Polish Horror Crash On Sunday-they Both Walked Away

[uk_martin 1,606]

Dudeks bike packing up was the primary reason.

Kildemand hitting him was secondary.

 

Disagree. If no-one had run into Dudek the race would have gone on and Dudek would have chalked up a retirement. So the engine failure was not the cause of the stoppage.

 

The cause of the stoppage was PK running into Dudek. Now you can argue til the cows come home about who the "primary cause" of the stoppage was but from what I've seen, any rider riding into another rider has always been excluded, and if that is a precident, then PK has to be excluded as the primary cause of the stoppage of the race. Is that the same as saying was he negligantly at fault...probably not, but who said it was a fair world? If Dudek was not under power he had little choice as to where on the track he could be. How much if what was ahead of him, or even if PK was even looking in that direction, no-one knows, but on the balance of probabilities, I'd say Kildemand was more responsible for the collision than Dudek.

 

So to me, PK should have been excluded for being the primary cause of the stoppage, and Dudek should have been excluded for not being under power at the time of the stoppage not to mention the fact that by raising his hand to retire from the race, he was out of the race anyway.

[Gavan 5,049]

 

Disagree. If no-one had run into Dudek the race would have gone on and Dudek would have chalked up a retirement. So the engine failure was not the cause of the stoppage.

 

The cause of the stoppage was PK running into Dudek. Now you can argue til the cows come home about who the "primary cause" of the stoppage was but from what I've seen, any rider riding into another rider has always been excluded, and if that is a precident, then PK has to be excluded as the primary cause of the stoppage of the race. Is that the same as saying was he negligantly at fault...probably not, but who said it was a fair world? If Dudek was not under power he had little choice as to where on the track he could be. How much if what was ahead of him, or even if PK was even looking in that direction, no-one knows, but on the balance of probabilities, I'd say Kildemand was more responsible for the collision than Dudek.

 

So to me, PK should have been excluded for being the primary cause of the stoppage, and Dudek should have been excluded for not being under power at the time of the stoppage not to mention the fact that by raising his hand to retire from the race, he was out of the race anyway.

i cant believe you cant see it logically.

The cause of the stoppage was triggered by an engine failure NOT Kildemand hitting him. Please understand what primary cause means. Kildemand hitting him was the secondary reason.

 

If you think Kildemand was more at fault then basically you are saying that if Dudek was under power then Kildemand just deliberatly rode into him! Of course he didnt!! he hit him because Dudek wasnt under power, and to say we dont know if Kildemand saw him is absurd! You suggesting he had seen him and decided just to hit him.

 

Primary cause of the stoppage means the first incident that occured the race to be stopped not what happened after which is secondary.

 

If Dudek hadnt have stopped the race would have continued, he therefore was the reason the race was stopped.

 

answer me this............say the rider immediatly behind Dudek hit him would he be excluded???

[iris123 20,935]

 

 

If Dudek hadnt have stopped the race would have continued, he therefore was the reason the race was stopped.

 

answer me this............say the rider immediatly behind Dudek hit him would he be excluded???

First thing and I can't believe that people watching calmly on a video can't even see that Dudek didn't stop!!! Find it hard to believe that a few people have stated Dudek stopped when he didn't

 

Secondly maybe the ref thought that as the two riders immediately behind Dudek avoided him then Kildemand should have as well seeing as he was even further behind.Might have been a factor in his thinking.And let's face it he was watching under stress and imo called it correctly and people here are sitting at home drinking a cuppa and still think Dudek stopped!!!!

[orion 7,612]

 

 

Secondly maybe the ref thought that as the two riders immediately behind Dudek avoided him then Kildemand should have as well seeing as he was even further behind.Might have been a factor in his thinking.

Not saying he was right but that is my thinking on how the ref saw it .

Edited April 6, 2016 by orion

[HeathenatOdsal85! 1]

i cant believe you cant see it logically.

The cause of the stoppage was triggered by an engine failure NOT Kildemand hitting him. Please understand what primary cause means. Kildemand hitting him was the secondary reason.

