IOPD, International Organization of Professional Drivers

What is the IOPD?	Road Traffic Act and how it affects you	FAQ's
IOPD for event organisers and promoters	Health & Safety and Environmental Officers’ issues	The liberty of the individual
Click here for your copy of ‘Insurers Guide to the Regualtion of Off Road Events’	Click here for your copy of ‘Health & Safety and Environmental Officers’ Guidance to Off Road Events’	Contact and enquiry form

FAQ's (frequently asked questions)

Why has an Authorisation Permit now become so important?

This sea change affects show organisers, event co-ordinators, race officials, participants and even insurance underwriters. It’s particularly important to those who are involved in any event involving ANY ‘mechanically propelled vehicle’. Under the Road Traffic Act for example, an event organiser, a race director or even the landowner can be prosecuted for contravening the Road Traffic Act. And since this includes driving that could be considered dangerous if it were on the highway, in events where driving is challenging –at the very least- by implication the law is broken. If there is a serious incident resulting in a fatality, the organiser could face a fine of up to £20,000 or a prison sentence. The IOPD Permit Authorisation puts events into the IOPD ‘Safety Zone’, demonstrating good practice and providing exemption from prosecution for all those involved with events that are off-the-highway.

But has there been any new legislation?

It is under EXISTING legislation that the police have the right to confiscate and crush vehicles used in contravening the Road Traffic Act and it is EXISTING legislation that can enable officials to be charged with culpable manslaughter in the event or a fatal incident.

Who is affected by these draconian measures?

If you operate any off-the-highway event that includes mechanical vehicles of any type, the Road Traffic Act as well as health & safety at work legislation now affect you, even if the venue is a purpose built circuit or stadium. Although described by some as “draconian measures”, this now has precedence in law. (Cawley vs. Frost Court of Appeal 1976)

Why are these changes happening?

It’s happening for a number of reasons, not least because of growing public unrest over the increasing amount of mechanically propelled vehicles, from moto x in housing estates to 4x4s on bridleways, noise abatement, planning and other issues, and as a response to health & safety issues following serious injuries and fatalities.
What does the law say?

The Road Traffic Act 1991 states:

“An Act to amend the law about road traffic. [25th July 1991]

Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

Driving offences

1. A person who causes the death of another person or-
2. A person who drives dangerously or-
3. If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence.” Cawley v Frost Court of Appeal in 1976, held all parts of a stadium to be part of a ‘public place’ not only the specific spectator areas.

Guidance Note HGU 92227 also states:

“The extension of the road traffic law to public places has important consequences for those who take part or organise events involving motor vehicles in fields, parks or other areas where the general public is admitted either free of charge or on payment of an entrance fee.”

However, the act continues:

(Please note we have amended the wording – but NOT the meaning- to help it’s comprehension)
13A. -(1) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 1, 2 or 3 of this Act by virtue of driving a vehicle in a public place other than a road if he shows that he was driving in accordance with an authorisation for a motoring event given under regulations made by the Secretary of State.

The IOPD is empowered by the Secretary of State to issue such authorisation.

Please remember:

The definition of ‘public place’ is not just public open space. It includes all private property or ‘premises’ to which the public have access whether for payment or otherwise.

An Off Road Event is any gathering of vehicles that is not spontaneous but is organised, publicised and co-ordinated by an individual, group, club or a company. It need not involve competition and may include training in new skills, assembly for pleasure in shared interest (as with owners’ clubs), demonstration of new or historic vehicles, vehicle testing etc. etc.

For the purposes of deciding what is deemed to be dangerous or careless, one is guilty if it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be so.

What’s the legal perspective on risk taking?

The following quotes are from a recent House of Lords opinion on risk taking for the enjoyment of leisure activities. The judgement moves to restrain the culture of blame and compensation when people suffer through self-inflicted harm or obvious risks in participating in high-risk activities.

Tomlinson vs. Congleton House of Lords Appeal (2003) UKHL47

LORD HUTTON: “As the common law is just the formal statement of the results and conclusions of the common sense of mankind, I come without difficulty to the conclusion that precautions which have been rejected by common sense as unnecessary and inconvenient are not required by the law.”

LORD HOFFMAN: “It seems to me that Mr Tomlinson suffered his injury because he chose to indulge in an activity which had inherent dangers, not because the premises were in a dangerous state.
Mr Tomlinson was freely and voluntarily undertaking an activity, which inherently involved some risk.

A duty to protect against obvious risks or self-inflicted harm exists only in cases in which there is no genuine and informed choice.”

LORD HOBHOUS: “It is not, and should never be, the policy of the law to require the protection of the foolhardy or reckless few to deprive, or interfere with, the enjoyment by the remainder of society of the liberties and amenities to which they are rightly entitled.

In truth, the arguments for the claimant have involved an attack upon the liberties of the citizen that should not be countenanced. They attack the liberty of the individual to engage in dangerous, but otherwise harmless, pastimes at his own risk and the liberty of citizens as a whole fully to enjoy the variety and quality of the landscape of this country. The pursuit of an unrestrained culture of blame and compensation has many evil consequences and one is certainly the interference with the liberty of the citizen.” The discussion of social utility in the Illinois Supreme Court is to the same effect: Bucheleres vs. Chicago Park District 171 I11

In the case of Gorringe vs. Calderdale MBC (2204) 1 WLR 1057

The house returned to the theme of individual responsibility. Lord Hoffmann noted that “drivers are first and foremost themselves responsible for their own safety” [para 76]. Lord Brown thought it reasonable that the policy of the law should be to leave the responsibility for the accident on the negligent road user rather than requiring the highway authority to protect him against his own careless conduct.

Stanley Burnton J in Hampstead Heath Winter Swimming Club vs. The Corporation of London (2005) EWHC713 (Admin).

“In my judgement, for the purposes of s3 of HSW 1974 Act, if an adult swimmer with knowledge of the risks of swimming chooses to swim unsupervised, the risks he incurs are the result of his decision and not of the permission given him to swim. And it follows that those risks are not the result of the conduct by the employer of his undertaking, and the employer is not liable to be convicted of an offence under that provision.” [para 63].

Kent & Sevenoaks

The importance of the criminal law not introducing a liability where none existed in civil law was recently considered by HHJ Lawson QC in HSE vs. Kent CC & Sevenoaks DC (13 June 2005 Maidstone Crown Court).

“I rule that the exercise, or failure to exercise a statutory power, and/or inadequacies in their scheme of management does not amount to the ‘conduct of their undertaking’.”

The HSE chose not to appeal the ruling of the court, but accepted it and offered no evidence against each defendant.

Legal advisers may also wish to refer to Lord Parker CJ in R v Waters (1963); The Criminal Appeal Reports 1963, Volume 47 pages 149-156, edited by T R Fitzwalter Butler, also to Cawley v Frost 1976 which held all parts of a stadium to be part of a ‘public place’ not only the specific spectator areas.