Shakey suing MSV / BSB
Discussion
I hope the right outcome will be found by the courts.
Those of you hoping he loses are doing it from the selfish viewpoint of the spectator,who’s only loss is the spectacle of racing.
Have you thought that racers hope he wins because it means safer venues for them and a higher survival rate and fewer injuries.
I’m sure back in the day Barry Sheene,Jackie Stewart etc were vilified because they wanted safer tracks and racing conditions.The result of their actions got you the sport you watch now.Had they not done what they did,racing could have been heavily sanctioned or banned because of the death toll..
Shakey could have decided to sue now because the full extent of his injuries are known.
Those of you hoping he loses are doing it from the selfish viewpoint of the spectator,who’s only loss is the spectacle of racing.
Have you thought that racers hope he wins because it means safer venues for them and a higher survival rate and fewer injuries.
I’m sure back in the day Barry Sheene,Jackie Stewart etc were vilified because they wanted safer tracks and racing conditions.The result of their actions got you the sport you watch now.Had they not done what they did,racing could have been heavily sanctioned or banned because of the death toll..
Shakey could have decided to sue now because the full extent of his injuries are known.
smifffymoto said:
I hope the right outcome will be found by the courts.
Those of you hoping he loses are doing it from the selfish viewpoint of the spectator,who’s only loss is the spectacle of racing.
Have you thought that racers hope he wins because it means safer venues for them and a higher survival rate and fewer injuries.
I’m sure back in the day Barry Sheene,Jackie Stewart etc were vilified because they wanted safer tracks and racing conditions.The result of their actions got you the sport you watch now.Had they not done what they did,racing could have been heavily sanctioned or banned because of the death toll..
Shakey could have decided to sue now because the full extent of his injuries are known.
No-one has said that they hope he loses, rather that he "looses", whatever that means in this context.Those of you hoping he loses are doing it from the selfish viewpoint of the spectator,who’s only loss is the spectacle of racing.
Have you thought that racers hope he wins because it means safer venues for them and a higher survival rate and fewer injuries.
I’m sure back in the day Barry Sheene,Jackie Stewart etc were vilified because they wanted safer tracks and racing conditions.The result of their actions got you the sport you watch now.Had they not done what they did,racing could have been heavily sanctioned or banned because of the death toll..
Shakey could have decided to sue now because the full extent of his injuries are known.
smifffymoto said:
I hope the right outcome will be found by the courts.
Those of you hoping he loses are doing it from the selfish viewpoint of the spectator,who’s only loss is the spectacle of racing.
Have you thought that racers hope he wins because it means safer venues for them and a higher survival rate and fewer injuries.
I’m sure back in the day Barry Sheene,Jackie Stewart etc were vilified because they wanted safer tracks and racing conditions.The result of their actions got you the sport you watch now.Had they not done what they did,racing could have been heavily sanctioned or banned because of the death toll..
Shakey could have decided to sue now because the full extent of his injuries are known.
But that's the bit I'm most surprised by. I'd have thought there has to be some kind of time frame on these things. Clearly, it'll be a load of insurance companies that have to pay out if he's successful, so insurance will be all but impossible to get, surely?Those of you hoping he loses are doing it from the selfish viewpoint of the spectator,who’s only loss is the spectacle of racing.
Have you thought that racers hope he wins because it means safer venues for them and a higher survival rate and fewer injuries.
I’m sure back in the day Barry Sheene,Jackie Stewart etc were vilified because they wanted safer tracks and racing conditions.The result of their actions got you the sport you watch now.Had they not done what they did,racing could have been heavily sanctioned or banned because of the death toll..
Shakey could have decided to sue now because the full extent of his injuries are known.
Southern Ireland hosted no motorcycle road racing in 2023 as they couldn't get reasonable insurance. I can see this being the case here if we're not careful.
Otherwise I agree with you, the circuit does (rightly) have an obligation to keep people as protected as possible but generally a risk assessment is done before the action. Waiting six years then going back in for a claim just makes my teeth itch a bit.
