Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Stephen Bowdler
If I put someone in a position of extreme risk to heath and safety, no proper formal training, some of the equipment was not suitable for the purpose and insufficient risk assessment was conducted, and the HSE investigated I would expect serious repercussions.
Apparently not if I drive a rocket car down an airfield and work for a well known media organisation.
Any thoughts!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gff
I think you should read the report again.
And it was a jet powered car not a rocket
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mark Ellis
Hi Stephen,
Formal training? what to do if tyre bursts at over 300mph?
You have to accept the risk at some stage, Richard hammond was fully aware of the circumstances but accepted the risk. his choice.
Mark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob
Stephen,
Does the legal defence of 'volenti non fit injuria' mean anything to you?
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Saracen11
Hi Stephen. Yes I have some thoughts, well a question really...(at this hour). Have you been living in a cave? This incident not only happened months ago, but has been investigated and a decision made to take no further action!
A tragic incident - yes!
A man still alive to try summat dangerous again - yes!
A suitable and sufficient RA completed - in the eyes of Top Gear & HSE - yes!
Do you not think Richard Hammond has stopped to think "Erm... I was lucky that time!"?
What is your point?
Regards
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phillipe
Bob
Volenti is used in civil law and not criminal is it not? How can that be used in a HSE investigation?
Regards
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob
Fair point Phil.
Can I plead the legal defence of having had a one or two tinnies when I posted!
(Don't suppose your legal mind can help with my post of yesterday - 'Accident Books')
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phillipe
Plea is upheld, strike Bob's comments from the record !
As for accident books, the key to answer in my opinion is whether access is secure or not in terms of the requirements of the DPA. If it is then I don't see why not.
To be honest I am not really 100%
Cheers
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob
And so the legal defence of 'inebriatum' was established.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Renny Thomson
If you bother to read the full report, it is easy to deduce who "The Stig" is (or was at the time of the incident).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sean Fraser
Just out of morbid . . . no, professional . . . curiosity, does anyone have an online link to the report that is being mentioned?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By DRB
Is it being suggested that RH and the Stig are one and the same?
RH might be a good experienced driver but it's not him!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gff
Ben Collins!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gff Ben Collins is the current stig Perry McCarthy was the (black one) in first two seasons But in few track runs Stig was replaced with other drivers. e.g. Maseratija MC1 was driven by it's owner Renault R24 (F1 car) was driven Heikki Kovalainen (renault F1 test driver) Read the full report http://www.hse.gov.uk/fo...eases/richardhammond.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian Mitchell
I always thought the Stig was Stig Blomqvist the famous former rally driver? Ben who? What a let-down! Where did the name Stig come from then as I see no logic?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Hamilton
Great to see a common sense attitude taken to this by the HSE. Although there were things that could have been done differently, fundamentally the precuations taken (top notch ppe, training, safety equipment, and effective emergency response) saved a man's life.
I did raise an eyebrow at the 7-year old tyres though!!!
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Christopher
Hi folks, have been on holiday, - was busy being robbed in Portugal, thats another story.
Does anyone have a website address for the full report? I read the 'summary' in the Mail, but would like to read the rest if there is more to read
Many thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Karen Todd
It was Para 50 that raised my eyebrow, "There was no completed checklist available for the final run".
KT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stephen Bowdler
Some people are missing the point, the report on the HSE web page clearly states that the training was not sufficient as the driver had not had time to familiarise himself with the vehicle and the risks assessments submitted by the two organisations involved were not adequate. In addition to this the equipment was not ideal as the tyres were seven years old and were worn.
Yet no action was taken. Why??
(The report is on the HSE web page via a link)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gff
With the exception of the age of the tyres no amount of paperwork and training would have prevented the blow out which was the cause of the accident
The tyres where checked between each run at which time the fault was not evident.
The report does not specifically mention what elements of the RA's where not sufficient, so it's not possible to say that these short falls directly influenced the accident occurring
With regards to the training the driver was given again even had he been fully up to speed he could not have prevented the blowout during the run.
Even the age of the tyres COULD be a red herring, you could have had a brand new set that could have suffered the similar damage. It is not known when the damage to the tyres occurred nor was the damage evident from a visual inspection only when the video was reviewed (it was seen on the VT from the previous run?).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
Zeebrugge; Paddington; Bohpal; Charing Cross.
Four that trip off the tongue as incidents where gross negligence might have been pointed at, and prosecution would be worthwhile.
This piece of sporting history like Campbell's Bluebird run was just that - a push of the limits. The report includes many positive references to good safety practice. Pragmatic safety that we all spout about.
Even *I* could prevent the paddington crash with what I know about it now...
It would not be in anyone's interest to prosecute here ... they tried their best and they went a lot further than most. The Hamster's marvellous recovery says more about the reasons for our existence than any prosecution ever could.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mark Ellis
Stephen why can you not accept the fact that there will be no prosecution? motor sport is dangerous. ideally the jet car should not have exceeded a suitable and sufficient speed...yawn..there will always be a residual risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.