It has recently come to NASR’s attention that some different interpretations are being circulated about the application of the new Minimum Safety Standards. NASR has fielded many questions in recent weeks and would therefore like to take the opportunity to answer these for the benefit of all in the industry.

To assist readers, the background of the implementation of the rules will be followed by the application of the rules and then specific questions asked of the NASR National Office.

BACKGROUND

The Speedway Safety Advisory Committee (SSAC) had been very thorough in drafting the new safety rules, which has also been endorsed by the NASR Board and has given very generous phase-in periods.

The SSAC has representation from many competitor divisions, in addition to expertise in a variety of areas such as fire fighting, OH&S, car construction, promoters, race apparel and metallurgical experts.

This cross section of the industry has been responsible for drafting the industry standards.

When arriving at the new standards, the fact the majority of competitors already had apparel that met the standards was a major consideration.

We therefore expect that in the majority of cases the main up-grade and expense would be for an approved head and neck restraint. However this does not apply to all divisions, particularly the budget entry divisions of speedway, including most sedan divisions.

ACCEPTANCE BY INSURERS

The Minimum Safety Standards have been presented to and accepted by the NASR insurers (both personal accident and public liability insurers) in our insurance renewal presentations.

These annual presentations cover all of the measures that NASR has in place to minimize the risk to the sport and ultimately the insurer. These include track gradings, track standards, safety seminars and training, the drug and alcohol policy, pit rules, misconduct rules, licencing requirements and many other similar initiatives and policies.

Each year more is achieved as we address outstanding issues in relation to risk management. It is this that gives the insurers confidence to underwrite motor sport.

Ultimately it has also contributed to the decrease in premiums over the past six years, which in turn ensures the sport remains viable and makes the sport attractive and affordable for competitors.

These rules therefore apply across the board to all competitors. The minimum safety standards apply to NASR licenced competitors and non-NASR licenced competitors. It applies to all 75 NASR insured tracks, including all tracks in SA, Tas & NT, most tracks in NSW & Qld, 15 in Victoria and a dozen in WA.

In other words if you race at a NASR insured track, it applies to you.

It would also be in the best interests of other tracks to maintain the industry standard. If not, these tracks and any relevant competitor group could be found to have breached their duty of care in deliberately permitting a sub-standard to be applied.

The NASR standards are based upon the internationally recognized SFI and FIA standards and should be followed in all circumstances.


STATEMENT: These new rules mean I have to now go out and purchase new belts.

FACT: This is false. NASR is still developing a minimum standard for racing belts. However many competitor groups do have a maximum life stipulated which must be followed. These vary from two, three and five year life spans. Check you competitor group rule for clarification on this issue.


STATEMENT: These new rules mean I have to go out and purchase a HANS device.

FACT: This is false. The HANS device is one of seven SFI or FIA approved Head and Neck restraints which are permitted, varying in price, shape, weight and design.

The mandatory use of an approved Head and Neck Restraint only applies to all “AA” licence categories, all “A” open-wheel categories and Super Sedans. (regardless of whether the individuals are actually NASR licenced or not.)

Some categories that this rule applies includes Sprintcars, Speedcars, Late Models, Super Sedans, NOS Sprints, V8 Dirt Modifieds, NOS Sprints, Super Rods, Litre Cars, Mini Sprints, V6 Sprints, F500’s, SDAV Rods, Compacts Limited Sprintcars and other similar divisions in the “A” licence category.


STATEMENT: The new race suit rules are too expensive for my entry level street stock- type vehicle.

FACT: The entry level standard is actually very affordable for those who do need to upgrade. While the majority would have race suits, gloves and boots which already comply, new racesuits which meet the SFI 3.2/1 or FIA 1986 Norme standards can be found off the shelf for as little as $239.


STATEMENT: I don’t have a NASR licence, so I don’t need to meet these standards.

FACT: This is incorrect. The standards apply to everyone.


STATEMENT: My (open wheel) division is not a NASR class and my division rules don’t make head and neck restraints mandatory, so they can’t make me wear a head and neck restraint.

FACT: This is false. The industry standards over-ride all competitor group rules.


STATEMENT: My race suit does not have the correct label (tags) rating, so it is useless.

FACT: This may be incorrect. There are some race suits in circulation that do not have the appropriate approval rating on them. This may not necessarily mean the race suit is not of the appropriate standard. In these instances, you should take your race suit back to the place of purchase, and if the suit complies to the standard, the manufacturer may assist in providing the correct tags at a cost.


STATEMENT: My horse collar doesn’t have to be approved.

FACT: It is true that there is no standard for horse (neck) collars. However they must be worn in the absence of an approved head and neck restraint.


STATEMENT: I have a letter from my apparel retailer confirming my apparel is up to the minimum standards, so my apparel is OK to use.

FACT: Wrong. The only apparel that meet the standards are the apparel with the appropriate SFI or FIA tags. These tags are produced under licence and this system confirms the suits, gloves, boots and underwear meet the appropriate standards.

If your apparel (race suit, gloves, boots, and both upper and lower underwear) does not have an SFI or FIA tag, take it back to the retailer who will be arrange the tags at a small cost.

If you are looking at purchasing apparel from places like America, please ensure the tags are on each item and don’t purchase uncertified apparel.


STATEMENT: My helmet is only four years old and I only have one more year to be able to use it.

FACT: There is some confusion over the helmet age rules, between the upper and the lower standards. The five year limit only applies to AS1698 helmets, which are of the lower standard applied by NASR. In relation to SNELL rated helmets, the life may be anywhere between one and ten years, depending upon the timing of the purchase.

The SNELL rating does not go by manufacture date. The next Snell standard is due in 2010 meaning at that point the Snell 2000 standard would cease. In 2015 the 2005 standard would cease etc.

So today (in 2008) the best helmet to purchase is the 2005 SNELL rated helmet, as this will give more than seven year’s life. If you purchase a 2000 SNELL rated helmet, it will not be permitted to be used past 2010.

Balaclavas must be worn with all helmets.


STATEMENT: My short-sleeve underwear is permitted under the new rules.

FACT: Only long sleeved and long legged underwear is permitted.


SUMMARY:

There are many questions being asked within the industry and many claims and rumors are being made. If you are not sure or want clarification, contact the NASR National Office who will be able to answer your questions.

If someone is telling you “this is what NASR said”, make sure you have it in writing on a NASR National Office letterhead.

Competitors have also had more than a year to plan for these changes and are not designed to add cost to the competitor. In fact most competitors already exceed the minimum standards in regards to apparel.

The NASR standards are based upon the internationally recognized SFI and FIA standards.

If someone is prepared to accept lesser standards, they are likely breaching their duty of care in not taking every possible reasonable care to ensure your safety, in the eyes of the law.