[scorpa3]

TSR8 stipulates that prior to the start of each trial all machines will be examined to ensure that they comply with ACU regulations.

In NSR appendix B states;
11 Brakes. All motorcycles..... must be equiped with efficient systems.
14 Throttle. ..... must be self closing
15 Clutch and brake levers. must in principle be 'ball ended'
16 Chain Guards. ... must be fitted with a guard

I am having difficulty in finding an examiner to check the above points.
We were picked up on our lack of inspection a few years ago by the Steward and put in place an inspection the following year.
One of our club members is a qualified MOT inspector for cars and he volunteered to carry out the check as per NSR appendix B.

A number of events later, out examiner is less keen to carry out this function as he is not a trained motorcycle inspector and is concerned that he might be held liable should a machine, he has passed, be involved in some kind of incident.
And what process should I adopt to provide suitable evidence for the inspection should it be required?

In the past, the examiner has simply put a tick in the programme when each machine is examined. Is this enough?
And who should be carrying out these examinations?

[bikespace]

I'll let someone more knowlegeable answer your question correctly rather than me guessing. One or two of your quotes I've thought about before regarding whether our bikes are legal from the start. Look at the new Xispa and see if it fits in with rule 16. A guard must be fitted to the gearbox sprocket:

Xispa link

Not even looked at the others but this is one little difference I noticed from the Sherco - the guard is missing. On the Sherco it's an extension of the flywheel cover.
Any others?
The rear chain guard is barely adequate with:

"The guard must be constructed in such a manner that under no circumstances can the rider or passenger come in to accidental contact with the transmission parts."

[scorpa3]

Yes, that follows on nicely from the point my machine examiner was making should an 'incident' arise.
Who tells the examiner to what standard they should be examining?
In this case.... What constitutes a transmission guard?

[Christoff]

scorpa3, on Dec 12 2007, 10:28 PM, said:

Yes, that follows on nicely from the point my machine examiner was making should an 'incident' arise.
Who tells the examiner to what standard they should be examining?
In this case.... What constitutes a transmission guard?

Scorpa 3

What level of event did the steward spot your lack of machine examiner?

THe ACU trials risk assessment form states that for events of less than Continental Championship machine examination should be done by a "responsible person acting as the Machine Examiner" Therefore, I assume that as long as the person is "responsible" and have signed on as an official, any claims against them (unless they have been ridiculusly negligent) will be covered by the ACU's event insurance.

I havnt got my rule book with me but I think transmission and chain guards are 2 different items. Transmission guards refer to primary transmissions and clearly state that you must not be able to touch mechanical parts. So if you can touch the chain, sprockets or gears then the guard isnt good enough.

I cant remember the wording on chain (final drive) guards so I wont comment untill I have looked at the rules again. But I think it is safe to say that thet must be able to stop you putting your finger between the chain and sprockets where they meet.

Let the debate continue!!!

[jimmyl]

"TSR8 stipulates that prior to the start of each trial all machines will be examined to ensure that they comply with ACU regulations."

I think that the machine examier is not certifying whether the bike is safe or not, the rider agrees to this obligation when signing on. He is only checking that it is to ACU regs and suitable for the competition it is entered for.

Likewise in road trials you are not checking whether the machine is legal or safe to ride on the road, the rider is 100% responsible for that. I think the message I picked up from ACU seminars is the less you can check the less you are responible for.

[Christoff]

jimmyl, on Dec 13 2007, 02:37 PM, said:

"TSR8 stipulates that prior to the start of each trial all machines will be examined to ensure that they comply with ACU regulations."

I think the message I picked up from ACU seminars is the less you can check the less you are responible for.

Jimmy

Trouble is that the ACU rules do say that the brakes have to work and chain guards must be fitted.

These are probably two of the many things likely to cause injury.

If you do examine the machine you must check these. I cant see you can get out of some responsibility if you examine.

[rabie]

ok lets be very clear here (and this question popos up also in mx and enduros under ACU and other "sanctioning bodies")

TSR8 - the person doing this is checking for *** Championship Compliance, NOT SAFTEY ***

now you know, i know, and everyone else knows the checklists madated has got very little to do with championship complaince, and a lot to do with what looks like saftey, but offcially its not saftey.

its down to the rider to ensure their machine is safe

similarly for events (trials or enduro) with roadwork, its not the organisers job to ensure the bike is road legal (or the rider has a road lsicene, MOT, insurance, etc) - however many organisers make competitors take out the extra RTA insurance (because riders policies exclude this), but they don't have to

the onus is really upon the rider for safety but we (organisers) do this technical examination to double check if you will (and some riders, like me, don't know anything about maintenance at all!!!)