 

If you think Kildemand was more at fault then basically you are saying that if Dudek was under power then Kildemand just deliberatly rode into him! Of course he didnt!! he hit him because Dudek wasnt under power, and to say we dont know if Kildemand saw him is absurd! You suggesting he had seen him and decided just to hit him.

 

Primary cause of the stoppage means the first incident that occured the race to be stopped not what happened after which is secondary.

 

If Dudek hadnt have stopped the race would have continued, he therefore was the reason the race was stopped.

 

answer me this............say the rider immediatly behind Dudek hit him would he be excluded???

I think we need clarification if 'primary' in the context of the speedway exclusion is actually used in the context of 'first' or more in its context of 'main' or 'chief importance' (or whether it's indeed left deliberately ambiguous)

 

primary

ˈprʌɪm(ə)ri/

adjective

1.

of chief importance; principal.

"the government's primary aim is to see significant reductions in unemployment"

synonyms: main, chief, key, prime, central, principal, foremost, first, most important, predominant, paramount, overriding, major, ruling, dominant, master, supreme, cardinal, pre-eminent, ultimate; informalnumber-one

"the police believe that crime detection is their primary role"

2.

earliest in time or order.

"the primary stage of their political education"

synonyms: original, earliest, initial, beginning, first; More

 

Because primary does not always mean first. I can see both sides - The first incident was the engine failure of course, but I can see the argument it doesn't necessarily mean it was the incident of chief importance which actually caused the stoppage.

 

Perhaps in this case it is slightly more clear, but certainly in other situations the first (or primary time wise) incident isn't always the incident of chief importance which actually stops the race or results in the exclusion.

 

Can see both sides, interesting debate.

[Dekker 239]

 

......not to mention the fact that by raising his hand to retire from the race, he was out of the race anyway.

 

Totally irrelevant, no such rule AFAIK, it's just rider etiquette.

[racers and royals 8,712]

What we could do with is a refs opinion on the incident- any refs on the forum ? Do you wish to put your head over the parapet !!

[damosuzuki 696]

Had Matt Ford signed Dudek when he had the chance none of this would have happened.

[uk_martin 1,606]

i cant believe you cant see it logically.

The cause of the stoppage was triggered by an engine failure NOT Kildemand hitting him. Please understand what primary cause means. Kildemand hitting him was the secondary reason....

 

As we are mainly British people discussing a matter of differing opinions (they are allowed you know) on a British forum, maybe a little bit more British principle can be added? It's what in British law determines who is responsible, and it uses something which anyone familiar with law will understand - a principle known as "proximate cause". The much quoted definition of this is:

"The active, efficient cause that sets in motion a chain of events, which brings about a result, without the intervention of any new or independent force” ( Pawsey v Scottish Union & National Insurance Company (1908))

 

It's something that's been done to death in legal cases in courts up and down the country and legal & insurance examinationons for 108 years, but it's a definition that's stood the test of time. There's a good read about it, in pretty plain speak here - http://www.cila.co.uk/files/Certificate/Chapter%208.pdf

 

All that's left to decide on is what is the active efficient cause that sets in motion a chain of events, which in my opinion is Dudek's engine failure, and whether or not Kildemand running into him is a "new and independent force" - which I happen to believe it was. In my mind, does an engine failure make a race stopage inevitable? No. Left to his own devices, Dudek would have slowed and let the other rider past, then rolled onto the centre green when safe to do so. Add a new and independent force (Kildemand) into the equation, and the result is altered. Therefore, Dudek is not the active efficient cause of the race being stopped.

 

I should just add, that I'm not trying to say one rider is stupid for doing "this" or an idiot for doing "that"...neither is "at fault" in that sense, and this was out of their hands at the speed at which it all happened, but in establishing the primary cause of the stoppage, I think that the above definition helps to show where my opinion comes from.

 

Damn it I'm a Stal Gorzow fan and I'm backing up a Falubaz rider. Something is going wrong here.

