Risk Assessment.

[scorpa3]

I'm interested to find out if anyone has had any experience completing the ACU risk assessments for trials events?

How many different areas need to be assessed?

In what depth do we need to go?

What are the implications of getting a risk assessment wrong in the event of an incident?

Any thoughts on the matter would be most welcome as I am faced with this task and I personally feel that the ACU's interpretation of what is required is a little..... lets say vague.

Thanks

[mintsauce]

probably deliberately so just in case things did go wrong. they can then say you misinterpreted what was written, so the blame falls onto someone else. Or am i just being cynical Always cover your a***.

[mintsauce]

i would have thought that all risk assesments are the same for all trial events they just need to be modified to suit any different venues (site specific). I think damage limitation is the big thing nowadays, whenever you go to a motorsport event it will always say it is dangerous you spectate/participate at your own risk. Surely the ACU have someone to do the risk assesment for you, dont they?

[scorpa3]

At the moment, it is the individual Clerk of the Courses job to be responsible for writing Risk Assessments for each trial.

The ACU seem to think that the Risk Assessment for an event can be put on just one form and that will be enough to show that we have considered the risks if something happens.

I just have a feeling that if push comes to shove, this will prove to be lacking, perhaps worse than actually doing nothing?

Any thoughts appreciated.

Cheers

[hrc2002]

I write out Risk Assessments for a living (Health and Safety Manager). This however, to me, seems very over the tops that the ACU are asking for Risk Assessments to be recorded.

Never had experience in writing one out for a trial, but Risk Assessments are mainly for, obviously, identifying risks and hazards, a trial is a CONSTANT hazard in every sqaure inch of land that it is held on.

There are no laws, to my knowledge, of holding a public motorsports event where health and safety is concerned.

I personally think that a Risk Assessment for this thing is a pointless task so you may want to write to the ACU and ask for a more specific details on why you should have one.

I would imagine that it is more based on the observers and public members of the event and ensuring their safety on your land. Therefore, it makes sence that

all sections are taped off to a waist-height level (to avoid tripping and improve visability) aswell of warning of steep drops.

Ensuring there are no potental trip hazards on walk ways such as rocks or tree routes.

Seperating traffic of motorcycles with pedestrians as much as it is reasonably practicable.

Closing off and signing 'no go' areas for motorists and pedestrians.

If you want any specific questions on risk assessments feel free to PM me on here, but I would advise you to contact ACU and ask for more details on what it is you should be assessing for/against.

[hrc2002]

The ACU seem to think that the Risk Assessment for an event can be put on just one form and that will be enough to show that we have considered the risks if something happens.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Risk assessments can be put on to one form and they will probably save your ass in court if something did happen on your site.

We seem to be a CLAIM CLAIM CLAIM! culture at the moment and its getting worse, people are walking away with 3 figure compensation gains from the smallest, unconsidered thing, the courts just label that as 'insufficiant risk assessment'.

If you were taken to court and produce a risk assessment it will not get you off the hook because you have identified the risk, you need to act on it, eliminate it is possible.

To carry out an assessment on an outdoor activity there is so much to consider, too much to consider really, you'd end up writing out a new assessment if it rained and the ground were slippy or something.

-------

By the way, if it went to court, you'd be paying damages cost (civil law) and it will probably cost you your land and club.

[atomant]

I, the same as HRC2002 am qualified in H&S (Nebosh) and can/do do risk assessment.

The Assessment is the easy thing, you need to look at all possible risks and then quantify them in relation to the perceived hazard. Thats quite straigthforward to do and I would say most CoC's would be able to do this however, the problem arises if you identify a specific hazard, do nothing about it then someone gets injured by that hazard.

An example would be in one of our venues we have randomly located mine shafts that are fenced off but netherless still pose a hazard. If we did not identify them with suitable warnings and explain/document that we have told the riders to avoid these hazards, then someone goes down one and gets seriously hurt, as the event organisers, we would failed in the eyes of a court and would be open to prosecution.

If Risk Assessments are going to be required then we need to have much more information on what we are accepting liabilty for to do this properly!. Without this, Clubs will get scared off by the risk that they will be having to shoulder and not bother running trials anymore. None of our clubs could defend a lawsuit from a rider or his family in this example!

With my knowledge of how the system works in the business world, I assume this would be the same.

ACU - More information and guidance is urgently required please!!

[scorpa3]

Thanks for the excellent replies. So far this corresponds precisely with my thoughts.

At the moment, the ACU are issuing just one risk assessment form with each set of regs. They are saying that a generic assessment for the event will be enough to cover the minimum requirement for H&S.

I am sceptical of this approach. If assessments are to be done, then I think we need to do it to the best of our ability rather than to the very minimum.

I too am concerned about the many ancillary things which pose a hazzard at an event, rather than the rider hurting themselves in the marked sections.

eg Refueling; Surely if risk assessments are required, then this merits one on its own?

Once identified in this way, what other actions or paperwork are required? Should we not have a clearly available safe system of work for refueling? What about COSHH regulations?

I am involved with risk assessment in an engineering environment, but would be most reluctant to have a go at assessing refueling.

I may be wrong, but I am deeply concerned that by doing a little badly, we are creating more problems than doing nothing. In a court I can just hear the judge saying ".... and you clearly identified the risk, you should have eliminated or reduced that risk. You are liable."

I have spoken to the ACU (at a very high level) and they genuinely don't know what they need us to do right at this moment. Apart from asking us to fill in this one form and calling it a risk assessment.

Feeling a little bewildered right now.

Any thoughts appreciated, this will affect every ACU CofC from now on at every event.

Edited November 20, 2005 by scorpa3

[atomant]

I am sceptical of this approach. If assessments are to be done, then I think we need to do it to the best of our ability rather than to the very minimum.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would agree with you, if we are to do one , then it needs to be done properly and there are lots of areas that I could think of that would need looking at. This is no 5 minute paper excercise! However, I would be confident that I could produce a suitable Risk Assessemnt of all risks/hazards for any given trial, I just dont know if I would be willing to donate that much time to it as it will take a long time!!

I have spoken to the ACU (at a very high level) and they genuinely don't know what they need us to do right at this moment. Apart from asking us to fill in this one form and calling it a risk assessment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a concern, I really dont think they realise the impact this will have on the sport if we have to do this correctly.

[scorpa3]

Forgive me for being scynical here, but I feel as if the unpaid volunteers have been shouldered with the problem for the time being.

In the event of a court case, the permit issuing authority might just say "it's the CofC's job to fill out the Risk assessment, we just supply one form for them to photocopy and use as many as required."

Then the official will be left in the dock trying to explain why they knew that assessments had to be done but didn't do it properly.

I really do feel quite concerned about all this.

I know the ammount of paperwork an accident generates at work. And the subsiquent follow up actions/questions that have to be answered.

And at my work we have a full time trained H&S manager overseeing and auditing the paperwork, even then things go wrong. What chance has a club trial organiser got?

[cota kid]

So whats next? Riders submitting a Method Statement for every section.

[scorpa3]

Imagine the number of risk assessments required for one of our National road trials where there are 10 groups of sections and many spectators.

Support teams refuel around the route.

Riders use bikes on the road with no lights etc, many don't wear gloves. Trials have always been like this and long may they continue.

But do I want to be the Clerk of the Course at these events and responsible for the paperwork?

As a volunteer? I am begining to think not.

[atomant]

I think you will find that its the event organisers sole responsibilty for the safety & welfare of the participants/observers/public that attend the event.

I see it as the ACU have issued a statement that RA's should be done and have given basic guidance. Although this guidance in my view is not sufficient and needs to be more detailed.

My other concern is whether the insurance cover that is provided through the ACU will be subject to review of the RA's of the event before paying out?

Some generic RA's could be done and a written policy for say re-fuelling could be produced for all clubs leaving only localised RA's to be done by the club.( as in my earlier post). This could be a workable solution.

In relation to sections, I dont think this comes into it as its an intergral part of the sport and the riders accept this risk taking part. Its all the other stuff around the sections that are an issue. (like spectator positions etc)

[marky g]

What a load of **** I have enough of this risk assessment crap at work, I don't even want to hear the words when I'm out 'enjoying' myself on my bike on a Sunday .

Risk assessment for walking the friggin dog next .......

[scorpa3]

What a load of ****    I have enough of this risk assessment crap at work, I don't even want to hear the words when I'm out 'enjoying' myself on my bike on a Sunday .

Risk assessment for walking the friggin dog next .......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes I agree, I too am sick of paperwork at work. However, to enjoy ones self on a Sunday morning someone has to put in a lot of time and effort setting out and organising an event.

It now looks as if the same people who do the organising, as unpaid volunteers, are now facing the prospect of being held liable in a court of law for their actions. Quite rightly too I suppose?

The increasing requirement for paperwork, although a "load of ****" is being introduced to ultimately help these unpaid volunteers from facing such a scenario.

In the light of this, I am questioning my motivation to continue as a Clerk of the Course, but what I do know is that if we are going to keep on riding in organised events, then everything possible should be done to help the organisers to protect themselves from litigation.

So on this fact I agree with the ACU. It's just how, who and to what level is my worry.