Open roads proposal

[MrJan]

Very, very important for UK motorsport fans (but would be nice if those abroad could weigh in too), the government consultation to allow the closure of roads for purposes of motorsport to come under the jurisdiction of local authorities. This would mean that it would be considerably easier to hold events on public roads, which would really open up the current issue we have with disappearing venues.

Therefore I urge you to read the attached and e-mail your comments on to the committee (or use the MSA guideline responses) to add weight behind this

http://www.msauk.org/uploadedfiles/news ... dRoads.pdf (http://www.msauk.org/uploadedfiles/newsletter/ClosedRoads.pdf)

[Mark]

Good stuff. As I understand it, the closure of roads isn't really an issue; my local council can close a road for a cycling event, for example. But just because the road is closed doesn't suspend the Road Traffic Act so it's still subject to speed limits, construction rules etc, and it's this which requires an act of parliament to suspend.

[Starter]

Good stuff. As I understand it, the closure of roads isn't really an issue; my local council can close a road for a cycling event, for example. But just because the road is closed doesn't suspend the Road Traffic Act so it's still subject to speed limits, construction rules etc, and it's this which requires an act of parliament to suspend.
Speaking from this side of the Atlantic, the use of local roads should be at the discretion of local officials. Here that would mean local roads by the county/city it's in; state routes by the state and interstate highways by the feds. That doesn't mean that is the way it is though.

[MrJan]

Good stuff. As I understand it, the closure of roads isn't really an issue; my local council can close a road for a cycling event, for example. But just because the road is closed doesn't suspend the Road Traffic Act so it's still subject to speed limits, construction rules etc, and it's this which requires an act of parliament to suspend.

Which is what makes the whole thing even more ridiculous! If the road is closed then speed limits needn't be an issue (especially considering the insurance and H&S hoops that most events already have to jump through), so effectively the whole thing ought to be a moot point.

The irony is that, having been involved in organising an event, the various proof of insurances and risk assessments that are required by local authorities are considerable more than the ones of a private landowner.

[Gregor-y]

Speaking from this side of the Atlantic, the use of local roads should be at the discretion of local officials. Here that would mean local roads by the county/city it's in; state routes by the state and interstate highways by the feds. That doesn't mean that is the way it is though.
It is with the exception of federal land or state parks, where national or state laws can apply and will be at the discretion of the park director. County Sheriffs also can play a large role, though they usually will work with the desires of the local chamber of commerce. A bigger issue these days is with requirements from insurance companies dictating maximum average speeds on rally stages.

At 100 Acre Wood this year there was a stage that had two chicanes on it to reduce the average speed to 80 mph. After the first few cars exceed this speed two more chicanes were added for the next run - much to the annoyance of codrivers and the control staff that had to notify them, plus it was dark by then - and one car still managed to beat the maximum average.

[Starter]

Speaking from this side of the Atlantic, the use of local roads should be at the discretion of local officials. Here that would mean local roads by the county/city it's in; state routes by the state and interstate highways by the feds. That doesn't mean that is the way it is though.
It is with the exception of federal land or state parks, where national or state laws can apply and will be at the discretion of the park director. County Sheriffs also can play a large role, though they usually will work with the desires of the local chamber of commerce. A bigger issue these days is with requirements from insurance companies dictating maximum average speeds on rally stages.

At 100 Acre Wood this year there was a stage that had two chicanes on it to reduce the average speed to 80 mph. After the first few cars exceed this speed two more chicanes were added for the next run - much to the annoyance of codrivers and the control staff that had to notify them, plus it was dark by then - and one car still managed to beat the maximum average.
That's the fault of the way our courts work. People will sue over anything. This is one place where our Brit friends have it right. Want to sue someone? Go ahead, loser pays. Cuts way down on the frivolous and "sue because its cheaper for them to pay" lawsuits.

[Mark]

Good stuff. As I understand it, the closure of roads isn't really an issue; my local council can close a road for a cycling event, for example. But just because the road is closed doesn't suspend the Road Traffic Act so it's still subject to speed limits, construction rules etc, and it's this which requires an act of parliament to suspend.

Which is what makes the whole thing even more ridiculous! If the road is closed then speed limits needn't be an issue (especially considering the insurance and H&S hoops that most events already have to jump through), so effectively the whole thing ought to be a moot point.

The irony is that, having been involved in organising an event, the various proof of insurances and risk assessments that are required by local authorities are considerable more than the ones of a private landowner.

