Not so Fun Cup. Idiot decides to drive on to the live track.
Discussion
andy97 said:
I would not get over excited, it's only a Common Law offence and Public Nuisance does not even appear in the Magistrates sentencing guidelines.
And it can carry a custodial sentence. I would imagine if he challenges it his defence will be that those inconvenienced were too narrow a class of public to satisfy the generality required to complete the offence.The CPS will have considered pretty carefully whether or not there is a realistic chance of conviction.
Not quite the aggravated trespass some were suggesting was a slam dunk.
Let's hope the young lad gets a conviction (perhaps a suspended sentence, no benefit in jailing him) and a strong message is sent out.
andy97 said:
I would not get over excited, it's only a Common Law offence and Public Nuisance does not even appear in the Magistrates sentencing guidelines.
yeh since the bloke who mooned the queen last year just got a 500 quid fine, I wouldn't expect much....maybe next time someone should ram his car.......lets hope the insurance companies get hold of him and bump up his policy price
37chevy said:
maybe next time someone should ram his car....
Just a thought about what may or may not be happening to Tony Stewart over in the states concerning comments that he made a few years back and the tragic incident the other week. People might not want to say things like that although it does ask the question if someone had hit them half way around paddock hill bend what the consequences might have been. Any competitors, passengers in the road car, spectators or marshals who might have suffered loss and/or injury, all of whom were owed a duty of care by the organisers to keep them safe (within the usual limits expected at motorsport events).
As much as those with a bias in favour of motorsports wish to place 100% blame on the driver entering the track, it cannot be ignored that the negligence of the organisers played a part in allowing him to do so.
Do the organisers owe a duty of care to those present? Yes.
Was it reasonably foreseeable that if left unattended, someone may stray onto the track? Yes.
Was it reasonably foreseeable that an accident was likely to occur were a member of the public to enter the racetrack? Yes.
Did the organisers fail in their duty of care? Yes.
Was that failure the cause of loss? Yes.
As much as those with a bias in favour of motorsports wish to place 100% blame on the driver entering the track, it cannot be ignored that the negligence of the organisers played a part in allowing him to do so.
Do the organisers owe a duty of care to those present? Yes.
Was it reasonably foreseeable that if left unattended, someone may stray onto the track? Yes.
Was it reasonably foreseeable that an accident was likely to occur were a member of the public to enter the racetrack? Yes.
Did the organisers fail in their duty of care? Yes.
Was that failure the cause of loss? Yes.
tenpenceshort said:
Was it reasonably foreseeable that if left unattended, someone may stray onto the track? Yes.
The problem with that argument is that we have to cater for the lowest common denominator and that can get pretty horrific to manage. Why would anyone with more than half a brain cell think it was a good idea to stray onto a live race track in a basic road going hatchback? Had you ever thought someone would do so before this incident? Unfortunately preparing for that and preventing it happening is what allows those with half a brain cell to remain within the gene pool. I'm very glad this incident wasn't what removed the accused from the gene pool because he could have taken innocent people with him, but overall we have become far too protective of stupidity.
If someone is determined enough to do something stupid and isn't worried about being caught it is quite difficult to stop them, despite reasonable precautions being taken.
There is nothing to stop you stepping off a railway platform onto the tracks.... it doesn't make the rail operators negligent if you do so deliberately.
In this case it was unfortunate the final gate into the collection area wasn't closed - but for all we know it may have been and the chap may have waited until it was open and the marshal's back was turned. The video clearly shows his intent.
I do sincerely hope that the penalty is more than just a fine but for now I'm content that he has been formally charged - it must be pretty stressful for him (as it should be), and he is now learning all about consequences....
There is nothing to stop you stepping off a railway platform onto the tracks.... it doesn't make the rail operators negligent if you do so deliberately.
In this case it was unfortunate the final gate into the collection area wasn't closed - but for all we know it may have been and the chap may have waited until it was open and the marshal's back was turned. The video clearly shows his intent.
I do sincerely hope that the penalty is more than just a fine but for now I'm content that he has been formally charged - it must be pretty stressful for him (as it should be), and he is now learning all about consequences....
I have to comment on this:
That is quite different to someone setting out deliberately to circumvent the measures in place, to do something that he knew to be wrong, disruptive and potentially dangerous.
tenpenceshort said:
Was it reasonably foreseeable that if left unattended, someone may stray onto the track? Yes
'Stray' means "Move away aimlessly from a group or from the right course or place". With the restrictions in place on the day, the signposting and so on, it was virtually impossible for someone to 'stray' onto the track. That is quite different to someone setting out deliberately to circumvent the measures in place, to do something that he knew to be wrong, disruptive and potentially dangerous.
