I can understand it making people nervous, but I'm not sure they really understand why that case was successful. It was caused by the tyres, no doubt, but if the current guidance (no dual compound, vinegar/isopropyl alcohol etc) was adhered to, that poor guy would still be alive and no-one would have gotten sued.
Case hinged on the publishing date of that current guidance. It was published after the accident and the velodrome's defence was "there was no guidance, so we couldn't have been negligent in its absence." Reason the case was successful was they managed to dig up an article on the BC site, published before the accident, which proved proved they already knew the tyres to be dangerous, with or without the guidance. Guessing that's why it took 7 years tbh!
Do understand the need for caution (very scary, very dangerous) but in regards to that specific case, that window for litigation has been closed for years, so long as people enforce their own regs.
I can understand it making people nervous, but I'm not sure they really understand why that case was successful. It was caused by the tyres, no doubt, but if the current guidance (no dual compound, vinegar/isopropyl alcohol etc) was adhered to, that poor guy would still be alive and no-one would have gotten sued.
Case hinged on the publishing date of that current guidance. It was published after the accident and the velodrome's defence was "there was no guidance, so we couldn't have been negligent in its absence." Reason the case was successful was they managed to dig up an article on the BC site, published before the accident, which proved proved they already knew the tyres to be dangerous, with or without the guidance. Guessing that's why it took 7 years tbh!
Do understand the need for caution (very scary, very dangerous) but in regards to that specific case, that window for litigation has been closed for years, so long as people enforce their own regs.