advice on vehicle standards

[miketomcat]

Right I'm after picking some brains our clubs policy is only MOTed and insured vehicles at our events but we are looking at the possibility of allowing others. So what we're looking for is a way of checking that a vehicle is upto a given standard for example both a challenge truck and a £500 wreck can be trailered to an event, we have no problem with the former but don't want the later. I know that for non road legal racing cars there used to be a msa log book system which showed the car had been scrutineered (i think this is now electronic though).

We don't want to scrutineer as that opens up liability issues and our events don't fit msa rules.

I believe there is challenge truck insurance policys so that should cover 3rd party liability.

Any thoughts welcome.

Mike

[GBMUD]

Stick to MOTs. It means that challenge trucks would have to have lights fitted; but I guess even an annual fail sheet showing all the important stuff passed is as good as a pass for a road car?

As you say, having a club official 'pass' a car infers potential liability. Other clubs seem to do it though - notably apparently checking wheel bearings but ignoring the brakes at one event I attended recently.

Chris

[ejparrott]

If you don't want to scrutineer, then I think you're stuck with MoT only vehicles.

For a while I went offroading with a club in Stourport. Originally you had to be a member of the club, and the vehicles had to be MoT, taxed and insured, but could be brought on a trailer provided they met those conditions(the trailer allowed for taking them home bust as opposed to trying to dive them home) Later on scrutineering was brought in in addition to the above, which largely took care of loose and dangerous artilces inside the vehicle that were not part of an MoT test.

[muddy]

Very difficult to police, I mot my 90 and drive it to trials almost every month, but 4-6 months of this just definitely render it unsafe if no maintenece wa carried out. I'm quite surprised you don't scutineer already as just an MOT doesn't cover enough safety issues such as very basic roll over protection, safe towing points/equipment and heavy/pointy objects sat inside when off roading IMHO.

There's scrutineering to keep the playing feild level and scrutineering to keep the use of the playing feild.

Just my 2p.

Will.

[Daan]

The dutch land rover club mentions that the car has to be 'MOT worthy', which probably is a good term for what you describe. I bet most challenge trucks are not mot'ed, so demanding an MOT is not going to help you. How to stop the wrecks turning up is a more difficult question; but maybe if one turns up you're going to have to turn them down and put some pictures up your website to clarify what a £500 scrapper actually looks like. ie this is allowed in and this isn't.

I reckon....

Daan

[miketomcat]

If you scrutineer the liability can switch to the club as it was deemed safe by the club.

Our events are non competitive so a standard truck can come play with regards recovery points if a tow bar or proper point is not available the error of there ways are identified and they get down on hands and knees to wrap the strop round the axle that normally cures any ignorance.

We already operate a policy where by if the truck is deemed unsafe by a marshal they are politely asked to remedy or come back another day with a remedy. On the whole we don't have a problem as the mot stipulation deters most and we're quite hot others.

The main reason for this thought is our summer/seven sisters event because it's prebooked we can't turn away without upset. We have been asked about non road legal so thought we should explore the possibility.

Mike

[landroversforever]

It's a difficult one. As a member of Shire I appreciate the MOT rule as it keeps the bangers away that my local apsite is/was famous for. However there are plenty of decent challenge trucks and buggies that aren't road legal. I don't know what the answer is, but interested to see the outcome. The other trouble with the scrutineering is the added load on committee/club members doing the checks.

[Dave W]

I

If you scrutineer the liability can switch to the club as it was deemed safe by the club.

Our events are non competitive so a standard truck can come play with regards recovery points if a tow bar or proper point is not available the error of there ways are identified and they get down on hands and knees to wrap the strop round the axle that normally cures any ignorance.

We already operate a policy where by if the truck is deemed unsafe by a marshal they are politely asked to remedy or come back another day with a remedy. On the whole we don't have a problem as the mot stipulation deters most and we're quite hot others.

The main reason for this thought is our summer/seven sisters event because it's prebooked we can't turn away without upset. We have been asked about non road legal so thought we should explore the possibility.
Mike

Scrutineering isn't something that transfers any "liability" onto the club, it simply shows that the club is actually fulfilling it's obligation as far as duty of care is concerned. If a pub has bouncers on the door, do the bouncers get arrested when a patron they let in assaults someone ? At the end of the day you're taking money off people to take part in a potentially dangerous sport, the very least you need to do is a basic safety check on the vehicles taking part, regardless of their MOT status. None of them will be insured anyway, that's your responsibility to put into place adequate third party liability insurance for the land owner and injury to competitors, officials and spectators.

It sounds as if you already expect your marshals to scrutineer vehicles on the fly which kind of negates any suggestion about liability, after all, if a marshal doesn't deem the vehicle unsafe are they not already giving the vehicle the "green light" ? Marshals should have a single person (scrutineer) to refer it to anyway, you need some form of consistency in making those decisions.

If you make it clear that vehicles must pass scrutineering to take part in the event and that scrutineering will cover basic safety items, steering, brakes, fuel and cooling systems, exhaust systems, isolation of the passenger compartment, chassis condition etc... that in itself will keep away the trailered scrap vehicle brigade. Just because you ask people to pre-pay for an event doesn't mean you should reduce the basic safety requirement because you don't want to upset people. You always have the discretion to refund any entry fee if you want to although I wouldn't make that too "automatic" or you'll encourage people to take a chance as they have nothing to lose.

[elbekko]

The real question is: what are your requirements for a "non-banger" vehicle?

I'd say checking recovery points, seats and seatbelts, and maybe a quick look over suspension construction (although not as essential in a low-speed event). Check they have a fire extinguisher, some recovery gear, things like that.

Have people sign a waiver during scrutineering that although a marshal has deemed the vehicle safe enough to participate, that this does not mean the club is responsible for any accidents that were to happen due to an unsafe vehicle. You can always have hidden problems, like a painted over weld on a suspension component that looks good enough, but doesn't have any penetration and breaks off in use.

[tuko]

For the Småland Traxx events that I put on all participating vehicles must have a valid MOT plus an insurance certificate. Even though they are driving the trails at their "own risk" their insurance will provide limited coverage if two vehicles come together plus they have third person coverage.

I realize that every country and insurance company has different policies, I do find that have written in bold letters in the introductory email to all participants that they must have a valid MOT and insurance coverage it does help to weed out the bangers. Those who come with bangers tend to have another attitude when on the trails, mostly giving no respect to other participants, disrespect to rules or the condition of the trails. If you open your events to bangers you are opening another can of worms that will cause more headaches than you need.

[Maverik]

Dave W has some very valid points, and the one that shouts out at me is the comment about your Marshals. Sounds like you are doing a level of scrutineering in loosest of senses, which seems to be very subjective.

I think you need to clarify where the switch of liability does actually happen. There are plenty of risky motorsport clubs around surely you can get advice from them if you ask nicely...?

[miketomcat]

The easy solution is to stay as we are: ie must have MOT and insurance no scrutineering as such only if it looks like a shed then start asking questions. I'm just trying to see if we can open it up to others to improve attendance and grow the club.

What I'm getting from the very helpful comments on here is either stay as we are or look at scrutineering but this means setting out a minimum standard and having someone "qualified" to make the call.

Thanks gents.

Mike

[sean f]

Never easy to come up with standards a vehicle has to be at, some vehicles look dented and like a pile of junk but this is just because they are used hard and competed hard, underneath they are well maintained and safe, others can look reasonable but be completely unsafe.

For a low speed event which road vehicles can take part in then cages etc don't need to be checked but things like brakes and steering definately need to be up to scratch.

My view is the primary roll of the club is to protect other people, if the driver is injured it is his fault as he is reponsible for the state of the vehicle and now he drives, there should always be an option for them to back out of something if they feel it is beyond there or there vehicles limits (may not want to dent the car or risk damage), the risks of vehicle damage people are willing to take vary with each person.

What definately should be prevented as much as is reasonable possible is some one injuring a spectator, marshal or other competitor. This entails making sure a vehicle is able to steer and stop to avoid others, just how good the steering and brakes need to be depends on the type of speeds and conditions expected. Obviously the biggest element of protecting others is the marshals and other officials enforcing certain standards of behaviour and driving, speed limits MUST be enforced and reckless or stupid driving clamped down on, there is no way to remove all risks but they should be reduced as low as possible, if a vehicle gets stuck then the people trying to recovery it need to be kept safe from another vehicle coming at them at high speed. Having a written site speed limit then blatently not enforcing it is the type of thing that will land the club in court if an accident occurs, being able to stand up and say you do enforce it and have slowed people but the accident occured because someone was doing something they were told not to puts you on much better ground.

I have seen several near miss incidents over the years as I am sure many others have and there have been some bad accidents as well, mostly when these things get looked back on it is easily preventable with out having to restrict the events to stupid levels.

[Bowie69]

Only thing I can think is if you had a friendly MOT inspector chap to sit on the gate (this is ignoring liability etc) and anything that was suspicious you have a crawl under on a tarp.

[Maverik]

Only thing I can think is if you had a friendly MOT inspector chap to sit on the gate (this is ignoring liability etc) and anything that was suspicious you have a crawl under on a tarp.

Hmm, no disrespect to the MOT testers of this forum and the world but even someone with half a clue about Landy's can pick up on possible "alarm" vehicles... some of the reports I've seen of MOT comments are a little distressing when seeing the actual vehicle... i.e. they don't care/have a clue...

[miketomcat]

I think we run well organized and controlled events (i would being chief marshal) site speed limit is 15mph and the events are pay and play style so no more commitment than the driver is willing to make. I am hot on speed and seatbelts, people have been turned away because of their truck and evicted from site due to dangerous driving/not listening to marshals.

Mike

[FridgeFreezer]

For my sins I'm on the Shire committee with Mike and this question has been a constant cause for concern, we were reluctant to introduce the MOT rule originally as we knew it would impact quite a few good challenge trucks / specials but it was the fairest way to keep bangers away without putting a lot of extra load onto the marshals, scrutineering vehicles even to basic MOT standard is not only a can of worms but it's also a lot of (specialised) work when trying to run a play day.

The current "least worst" suggestion is basically that we drop the MOT requirement but reserve the right to turn away any vehicle that the marshals decide is dangerous, very hard to quantify exactly but I'm sure 99% of people wouldn't even want to play in something that doesn't at least have seats & belts, brakes, and steering which is fundamentally all you need to ensure you can get about safely on a play day. Obvious stuff like fuel leaks would also get turned away, but again, you've got to be quite dense to think it's a good idea to drive round with fuel pouring out.

I think most of the committee & marshals have been around long enough to spot vehicles which are not up to snuff, usually from about 100yds

[mmgemini]

FF Let me comment on your post.

It's now a very long time since I scrutinered on auto tests and road rallys.

I then had to try and comply with the Blue Book at no time would I pass a "legal" but unsafe car. I wa sucky as r

the stewards always backed me.

I think scrutineering is necessary to get well looked after competitors.

Surely the RAC MSA provide the permit and insurance, then impliment the relevant regs as per the b

Blue Book then everybody is covered

Just my ten bobs worth.

[miketomcat]

It's very difficult to run a pay and play day under blue book rules it gets classed as iirc an experience type day or something similar. We have looked into msa but our events don't comply as we're non competitive plus we don't have anywhere near enough people to fill the official roles required.

Mike

[Dave W]

For someone worried about things like "liability" suggesting that you don't have enough people to safely run an event is probably not a good idea The official roles required for a Cross Country permit is three people - Clerk of Course, Scrutineer and Steward and an "adequate" number of marshals.

You are correct regarding the MSA and Pay and Play, the two aren't compatible, you can run under a "Promotional Event" permit that is designed to allow clubs to give an introduction to motorsport but it's really not suitable for pay and play and limited to a maximum of 3 events per year. It's more designed to allow clubs to give the general public a taste of organised motorsport. A few years ago a number of clubs were taking the proverbial with these permits, organising commercial Pay and Play days, and were taken to task over it by the MSA.

