Current Australian Motor Sport Approval Standards Acknowledged Internationally

[Dirk]

"Ozzy" is just scared of loosing control. Keep it all for themselves and feather their own caps! I wonder if Channel Ten could consider a reality TV show about CAMS, maybe call it "The Osbournes"

Starring

Colin Osbourne as The Father
Rob Nethercote as The Mother and devoted Wife
Peter Bready as the annoying son
Tim Schenken as the outrageous daughter

[Big Trev]

You really are a sick man Dirk, but I like the way you are thinking.

[Matthew Ronke]

It perplexes me too read CAMS statements in regards to circuit safety standards. It was Winton Raceway that proposed the standard on circuit safety and a survey was sent out to circuit operators from Standards Australia and two thirds of circuit respondents did so in favour or circuit safety. What Mr Osborne fails to recognise is that their is more than just CAMS activities on race circuits (Motorcycles). There needs to be a set of guidelines that can be adopted by the industry as a model to work from for all disciplines of the sport and not just CAMS small corner.

[Bigguy]

Originally posted by Big Trev
WHOA EVERYONE
He really should comment on things he knows about.

I don't think we would hear much from him then!

[Big Trev]

Originally posted by Big Trev
You really are a sick man Dirk, but I like the way you are thinking.

Is it OK if I apply this same quote to your post Bigguy? Coz I am.

[bluepeter]

ISO 9000, like the Risk Management standard is about having systems to make sure things dont go wrong AGAIN. Yes your product could be **** but it wont be for long if you follow the system.

Poor Chris - Melb has had a bad experience but not all organisations feel that way.

Yes being certified may help get you a Govt contract or the like, but minimising complaints and making sure safety issues dont recur has got to be a good thing.

[Big Trev]

Its good to see that someone thinks like I do.

Welcome Bluepeter, it must be cold where you come from (think about it!!!)

[acotrel]

1200Datto207 needs to get his facts about race circuit building a bit more in perspective. There is a Draft Australian Standard (just released)DR03350-Hot Mix Asphalt, which was developed for road building purposes. It just happens to have been developed by the road construction industry under Standards Australia guidance.
While we are running around crying that CAMS doesn't need Australian Standards, we shouldn't lose sight of the facts. Australian Standards form the basis of many of our laws, and while they are voluntary they are often the only way to comply with state and federal legislation. The legislation tells us WHAT We Have to Achieve, the Australian Standards tell us HOW to Achieve IT!!
If CAMS think they can move away from Australian Standards, they are in for a rude shock if/when the next fatality occurs on a race circuit!!

[Big Trev]

Good points Allan and welcome to 10-10ths.

[1200Datto27]

Acotrel,

If you re read my post you will see that I am saying that the excuses from CAMS does not hold water as houses (and roads) can be built to standards, irrespective of what they are built on, and therefore a standard of safety should be also applicable to race tracks in Australia.

Personally, I would have no issues with there being a national standard applied to all tracks with regards to safety and facilities. I believe that if the same standards where applied to circuit facilites as where shopping centers, then tracks would be a lot more popular for families.

Regards

Stephen

[RaceTime]

One thing seems to have been mis-stated here.

There is NO WAY in the world a single standard can be or will be devised to cover the broad sport of Motor Racing.

There can (and most likely can) be a standard defined for safety barriers adjoining a racing surface, for safety barriers away from a racing surface, for race track surfaces, for entry and exit roads on a racing surface - these WILL be devised whether CAMS likes it or not.

CAMS push in NSW to give themselves sole control could, IMHO, actually be the catalyst for just such a series of standards if they aren't careful.

[1200Datto27]

Steve, et al

Why can't there be a safety standard that sets a minimum height and design for barriers and for vehicle arresting traps that, no matter what they are made of have to be designed to arrest the speed of a vehicle traveling at x speed at y rate of deceleration.

It should be possible to develop a formula that can be applied to cover these issues and allow for disparate tracks around Australia to ensure that they are covered.

And while they are at it, they should bring there facilities up to scratch to. The number of people hiding from the sun under one tree at Winton on the weekend was ridiculous.

Regards


Stephen

[RaceTime]

Then you have the same problem Barbagallo had until 2 years ago - beautiful looking trees around the pit area - plenty of shade they provided as well - well a bit messy each time a branch broke off landing in the middle of a corporate tent, or the time one just missed a group of spectators at a club meeting.

