This could impact all racing in the uk

[Drumroll]

Shakey Byrne has won his case against MSV and MCRCB. I fear this ruling will have serious repercussions for club motorsport in the UK.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyg0z67yr6o

[Trev450]

Oh dear a real can of worms has been opened.

[bergclimber34]

I doubt it will affect car racing, The major reasons for this case are this was a BSB test session, therefore the man had a reasonable expectation to expect a certain sort of fence (an air fence) to be in place at certain locations, that fence was not present, he had an accident, broke his neck and was retired from the sport, a sport he was already likely to be retiring from within the next year or so anyway. And actually a sport he had earned millions from over his career. He was also a hooligan on the road, so possibly quite lucky to be able to have a career at all by the way.

This will not affect car racing as drivers are not going to be hitting a fence designed to prevent personal injury like an airfence, it will only be an issue in things like NASCAR where the SAFER barrier is placed in front of the wall etc.

If you crash in a car into a barrier you are potentially likely to injure yourself, but the point here was that for bikes another airfence barrier is placed in FRONT of the regular barrier to cushion a rider hitting it, and was not, we do not know if it SHOULD have been that is a legal technicality, but I doubt it as he has won the case and will win millions in compensation no doubt

We all also know that insurance is going to be the real issue as it was with rallying post the Scottish incidents that have changed the sport completely for spectators in some ways especially on local club events.

[stevieturbo]

Drumroll said:

Shakey Byrne has won his case against MSV and MCRCB. I fear this ruling will have serious repercussions for club motorsport in the UK.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyg0z67yr6o

Absolutely crazy.

People like that should never be allowed to take part. His own fault he crashed, he knew the risks. Bloody disgrace, but typical of dirty lowlife claim hungry lawyers.

Let's hope even if he recovers, no motorsport body will ever allow him to take part again.

[bergclimber34]

He has long since retired and oddly is a pundit for the series he was riding in, likely being paid aswell!

[Steve H]

That article gives very little detail, certainly not enough to understand if it was a reasonable claim or not.

There will be approved levels of protection for different types of race events that gave been signed off not just by the circuits but by the governing bodies of the sports. This stuff is regularly reviewed and updated based on ever improving safety standards, and using the knowledge gained by reviewing any incidents that have occurred.

If the usual standard for a race weekend was to have added protection at that point and it wasn’t there for a test day I could see a potential case but if all the approved and agreed equipment was in place then it’s hard to expect a circuit to have a crystal ball that predicts an accident that even the sports governing body didn’t think would need guarding against.

[aeropilot]

Steve H said:

If the usual standard for a race weekend was to have added protection at that point and it wasn’t there for a test day I could see a potential case

Which is exactly why he brought the case, as that barrier would have to be there for a BSB race day, and given it was an official BSB test day it was expected to be there as well, and that's pretty much why he won the case from my understanding.

[bergclimber34]

I think the main reason for all of this is that Byrnes insurance company probably had to pay HIM out for this, so they are just trying to recoup their outlay, they are an insurance company, this is what they do, they never, ever lose money. MSV probably have the coffers to soak it up I dread to think what would have happened to say Thruxton or Knockill if it had happened there.

[Steve H]

aeropilot said:

Steve H said:

If the usual standard for a race weekend was to have added protection at that point and it wasn’t there for a test day I could see a potential case

Which is exactly why he brought the case, as that barrier would have to be there for a BSB race day, and given it was an official BSB test day it was expected to be there as well, and that's pretty much why he won the case from my understanding.

That makes sense and a surprising oversight for MSV.

[bergclimber34]

I think perhaps it was a freak occurrence, often the case with stuff like this and why the case was brought and won.

It is and was a rare place to crash, it was pure rider error, on a test day, and it was career ending even though that career was very successful and was probably only a year or so left.

They saw an opportunity and won, regardless of consequence, tgiscis why insurance companies dominate every part of your life sadly. I do not blame the rider, but the consequences could be huge, and that is the issue. These ruthless insurers never consider that, along as I'm alright Jack, modern society in a nutshell to be fair

[Steve H]

I’m not sure where the insurance companies come into this but liability culture has to have an effect eventually I guess.

On one hand we all acknowledge certain risks when we go on track, but on the other we do expect them to be mitigated against and reduced wherever possible. It sounds like in this case there was an incident that had been foreseen but not adequately protected against.

[clubracing]

If it was the case that the same barriers that would have been in place for a race meeting weren't in place for an official BSB test day, then I can understand the grievance.

I don't see this case having an impact on car racing, but will probably result in increased circuit hire fees for all bike events to cover the cost of having more air fences in place than they would have done previously.

[stavers]

Full judgement is available here:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/1...

There was no difference in the barriers between race & test days. Basically saying that a different type of barrier should have been in place for the bikes and if it had been there then the injuries likely would have been lessened.

[stevieturbo]

stavers said:

Full judgement is available here:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/1...

There was no difference in the barriers between race & test days. Basically saying that a different type of barrier should have been in place for the bikes and if it had been there then the injuries likely would have been lessened.

And if he hadn't crashed, injuries would have been lessened.

[bergclimber34]

Again be a little careful, the reason why this was brought was an airfence was missing, not a barrier, the airfence sits in front of the barrier this corer was NOT a popular or common crash location so that is possibly why it was missing for a test day, but it seems it should have been there it was not, he binned it, broke his neck and was forced to retire from the sport, he was 42 and likely to be stopping after earning millions anyway, but I guess this is about insurance recouping their outlay, he had family so likely was very heavily insured. Which is also why he still works as a pundit in racing and is present in paddocks.

[Steve H]

stevieturbo said:

And if he hadn't crashed, injuries would have been lessened.

Not helpful, but just in case you are being serious, the judge is quite clear that coming off the bike is not what caused the bulk of the injuries, rather it was the impact with the wrong kind of barrier.


It is concerning that the due diligence that had been applied was not considered adequate as that could potentially be applied to plenty of other circumstances. There had been some unanswered questions but that would almost always be the case when examined in this detail.

Also notable that Byrne having specifically consented to the risks (assuming that he did as MSV had not located the paperwork!) was not considered adequate to protect the defendants and neither was his 20 years experience enough to be able to assess the risks that he chose to take on.


All in all you would have to think this will have ongoing effects on UK racing whether it be further safety provisions or added costs to the competitors to cover the changes and the higher insurance premiums that circuits and organisers will likely face.