ASRA - Australian Skateboard Racing Association

Hey, im in the market for a fullface and was just wondering, is there a future ban or restriction with paragliding helmets? (Charlies, vector m-4/5, icaro, etc.) Because i really dont wanna get one and not be able to use it in the future. This question doesnt just concern me but a couple of my mates. So far, its just easier access to a paragliding helmet, price and stock wise. Suggestions on what to do please. :)

Views: 1643

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

if thats fella who smashed his head at Newtons made a claim against the organisers, do you really think they would favour the rider?

"well, seems here that at the time of the accident you were hurling yourself down a really fast, steep and dangerous hill on your skateboard in an aim to win money.... you have also signed a waiver saying that you are putting urself at risk and will blame no-one for injury/death. i can easily see how this is the organiser's fault and the fact that you smashed your head and are now hurt is the problem of the organiser and we find them guilty and charge them $100000000"

seems like the most logical scenario doesnt it?

Unfortunately the law is an ass. In a case like this the judge may award $500,000 to the accident victim, but say that he is 60% at fault, that still leaves the other party out of pocket $200,000 plus legal expenses. I had my back broken in a car accident when a car came through a stop sign on my left at about 20kph over the speed limit. The judge deemed I was 15% in the wrong "for being there" this is a standard practice in third party cases and a good lawyer will drive a bus through any waiver you throw at them. If you got them to sign a waiver to say the sport is dangerous you are admitting that it is and if they are injured you haven't done enough to make them safe. It doesn't make sense to me (or anyone else I know) but it is what happens and in third party cases there isn't a requirement to prove beyond reasonable doubt, but rather just possible cause.

I think the result would be that the organiser ALLOWED the rider to run the course, practicing, qualifying or racing, wearing substandard safety equipment. Because both riders and organisers know it is a sport with inherant dangers involved, and the organiser/Tech inspector give the final ok to any rider going onto the course, the final responsibility lay with those who make the final decisions regarding safety equipment. The onis is placed back onto the rider, for a couple of reasons: Firstly, if the rider presents a substandard peice of equipment and is therfore knocked back at Tech. He then alters the said peice of equipment/presents another peice of equipment, is given a PASS at Tech but rides the substandard, comfortable peice of gear.

Secondly, if the organisers, technical safety officer and/or the tech inspector can show that they have endeavoured to make the track as safe as possible, ie, the correct amount of haybales and their placements, safety protocols, including appropriet First Aid/Ambo's, as well as actual track conditions. If all the relevant organising personel can show maximum due care, then the claim will be certainly favoring the organisers, etc. However, having said that, I also support Ado's comment, "The law is an ass".

Currently there are no "skateboard only races" in Oz which have the type of insurance I've mentioned, and I certainly acknowledge that. However, there are multi-disciplined training days, races and free rides, legitimate with full road closures, Council approved, Police permitted that do have this cover. This cover is also available across the World, except in Canada and North America. 
 
Robbo said:

The result of that scenario Andy would be the rider would have to claim against the organisers on the basis of them being negligent and of the rider not knowing they were doing something that is dangerous and therefore being unaware of the risks.

The majority of legitimate skateboard races do not have this cover Andy and the 2 major ones in Australia certainly don't nor do any of the IGSA world cup events. This is not an insurance thing, if it was the IGSA would require this extra cover. Its about a wishful idea that if you do get sued there is less chance the rider will win.

The problem with bringing more and more expensive regulation into the IGSA (the helmet thing is only one of many proposed) is that they don't pay any of the bills nor accept any of the responsibility for any of the liability. The biggest problem for the IGSA is not regulation, its that after 10 years every race organiser (the people that make the IGSA tour) lose money on every IGSA event. Unbelievable that after 10 years the IGSA is still unable to find a sponsor for the IGSA World Tour. If they did it would allow them to give something financially back to the orgainsers that have been burdened with so much yet still finds ways of laying out cumbersome regulation and increasing the overall loss of the people who run the events.

Driving a car and participating in a dangerous recreational activity are considered very different under NSW law. Not sure what the story is under QLD Civil Liability laws but in NSW the Civil Liability ACT 2002 is very clear on this point.