[miketomcat]

Last time we looked msa direction I think you needed something like 10 people to run an event. Of late we have around 25 members turn up and 6 marshals (most are committee members) we simply can not afford to run an event with more marshals unless we get more members turn up. But as you point out and this was our impression msa dosen't fit our events.

Mike

[simonr]

I'm not convinced that the MOT rule reduces your potential liability. You still have a duty of care over the people paying to enter the event.

Since you are a club - and only club members can attend events, it's slightly different to a public pay & play in that you have some control over who can attend your events.

Perhaps a more pragmatic approach might be that members have to submit their vehicle for an initial safety check. The result of this is recorded in their membership details / on their card (like an endorsement on your driving licence).

In the membership application provide a check list for any vehicle you wish to use - Brakes, Stop lights, recovery points etc. The first time you attend an event with a vehicle, these items are checked, the vehicle is photographed and the endorsement added. The member is told that if the condition of any of the check list items changes, they must submit it to be re-checked.

You could add an expiry date to the endorsement too.

I think that, if anything, this reduces your potential liability - as a court is likely to see that you have shown diligence in checking the vehicles are safe and have a procedure for it rather than assuming it's safe because it had an MOT. Even if something that was checked causes an incident, you know it was safe at the time it was checked and the owner agreed to re-submit the vehicle if it's condition changed. That will bear scrutiny better than 'Well your Honour, it had an MOT 11 months ago and we assume this was checked and that it is still OK - but we let them in anyway'

A licence / endorsement gives you control over what is checked and lets you mount a much better defence if needed - but without tieing up too much manpower at each event.

Si

P.S. I would very much like to come to your events, but with the best will in the world my vehicles are unlikely ever to see an MOT. I take safety very seriously but the work in complying with the other requirements of an MOT are just not worth it. The MOT doesn't check many of the things that could be life or death off-road.

[Bowie69]

That makes a lot of sense, Simon, and pushes the onus nicely onto the vehicle's owner for safety.

Perhaps it would be worth having a chat with a solicitor about all this, or the insurance company?

[FridgeFreezer]

Si - the trouble is some members will turn up in a different vehicle every time, and logging stuff would create a lot of paperwork, which is a pain to do in a rainy field. As you also say, MOT is no guarantee but it was viewed as a reasonable minimum that was easily achievable by most punters that meant we didn't have to dedicate people to trying to scrutineer vehicles.

Dave W - we've always got plenty of people to run an event safely, we wouldn't run events if we didn't. What we don't have is the manpower to cover all the roles that the MSA regs seem to demand as they are very much tailored for motorsport events rather than non-comp bimbling round, and as you say (and as we had long suspected) plenty of clubs were running everything under "promotional" days and taking the pee. You say we could run play days as CCV's with only 3 people + marshals, is that under the MSA banner or something else?

[landroversforever]

Speaking to the insurance company is probably a good idea. Tell them what you want to do, and ask what they would need you to do/prove regarding inspecting of vehicles.

I do like simon's idea, however.... how is it any different to the following bit? An inspection of any kind is only any good at the time it was done?

I think that, if anything, this reduces your potential liability - as a court is likely to see that you have shown diligence in checking the vehicles are safe and have a procedure for it rather than assuming it's safe because it had an MOT. Even if something that was checked causes an incident, you know it was safe at the time it was checked and the owner agreed to re-submit the vehicle if it's condition changed. That will bear scrutiny better than 'Well your Honour, it had an MOT 11 months ago and we assume this was checked and that it is still OK - but we let them in anyway'

My only concern is how far it is taken... Its all too easy to smash a light/wear out a TRE in a play day. Would those people be sent home? A ShireLRC event I went to a while back I wore out a brake pad on the rear which would obviously be a MOT failure. Realistically it didn't harm my stopping ability it just made a horrendous noise!