Edited April 6, 2016 by uk martin

[BWitcher 12,453]

 

As we are mainly British people discussing a matter of differing opinions (they are allowed you know) on a British forum, maybe a little bit more British principle can be added? It's what in British law determines who is responsible, and it uses something which anyone familiar with law will understand - a principle known as "proximate cause". The much quoted definition of this is:

"The active, efficient cause that sets in motion a chain of events, which brings about a result, without the intervention of any new or independent force” ( Pawsey v Scottish Union & National Insurance Company (1908))

 

It's something that's been done to death in legal cases in courts up and down the country and legal & insurance examinationons for 108 years, but it's a definition that's stood the test of time. There's a good read about it, in pretty plain speak here - http://www.cila.co.uk/files/Certificate/Chapter%208.pdf

 

All that's left to decide on is what is the active efficient cause that sets in motion a chain of events, which in my opinion is Dudek's engine failure, and whether or not Kildemand running into him is a "new and independent force" - which I happen to believe it was. In my mind, does an engine failure make a race stopage inevitable? No. Left to his own devices, Dudek would have slowed and let the other rider past, then rolled onto the centre green when safe to do so. Add a new and independent force (Kildemand) into the equation, and the result is altered. Therefore, Dudek is not the active efficient cause of the race being stopped.

 

I should just add, that I'm not trying to say one rider is stupid for doing "this" or an idiot for doing "that"...neither is "at fault" in that sense, and this was out of their hands at the speed at which it all happened, but in establishing the primary cause of the stoppage, I think that the above definition helps to show where my opinion comes from.

 

Damn it I'm a Stal Gorzow fan and I'm backing up a Falubaz rider. Something is going wrong here.

 

Your argument is totally flawed. If a rider falls off, left to his own devices, he can get back up and carry on.. but if he falls off and someone else runs into his bike or him, the rider who fell is excluded.

 

If a rider locks up mid bend, left to his own devices, he can carry on. But if by locking up he causes someone else to hit him, he is excluded.

 

If a rider lifts out of control, left to his own devices, he can get it back under control and carry on, but if he impedes someone by doing so he is excluded.

 

The exact same situation applies here.. Dudek has slowed dramatically right on the racing line.. riders have had to take avoiding action, he has impeded people BEFORE Kildemand hits him . If they had all managed to miss him, then he could have continued. They didn't. Dudek was not at race speed, thereby impeding his opponents and was the cause of the crash.

 

Its very, very simple.

[ColinMills 1,728]

my understanding of this, is, had this happened on the first bend from a tapes start, its clearer in my head. Dudek leads, Dudek stops, rider runs into him. Dudek excluded. for some reason, that scenerio was easier!

[Terry 1,319]

my understanding of this, is, had this happened on the first bend from a tapes start, its clearer in my head. Dudek leads, Dudek stops, rider runs into him. Dudek excluded. for some reason, that scenerio was easier!

 

Sam Ermolenko stopped in front of Billy Hamill on the first bend from a tapes start in the 93 final and wasn't excluded.

[Gavan 5,049]

Newcastle v Workington couple of weeks ago. In heat 12 Matej Kus sheds a chain right in front of Kenneth Hansen. Hansen hits him and the referee excludes Kus for being the primary cause of the stoppage. Can you tell me what the difference is here please??? Or is there a new rule that determines how close you are to the rider who breaks down! Kus as rightly excluded as the primary cause exactly as Dudek should have been

[orion 7,612]

Newcastle v Workington couple of weeks ago. In heat 12 Matej Kus sheds a chain right in front of Kenneth Hansen. Hansen hits him and the referee excludes Kus for being the primary cause of the stoppage. Can you tell me what the difference is here please??? Or is there a new rule that determines how close you are to the rider who breaks down! Kus as rightly excluded as the primary cause exactly as Dudek should have been

The ref in this case felt killer could have avoided him .

[Trees 2,814]

He's a twit then ...

Edited April 7, 2016 by Trees