When a person participates in what is deemed a 'dangerous recreational activity' the Law in NSW specifically excludes liability from the organiser of the sporting event under section 5K of the Civil Liability ACT 2002.

A waiver is only relevant when somebody is injured in what is considered a normal everyday activity with minimal risk of injury. When participating in a dangerous recreational activity a simple warning of the obvious risks is all that is required to exclude one from liability almost completely. This is what makes driving a car, playing a game of cricket, and racing downhill skateboards very different beasts under the law

Under 5M of the act an orgaiser has no specific duty of care to a participant when they have been given fair warning of the inherent risks in participating in a dangerous recreational activity

5K Definitions

In this Division:
"dangerous recreational activity" means a recreational activity that involves a significant risk of physical harm.
"obvious risk" has the same meaning as it has in Division 4.
"recreational activity" includes:

(a) any sport (whether or not the sport is an organised activity), and
(b) any pursuit or activity engaged in for enjoyment, relaxation or leisure, and
(c) any pursuit or activity engaged in at a place (such as a beach, park or other public open space) where people ordinarily engage in sport or in any pursuit or activity for enjoyment, relaxation or leisure.

Whether an event is legitimate or not it still excludes the organiser

5L No liability for harm suffered from obvious risks of dangerous recreational activities

(1) A person ( "the defendant") is not liable in negligence for harm suffered by another person ( "the plaintiff") as a result of the materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity engaged in by the plaintiff.
(2) This section applies whether or not the plaintiff was aware of the risk.

No duty of care for recreational activity where risk warning

5M No duty of care for recreational activity where risk warning

(1) A person ( "the defendant") does not owe a duty of care to another person who engages in a recreational activity ( "the plaintiff") to take care in respect of a risk of the activity if the risk was the subject of a risk warning to the plaintiff.
(2) If the person who suffers harm is an incapable person, the defendantmay rely on a risk warning only if:
(a) the incapable person was under the control of or accompanied by another person (who is not an incapable person and not the defendant) and the risk was the subject of a risk warning to that other person, or
(b) the risk was the subject of a risk warning to a parent of the incapable person (whether or not the incapable person was under the control of or accompanied by the parent).
(3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), a risk warning to a person in relation to a recreational activity is a warning that is given in a manner that is reasonably likely to result in people being warned of the risk before engaging in the recreational activity. The defendant is not required to establish that the person received or understood the warning or was capable of receiving or understanding the warning.
(4) A risk warning can be given orally or in writing (including by means of a sign or otherwise).
(5) A risk warning need not be specific to the particular risk and can be a general warning of risks that include the particular risk concerned (so long as the risk warning warns of the general nature of the particular risk).
(6) A defendant is not entitled to rely on a risk warning unless it is given by or on behalf of the defendant or by or on behalf of the occupier of the place where the recreational activity is engaged in.
(7) A defendant is not entitled to rely on a risk warning if it is established (on the balance of probabilities) that the harm concerned resulted from a contravention of a provision of a written law of the State or Commonwealth that establishes specific practices or procedures for the protection of personal safety.
(8) A defendant is not entitled to rely on a risk warning to a person to the extent that the warning was contradicted by any representation as to risk made by or on behalf of the defendant to the person.
(9) A defendant is not entitled to rely on a risk warning if the plaintiff was required to engage in the recreational activity by the defendant.
(10) The fact that a risk is the subject of a risk warning does not of itself mean:
(a) that the risk is not an obvious or inherent risk of an activity, or
(b) that a person who gives the risk warning owes a duty of care to a person who engages in an activity to take precautions to avoid the risk of harm from the activity.
(11) This section does not limit or otherwise affect the effect of a risk warning in respect of a risk of an activity that is not a recreational activity.
(12) In this section:
"incapable person" means a person who, because of the person’s young age or a physical or mental disability, lacks the capacity to understand the risk warning.
"parent" of an incapable person means any person (not being an incapable person) having parental responsibility for the incapable person.

You are well and truly incorrect Andy, I'm not sure where you get your legal advice from or if you just make this stuff up. The ultimate duty of care is held by the rider when they are participating in a 'dangerous recreational activity' ie skateboard racing and where the risks are obvious or where they are warned of the significant risk.