Much of the time the road closures aren't 100% effective anyway. There's a couple of cycling events in Durham that I do where a small amount of roads are closed (mostly the steep climbs) but there's always at least one car that ignores the closure signs, the person standing at the sign trying to stop them and all the cyclists on the route and drives up anyway. Last year one rider got hit head on my a car who had ignored the signs (he was ok, his bike wasn't)

[MrJan]

Much of the time the road closures aren't 100% effective anyway. There's a couple of cycling events in Durham that I do where a small amount of roads are closed (mostly the steep climbs) but there's always at least one car that ignores the closure signs, the person standing at the sign trying to stop them and all the cyclists on the route and drives up anyway. Last year one rider got hit head on my a car who had ignored the signs (he was ok, his bike wasn't)

Doesn't even have to be public roads for that to happen. Saw a similar case but the reverse of yours, a cyclist on a car event.

Was at the Tempest Rally a couple of years ago, a gravel event run around Aldershot. We were on a stage at a fairly quick straight and a woman, probably in her 50s, came along on her pushbike merrily pedalling away. Quite a few of us shouted across to her that she was on a live rally stage but she just shook her head and carried on pedalling and looking annoyed. Cue MK2 Escort at complete flat chat having to hammer on the anchors, no doubt s***ing himself. I don't think it occurred to her tha:

a) she may do the same cycle ride every week but she had also passed a number of 'motorsport is dangerous' and 'you are approaching a live rally stage' signs.
b) It was a properly organised event, on a non public gravel road, not just some idiots with their baseball caps on back to front
c) She wasn't just endangering her own life but the lives of the crews and spectators

[AndyRAC]

From memory - when I went to the Jim Clark in 1999, I remember being told that once the 'road closer' car had been through, it was illegal to set foot once the road, and you were actually breaking the law. I presume this is still the case?


However, the possibility of having closed road Motorsport is something to hopefully look forward to. It been ridiculous that we couldn't - yet virtually every other country in Europe did. Look at the European Hillclimbs, the Ypres/ Zlin Rallies..... Providing it's done correctly, it could be fantastic.

If you're a Motorsport fan - and being on this forum would suggest you are - then get writing.

[MrJan]

However, the possibility of having closed road Motorsport is something to hopefully look forward to. It been ridiculous that we couldn't - yet virtually every other country in Europe did. Look at the European Hillclimbs, the Ypres/ Zlin Rallies..... Providing it's done correctly, it could be fantastic.

True story. Even Switzerland, where famously they don't allow 'races' they have closed road time trials such as rallying & hillclimbs. In fact some of the Swiss hillclimbs are absolutely fantastic and feature some truly brilliant cars.

This is one of my favourite videos on Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBLIHAsknRI

[J4MIE]

From memory - when I went to the Jim Clark in 1999, I remember being told that once the 'road closer' car had been through, it was illegal to set foot once the road, and you were actually breaking the law. I presume this is still the case

As far as I understand the law, it states that it is illegal to walk on the road once closed (it closes at the set time whether or not the road closer car has passed!).

I am not sure of the law of standing on the road.

But it only applies up to the highway boundary - so they can't stop you walking behind the fence/hedge or across fields etc, where the Land Reform (Scotland) Act applies.

[AndyRAC]

Yeah, that's what most people were doing - walking across fields; it was the Langton stage actually.

[Mark]

And it's important to remember that the highway boundary extends all the way to the fence / wall alongside the road, most roads in the UK are fenced. Not sure what the situation is with unfenced roads, perhaps it's only the road surface itself?

[Langdale Forest]

As far as I understand the law, it states that it is illegal to walk on the road once closed (it closes at the set time whether or not the road closer car has passed!).

I am not sure of the law of standing on the road.

But it only applies up to the highway boundary - so they can't stop you walking behind the fence/hedge or across fields etc, where the Land Reform (Scotland) Act applies.

So could you theoretically be prosecuted for walking across a live stage?

[J4MIE]

Taken from the Scottish Borders Council (Jim Clark Memorial Rally) Order Confirmation Act 1996




(7) If any person without the consent of the Council knowingly and without reasonable excuse enters or remains upon any public road which is closed to him, or drives or causes or permits to be driven a vehicle upon any public road or part of a public road which is closed to that vehicle under this section, or fails to comply with any condition subject to which the Council have given their consent under this section, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.

(8)In proceedings for an offence under subsection (7) above, it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.

Fine of up to £2500.

But if there isn't a sign up making you aware the road is closed.....

[MrJan]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28261960

[steveaki13]

I wonder how exactly this would play out in practice? I would personally love to have more events to see.

[Steve Boyd]

So could you theoretically be prosecuted for walking across a live stage?Two people were prosecuted on the Isle of Man for crossing the TT Course when the road was closed.
http://www.energyfm.net/cms/news_story_320517.html
The Manx legislation doesn't permit walking or standing on a closed road unless you are a signed-on official with the authority to be there. Race & rally marshals are empowered as Special Constables to enforce the road closure order.