TimW, I am impressed that KZN seems to have its house in order, and this should obvuiously be commended. As a corporate legal advisor I am jsu sceptical when people in a specific industry interpret laws to their own benefit.(obviously not related to you) One example would be where a service provider holds himslef out as a specialist, and further motivates that his services must be used because of some legal competence bestowed on him. The Act does refer to a Safety Officer, but this does not carry a specific legally required competence. In fact, I would argue that many organisers have more specialised knowledge of the health and safety issues in MTB events than some "safety officers" with a Samtrac (2 week course) and 2 years construction site experience. Also, there are some definitions in the Act that are critical. These include venue and stadium, where a stadium is a permanent structure with a podium or playing field and allowance for more than 2000 seated or standing spectators, and where a venue is not stadium but where allowance is made for more than 2000 seated or standing spectators. Most cysling events would thus not fall under either, and consequently many of the obligations under either the Act or its Regulations would not apply. I can go on, but the point I am trying to make is that there should not be any kind of knee jerk reaction where people start complaining of how onerous presenting events are, or where organisers use this as an excuse to motivate massibve costs. Organisers have always had legal obligations, and have always had a duty to as afar as is reasonably practicable take care of participants, the Sport and Recreation Events Act did not change this, and to say that organisers of a regional MTB race have the same obligations as a promoter organising a U2 concert at FNB stadium is simply false. Rant over!