if as in this example the official doing this wants some back up/qualification then he can go on a "technical officers" (formerly scrutiner) course (regional level is the entry level)

re sprocket covers, as bikespace points out in the link to Xispa, (and as i understand the rules) there does need to be a cover over the sprocket there, and many rider make their own covers. some clubs are really hot on this, and some riders don't like it (esp in muddy events), but AFAIK its a really good idea

[rabie]

scorpa3, on Dec 12 2007, 09:32 PM, said:

In the past, the examiner has simply put a tick in the programme when each machine is examined. Is this enough?
And who should be carrying out these examinations?

as part of your event pack of paper work from your permit issuing authority (centre/rugby) (IIRC) you should have a yellow form for the technical officer to fill in, where they can list all those who failed technical inspection and what action was taken.

our guys generally tick riders off in the programme then fill in the above form at the end of the the examination peroid

[Christoff]

rabie, on Dec 13 2007, 03:25 PM, said:

ok lets be very clear here (and this question popos up also in mx and enduros under ACU and other "sanctioning bodies")

TSR8 - the person doing this is checking for *** Championship Compliance, NOT SAFTEY ***

If machine examiners are not checking for safety why are machine checks required at ALL and not just championship trials and why does the ACU Trials risk assessment say "the governing body has assessed the technical and SAFETY (my emphasis) requierments for the eligable machines and at all events a person shall ensure that all machines comply with those requirements"?

Surely if you examine a machuine for an event you examine it against all aspects orf the applicable regulations, ESPECIALLY SAFETY.

Please point out where in the rule book it says that you do not examine for safety requirements.

[scorpa3]

I also feel quite strongly that we should all be examining machines to the same standard and that the results of the checks should be recorded.

That should be every machine checked and not just the ones with faults, otherwise we (the organisers) would not know if someone had simply missed the check.

Plus; the handbokk doesn't mention any particular level. It states all events, therefore we should be doing these checks at every club trial and I for one have never had my bike checked at a club event!

[Woody]

So let's turn this around then and offer opinion as to what should be checked before an event to ensure that a bike is acceptable from a safety aspect - and there lies the first problem. How to arrive at a sensible checklist as opinion is going to differ greatly.

Take an existing checkpoint - chainguard. Most older bikes were fitted with neat alloy chainguards. Most modern bikes have neat small plastic chainguards. Neither will offer any protection to a hand, arm, leg or whatever else finds its way towards that area during a crash in which the bike could be singing away on full throttle and the rear wheel is spinning like a strimmer. The rider or anyone else could suffer a nasty injury but the bike was deemed safe as it was fitted with a chainguard - but it hasn't prevented injury. The result, an inquest into ways of preventing it from happening again, new legislation which demands enclosed chains, solid wheels etc. etc.

Extreme - probably. Unlikely - maybe not in this day and age.

My point - what is safe and what isn't? Who decides? What is the outcome if a piece of signed paper decrees that a bike is safe at the start of an event but a component that was ticked off on the checklist subsequently fails and causes injury?

Where do you draw the line?

- Checking brake, clutch and throttle cables both ends for fraying. Frayed throttle cable can stick and causes injury
- brake fluid reservoir levels. Too low and brake failure causes injury
- worn chain/sprockets - Rider is allowed to start with these in a worn state and the chain jumps off near the top of a big step/climb. Bike instantly goes into reverse causing a nasty fall. Should he have been allowed to start.
- Knackered rear tyre which splits around the knobble on a track or the road causing instant deflation and a crash - should it have been spotted or should there be a maximum wear markers on the tyres

etc. etc.

Personally I think it is a can of worms just waiting to be opened. I remember trials from years ago where scrutineering involved a quick check of the spokes brakes, tax and a horn. That was it and it only happened on road trials. That was 20-odd years ago and we weren't litigation mad then anyway. But the points I've mentioned previously are just as likely as these to be areas of negelct and just as likely to cause an incident as defective brakes or loose spokes could.

So again the question is - what is a realistic checklist of things to tick off as 'passed scrutineering'. Answer - can of worms. With ultimately, some poor sod with his/her signature on a bit of paper held responsible for an incorrect decision that caused injury.

And once this checklist has been established how long is it going to take one person to thoroughly check each and every bike before the event, where there are 80 - 100 bikes. If it is a 2 day event are they checked again on day 2. Are they checked on all 6 days of the SSDT.

Personally I think that the rider alone should be responsible for the condition of the bike and that the regs should state this. Any problems/incidents and they alone are accountable.

There is already enough red tape and paper work for club officials, this would only add to it in my view

[scorpa3]

A sensible reply Woody. However this doesn't solve the dilema that I am in with our event.

We were critisised (quite rightly according to the hand book) for not checking machines, but we now find ourselves unable to identify the standard that they should be checked to and indeed who should be doing it. (And for that matter, how to record that it has been done!)

A common standard.... or just leave it to the rider.

[rabie]

this issue has come up in some AMCA MX groups in 2007 and 2006, leading some to **** themselves and stopped scrutinering in some groups for a period of time (i'm led to believe these groups concerned have resumed this).

ok the phrase "checking for championship compliance", is what you say to the lawyers, etc asking. thus the rider is fundamentally responsible for a safe machine rather than the organiser.

how we do it, (and we could be wrong), is at the start the machine examiner as you say checks the spokes, the throttle snaps back, etc of all bikes as they go to the starter. in mx/enduro we do some time before the start (at the same time a signing on), but there is a lot more scope for failure. i couldn't really talk about how we record this as i'm not a technical officer, but as i say there is the form the the technical officer (machine examiner) fills in. i guess in trials we don't require the machine examiner to sit a technical seminar (they do in MX & Enduro)

think of some different examples of key areas beyond safety we check - the rider has a proper helmet ie not a cycle helmet (in MX & enduro we check it has a gold/silver current ACU sticker), are they the right tyres (very crucial in enduro, but conceivably someone might run mx tyres in a trial), sound (we have a sound limit you can test - we do in MX & Enduro)

in a sport like trials where often riders are competent and buying newish bikes built to a standard the only real issues is the sprocket guard


looking at it from the risk assessment point of view is a relativity new way of looking at it - yes we should perhaps acknowledge we look for the most glaring safety errors, but we must caveat that the bike is the riders responsibility. also the riders can't claim is injured by another riders bike, while punters/joe public are explicitly covered by our insurance (public liability and third party).

re 2 day+ event, esp the SSDT, what i remember from my CofC seminar is that part of the parc ferme thing is that the bikes have been unable to work on. in MX for sound testing top teams bring wheelbarrows of pipes to be tested and they are all marked, and someone checks this when they go to the start line. often at our cnetre MX & enduro events people use little stickers on the number plates of coloured little cable ties (which again are checked at start) ....


its probably best someone who has done a technical seminar answer some of these questions (its not my area at all!) or someone from the Trials and Enduro Committee or Technical Panel

[Christoff]

scorpa3, on Dec 14 2007, 01:55 AM, said:

A sensible reply Woody. However this doesn't solve the dilema that I am in with our event.

We were critisised (quite rightly according to the hand book) for not checking machines, but we now find ourselves unable to identify the standard that they should be checked to and indeed who should be doing it. (And for that matter, how to record that it has been done!)

A common standard.... or just leave it to the rider.

Scorpa 3

Whilst there may be some merit in the line that most clubs take, i.e. the rider is responsible for ensuring that their machine complies with the ACU rules (and is therefore also safe), as you have pointed out this is not what the handbook/rules tell us to do.

The ACU stipulate that a "responsible" person should carry out the examination to the specification, i.e whatever the handbook says. I think you have covered most of what needs to be checkd but dont forget the section on "dangerous condition" and kill buttons for youths.

Whilst you can debate what if abc brakes and causes an accident and examiner, maybe, didnt check it properly. The fact is that the ACU and their insurers are happy for an unqualified bet responsible person to carry this out. Therefore, as long as you have performed this to the best of your ability then you are covered by about 50 million quids worth of insurance and have the backing of the ACU. The ACU and their insurers must have assessed the risks and must be happy with this or they would offer proper training for examiners ans they do with other disciplines such as road racing.

If we have done what the governing body asks then the liability for accidents lies somewhere else. Thats why we pay insurance.

As a C of C I would rather stand up in court (god forbid this should ever happen) and say that we followed the rules / guidelines to the best of our ability and did what we thought was reasonable, than explain why we felt that we were above dong what the handbooks asks us to do.

Mr Collins your thoughts?

On the subject of recording results of machine examination. If you do you may just be stepping into the big bad world of the data protection act, as you are keeping information other than that supplied by the rider / entrant. Registration / compliance / access requests / fines for not doing everything by the letter of the law (and it is the LAW), just DO NOT GO THERE. Mark the machines when passed and call it done.

[John Collins]

I will try to give some guidance – and obviously some of my own views.

In T & E we do not have “ scrutineer’s - who I believe probably attend specific training seminars etc – and one can see that the checking of many components such as wired sump plugs etc are very important before a machine is sent hurtling around something like the TT course.

What we do have in T & E are Machine examiners - and as some of you have pointed out - there are no specific qualifications for this job – but I believe that organisers and Clerk of Course would always ensure that a responsible person would be given this task. For many things – I firmly believe the best qualification one can get is one of common sense - and I am sure in most clubs there will be people with some mechanical/technical aptitude – or known experience of working/repairing/ being technically aware – and certainly in my own club – these are the people we would appoint. For sure if in a club there is a mechanic, often this person seems to be the one who gets appointed – but this is not necessary – but sometimes it just common sense to use their experience.

Before we go any further I think that in machine examination – as in many other things we need to clear up a miss-conception – and that is , that the Handbook - which obviously contains all the Regulations for our sport , is something that is sent out – and then just the Organisers or Clerk of Course take heed of it.

It is important that every rider also realises that it is equally important for them – and they are bound by it when they enter a competition.

When EVERY rider signs an Entry Form – they sign the ACU standard declaration that states they will be bound by the ACU National Sporting Code, the Standing Regulations ( both in Handbook) for that discipline – and The Supplementary Regulations ( drawn up for event) and any further Final Instructions.

Additionally – there is a line in the declaration – which asks the rider to confirm that their machine is:

“ Suitable and proper for its purpose”.

So – when we all sign this – ( and lets be honest – how often have we all read all this print ? ) – we are in fact agreeing to, be bound by the NSC , Standing Regs etc.

You will recall in previous debates about cost of Handbook etc how I have indicated the importance of every rider having a copy of NSC and Standing Regs etc - and obviously – as he has just signed to agree to be bound by them – it is quite important that he has them – or has access to them.

So – if the NSC and Regs say the machine must be safe, proper, good condition, correct capacity, up to ACU Spec, legal if event is on Highway, and so forth – he has signed to say that he has.

If the N.S.C & Standing Reg’s said he must tape a pineapple to the top of his helmet - he is signing to say he will do so.

If they say his machine must be in a safe and proper condition – he is signing to say he will arrive at the event with it in this condition.

We certainly do not believe that the Organiser should then – on top of all the other numerous tasks they have to do – have to find qualified people to give the machine a sort of MOT. Then onus must be on the rider.

In actual fact – it is practically impossible to make all these stringent tests out in the field – how an earth can one check specific brake efficiency without a rolling road – or at least (like old MOT days) the examiner road testing each machine.

We all know that the time honoured test seems to be to apply the front brake – and push down on the handlebars – which gives an indication that front suspension and front brakes – are working – with some degree of efficiency. You cannot without proper testing calculate this degree of efficiency – I offer as an example – a pair of brake shoes that are worn to within a slither. If the shoes have been packed right out to bring them as close as possible to the drum – and if the actuating lever has been moved right back on its spline – then for sure the age old test will show that the brake is OK. In actual fact – 1 mile further into the course we all know that the brake could fail completely.

So whose job/ responsibility should it be? Only once answer as far as I see it – the rider.

If a rider – decided to ignore, hoodwink – or not bother to check for himself that his machine is safe and fit for purpose – should he hit a spectator. Official or other competitor etc – it is quite clear he has broken the declaration he has signed – and should someone decide to sue him for his negligence – he will have to face the consequence.

This is exactly the same as if I am driving my car – which was MOT’d in April – and if I have taken no trouble to check that it has been properly maintained since – and the brakes fail because I have run out of brake fluid for example - any resulting injury or damage to a third party would surely fall on my shoulders if the Insurance company decide that problem was caused by sheer neglect – rather that unforeseen circumstance?

However – coming back to common sense – appointed machine examiners – are responsible people – and will probably wish to ensure that while they cannot give the machine a detailed MOT type examination – they can use their knowledge to make sure things are not verging on stupidity.

If a rider had no brake calliper fitted , or the actual brake lever were missing or a hose was split – this would show up in a visual check – or with the traditional – just trying the brakes – so it can be established that a working – or efficient brake system is present – as stated the degree of efficiency cannot really be established – nor is there any real need to.

Other ACU requirements can also be easily checked – ie ball end levers, cut out buttons on Youth machines, self closing throttles – obviously trials tyres rather than MX fitted and so on.

We do not believe this needs people with qualifications – but as I initially said – sensible, responsible people who the Clerk of Course and Organisation are happy with.

If this is done – it is all the governing body – ACU can expect – and I finish by stating that whichever way you look at it the rider must take full responsibility.