Jump to content
British Speedway Forum

Recommended Posts

I see on the SCB website that these two tracks are not licenced at present and posted this to advise riders and officials. What does this mean to any riders or officials that attend these tracks for a few practise laps? 

Surely if riders practise there being unlicensed it's no different to riders having a spin on there bikes on a track laid out on a farm somewhere or on a private piece of land / field ........ or does it?

http://www.scbgb.co.uk/news.php?extend.78.1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really complex but basically to hold competitions off road events have to be exempt from the road traffic acts/regulations. This can only be achieved if the events are run under the regulations of a recognised organisation with the appropriate affiliations, the link below may help a little.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1995/1371/made

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far as Rye House are concerned, there will/should not be any problems in regard to non-speedway events like Flat Track for example which have their own sanctioning organisations. And I have again heard a mention in regard to a possible Spedeworth Motorsport interest - another non-speedway sanctioning organisation. 

Edited by gustix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lydd has been non licenced for years and has made no difference and don't see why it should matter to Rye House either. Riders should be aware that the first aid cover may be lower (but all riders should check that at every track anyway) and if they do get injured don't go to the Ben Fund otherwise let riders get extra laps in as any practice facility is in the "best interests of the sport".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rye House appear to be advertising training most weekends if you look on facebook. What are the implications for riders attending these sessions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BuxtonTiger said:

Rye House appear to be advertising training most weekends if you look on facebook. What are the implications for riders attending these sessions?

I would imagine insurance would be the biggest concern, unless riders participate at their own risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Sings4Speedway said:

Lydd has been non licenced for years and has made no difference and don't see why it should matter to Rye House either. Riders should be aware that the first aid cover may be lower (but all riders should check that at every track anyway) and if they do get injured don't go to the Ben Fund otherwise let riders get extra laps in as any practice facility is in the "best interests of the sport".

Unfortunately there is a statutory duty of care and despite disclaimers, statutory rights cannot be waived. I did mention it's complex and trust me it is. I had the displeasure to act as an independent consultant to a firm of solicitors representing a "rider" who was injured on a non licensed Speedway Training Track, the claim had merit because the track was unlicensed and operated outside the rules of any recognised federation and that the operators having chosen to operate a "training event" outside the protection of the off road regulations were culpable and had a duty of care for the welfare of the participant and a due responsibility to manage, coach and instruct in such a way that he remained safe at all times. This was purely because there were no rules in place for either the Plaintiff or Defendant to rely on.

Again this was complex but without motive I was able to convince the Barrister that the "rider" (trainee in their words) had not followed the instructions he was given at the safety briefing, I was able to find other participants who had recorded footage of the safety briefing and this rider "behaving" in a different way to the other riders in the same session. The barrister agreed that even though the case would probably succeed any award would be diminished by the contributory negligence of the rider. As the Solicitors were on a punt they asked the rider to meet their costs before taking further action, you can guess the rest - gone away. Hopefully the gentleman's collarbone and broken arm have fully healed.

Edited by Byker Biker
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Byker Biker said:

Unfortunately there is a statutory duty of care and despite disclaimers, statutory rights cannot be waived. I did mention it's complex and trust me it is. I had the displeasure to act as an independent consultant to a firm of solicitors representing a "rider" who was injured on a non licensed Speedway Training Track, the claim had merit because the track was unlicensed and operated outside the rules of any recognised federation and that the operators having chosen to operate a "training event" outside the protection of the off road regulations were culpable and had a duty of care for the welfare of the participant and a due responsibility to manage, coach and instruct in such a way that he remained safe at all times. This was purely because there were no rules in place for either the Plaintiff or Defendant to rely on.

Again this was complex but without motive I was able to convince the Barrister that the "rider" (trainee in their words) had not followed the instructions he was given at the safety briefing, I was able to find other participants who had recorded footage of the safety briefing and this rider "behaving" in a different way to the other riders in the same session. The barrister agreed that even though the case would probably succeed any award would be diminished by the contributory negligence of the rider. As the Solicitors were on a punt they asked the rider to meet their costs before taking further action, you can guess the rest - gone away. Hopefully the gentleman's collarbone and broken arm have fully healed.

Surely, if there is an issue with being affiliated to a recognised body, the answer is for a non-BSPA track session to be classed as a grass track event, which can then be under ACU rules. The fact the surface is shale rather earth can't be a problem, can it? So long as the word 'speedway' isn't used, I would have thought it would be ok. I think the Iwade training set-up is run on a similar basis.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ray Stadia said:

Surely, if there is an issue with being affiliated to a recognised body, the answer is for a non-BSPA track session to be classed as a grass track event, which can then be under ACU rules. The fact the surface is shale rather earth can't be a problem, can it? So long as the word 'speedway' isn't used, I would have thought it would be ok. I think the Iwade training set-up is run on a similar basis.  

Many years ago the old California-in-England track near Wokingham staged meetings under affiliated ACU regulations. It was speedway but legally was classified as dirt track racing with meetings promoted by the California Motor Cycle Club who were affiliated to the ACU. 

Edited by gustix
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is possible to obtain insurance for motorsport events and practice sessions without being affiliated to an organisation. Generally you will still have to meet the same standards as those used by the ACU or whoever and it is usually cheaper and easier to be affiliated. However it is possible with much filling out of forms, risk assessments and setting of agreed standards. You've not lived until you have tried to write a risk assessment for the various obstacles on a MX track :rolleyes:

At the end of the day it is a public liability insurance covering the organiser against claims. Riders getting injured at a practice session affiliated or not would only have a claim if the organiser is negligent which would apply in any circumstances.

Injury insurance for the riders will only normally be if they are licence holders and that body supplies insurance cover or carry their own insurance (if you don't you are mad whether a licence holder or not).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ray Stadia said:

Surely, if there is an issue with being affiliated to a recognised body, the answer is for a non-BSPA track session to be classed as a grass track event, which can then be under ACU rules. The fact the surface is shale rather earth can't be a problem, can it? So long as the word 'speedway' isn't used, I would have thought it would be ok. I think the Iwade training set-up is run on a similar basis.  

Iwade is now a fully licensed track complete with an air fence. Kent ran two junior meetings there last season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ray Stadia said:

Surely, if there is an issue with being affiliated to a recognised body, the answer is for a non-BSPA track session to be classed as a grass track event, which can then be under ACU rules. The fact the surface is shale rather earth can't be a problem, can it? So long as the word 'speedway' isn't used, I would have thought it would be ok. I think the Iwade training set-up is run on a similar basis.  

In a word ... no

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 9:49 AM, gustix said:

So far as Rye House are concerned, there will/should not be any problems in regard to non-speedway events like Flat Track for example which have their own sanctioning organisations. And I have again heard a mention in regard to a possible Spedeworth Motorsport interest - another organisation in a non-speedway sanctioning organisation. 

WHO gives a d1ck about flattrack?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Vince said:

It is possible to obtain insurance for motorsport events and practice sessions without being affiliated to an organisation. CORRECT Generally you will still have to meet the same standards as those used by the ACU or whoever CORRECT and it is usually cheaper and easier to be affiliated. However it is possible with much filling out of forms, risk assessments and setting of agreed standards. CORRECT BUT NOT SPEEDWAY ON A SPEEDWAY TRACK You've not lived until you have tried to write a risk assessment for the various obstacles on a MX track :rolleyes: IT'S A NIGHTMARE

At the end of the day it is a public liability insurance covering the organiser against claims. Riders getting injured at a practice session affiliated or not would only have a claim if the organiser is negligent which would apply in any circumstances. CORRECT BUT ON AN UNLICENSED TRACK OTHER COMPETITORS ALSO

Injury insurance for the riders will only normally be if they are licence holders and that body supplies insurance cover or carry their own insurance (if you don't you are mad whether a licence holder or not). WHICH IS WHY OFF ROAD EVENTS NEED TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACTS WHERE INSURANCE IS COMPULSORY

It's a vicious circle which is why Promoters like Rob Godfrey ensure that their practice and training facilities are fully licensed and insured

Edited by Byker Biker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy