Yep! Another nail in the coffin of UK motorsport, whatever he wins is coming out of our pocket. More expensive trackdays, racing more expensive (Bemsee have put prices up this year already, albeit modest at this point). It’s a shame
I thought his argument was that the soft barriers normally used in BSB were not up because it was a practice day. The barriers fitted were deemed suitable for other sorts of racing so why not for this practice day?
This reminds me so much of my case: the defence pay a barrister to put a wet towel round their head, whilst crying and stamping their feet, because it was all the rider's fault or have the sheer rudeness to ride a bike! At least in this case, the defence cannot claim that he must of been speeding!
Pretty sure only BSB get air fences. They have given him a big get out for the crash. He crashed, no one knocked him off, but a freak one it seems. MSV aren’t short of a few bob but it won’t be them that pays.
I wonder if they'll take his age into consideration when awarding final damages. Hardly like he had his whole career ahead of him (even if he was reigning champ at 42).
The argument that you are going to die soon anyway, so we should only pay about £1 will probably fail to hold up. Even though he will have top solicitors and barristers working for him, then that will never deter the other side from trying all sorts of shit to get the bill down!
Rectocil isn’t an air fence, it's a type of foam. FIM circuit approval categories demand levels of mitigation. On UK tracks that have been around for many years, where the run off is inadequate, the regulations allow for this foam barrier mitigation. Biggest issue today, is the superbikes are too fast for many of the circuits. The Rectocil barriers used in BSB are owned by Johnathon Palmer plc, not the circuits so have to be transported, put in position for the race weekend and then packed up and shipped off after every event. Two things, the barriers are very expensive (a 5 figure sum each) and the barriers have to be stored, neither should affect rider (and spectator) safety but BSB is not a resource rich organisation, the Racesafe Marshals get to hump and heave 100s of the bloody things to trackside after racing for the small team to collect them. In the last 2 years, more and more barriers have been bought and added to trackside. Every rider has a responsibility (and accountability) for their riding on track, some, IMO, seem to think they are invulnerable and can ride away from an incident instead of stepping off. If the circumstances of SB’s injury are as reported, IMO he had plenty of time to bail out but chose not to. He made a bad decision. What could the knock on effects of this judgement be ? The inevitable increased investment in resources at test days has got to be funded somehow and whilst a business, BSB isn’t Dorna or F1, the profits are tiny in comparison. Tickets and food/beer prices are an obvious target. Will this judgement have an effect on track days ? IMO, there is an arguement for probably not although I would hope to see a ban on racers using track days for practice. Time will tell. Andy
Sad day for motorsport. IF they need those up for track days/test days ETC the costs will go up and will get passed on There will be enough issues with cost/availability already after so many empty days this year so not good news
Surely its calculated on potential earnings not life expectancy. At 42 he only had a limited time to earn X amount. Say its 2 million £. If the accident had taken place when he was 21 he potentially could have gone onto be the highest paid racer in the world (in a courts eyes).
Take the argument through. It’s ok then for a punter on a track day not to have the protection but BSB rider different. What if BSB rider is in a track day? Do they go materially slower than a practice day? Loads of questions….all add up to a sour taste imho and shakey happy to screw the rest of use for a few quid
If feels like the judge has taken all responsibility from Shakey, and/or his team, for his own actions.
IMO, your average punter doesn’t have the ability to ride at BSB standard, they are unlikely to exceed the current mitigation in an off. Biggest issue for me is the incident caused by idiocy, stupidity and an absence of talent. That is not a track issue. I have ridden on track days with both amateur and professional racers, broadly speaking, the professionals bring the worst behaviour out of amateur track day riders and amateur racers lack any tolerance towards amateur track day riders. Both are a recipe for (avoidable) disaster. Just my opinion. Andy
Biggest problem there is today, accountability for what you do, nobody appears to want to accept responsibility for their own actions. Andy
There are plenty of guys who are national level out doing trackdays and plenty of top racers doing trackdays. Point os really, why shod BSB get the good fences and not everyone: are they worth more than the average punter? IMHO this will lead to loads of claims against other rider, trackday companies, therefore tracks as they look to offload the risk
sorry but this is a serious over simplification! The specific corner in question, even at my speed is 100mph braking, maybe still 70mph at the Apex, and arguably I also have less skill set to gather it up when it goes wrong. the argument is that the barrier should be suitable, well this is true, but Shakey like every other rider has time and opportunity to walk the track and assess the safety before committing at the level he needs to, infact I know Snetterton really really well and he only needs to wander up to the bank by the cafe and he can see all the barrier sections for sector 1, 2 and onto the back straight. It was an accident, which Shakey admits was caused by him tipping in aggressively on a tyre that hadn’t come up to temp. I don’t see why it’s different for him to anyone else, yet we are the ones who will pay for it. btw this doesn’t discount the fair comment that the organisers have a duty of care, they do, but it’s not them that will pay for the downstream effect
Sorry for stating the obvious, but we all know motorcycle racing is inherently a very dangerous sport and everyone who rides out onto a racetrack knows there is a significant risk of loss & personal injury. It seems Shakey's injuries were sustained as a result of him pushing his bike beyond the limits for the track conditions, he lost control, and he and his bike left the racetrack. It was an unfortunate accident, and in my opinion under the circumstances I don't feel legal action was the right or honourable way to deal with the matter.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content...sport-Vision-Racing-Ltd-JUDGMENT-29.11.24.pdf I suggest you all read this it's not as simple as you think as it usually isn't in these cases Approved Judgment 118 . It was a breach of the OLA common duty of care and it was negligent not to have concluded that type 'A' additional protective devices were required on the outside barrier at Turn 3 for this test day. The foreseeable collision that occurred was not a low angle sliding or glancing type of impact. I find that on a balance of probabilities the use of type 'A' APDs would not have resulted in what has been posited as a potential for 'pocketing'. It would not have created a more serious outcome for the claimant than the type 'D' tyre wall which he struck with considerable force. None of the defence evidence, including the opinions of their various experts, has persuaded me that the type 'A' units (which the defendants themselves put into the location soon after the claimant's accident) would not have protected the claimant from his injuries.
This reminds me of the death of Mac Hobson in the Sidecar TT, when he crashed on Bray Hill. The ACU was sued for negligence, on behalf of Mac's disabled son. The best eye witness of the event was Rolf Biland, who was immediately behind Mac at the time. I went to Silverstone and interviewed Rolf Biland in detail. We put together a Witness Statement to be used in the litigation, which Rolf signed for me. Dane Rowe helpfully acted as English/ German interpreter.
