Bulletproof wrote:I have entered this event and as far as i'm concerned all these issues raised are worth nothing.
It is not on public ground so the public can't sue and as far as the competitors are involved, the organizers only have to get them all to sign a piece of paper saying they will assess the hazard first and take full responsibility for their decisson whether to attempt it or not.
As a competitor I'm willing to do that, so there can be no claim against any one of the organizers. Every trip in the Canterbury Landrover owners club we do it to relieve the club of responsibility.
Like skid said . lets enjoy the break and have a happy new year.
Cheers Richard
Oh dear Mr Bulletproof.
It has been proven in court, that if shit goes down, which is highly probable with out a roll cage requirement, that a disclaimer is not worth the paper it is written on.
To quote :
PeterVahry wrote:Dieselboy, you are right, the NZFWDA policy does cover Rural and Forest Fire and if the club hosting the event is NZFWDA affiliated, they are indemnified. If you are a NZFWDA member too, then that cover extends to you when you are participating in an activity organised/ hosted by a NZFWDA club. That's why it is required that participants are linked to a NZFWDA club.
If that system was not applied and a non-NZFWDA person caused a claim on the event then you can bet your bottom dollar that the insurers would be looking to offset their loss by following up on that person.
The NZFWDA insurance does apply to members when they are involved in activities with their own or another NZFWDA club, if that activity is recognised by that club. (No let's go up here, oops.... oh well we'll say it was a club trip!)
'Self insurance' is fine if the only risk is to your own property but it rarely is. As Jeremy pointed out there are options at less than a tank of fuel in cost, that do give others the peace of mind that their property is protected too.
The 'self scrutineer' is a direction that 4x4 Challenges have been advocating for a while, along with the use of log books for the vehicles to allow easy recognition of changes to vehicles etc.
The idea is not to 'scrutineer' but to simply 'audit' the vehicle to see if it still complies with the log book statements.
While the idea of the driver signs that they accept liability for everything while they are competing again sounds fine, the way our laws look at things is not so simple and if there's a death or other incident, then everyone is dragged into it. Having organised events it can be rather nerve wracking watching drivers take risks as that red mist takes over and you are thinking.... what do I tell the relatives and how many days/weeks will be taken up explaining to the Police, the Coroner and the Courts?
Organisers just have to apply risk management now, as it's not just about competitors anymore.
Fortunately there are still people who are willing to put the time in to do that event organising and accept some risk to their own livelyhood and they don't get a lot of thanks.
I hope I'm helping to explain why it's not so easy to just accept that enthusiastic competitors can turn up and have a go.
Peter
and
PeterVahry wrote:The NZFWDA cover could possibly be seen as a de-facto Third Party cover but that's not it's intention and it should not be used in that manner. The 'member to member' factor comes into play and unless specifically written out, as it is in the Auckland Club's policy, then other participants or NZFWDA members involved, are still at risk.
When you are actually on a competition 'stage' then you don't have any cover from either policy. The club does however have cover for the consequences of an incident where a competing vehicle leaves the competition stage and , for example, demolishes a fence line. In that case the NZFWDA is 'carrying the can' for the competitors because it also is protecting the organisers.
Fortunately so far these arguments have been untested by claims and have only been discussed with the NZFWDA brokers and other insurers. Again we are aiming for 'best practice' in how we apply the cover that we've negotiated.
Peter
On a side note, my angle on this event is based on the fact that the organisers have let things get ahead of the organising.
The event is not even organised yet, just as XJ acurately pointed out, yet the organisers have acepted entries from competitors, who therefore not understand thetrue nature and requirements of the event they have entered.
There are no entry forms to be signed.
One would presume that's due to the fact that no one knows what anyone is signing up for??
If you run an event, you have an entry form. If you have a max of 6 team entries available, then its the first 6 teams that get their entry forms completed and signed and all the entry fees paid and to the organiser that get in. Simple as that.
My point is that the organisers, once "feeling" out the interest for the event, should have the sense to pull back and wait untill they had their shit sorted and the important part of the event sussed before the even considered taking entries.
There's so many unanswered questions that have been brushed of with a "look back through the thread" comment.
At the end of the day, even if entries are full and stay that way, i would love to come down and help out in what ever way i can, I'm a good sport in reality (off internet land where things come accross alot corser than face to face)!!!!!!!!