We don't know all the information. To me the key is whether issues with that fence were known about and ignored. If that's the case then I can kind of understand a claim (albeit not six years later, unless like you say it's become known that the crash has longer term implications that weren't known about before). Otherwise, assuming the circuit and organisers did their best to make sure riders were as safe as is reasonable and this is an attempt at cashing in on a freak incident because he's skint I think I have a different view.
I guess we have to trust the system and that the right decision will be made by the courts. I do think it'll have a longer term affect on the sport though, whatever the outcome.
Maybe the "Champagne Grid Girl" has decided to sue him and he needs to raise some cash !!!
It does seem a conflict of interests with him still doing the shows on TV. I expect that now his injuries have plateaued he was advised to commence proceedings. When I raced I had racing insurance and claimed on it for a couple of broken wrists and short stay in hospital but never actually sued the circuits. It's made very clear that racing is dangerous , you sign disclaimers , nobody forces you to race.
I imagine the circuits can muddy the waters enough to have it thrown out as it's been a long time since the accident, was it a tyre issue , brake issue, suspension issues, engine issue, mechanic or bike set up issue etc ..... Who do you then sue next , where does it end ?
It does seem a conflict of interests with him still doing the shows on TV. I expect that now his injuries have plateaued he was advised to commence proceedings. When I raced I had racing insurance and claimed on it for a couple of broken wrists and short stay in hospital but never actually sued the circuits. It's made very clear that racing is dangerous , you sign disclaimers , nobody forces you to race.
I imagine the circuits can muddy the waters enough to have it thrown out as it's been a long time since the accident, was it a tyre issue , brake issue, suspension issues, engine issue, mechanic or bike set up issue etc ..... Who do you then sue next , where does it end ?
Far Cough said:
When I raced I had racing insurance and claimed on it for a couple of broken wrists and short stay in hospital but never actually sued the circuits
When the news broke yesterday I had hoped it was something along the lines of this. Hoping he had claimed on a personal injury insurance and they in turn were suing the circuits and organisers but under his name. Alas it doesn't seem like that. It will be interesting to see what happens this weekend, you wouldn't have thought BSB/MSV will be overly happy with him being on site to present the coverage.
I just wonder how much ego is involved in this
I could have won loads more titles if i hadn't crashed
They should have protected me more so i could keep on earning
You have to wonder if he was bringing in an awful lot of extra money from personal sponsors that are no longer sponsoring him as he isn't racing.
Either way, it's a fairly shallow move to do this now all these years later.
Like others have said, it sets a very dangerous precedent and i've lost respect for him now and if he wins, it will change the shape of the sport no end.
Imagine Cadwell if he wins this case? The changes they will have to make will ruin that circuit. What about Thruxton?
I could have won loads more titles if i hadn't crashed
They should have protected me more so i could keep on earning
You have to wonder if he was bringing in an awful lot of extra money from personal sponsors that are no longer sponsoring him as he isn't racing.
Either way, it's a fairly shallow move to do this now all these years later.
Like others have said, it sets a very dangerous precedent and i've lost respect for him now and if he wins, it will change the shape of the sport no end.
Imagine Cadwell if he wins this case? The changes they will have to make will ruin that circuit. What about Thruxton?
richhead said:
Forester1965 said:
The only dangerous president I know is Donald Trump.
Otherwise, circuits and organisers have a duty of care to competitors. Motorsport is dangerous and people participate with their eyes open, but that doesn't mean anything goes. Circuits oughtn't be negligently dangerous.
Whatever happens in this case, the idea that a circuit or promotor should be immune from responsibility if they're negligent is a dangerous idea.
so a grammer nazi to add to your skills, well done, was only trying to say, racing will never be or should be safe, thats why people do it, take it you have never raced.Otherwise, circuits and organisers have a duty of care to competitors. Motorsport is dangerous and people participate with their eyes open, but that doesn't mean anything goes. Circuits oughtn't be negligently dangerous.