IOW - they present there own danger - nice to have, but the possibility of somone being injured or killed by a falling branch is much greater than someone being injured by a piece a debris coming off the track!

One giant safety standard - is that same safety standard going to apply to race tracks, to go kart tracks, to drag strips, to motorcross circuits? All have totally different styles of racing.

There is nothing wrong with having multiple standards that are tweaked for particular forms of racing - in the long run this is the most sensible - each can be fine tuned for a specific circuit type instead of trying to create a loosely worded standard trying to cover too much.

[GTRMagic]

The $64 question is whether you would trust CAMS to write these standards on behalf of the circuits and any other stakeholder.

[Bigguy]

Originally posted by RaceTime
SNIP

One giant safety standard - is that same safety standard going to apply to race tracks, to go kart tracks, to drag strips, to motorcross circuits? All have totally different styles of racing.

There is nothing wrong with having multiple standards that are tweaked for particular forms of racing - in the long run this is the most sensible - each can be fine tuned for a specific circuit type instead of trying to create a loosely worded standard trying to cover too much.

Obviously there would need to be different standards, as stated above. Otherwise EVERY track would need barriers as used for the AGP... distance between track and spectators and even the speeds of the vehicles must all be included in the calculations... I would be horrified if CAMS was the sole arbitor of such standards...

[Big Trev]

Well, there is no chance of CAMS being involved in the process, go back and read the first post.

[GTRMagic]

If this actually happens, CAMS will want in, even if the Ozzy and his mates reckons its a dopey thing to do right about now. The whole world revolves around CAMS, race cars didnt exist before them, and only exist because of them. Same goes for race circuits.

[Bigguy]

Originally posted by Big Trev
Well, there is no chance of CAMS being involved in the process, go back and read the first post.

You missed my point BT, CAMS are maintaining that THEY are the ones who set the standards (as opposed to any establishment of Standards Australia).

[bluepeter]

"The whole world revolves around CAMS, race cars didnt exist before them, and only exist because of them. Same goes for race circuits."

My father was racing cars before CAMS (1953)! Dont give them too much credit!

[spook]

CAMS publishes a document called the "Track Operators Safety Guide" (TOSG), which includes run-off calculations for corners and gravel traps, as well as other requirements for circuits. It was compiled with data produced by the FIA in a similar document with "local" additions and variations.

The problems arise in the fact that it is a "guide", and CAMS will point to certain chapters when they want something done, and point to the disclaimer in the first page when they don't want to be held responsible when things go wrong, or they allow a "freedom from compliance with certain parts of the TOSG".

The point CAMS are missing about Standards, is if they exist they can be used as a defence that you complied with the Standard (drafted by independant experts), and that the accident was an "unforseen accident". If you produce a guide and also arbitrate on it's application, you can never defend yourself. You are in an in-defensible position - totally responsible for what exists, and occurs in the event of an accident.

CAMS use the fact that it is a guide to permit some circuits to operate where they clearly do not meet the "guidelines" in the TOSG, while insisting some other circuits do more than what is required in the TOSG. OK - this helps those circuits that are struggling financially and can't afford to meet the requirements of the TOSG, but you cannot put a price on safety. All circuit users around Australia should expect that their local "CAMS Licenced" track is just as safe as any other. No if's or but's.

[RaceTime]

Your second last second is, in reality, incorrect - it should read:

Everyone involved in motorsport in Australia should expect that their local "CAMS Licenced" track is just as safe as any other.

[spook]

BTW RaceTime, the TOSG does not say Timing Rooms have to be air-conditioned or heated.

[Dirk]

So in fact the Osbournes are try to hide from the responsibilty. They are scared if there is an accident they can't hide behind the "unforseen accident" statement. Somebody has to take responsibility!

[spook]

Point taken though - I had included competitors, spectators and officials in my use of the word "users", but your words are better.

PS - you have been timing too long "second last second" ??

[spook]

Not quite Dirk. You only have to demonstrate in court that you took all "reasonable steps" to provide a safe environment for the activity. The lawyers will always fight over what is reasonable, but if you can point at an independent "Standard", then they have to prove the standard is not right (very difficult).

Try & get hold of a copy of the TOSG, and you will see how vague it is in interpretation.