CAMS Officials Apparel Matrix

[Griffo]

Originally Posted by PeterO

Supp Reg 25 said it all.

25. Apparel of non-flammable material covering the body from ankles, to wrists, to neck, together with socks and shoes or boots and an approved safety helmet must be worn by all crew members.

Now if the words "during timed runs" had been added to the Supp Reg, then they [helmets] would not have been required during recce. The officials in the lead car were not crew members, so the Reg didn't apply to them.

It's all in the way the Regs were written. The steward was merely telling it as the C of C had published it. Perhaps NEXT round ....

Peter

Yes, sorry, I know the thread is about officials clothing but just wanted to explain it as I read it.

Lucky you weren't their as a competitor as going by your interpretation of the regs you would have been wearing your helmet & apparel all day......

[Mike Cherry]

Absolbloodylutely.
I really could not believe that when I read it.

[PeterO]

Originally Posted by Factor

Quite frankly thats rubbish -

If the regs say that and you say that means on recce as well then it also menas on liaison and indeed it means at all times - even when the crew are not in the car. To use your logic - where does it say - in the car - it doesnt thus they must be worn at all times.

This is precisely the sort of public service stupidity that ruins the sport

This is also a reason why I do not put anything in supp regs that is already in the Manual - What I do is remind people that Sched D exists. Its all ready there you dont need to re write it.

I mean honestly, if thats the justification then FFS

I assume you are saying that the way the organisers worded the Supp Reg is the rubbish.

I heartily agree with your method of merely reminding people of the schedules and rules in the Manual. Certainly means you don't accidentally impose more stringent restrictions/requirements.

Peter

[Dave Kelly]

Originally Posted by PeterO

I assume you are saying that the way the organisers worded the Supp Reg is the rubbish....

Time to grab some popcorn and sit in the comfy chair and watch the ensuing show.



Dave

[Mike Cherry]

[quote]

Originally Posted by PeterO

I assume you are saying that the way the organisers worded the Supp Reg is the rubbish.

Na.
With all due respect Peter, it is pretty bloody obvious that this refers to the competition component of the event, if there is some regulation/requirement for this to occur during book in/scrutineering/briefing/recce or at any other time, then that would be either specified in the supp regs or in a bulletin.
End of story.

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by Dave Kelly

Time to grab some popcorn and sit in the comfy chair and watch the ensuing show.



Dave

You didnt say how great the CAMS website is. Shame on you! SHAME!

[moxo]

Originally Posted by Ric Cary

after considerable discussion the organising team for RoL have come up with what we believe to be the most appropriate set of clothing and safety articles all officials will be required to use for the event ,we believe they take into consideration most aspects of the intended matrix, providing both Physical protection from debris and wildlife as well as taking into consideration the variances in atmospheric conditions likely to take place during the event

I was seriously thinking of volunteering...

Now, especially after Sosi's effort (can I have some bleach for my eyes please) I think I'll stay home.

Now here's my suggestion for appropriate protective clothing...

[


You'll note it covers the body well, preventing sunburn, is of a fire-retardant material, is culturally sensitive to those folks that have to cover up faces and it has one hell of a cod-piece.



Moxo

[Factor]

Originally Posted by PeterO

I assume you are saying that the way the organisers worded the Supp Reg is the rubbish.
Peter

No peter - I mean your support for that stewards interpretation is rubbish. Let me be very clear - any statement that suggests that it was in anyway sensible or right is rubbish as was the original stupid's - oops sorry I meant to say stewards - decision.

As I and other have pointed out - if you are relying on the supp regs to justify this lunacy - then tell me where in those regs is says whilst in the car. Clearly on your interpretation they should have worn their helmet on the crapper between stages.

See this is why I get so upset - not only do stupid things happen - but people try and justify them.

[PeterO]

Originally Posted by Factor

No peter - I mean your support for that stewards interpretation is rubbish. Let me be very clear any statement that suggests that it was in anyway sensible or right is rubbish

Andrew, there are many poorly defined regulations, and errors promulgated in Regulations every day. Just pointing out that the writer of Event documentation has to be careful about how clauses are written. Perhaps it is only in states where Navigational events, requiring carefully defined Route Instructions, are held that careful wording is still an art - though the original statement about clothing requirements for the 2009 Alpine had to be changed/re-defined so anyone can do it.

It is patently clear what was meant at the Rallysprint - you just have to say it correctly.

The Entry Form for the Rallysprint stated that the Entrant was the Car owner. Perhaps the organisers wished to be more restrictive than the minimum requirements of NCRs, which since 2007 have not required the COmpetitor to be the vehicle owner? Probably not, but that is what they wrote. Indeed the vehicle owner doesn't even have to be a member of a car club.
If the Competitor is NOT the owner, they do have to produce written permission from the owner for the vehicle to be entered in the competition. NCR 43, 43A

At least the Supp Regs used the term Crew as the collective name for the Driver and Navigator. I noticed the Supp Regs for Rally of Canberra uses the term Competitors to describe them.
Since 2007, Competitor has taken on a very specific meaning, and the driver & co-driver together should be described differently - as crew perhaps.
The ROC entry form announces that if the Competitor is the Driver, the Competitor section can be left blank.
Why are they discriminating against a Navigator/co-driver who is the competitor [like Dave Kelly often was as he owned the vehicle and in that way he didn't have to supply written permission to his driver].

The VRC Management Group certainly had to go through the Standing Regulations for the Victorian Rally Championship and alter the word competitor where appropriate.

