Polish Horror Crash On Sunday-they Both Walked Away

[racers and royals]

What we could do with is a refs opinion on the incident- any refs on the forum ? Do you wish to put your head over the parapet !!

[damosuzuki]

Had Matt Ford signed Dudek when he had the chance none of this would have happened.

[uk_martin]

i cant believe you cant see it logically.

The cause of the stoppage was triggered by an engine failure NOT Kildemand hitting him. Please understand what primary cause means. Kildemand hitting him was the secondary reason....

 

As we are mainly British people discussing a matter of differing opinions (they are allowed you know) on a British forum, maybe a little bit more British principle can be added? It's what in British law determines who is responsible, and it uses something which anyone familiar with law will understand - a principle known as "proximate cause". The much quoted definition of this is:

"The active, efficient cause that sets in motion a chain of events, which brings about a result, without the intervention of any new or independent force” ( Pawsey v Scottish Union & National Insurance Company (1908))

 

It's something that's been done to death in legal cases in courts up and down the country and legal & insurance examinationons for 108 years, but it's a definition that's stood the test of time. There's a good read about it, in pretty plain speak here - http://www.cila.co.uk/files/Certificate/Chapter%208.pdf

 

All that's left to decide on is what is the active efficient cause that sets in motion a chain of events, which in my opinion is Dudek's engine failure, and whether or not Kildemand running into him is a "new and independent force" - which I happen to believe it was. In my mind, does an engine failure make a race stopage inevitable? No. Left to his own devices, Dudek would have slowed and let the other rider past, then rolled onto the centre green when safe to do so. Add a new and independent force (Kildemand) into the equation, and the result is altered. Therefore, Dudek is not the active efficient cause of the race being stopped.

 

I should just add, that I'm not trying to say one rider is stupid for doing "this" or an idiot for doing "that"...neither is "at fault" in that sense, and this was out of their hands at the speed at which it all happened, but in establishing the primary cause of the stoppage, I think that the above definition helps to show where my opinion comes from.

 

Damn it I'm a Stal Gorzow fan and I'm backing up a Falubaz rider. Something is going wrong here.

Edited April 6, 2016 by uk martin

[BWitcher]

 

As we are mainly British people discussing a matter of differing opinions (they are allowed you know) on a British forum, maybe a little bit more British principle can be added? It's what in British law determines who is responsible, and it uses something which anyone familiar with law will understand - a principle known as "proximate cause". The much quoted definition of this is:

"The active, efficient cause that sets in motion a chain of events, which brings about a result, without the intervention of any new or independent force” ( Pawsey v Scottish Union & National Insurance Company (1908))

 

It's something that's been done to death in legal cases in courts up and down the country and legal & insurance examinationons for 108 years, but it's a definition that's stood the test of time. There's a good read about it, in pretty plain speak here - http://www.cila.co.uk/files/Certificate/Chapter%208.pdf

 

All that's left to decide on is what is the active efficient cause that sets in motion a chain of events, which in my opinion is Dudek's engine failure, and whether or not Kildemand running into him is a "new and independent force" - which I happen to believe it was. In my mind, does an engine failure make a race stopage inevitable? No. Left to his own devices, Dudek would have slowed and let the other rider past, then rolled onto the centre green when safe to do so. Add a new and independent force (Kildemand) into the equation, and the result is altered. Therefore, Dudek is not the active efficient cause of the race being stopped.

 

I should just add, that I'm not trying to say one rider is stupid for doing "this" or an idiot for doing "that"...neither is "at fault" in that sense, and this was out of their hands at the speed at which it all happened, but in establishing the primary cause of the stoppage, I think that the above definition helps to show where my opinion comes from.

 

Damn it I'm a Stal Gorzow fan and I'm backing up a Falubaz rider. Something is going wrong here.

 

Your argument is totally flawed. If a rider falls off, left to his own devices, he can get back up and carry on.. but if he falls off and someone else runs into his bike or him, the rider who fell is excluded.

 

If a rider locks up mid bend, left to his own devices, he can carry on. But if by locking up he causes someone else to hit him, he is excluded.

 

If a rider lifts out of control, left to his own devices, he can get it back under control and carry on, but if he impedes someone by doing so he is excluded.

 

The exact same situation applies here.. Dudek has slowed dramatically right on the racing line.. riders have had to take avoiding action, he has impeded people BEFORE Kildemand hits him . If they had all managed to miss him, then he could have continued. They didn't. Dudek was not at race speed, thereby impeding his opponents and was the cause of the crash.

 

Its very, very simple.

[ColinMills]

my understanding of this, is, had this happened on the first bend from a tapes start, its clearer in my head. Dudek leads, Dudek stops, rider runs into him. Dudek excluded. for some reason, that scenerio was easier!

[Terry]

my understanding of this, is, had this happened on the first bend from a tapes start, its clearer in my head. Dudek leads, Dudek stops, rider runs into him. Dudek excluded. for some reason, that scenerio was easier!

 

Sam Ermolenko stopped in front of Billy Hamill on the first bend from a tapes start in the 93 final and wasn't excluded.

[Gavan]

Newcastle v Workington couple of weeks ago. In heat 12 Matej Kus sheds a chain right in front of Kenneth Hansen. Hansen hits him and the referee excludes Kus for being the primary cause of the stoppage. Can you tell me what the difference is here please??? Or is there a new rule that determines how close you are to the rider who breaks down! Kus as rightly excluded as the primary cause exactly as Dudek should have been

[orion]

Newcastle v Workington couple of weeks ago. In heat 12 Matej Kus sheds a chain right in front of Kenneth Hansen. Hansen hits him and the referee excludes Kus for being the primary cause of the stoppage. Can you tell me what the difference is here please??? Or is there a new rule that determines how close you are to the rider who breaks down! Kus as rightly excluded as the primary cause exactly as Dudek should have been

The ref in this case felt killer could have avoided him .

[Trees]

He's a twit then ...

Edited April 7, 2016 by Trees

[LunnasPerm]

It's frightening that, at that level of speedway, someone in a position of authority would exclude Kildemand in that instance.

[SCB]

This happened in Poland. What are Polish rules? GP or British Speedway I'd expect Dudek to go. If Polish Speedway says something like, "the rider in front has right or way" then the referee is correct.

[BWitcher]

This happened in Poland. What are Polish rules? GP or British Speedway I'd expect Dudek to go. If Polish Speedway says something like, "the rider in front has right or way" then the referee is correct.

 

Even then I would disagree.

 

Slowing dramatically is dangerous riding.

 

Dangerous riding is an offence you are excluded for.

[Woz01]

Dudek should've gone but what is probably just as bizarre is that he was allowed in the re run! He was obviously not under power when the race was stopped.

[SCB]

Dudek should've gone but what is probably just as bizarre is that he was allowed in the re run! He was obviously not under power when the race was stopped.

Again, do the Poles have an "under power" rule?

[Triple.H.]

The referee got it right . Patrick Dudek was in trouble and pulled to the outside and raised his hand to say he was i trouble. At the time he was in second place and pulled to the outside. Then Peter kilderman ploughed into the back of him. so PK should be excluded.As PD was still under power he should not be excluded. Good decision by the referee

We're going for Paul Thorp at Oxford territory many years ago.Rob can no doubt give chapter and verse about the incident. Put his hand up to warn the other riders he had lost power. But then got the bike going and rejoined the race even though his actions had affected the other riders. Too say the late great Bernard Crapper blew his top would be the understatement of the century.

Dudek raises his hand essentially withdraws from the race. How can anyone prove he was under power when PK hit him as he was just coasting along. PK should be excluded as he hit Dudek

And Dudek out as not under power

Edited April 7, 2016 by Triple.H.

[ColinMills]

 

Sam Ermolenko stopped in front of Billy Hamill on the first bend from a tapes start in the 93 final and wasn't excluded.

 

 

Sam Ermolenko stopped in front of Billy Hamill on the first bend from a tapes start in the 93 final and wasn't excluded.

 

am I correct in thinking ermolenko dropped a chain then, and was under power?

[steve roberts]

We're going for Paul Thorp at Oxford territory many years ago.Rob can no doubt give chapter and verse about the incident. Put his hand up to warn the other riders he had lost power. But then got the bike going and rejoined the race even though his actions had affected the other riders. Too say the late great Bernard Crapper blew his top would be the understatement of the century.

Dudek raises his hand essentially withdraws from the race. How can anyone prove he was under power when PK hit him as he was just coasting along. PK should be excluded as he hit Dudek

And Dudek out as not under power

Recall the incident and Bernard got the then track presenter, Mike Bennett, to make a 'comment' over the PA regarding Thorp's actions who had 're-joined' the race and managed to re-pass at least one rider if I remember correctly. If I recall Bernard resigned as Team Manager.

Edited April 7, 2016 by steve roberts

[Stoke Potter]

 

 

am I correct in thinking ermolenko dropped a chain then, and was under power?

And then you get into the definition of "under power"! Surely that means having a workable bike rather than just the engine running.

i.e. a bike with the engine going but with a chain off should not be deemed under power.

[ColinMills]

And then you get into the definition of "under power"! Surely that means having a workable bike rather than just the engine running.

i.e. a bike with the engine going but with a chain off should not be deemed under power.

was surprised he got away with that

[Vince]

No power to driving wheel = not under power in anybodys language