The MSA report seems to be misleading. Take (for example) "... the MSA has carried out investigations into claims that the Zip Kart front fairing causes a hazard ... the MSA can confirm that it can find no evidence that this design fairing has contributed any additional hazard in any known accident ...".
Whilst the statement here is cautious to limit to "any (MSA) known accident" it is the term HAZARD which is misleading the reader.
Legally a hazard is a potentially damaging physical event wich may cause injury or loss of life, etc. I expect the hazard the MSA examined was 'can a fairing lift another kart'. Well silly me of course it can and thus the MSA statement is truthful.
What is missing in the MSA statement is a mention of risk and probability. A hazard is characterised by its location, intensity frequency and probability.
Part of this forums discussions any the petition was that there is an increased occurance of karts being lifted and flipped (FREQUENCY). Also that by geometry the ramp shape itself increased the likelihood (RISK).
In the closing paragraphs the statement "... it has been suggested that a front fairing could become potentially hazardous in an accident when it is damaged ..." defies comprehension. Is the MSA suggesting here that they have considered (say) a crushed front fairing acting like a scythe (a new hazard) or ripped apart so that a driver's arm could get stuck inside (a new hazard) ???. There are no new hazards Mr.MSA.
So the MSA report is most smug in that it says there is no contributed additional HAZARD, but completey omits the stuff about FREQUENCY and RISK. Along these lines clearly the the MSA's investigations are either incorrect or are incomplete.
|
|