Perhaps CAMS didn't mean "Competitor" to be anything other than the old "Entrant/Vehicle owner". If so, they fell short with the wording THEY used.

Remember, an organiser probably could decide to be more restrictive that NCRs and require the Competitor to be the vehicle owner - and thus have a CAMS licence and Club membership [Just like some organisers require a higher level licence and/or more restrictive clothing than the minimum set out in CAMS requirements] but I don't think that was intended either - but that is what was written.

I know there are some young Victorian Rallyists who have their car registered in the name of their mother or father [who are thus the legal owner]. Are organisers really thinking that it would be a good idea if some more of the family join a club and take out a CAMS licence?
That can be a real problem when a Junior enters in a motorkhana in the family car, when the parents are not competing.

As organisers we all know what is meant when Regulations and Instructions are written, they just have to be worded in a way that un-ambiguously says what is intended.


Peter

[Rallyray]

This is another item of whats wrong with the sport.

Simple Rules. Simple Rallies.

Why make it hard and have clubbies resent spending their money!!!!

[Spac]

Originally Posted by Col Trinder

Hi Nicole

From your comments I think we are in fierce agreement here. I think I can speak with authority in that no one on ARCom has any knowledge of this exercise and would likely need plenty of convincing that there is any need to mandate any specific apparel requirement for all officials at rallies or road events.

I think you should suggest to the Officials Commission that they approach each of the discipline Commissions first before progressing this any further to ensure the discipline Commissions agree there is a demonstrated need.

ARCom want simple rules for simple events and have no desire to burden organisers or our volunteer officials with more requirements in the absence of a demonstrated critical need.

Some base OHS requirements (like high-vis tabards if working around traffic) might be appropriate but I think these are best covered on a discipline by discipline basis. Trying to have a one-size fits all national approach -as you correctly observe - is unlikely to win popular support.

Col

This is 100% correct, and probably the most I've agreed with Col for some time.
Any 'broad brush' approach is doomed to failure.

Quite seriously, the circuit people can do whatever they like for circuit racing, but we must avoid its implementation for the rest of us.

[Art Clarke]

Peter, are you saying that in 2007 some genius decided that the meaning of competitor, understood since about 1540 to be principally "one who competes as a rival", means something else in this brave new world?
If so, the world's publishers of dictionaries need to be told about it coz they're still using the old definition!

Back to the topic:
If anyone decides to mandate some sort of apparel other than clothing, footwear and hat that I would normally wear as an official in a position not having a specific risk factor then I will expect them to supply said apparel.
Failing that, I would not be performing the duties, I would be spectating.

AOC need to find something more constructive to put their efforts into.

[fro]

Originally Posted by Art Clarke

AOC need to find something more constructive to put their efforts into.

Like an officials licencing system that is actually useful, like removing the roadblocks that have been put in place in the last 5-10 years to officials actually continuing to be involved with the sport?

Those sorts of things?

[Art Clarke]

Yep, that's exactly what I meant.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by PeterO

Andrew, there are many poorly defined regulations, and errors promulgated in Regulations every day. Just pointing out that the writer of Event documentation has to be careful about how clauses are written. Perhaps it is only in states where Navigational events, requiring carefully defined Route Instructions, are held that careful wording is still an art - though the original statement about clothing requirements for the 2009 Alpine had to be changed/re-defined so anyone can do it.

It is patently clear what was meant at the Rallysprint - you just have to say it correctly.

The Entry Form for the Rallysprint stated that the Entrant was the Car owner. Perhaps the organisers wished to be more restrictive than the minimum requirements of NCRs, which since 2007 have not required the COmpetitor to be the vehicle owner? Probably not, but that is what they wrote. Indeed the vehicle owner doesn't even have to be a member of a car club.
If the Competitor is NOT the owner, they do have to produce written permission from the owner for the vehicle to be entered in the competition. NCR 43, 43A

At least the Supp Regs used the term Crew as the collective name for the Driver and Navigator. I noticed the Supp Regs for Rally of Canberra uses the term Competitors to describe them.
Since 2007, Competitor has taken on a very specific meaning, and the driver & co-driver together should be described differently - as crew perhaps.
The ROC entry form announces that if the Competitor is the Driver, the Competitor section can be left blank.
Why are they discriminating against a Navigator/co-driver who is the competitor [like Dave Kelly often was as he owned the vehicle and in that way he didn't have to supply written permission to his driver].

The VRC Management Group certainly had to go through the Standing Regulations for the Victorian Rally Championship and alter the word competitor where appropriate.

Perhaps CAMS didn't mean "Competitor" to be anything other than the old "Entrant/Vehicle owner". If so, they fell short with the wording THEY used.

Remember, an organiser probably could decide to be more restrictive that NCRs and require the Competitor to be the vehicle owner - and thus have a CAMS licence and Club membership [Just like some organisers require a higher level licence and/or more restrictive clothing than the minimum set out in CAMS requirements] but I don't think that was intended either - but that is what was written.

I know there are some young Victorian Rallyists who have their car registered in the name of their mother or father [who are thus the legal owner]. Are organisers really thinking that it would be a good idea if some more of the family join a club and take out a CAMS licence?
That can be a real problem when a Junior enters in a motorkhana in the family car, when the parents are not competing.

As organisers we all know what is meant when Regulations and Instructions are written, they just have to be worded in a way that un-ambiguously says what is intended.


Peter

Whatever drugs you are on - its rude not to share