Whatever happens in this case, the idea that a circuit or promotor should be immune from responsibility if they're negligent is a dangerous idea.
), s-p-e-l-l-i-n-g.I guess someone has advised Byrne there's negligence somewhere and the case is good enough to sue. Perhaps he has ongoing complications as well. No idea and no-one does about his financial situation or any other motivation. TV money may be good, but he's less likely to still be doing it in 10-15yrs. All of this is pure speculation as ever.
As a precedent it could be difficult for many circuits. Is there an air fence there for race weekends for BSB or other bike series?
I was sat close to Hislop's crash at Rockingham, when the bike lifted up the air fence and he slid into the concrete wall underneath it. Air fences are better designed and secured due to this now, however I'd probably agree with MSV that it doesn't mean an accident results in less serious injuries necessarily.
The flip of the negativity towards the case, is that continuing to enhance the safety at circuits helps safeguard the sport for the future and remains and should remain a priority.
I'm no legal expert, I estimate though that there is an important element where any individual accepts the risks of the activity they are undertaking and that those risks in Superbike racing/testing/riding on circuits is significantly elevated. This will be balanced against whether the circuit owners/series promoters etc. took reasonable steps to minimise risks to the participants.
We'll all have a view of whether they did or not or whether the individual has to accept these risks without comeback. Tragically in life generally and especially in motorsport, serious injury and worse often highlights where something needs to be changed and/or adapted to better mitigate the risks in the future.
As a precedent it could be difficult for many circuits. Is there an air fence there for race weekends for BSB or other bike series?
I was sat close to Hislop's crash at Rockingham, when the bike lifted up the air fence and he slid into the concrete wall underneath it. Air fences are better designed and secured due to this now, however I'd probably agree with MSV that it doesn't mean an accident results in less serious injuries necessarily.
The flip of the negativity towards the case, is that continuing to enhance the safety at circuits helps safeguard the sport for the future and remains and should remain a priority.
I'm no legal expert, I estimate though that there is an important element where any individual accepts the risks of the activity they are undertaking and that those risks in Superbike racing/testing/riding on circuits is significantly elevated. This will be balanced against whether the circuit owners/series promoters etc. took reasonable steps to minimise risks to the participants.
We'll all have a view of whether they did or not or whether the individual has to accept these risks without comeback. Tragically in life generally and especially in motorsport, serious injury and worse often highlights where something needs to be changed and/or adapted to better mitigate the risks in the future.
Johno said:
I guess someone has advised Byrne there's negligence somewhere and the case is good enough to sue. Perhaps he has ongoing complications as well. No idea and no-one does about his financial situation or any other motivation. TV money may be good, but he's less likely to still be doing it in 10-15yrs. All of this is pure speculation as ever.
As a precedent it could be difficult for many circuits. Is there an air fence there for race weekends for BSB or other bike series?
I was sat close to Hislop's crash at Rockingham, when the bike lifted up the air fence and he slid into the concrete wall underneath it. Air fences are better designed and secured due to this now, however I'd probably agree with MSV that it doesn't mean an accident results in less serious injuries necessarily.
The flip of the negativity towards the case, is that continuing to enhance the safety at circuits helps safeguard the sport for the future and remains and should remain a priority.
I'm no legal expert, I estimate though that there is an important element where any individual accepts the risks of the activity they are undertaking and that those risks in Superbike racing/testing/riding on circuits is significantly elevated. This will be balanced against whether the circuit owners/series promoters etc. took reasonable steps to minimise risks to the participants.
We'll all have a view of whether they did or not or whether the individual has to accept these risks without comeback. Tragically in life generally and especially in motorsport, serious injury and worse often highlights where something needs to be changed and/or adapted to better mitigate the risks in the future.
All valid points but i think the general feeling of ill will towards him for this is that in his opinion, more should have been done to protect him.As a precedent it could be difficult for many circuits. Is there an air fence there for race weekends for BSB or other bike series?
