Marshals Forum and MSA

[Stephen Green]

Some of you might like to pop over to the Marshals Forum and read the BMMC Presentation to the MSA which has been posted there. You may find some of the content either interesting or disturbing...

[MGDavid]

Surely if the marshals have such a beef about too many meetings, their clubs can get together with a little organisation and simply not provide volunteers for the meetings they don't like or want? The MSA already has too much expensive involvement, the sport should be able to work this out for ourselves.

[Dave Brand]

Originally Posted by MGDavid

Surely if the marshals have such a beef about too many meetings, their clubs can get together with a little organisation and simply not provide volunteers for the meetings they don't like or want?

That's not the way it works! Marshals volunteer as individuals, not as members of clubs, with volunteering being handled by the club organising the meeting, not BMMC or any other marshals' clubs. Any club which tried to dictate which meetings I volunteered for would lose me as a member!

[Stephen Green]

Originally Posted by MGDavid

Surely if the marshals have such a beef about too many meetings, their clubs can get together with a little organisation and simply not provide volunteers for the meetings they don't like or want? The MSA already has too much expensive involvement, the sport should be able to work this out for ourselves.

The BMMC are trying to point out that with a falling number of marshals and conflicting meetings on the same days, it is only a matter of time before a race meeting will be cancelled due to a lack of officials. Surely as a racer that is not something you would wish to see?

I would like to add that it is NOT the intention, nor has it ever been, of the BMMC to ask its members, or any marshals, to boycott a race meeting. That is not what we are about and it would not be condoned in any shape of form!

The reason I posted the link to the thread here was to bring to everyones attention the plight we have in UK motorsport.

Stephen Green
National PRO
British Motorsport Marshals Club

[chezza]

I don't want to turn this into a battle or arguement or anything, but this is just one example of how some drivers have NO idea about what we as marshals do or how the whole system works.

I personally think that all drivers should have to spend a day on the bank to find out what it is really like out there and the risks we put ourselves though so they can race.

[johngee]

On another thread recently, I made the comment that one of the major areas NOT covered in the ARDS test, is the 'anatomy' of a race meeting including - Who the officials and marshals are and how they're organised, what they do, how they do it etc.
I would like to see drivers compelled, as a licence condition, to spend a day marshalling, not as was 'played back to me', to solve the potential marshalling shortfall, but to ensure that drivers actually understand the degree of training, skill, professionalism and risk involved. I've had a reasonable number of HSCC competitors who've done it and, without exception have found it both enjoyable and instructive.

[Stephen Green]

And I would add to that John that all drivers I have had on post with me have been entusiastic, courtious and understanding. My personal view is that it's a good idea to make drivers spend a day marshalling for the very reasons you mention. There is the added bonus that it does create a 'bond' between the two as well. If any driver would care to spend a day with me at Brands Hatch I would be delighted to help arrange it.

[b1ackcr0w]

Originally Posted by MGDavid

Surely if the marshals have such a beef about too many meetings, their clubs can get together with a little organisation and simply not provide volunteers for the meetings they don't like or want? The MSA already has too much expensive involvement, the sport should be able to work this out for ourselves.

Hi David,

As Chez, Steve and other have mentioned, we really can't go the boycott/strike route.

Our beef isn'r really a beef. It's more a growing concern that the sport we love is going to be irrepairably damaged unless a deteriorating situation is acknowledged and tackled.

The question is, do competitors want a fair and safe sport? Becuase we are the people who apply the rules and provide the safety. Our point is that we are going to continue to do our level best to make sure the sport thrives at every level. But eventually, and it's going to happen soon, meetings will be cancelled because there aren't enough officials. Not because we've boycotted the events, but because there just aren't enough of us to go around any more.

Today I've sent in my volunteering lists in for the year. I've put down for 46 days, which even though I enjoy, no love marshalling, 46 of personal time is a hell of a lot. But 46 is by no means uncommon. And yet even with all those days, I'm still giving up half a dozen meetings that I'd like to do because of clashes. And to make matters worse, I confidently predict that throughout the year, I'll get all sorts of pleads and panic calls for marshals, and have to turn down even more.