The LAW in NSW is very clear on this and given NSW is the location of the IGSA world cup events it is the state law that is relevant to this situation. It has been tested right up through the NSW Supreme Court and is considered sound legislation

I'm sure however an insurance company would still no doubt be happy to sell you insurance Andy for something that you are mostly excluded of liability from. They don't sell you the policy because they want you covered, they do it because they want your money.

The "law is not an ass" as you say, it is there to protect you from unnecessary litigation when a person of their free will wants to participate in the sport they have chosen be that riding skateboards down hills at high speeds or jumping out of planes

As you mentioned, Robbo, your policy is based in N.S.W. legislation, and covers N.S.W. IGSA World Cup events, but what about the rest of Australia where legislation is differant and the policy is handled differantly? N.S.W. is not the only State which has gravity riders or legit gatherings, so therefore insurance has be either adapted, or created, to cater to legislative requirements.

As far as legal guidance and recommendation is concerned, as well as full disclosure of relevant State legislation, it's been forth coming from one Global Legal Firm, one Australian Legal Firm and one Federal Govt Dept.

I'm sorry Robbo, but I'm not incorrect, and to be honest, I really can't be bothered making stuff up, it's too bloody tiring.

Insurance companies will certainly take your money, but the flipside is that they DON'T want to be paying out huge amounts of money in failed litigation protection, so they cover you as best as possible. In turn, the organiser has a great responsibility to do their utmost to ensure an extreme event, as dangerous as it is, is still staged as safely as possible, without extra "dangers" being added to an already risky business by organisers.


 
Robbo said:

You are well and truly incorrect Andy, I'm not sure where you get your legal advice from or if you just make this stuff up. The ultimate duty of care is held by the rider when they are participating in a 'dangerous recreational activity' ie skateboard racing and where the risks are obvious or where they are warned of the significant risk.

The LAW in NSW is very clear on this and given NSW is the location of the IGSA world cup events it is the state law that is relevant to this situation. It has been tested right up through the NSW Supreme Court and is considered sound legislation

I'm sure however an insurance company would still no doubt be happy to sell you insurance Andy for something that you are mostly excluded of liability from. They don't sell you the policy because they want you covered, they do it because they want your money.

The "law is not an ass" as you say, it is there to protect you from unnecessary litigation when a person of their free will wants to participate in the sport they have chosen be that riding skateboards down hills at high speeds or jumping out of planes

The Law is near identical in QLD as it is in most of Australia. Your legal advice sounds like garbage Andy so I assume you are simply lying and have never researched the law on this subject.

Take a moment to read the law in your own state

Qld Civil Liability ACT 2003

so,... is there a rift between ASRA and IGSA?

this makes me laugh chalies are tested to higher impact standards predators. impact test facts below.it  seems that some one looked up the word skateboard but didnt read about the testing of the helmets.

Snell M2000 2 impacts 150 & 110 joules (motorcycling) 
Snell RS-98 2 impacts 150 & 110 joules (recreational skiing) 
Snell K-98 2 impacts 150 & 110 joules (karting)
EN Reg.  22.4 1 impact 132 joules
Snell B-95 2 impacts 110 & 72 joules (bicycle)
DOT FMVSS 218 2 impacts 90 & 90 joules (older motorcycle) 
CEN 1077 1 impact 69 joules
ATSM F1447 2 impacts 98 & 57 joules...........................(Triple 8)
CPSC 2 impacts 98 & 57 joules (bicycle)...................... ( predator
EN 966 2 impacts 90 & 90 joules................................... (charlies)

this will give everyone an idea on what happens during testing they also take in vision, hearing and other things into testing standards

testing on en966 para helmets    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oq0BrxVgjEM

testing on ASTM F1492                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oq0BrxVgjEM

the other thing that comes into play is helmet history had the helmet at newtons been down the road before had it been damaged when it was in the back of the car or aircraft on the way to newtons.but at the end of the day the guy is still alive he walks and talks no busted skull no brain damage so the helmet did its job. you shoud throw you helmet away after a big hit but not all of us do that

home helmet testing both helmets are legal in japan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LfEFhBelTY&feature=related

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Search

© 2020   Created by Bugs.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service