I was sat close to Hislop's crash at Rockingham, when the bike lifted up the air fence and he slid into the concrete wall underneath it. Air fences are better designed and secured due to this now, however I'd probably agree with MSV that it doesn't mean an accident results in less serious injuries necessarily.
The flip of the negativity towards the case, is that continuing to enhance the safety at circuits helps safeguard the sport for the future and remains and should remain a priority.
I'm no legal expert, I estimate though that there is an important element where any individual accepts the risks of the activity they are undertaking and that those risks in Superbike racing/testing/riding on circuits is significantly elevated. This will be balanced against whether the circuit owners/series promoters etc. took reasonable steps to minimise risks to the participants.
We'll all have a view of whether they did or not or whether the individual has to accept these risks without comeback. Tragically in life generally and especially in motorsport, serious injury and worse often highlights where something needs to be changed and/or adapted to better mitigate the risks in the future.
Possibly so and as you rightly said, safety should always be a priority but at some point he has to take responsibility for being in control of the bike when the accident happened and besides which, lots of people have had career ending injuries worse than his, see Gary Cowan at Daytona for example, and have accepted the risks associated with the sport and not gone on to sue over their injuries.
slopes said:
Johno said:
I guess someone has advised Byrne there's negligence somewhere and the case is good enough to sue. Perhaps he has ongoing complications as well. No idea and no-one does about his financial situation or any other motivation. TV money may be good, but he's less likely to still be doing it in 10-15yrs. All of this is pure speculation as ever.
As a precedent it could be difficult for many circuits. Is there an air fence there for race weekends for BSB or other bike series?
I was sat close to Hislop's crash at Rockingham, when the bike lifted up the air fence and he slid into the concrete wall underneath it. Air fences are better designed and secured due to this now, however I'd probably agree with MSV that it doesn't mean an accident results in less serious injuries necessarily.
The flip of the negativity towards the case, is that continuing to enhance the safety at circuits helps safeguard the sport for the future and remains and should remain a priority.
I'm no legal expert, I estimate though that there is an important element where any individual accepts the risks of the activity they are undertaking and that those risks in Superbike racing/testing/riding on circuits is significantly elevated. This will be balanced against whether the circuit owners/series promoters etc. took reasonable steps to minimise risks to the participants.
We'll all have a view of whether they did or not or whether the individual has to accept these risks without comeback. Tragically in life generally and especially in motorsport, serious injury and worse often highlights where something needs to be changed and/or adapted to better mitigate the risks in the future.
All valid points but i think the general feeling of ill will towards him for this is that in his opinion, more should have been done to protect him.As a precedent it could be difficult for many circuits. Is there an air fence there for race weekends for BSB or other bike series?
I was sat close to Hislop's crash at Rockingham, when the bike lifted up the air fence and he slid into the concrete wall underneath it. Air fences are better designed and secured due to this now, however I'd probably agree with MSV that it doesn't mean an accident results in less serious injuries necessarily.
The flip of the negativity towards the case, is that continuing to enhance the safety at circuits helps safeguard the sport for the future and remains and should remain a priority.
I'm no legal expert, I estimate though that there is an important element where any individual accepts the risks of the activity they are undertaking and that those risks in Superbike racing/testing/riding on circuits is significantly elevated. This will be balanced against whether the circuit owners/series promoters etc. took reasonable steps to minimise risks to the participants.
We'll all have a view of whether they did or not or whether the individual has to accept these risks without comeback. Tragically in life generally and especially in motorsport, serious injury and worse often highlights where something needs to be changed and/or adapted to better mitigate the risks in the future.
Possibly so and as you rightly said, safety should always be a priority but at some point he has to take responsibility for being in control of the bike when the accident happened and besides which, lots of people have had career ending injuries worse than his, see Gary Cowan at Daytona for example, and have accepted the risks associated with the sport and not gone on to sue over their injuries.