Seriously, we aren't griping or beefing, we're very worried about a problem that could affect the whole sport.

[MGDavid]

Some interesting responses there - hands up, who jumped to the conclusion I've never marshalled? Recently I've done my stint as 1 of my 6 signatures, and previously have marshalled at sprints, hillclimbs, classic trials, MCC bike race meetings, autotests, gymkhanas; and apart from bikes have competed in all those too. I organised and ran an autotest event for about 12 years. Nearly forgot, I marshalled for 10 years in the forests on the RAC and Welsh rallies too. And it's all been bl00dy good fun - when something stops being fun I go and do something different. Consequently I count myself fortunate to have a wide perspective of motor sport in the round, and know that it doesn't just start and end at a circuit. I'm mystified that one day I read how there are too many race meetings, too many boring races, too many different series and championships, too many new ones being started thus diluting existing grids, ad nauseam... and the next day I read of impending doom and the end of motor racing as we know it due to a lack of marshals. Somewhere between the two extremes lies the truth I suppose. But if sooner or later a race meeting is going to be cancelled due to lack of marshals, it would seem sensible for all you good folk to at least conspire to ensure it's one of the meetings you think shouldn't be happening - or is that too obvious?
If you haven't guessed already, I've just clocked up 30 years with MGCC so I am part of an organisation that values what you folk do, and remember to say thankyou often. However we aren't perfect, there are issues with our race series too, it could be so much better if egos could be taken out of the equation. Never mind, the season starts soon and we can carry on the discussion over a paddock bar pint - I'm buying

[Stephen Green]

David, thanks for your reasoned and in depth reply. I feel that the point you made about any meeting cancelled should be one that possibly should never have taken place is quite valid. As we all know marshals do pick and choose which meetings they support and that is for varying reasons. My guess is that you are right, and by virtue of the meeting being boring or very small grids etc, will automatically be the first to suffer.

However, it has to be said that we would feel we have let the drivers of that meeting down, something we as a group of people would be loathed to do. It is my opinion that through organised recruitment of new marshals, we should be able to prevent this happening. The problem of course is that this is an expensive proposition and one the BMMC are diverting funds towards.

[EvilPumpkin]

Originally Posted by MGDavid

I organised and ran an autotest event for about 12 years.

Any problems getting marshals for that because there was something (or more likely several somethings) on elsewhere?

Originally Posted by MGDavid

Nearly forgot, I marshalled for 10 years in the forests on the RAC and Welsh rallies too. And it's all been bl00dy good fun - when something stops being fun I go and do something different.

Exactly the point. The issues that BMMC are trying to address in the majority of cases are the ones that are taking the fun out of things, losing us a lot of experienced marshals and preventing us from finding new ones.

Originally Posted by MGDavid

Consequently I count myself fortunate to have a wide perspective of motor sport in the round, and know that it doesn't just start and end at a circuit. I'm mystified that one day I read how there are too many race meetings, too many boring races, too many different series and championships, too many new ones being started thus diluting existing grids, ad nauseam... and the next day I read of impending doom and the end of motor racing as we know it due to a lack of marshals. Somewhere between the two extremes lies the truth I suppose.

You seem to be under the impression that this has happened overnight. Take a look through the marshals forum for the last couple of years. We've been saying it for a long time. The various organisations have been saying it for a long time too. The presentation to the MSA done by the BMMC is a distillation of a problem that has been gradually chipping away at the sport for the best part of 10 years. However, rather like a small leak in your attic, it takes a long time for the ceiling to start bulging and even longer for the ceiling to actually give way - but once it does, you get water all over your bedroom and a lot of damage. The whole idea of this is to fix the leak before the damage becomes irreperable.

Originally Posted by MGDavid

But if sooner or later a race meeting is going to be cancelled due to lack of marshals, it would seem sensible for all you good folk to at least conspire to ensure it's one of the meetings you think shouldn't be happening - or is that too obvious?

What if it was one of your meetings we decided on. You'd be happy with that? No-one wants to see a meeting cancelled. It's not fair on the drivers, the marshals, the organisations in question, the circuit or the spectators. What we want are sensible events without too much clashing. In some cases, that may mean taking two smaller events and making a bigger one. In other cases, it may mean rescheduling one event to ensure another one doesn't get "lost". There's no question of conspiring. If marshals aren't interested in a meeting, they won't go to it. But when you have small club events competing with weekends that consist of a BTCC, a huge rally somewhere, a BSB somewhere else and a bunch of other things, then someone is going to lose out. What we want is sensible scheduling of events to ensure that everyone gets a proper and safe race meeting. Since the MSA do the scheduling, then they are the people to address this.

Originally Posted by MGDavid

Never mind, the season starts soon and we can carry on the discussion over a paddock bar pint - I'm buying

See, you're trying to ensure you have marshals at your own events by offering bribery with alcohol - that's a good step forward........

[Truckosaurus]

[devil's advocate] It might be argued that if every (new) driver was obligated to do a mandatory day's marshalling, they'd be inclined to take it less seriously than if they'd volunteered? They'd just enjoy a nice day in the sun, with a packed lunch and just hang around long enough to get a signature. [/devil's advocate]

[johngee]

Originally Posted by Truckosaurus

[devil's advocate] It might be argued that if every (new) driver was obligated to do a mandatory day's marshalling, they'd be inclined to take it less seriously than if they'd volunteered? They'd just enjoy a nice day in the sun, with a packed lunch and just hang around long enough to get a signature. [/devil's advocate]

It's possible, of course, but I've found that most drivers are motor sport enthusiasts, welcome the opportunity to be involved and come away from their day with a great deal of respect and empathy with the marshalling fraternity. But I agree - a degree of compulsion has its' dangers but if some drivers don't want to take it seriously, that's their loss.

[Stephen Green]

You forget that we Observers don't sign licences until the end of the day

[ss_collins]

I'm certainly in favour of drivers having to do a days marshalling to retain the licence every year - BUT not just racing, I race cars but I don't like race marshalling and don't want to do it, I'll marshal sprints and rallies but not circuit races. So I think every driver should marshal at least once a season on any national B event.

My club SDMC alredy make clear that you can only score point for its championships if you marshal - so the speedies cover the rallyists and vice versa.

[midgetman]

V. interesting and thought provoking presentation. Losing marshals could possibly be stemmed by improving conditions, but I don't think conditions deter new blood as they don't know about them, it's called a hygiene factor in management speak. IMHO the bigger problem is getting new recruits.

In days of yore if you were into cars you competed or marshalled. Now you can get your car fix via anything from cruises and indoor karting to 24 hour races, so the enthusiast base is being diluted. Don't forget the pressures of a 24-hour work society, family life, competing attractions, cheap flights and wall-to-wall TV.

So if we accept that for hygiene and recruitment reasons there will be fewer marshals in future, we can't fight it. That leaves one of two routes:

1. As proposed often, fewer events, bigger races, concentrate resources.

2. How about going the other way? Remove the reason you need so many marshals. Move barriers back, fewer cars on each grid with better driving standards so less likelihood of collision, shorter meetings, longer races that limit close racing, more use of pace car and mobile snatch squads/cranes - I don't know, I'm not an expert. I do know though that when we race on the big Euro circuits there to seem to be fewer people in white on the side of the track, and it works OK. There's fewer marshals at track days and it works OK.

Many, many posts have been put here about dragging motor sport into the 21st century but fundamentally it's rehashing old ideas. I'm not pretending I've got all the fresh, new ideas but is there some visionary out there that can come up with something that addresses the root of the problem: there will never again be the hordes of volunteers willing to work hard for the love of the sport?

Please don't analyse every word of what I say, I've heard there's a million reasons why cranes, pace car, snatch etc don't work but you know, it's always easier to say why something won't work rather than make it happen. And if we don't try something new then there won't be motorsport. So what will work to aid the safety of competitors without relying on huge numbers of (wo)manpower? Time for your "blue sky thinking" chaps & chapesses!

And yeah, I'll join MGD in the bar-room bribery if we can get a reasoned debate going.

[Sheila M]

Originally Posted by ss_collins

I'm certainly in favour of drivers having to do a days marshalling to retain the licence every year - BUT not just racing, I race cars but I don't like race marshalling and don't want to do it, I'll marshal sprints and rallies but not circuit races. So I think every driver should marshal at least once a season on any national B event.

My club SDMC alredy make clear that you can only score point for its championships if you marshal - so the speedies cover the rallyists and vice versa.

Sam, it occurs to me that if you don't want to marshal on the bank at a race meeting, you could try doing race phones. It's still marshalling (specialist grade) and gives a greater insight as to what goes on in race control (apart from signing the cheques!)

Seriously, could that be something else to consider?

[Mark Mitchell]

Excellent comments on here folks!

Interesting that the most constructive thread (For a long, long time) about Marshalling is here in the Racers Forum!

[Dan Friel]

With regard to Point 2 in Midgetman's response, this is the sort of set up that now occurs in the Middle East at the newly constructed circuits. All of the major events are run by a small band of highly experienced european marshals who are flown out there to lead totally inexperienced locals. Has worked well so far, so is likely to work here in the future.

I slightly struggle with the concept of forcing drivers to marshal every year. Is it really that important that they fully understand what we do? I believe that the vast majority appreciate the efforts involved anyway.

[EvilPumpkin]

Originally Posted by Dan Friel

I slightly struggle with the concept of forcing drivers to marshal every year. Is it really that important that they fully understand what we do? I believe that the vast majority appreciate the efforts involved anyway.

I certainly don't agree with forcing them, but I do think it benefits everyone when they understand what we do - and vice versa for that matter. One of the most instructive things I ever did - and it had a serious impact on how I flagged - was sit in a single seater with a helmet on. Up until that point, I really had no idea just how narrow the field of vision was.

If something that simple can help me do a better job for the drivers, then surely them getting some idea of how we work can only do the same. Both in helping them understand how we work, and getting suggestions from the drivers themselves as to how we might work better as they're bringing their racing perspective with them.

[PenelopePitstop]

First of all good luck, but sorry I have heard it all before (& not just in motorsport), some of the organising clubs tried to tackle this amongst over things a number of years ago, the MSA set up a commitee that was hijacked. I also think a lot of this is in an area where the MSA will try and wash there hands of it, last year the MGCC had a date at Brands confirmed it was subsequently given to A1GP, the MGCC took the decision not to take up the alternative date offered due to lack of marshalls, timekeepers etc. this was a deccision made by the club not the MSA and I belive will affect there bottom line. I belive that MGCC are sufering similar problems this year with confirmed dates being snatched from them by the circut owners for bicycle races.

I also think you may find it harder than you anticipate to combat small grids, there are small club series that are sponsered to the tune of half the entry fee by rich individules who wish to race in that particular serries and one make clubs who have historical meeting who wish to seem them continue, I have found as a driver that the entry fees at these events can offer excellent value for money and good fun.

Again good luck I hope you can make a difference.

[Dave Brand]

Originally Posted by midgetman

2. How about going the other way? Remove the reason you need so many marshals. Move barriers back, fewer cars on each grid with better driving standards so less likelihood of collision, shorter meetings, longer races that limit close racing, more use of pace car and mobile snatch squads/cranes - I don't know, I'm not an expert.

Is that really the way to go? Looks to me like you'd also remove the reason you need so many drivers!

Moving barriers back isn't always possible, as there may not be enough space to do it. Fewer cars, shorter meetings, longer races that limit close racing? May not reduce the need for marshals, but it would certainly reduce the number of marshals volunteering - those are just the sort of meetings I'll avoid. You'd also reduce the number of entrants that a meeting could cater for; the costs of running the meeting are more or less fixed - fewer entrants means that individual entry fees would have to be increased.

Safety cars are fine, but using the safety car in effect stops racing over the whole circuit for something like three laps at a minimum - doesn't leave much time for actual racing in a ten-lapper! While mobile crews may have their uses in dealing with major incidents - which would probably be red-flagged in any case - most incidents can be dealt with quickly with minimum effect on racing if sufficient marshals are available.

Let's not turn race meetings into MSA-sanctioned track days!

'Better driving standards'? Now that I would agree with; let's start with TOCA!

[Larry J-Croft]

Originally Posted by Dan Friel

I slightly struggle with the concept of forcing drivers to marshal every year. Is it really that important that they fully understand what we do? I believe that the vast majority appreciate the efforts involved anyway.

I fully support this comment - I did wonder where the thread was going when so many people suggested this idea, for two reasons; firstly why does a competitor's understanding of the marshals job actually improve anything regarding marshall numbers and secondly why is there an assumption that we drivers don't appreciate marshals???

I speak as someone who has done his time marshalling in the past (many cold wet night special stages as well as some circuits) but now prefers to race. I would suggest a straw poll in any paddock would always show that marshalls are well regarded and appreciated.

Just to be controversial - and echoing midgetmans ideas - why can't we reduce the manning requirement ? - maybe safety levels would be lowered slightly but as far as I am concerned I take significant risk every time I go out on track - otherwise I would play computer games. Even worse I commute up the M5 every day and there are no marshalls on that piece of race track!!!!

[Stephen Green]

Larry I don't think it makes a driver understand a marshals lot any more, but I do feel there is a greater appreciation of what we do from drivers who have spent a day marshalling. However, neither do I support a compulsory attendance on the banks for drivers, that would only lead to a split between drivers and marshals, something none of us would wish to see.

With regard to a reduction of manning levels, I guess you are the ones who could pay the ultimate price. At the moment I like to think that drivers have excellent cover in case of emergency (and they come in many formats), something I wouldn't like to see compromised in the slightest. Of course we are also forghetting that we live in the age of legal proceedings, and it is my guess that a reduction in cover of emergency services would lead some to tread that path. The net result would I believe be to increase the costs to drivers to participate through increased insurance premiums etc.

The point of the presentation to the MSA was simply to highlight the problem and to give an honest forecast of the likely end result. Let me assure you that I and my colleagues at the BMMC are doing our very best to recruit new marshals, as are other organising clubs such as BARC and BRSCC. The MSA also have their new baby Volunteers in Motorsport (VIM) which has also identified that there is a problem going forward.

I know that to many this may sound crass, but if every marshal were to introduce a friend, we would double our numbers overnight. Easier said than done as I am sure you appreciate.

Let me say once again, and without wishing in any way to sound rude or patronising, we (marshals) want to give you the very best protection we are able and we will continue to devote a great deal of our resources to recruitment and retention of marshals.

Stephen Green
National PRO
British Motorsport Marshals Club

[Asp]

For manning levels to be reduced we would move into a more "American" style of Fast Response Vehicles.
Now, it works well, but, as Dave has already mentioned, this would need a Safety Car - we see plenty of Full Course Cautions stateside. Problem is, in your 10 lap club race, going FCY for 3 laps removes a great deal of race time. Especially when it's only a breakdown, but you need to get a Response vehicle to check it is only a breakdown, it's not going to burst into flames etc - same reason we respond on foot to breakdowns.
It's been mentioned that at test days, there's very few marshals. However, as I understand it, everything is dealt with by a red flag - that couldn't happen in a race situation if you actually wanted to see a race last before than a couple of laps, but in a test day you all return to the pits then go out again shortly after, there's not racing for it to effect.

Of course, we could put these response vehicles at frequent enough intervals that an intervention would not require a FCY. But, that requires lots of marshals - back to square one. There's also the issues of cost in providing these units; as well as potential costs of CCTV to cover the whole track and lights (as there'll be less people trackside to wave a flag at you).

All these problems, could perhaps be avoided. But it would require a great deal of changes, in the rules; in marshal training; in driver training (expect response vehicles to be trackside more often!); and so on. Ultimately therefore, it's better to try and continue with a good number of marshals trackside to get to you incident within 30 seconds, and for those of you racing onto to slow down in one sector instead of losing laps of racing. I can see UK racing needing to "americanise" it's marshalling in the future, but it should, IMHO, be a last step once marshalling numbers are so low we can't manage with our current format without meetings being frequently cancelled.