NATIONAL COURT iv.
NCR Ch. 3 App. 2 Art. 1.3( Any Event utilising the Public Highway in England Wales or Scotland is subject to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles( Competitions and Trials) Regulations)
8. The starting point for this issue is to recognise and emphasise from the outset the stringency of the conditions applying to competition on the public roads.
9. The Road Traffic Act 1988 provides( s12) that it is a criminal offence for any person to promote or take part in a race or trial of speed between motor vehicles on a public highway, other than in accordance with a permit granted by motorsport’ s governing body.
10. The application for a permit must be made in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles( Competitions and Trials) Regulations 1969( as amended). Schedule 2 of the Regulations obliges the applicant to make a formal declaration in the following terms( included on the application form, Form E. 404).“ I declare that the event if authorised will be held in accordance with such of the standard conditions contained in the Motor Vehicles( Competitions and Trials) Regulations 1969 as apply to the event, subject to any modifications which may be made by [ Motorsport UK ], and in accordance with any additional conditions imposed by the [ Motorsport UK ].”
11. Before issuing such a permit, the governing body is obliged by the Act( s12B) to consult with a number of statutory consultees. These include( among others) the highway authority, the local authority, the police authority for the area in which the event is to take place or is likely to be significantly affected, and each person who has in the previous 12 months given notice that they wish to be consulted.
12. Motorsport UK was actively involved in the approval process. The first proposed route was rejected, and explanatory comments were relayed to the Organisers. The second proposed route was accepted. The permit issued in this case, permit # 201194, explicitly states that insurance cover for the event is conditional upon the organiser’ s compliance at all times with the ASN regulations and requirements.
13. Nevertheless, the route which the Organisers provided on the day of the event deviated markedly from that authorised. No fewer than 11 control points were moved without approval, lengthening or shortening the distance between controls mostly by around 0.5 miles, some less, but 3 by over a mile, with all that implies for the average speeds to be achieved.
14. It was explained, principally by Mr Ikin, that the alterations were made primarily in response to road conditions as he had found them on the afternoon of 15th February, with a great deal of mud after extreme rain. There was also a concern to make best use of marshals’ placements, but in response to that, we feel obliged to state that, as events proved,“ best use” was what led to the marshals being
Revolution- May 2025 moved from the corner to the farm where it was believed that the spectators should be controlled in order to preserve the club’ s good relations with the landowner and the future use of the area. While that might have involved preventing spectators from climbing on farm equipment for a better view, as was suggested, we consider that the primary responsibility of placing marshals is to safeguard spectators from the competing cars.
15. We take account of the degree of dispute between the Organiser and Motorsport UK about how accurately the amended route could be plotted against the permitted one on the recording system, but we are satisfied that the route was well outside any tolerated allowances between the mapping and the actual geography of the road. It was common ground that Motorsport UK would take a realistic, common-sense approach to deviations from a route and some minor safety related alterations raise no issue, but the route as run deviated too far to be excusable. It is timely to record that among the written submissions before us was one from an inexperienced crew expressing their frustration at the confusion created by the amended distances, another from a motor club passing on reports to them that the plotted controls were beyond understandable force majeure.
16. In fairness to the Organiser, they recognised their failings and expressed a wish to learn from the experience.
Ground 1( c) That the actions by the Organiser at a. above inhibited the ASN’ s ability to properly consider the nature and suitability of the actual route utilised( s. 11( d) MVCTR 1969). 17. Although put forward separately, this ground is but one example of the effect that failure to comply with the formalities has on the governing body. As we have set out, the wider seriousness of failure to comply with the formalities, particularly the potential to prejudice insurance cover speaks for itself.
Ground 1( d)
18. The obligation set out in the permit under the heading Public Highway Events- Motor Vehicles( Competitions & Trials) Regulations 1969( as amended) reads as follows.“ Note Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Rule 286 of the Highway Code. Any injury incidents must be reported to the Police Authority. Details must also be included in the Stewards Report to the ASN. Clubs are obliged to remind competitors of their statutory duty to stop and / or report any accident as required by the Road Traffic Act.”
19. On behalf of Motorsport UK, it was argued that the words“ injury incidents must be reported to the Police Authority” imposed a duty on the Organisers, once aware of an incident during the event that may have caused injury, were themselves under an obligation to report the incident to the police. In support, they cite the response of Mr Connelly, the Traffic Management Advisor of West Mercia Police’ s response
>>>>> 43