I understand the ill will towards Shakey, completely. It jeopardises the sense of acceptable risk of any individuals pursuits versus reasonable endeavours to mitigate that risk by organisers, and the precedents are potentially significant.
There's so much we don't know about this, which could change many views of it.
I guess he's got an expensive lifestyle and his wife - Petra Morgan - is no longer a...what's the polite term..? "model" bringing in any money either.
So perhaps totally down to the hope of a one-off payout that's going to see him alright for a while, even if it does alienate him from the entire racing community.
So perhaps totally down to the hope of a one-off payout that's going to see him alright for a while, even if it does alienate him from the entire racing community.
Bob_Defly said:
Tam_Mullen said:
It will be interesting to see what happens this weekend, you wouldn't have thought BSB/MSV will be overly happy with him being on site to present the coverage.
They could refuse him entry in case he might trip and fall over. 
PorkInsider said:
I guess he's got an expensive lifestyle and his wife - Petra Morgan - is no longer a...what's the polite term..? "model" bringing in any money either.
So perhaps totally down to the hope of a one-off payout that's going to see him alright for a while, even if it does alienate him from the entire racing community.
Having googled pictures of her there's probably a joke to be made about 'airbags' if I could be bothered to think about one. So perhaps totally down to the hope of a one-off payout that's going to see him alright for a while, even if it does alienate him from the entire racing community.
It will be interesting to find out if Byrne raised concerns about track safety before riding? That said, if he did and still rode then I'm sure the lawyers will argue that by riding on track he was accepting the level of risk.
I’m old enough to remember the time when there wasn’t even tyre walls to stop you hitting something hard. The Devils Elbow at Mallory Park was certainly not a place to get it wrong, particularly in Karts or on a bike and Goodwood has earth banks to stop you from getting in amongst the spectators and people are queuing up to race there.
The potential precedent is worrying.
The potential precedent is worrying.
Sigmamark7 said:
I’m old enough to remember the time when there wasn’t even tyre walls to stop you hitting something hard. The Devils Elbow at Mallory Park was certainly not a place to get it wrong, particularly in Karts or on a bike and Goodwood has earth banks to stop you from getting in amongst the spectators and people are queuing up to race there.
The potential precedent is worrying.
I remember being at Mallory when Ollie Bridewell died and also remember the likes of Neil Robinson who died at Scarborough and the great Dave Potter at Oulton. Safety is so much better now than it ever has been but freak accidents do occur but the loss of life is a rare occasion these days, see the guy who had a BIG one at the NW200 recently and walked away with a few bruises.The potential precedent is worrying.
And as to Johno's comments about is it noble not to sue, difficult question to answer that one but i suspect in so many cases the families just want to move on and remember people the way they were. Gary Cowan - to use my earlier example - is still massively in love with the sport and competing in the sport he loved cost him the ability to walk ever again. Should he have sued Daytona? Maybe but he knew the risks and i think that is what is wrong with this case, Byrne knew the risks involved yet still carried on. To try and sue 6 years on is a bit much for me.
richhead said:
Forester1965 said:
If the people responsible for his safety were negligent, so be it- he deserves recompense. If they weren't, he doesn't.
Approaching it with a carte blanche "Motorsport is dangerous" attitude is dangerous in itself, because it'd allow unscrupulous operators to cut corners on safety knowing they're free from liability.
The courts are typically sensible so it's worth waiting for the outcome before deciding it's right or wrong to have brought the claim.
sorry ive never read such rubbish, this sets a dangerous president who ever wins, who the hell would open a race track to people for racing if they feared being suedApproaching it with a carte blanche "Motorsport is dangerous" attitude is dangerous in itself, because it'd allow unscrupulous operators to cut corners on safety knowing they're free from liability.
The courts are typically sensible so it's worth waiting for the outcome before deciding it's right or wrong to have brought the claim.
all it will do is put costs up for everyone
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff