign a form from the NSW Department of Sport and Recreation stating that the event complied with certain things, even though the event was being conducted under a CAMS permit! I'd like someone to explain that one to me....

There is also the small matter whereby the recently announced, Twilight - No Speed Limit evenings planned by Eastern Creek were cancelled just last week.

It is indeed unfortunate that as we enter a period where the sport needs promotion at a grass-roots level, it seems that the Officialdom is working to make it harder for our clubs to survive, and for people to gain access to this much needed activity.

At a personal level, I think the only thing we can do is support our clubs and ask them to become more active and vocal to ensure that CAMS recognises where it's true membership base comes from. There are some clubs which have already begun work in this area at various State Council meetings and these clubs need the support of all clubs. In some instances, the "quiet" clubs may need a bit of a gee-up from their membership.

If you are a member of a CAMS club, ask yourself;
Does my club attend CAMS meetings? If not, why not ?
Does the delegate report the meetings correctly to the club? If not, why not ?
What is my clubs position on these matters? Are they active or passive?
Does my club represent the views of it's membership base? If not, why not?

If your club does not have a CAMS delegate who is reporting back to the membership, then get it sorted out

[fro]

In an effort to steer the thread back towards it's origin, I think this recent message from CAMS says a lot...

And I don't think it says enough.

As I mentioned above, both as a competitor and an Event Director, I contacted CAMS for them to provide me with specific examples of procedural and facility changes with regard to coroners findings in this case. I am still awaiting a response.

After a careful reading of this message, my concern is that we will see even greater imposts in place for club-level motorsport in Australia.

As you acknowledge later in your statement, you recognise that this is already happening. There is a seperation of duties at even the most basic level events, which excludes Clerks of Course, Event Secretaries, Stewards, Chief Timekeepers and Chief Scrutineers from competition if they are acting in their event capacity from participating in the event.

Or the ridiculous situation of the lowest level events (Club Touring Assemblies and Club Motorkhanas) requiring Event Secretaries of a certain level, without allowances for fostering new Event Secretaries, and their progression. This is just my most recent example.

At a personal level, I think the only thing we can do is support our clubs and ask them to become more active and vocal to ensure that CAMS recognises where it's true membership base comes from. There are some clubs which have already begun work in this area at various State Council meetings and these clubs need the support of all clubs. In some instances, the "quiet" clubs may need a bit of a gee-up from their membership.

If you are a member of a CAMS club, ask yourself;
Does my club attend CAMS meetings? If not, why not ?
Does the delegate report the meetings correctly to the club? If not, why not ?
What is my clubs position on these matters? Are they active or passive?
Does my club represent the views of it's membership base? If not, why not?

If your club does not have a CAMS delegate who is reporting back to the membership, then get it sorted out

While the BMSC is definitely not a "quiet club", and attends meetings, recieves delegate reports, and probably represents the majority of member views, I don't think my views are being represented entirely, and am sure that my concens aren't being addressed.

So I (and Spac) are getting more involved, to ensure that our views are known, and if they don't get action, we'll know why, and will be able to tell others what the stumbling blocks are.

[smee]

So I (and Spac) are getting more involved, to ensure that our views are known, and if they don't get action, we'll know why, and will be able to tell others what the stumbling blocks are.

Best of luck Buddy, but don't hold your breath.

You may now understand why my SO and Adrian are not doing anymore CAMS work. Litigation and the CAMS inability to be flexible or see that each state has different requirements at different levels of the CAMS organisation just cannot be beaten into them, even with a stick. Speaking to people in WA recently and they have similar problems with the CAMS as we do. Look a common denominator.....

Fiona had an incling about East Coast this year and decided not to be Chief Safety Officer. RoC seems to get the same vibe.

[Cal]

Brenton_S15, there is certainly no need for you to apologise. A thread this emotional is sure to get heated. I didn't start it so people could argue who was to blame. I just wondered what the repercussions would be for the rest of us.

Cal.

[fro]

Best of luck Buddy, but don't hold your breath.

Surely you of all people know, I've already been jaded by the system. It's more being able to tell people that they're idiots to their face, than having to ask Mrs Smee or anyone else to do it for me.

Fiona had an incling about East Coast this year and decided not to be Chief Safety Officer. RoC seems to get the same vibe.

I wouldn't hold a light from ECT to RoC, but again, you know my stance on this.