'No measures' aside from segregation of spectator areas from the inner paddock, additional segregation of the rear of the inner paddock from the pit lane, a physical gate at collection area which was manned (even if it was temporarily open), signage designating pit lane from pit garage and a very obvious entry to live track with additional signage denoting it as such. Not to mention physical entry to the site as a whole restricted to those who have been issued with tickets which state the dangers of motorsport and the conditions of entry.
To continue with the rail analogy - this compares with a yellow line painted on the edge of a platform. Or a 'No entry' sign one a one way street that has no physical barrier to prevent access.
It seems to me that the circuit owner goes to a lot of effort to make it clear to spectators where they should and shouldn't be - effectively so as the lad clearly knew he shouldn't be there.
Had he mistakenly blundered onto the track then I'd be with you 100%. But it is virtually impossible to get on that track during a live race without it being a deliberate act.
To continue with the rail analogy - this compares with a yellow line painted on the edge of a platform. Or a 'No entry' sign one a one way street that has no physical barrier to prevent access.
It seems to me that the circuit owner goes to a lot of effort to make it clear to spectators where they should and shouldn't be - effectively so as the lad clearly knew he shouldn't be there.
Had he mistakenly blundered onto the track then I'd be with you 100%. But it is virtually impossible to get on that track during a live race without it being a deliberate act.
teamHOLDENracing said:
Had he mistakenly blundered onto the track then I'd be with you 100%. But it is virtually impossible to get on that track during a live race without it being a deliberate act.
It is, without any shadow of a doubt, deliberate.In the oxygen thief's own words on the video.
"This is Jack Cottle, trying to attempt to get on the race track"
'Trying to attempt'.
Not even educated enough to know that they are synonyms.
I doubt the
head has heard of the word synonym.Or, if he has, knows what it means.
He knew EXACTLY what he was intending to do and was not dissuaded by his g/f.
Would he have swerved round anybody who might try to stop him?
Given his level of intellect and responsibility my guess would be yes.
I did my dissertation on negligence in sport and I'm very involved in motorsport. I'm not sure that it was reasonably foreseeable that a member of the public would drive a road car on the track. Has it happened before? Is it something that nearly happens at times?
It's an academic argument but I reckon I could mount a decent defence to was it reasonably foreseeable.
It's an academic argument but I reckon I could mount a decent defence to was it reasonably foreseeable.
He went through an open garage from an already restricted area. It is not an easily foreseeable occurrence.
Similarly, I have never been checked on arrival at a circuit for my Armco Spanner despite me wearing a hi vis jacket from time to time. A giveaway that I am a highways engineer and obviously planning to remove sections of barriers to gain unlawful access to the track. How have the marshals never spotted that one?
I think you understand the point I'm making about what you would expect from visitors to a racetrack. I suppose we all know better now but if said knob walks away scot free then we must prepare for any type of invasion as per my made up scenario.
Similarly, I have never been checked on arrival at a circuit for my Armco Spanner despite me wearing a hi vis jacket from time to time. A giveaway that I am a highways engineer and obviously planning to remove sections of barriers to gain unlawful access to the track. How have the marshals never spotted that one?
I think you understand the point I'm making about what you would expect from visitors to a racetrack. I suppose we all know better now but if said knob walks away scot free then we must prepare for any type of invasion as per my made up scenario.
I don't believe us racers are going to sue the organisers for a lack of "duty of care". Strikes me as a bit of an own goal that one. As for the spectators, is it really worth it?..no is the answer. The marshall's?, although inconvienanced I doubt they would for the same reason we drivers wouldn't. Now if there was big prize money at stake, that, I'm sure would be a different question and lucky in a way for this clown we do it for the love of racing.
For those endangered, my belief is that those lads on the pit lane, like my pit crew member who held me back as dick-wad drove down the pit lane and those close to the screwternering garage were most at risk by his actions. We as drivers were exposed to a lesser risk by this fool, due to the protection of a full roll cage had anything gone Pete Tong. Lots of "what if's" and "maybe's" this one.
For those endangered, my belief is that those lads on the pit lane, like my pit crew member who held me back as dick-wad drove down the pit lane and those close to the screwternering garage were most at risk by his actions. We as drivers were exposed to a lesser risk by this fool, due to the protection of a full roll cage had anything gone Pete Tong. Lots of "what if's" and "maybe's" this one.
Gassing Station | UK Club Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff