[Closed] Prosecution of a MTB downhill race organiser and Marshal at LLangollen

Looking at who the Marshall and organiser are/were, this could have very wide reaching consequences

what tomhoward said.

A tragic incident.

The marshal keV Duckworth runs the PMBA Enduro series, heavily involved in advocacy for mtb

Is the other person the commissaire?

The hearing needs proper reporting by the cycling press as it has implications for all strands of the sport.

Big issue for volunteers on all races or events until the details come out

Yep, it's a really tough one. Saw the changes last time I was in the UK and the extra taping that went into it around the insides of every corner. None of that in Canada when I was there or in Oz when I see it

That's an awful situation all round, best of luck to Kev, I don't see what good can possibly come from a conviction.

Having previously been a motorsport marshal, this is very reminiscent of a case in rallying (which has a lot of similarities). Previously marshals were responsible only for what happened on the track and to the competitors, but after a number of accidents, the French Federation was prosecuted for not ensuring that spectators weren't in the most potentiall dangerous areas. Following that rally organisers had to ensure green specator areas and red no-go areas were in place and clearly marked, and that the marshals were responsible for ensuring people were not in unsafe areas or ensure that if they were and wouldn't move, that race control was made aware.

Haven't been to a DH race in the UK recently, but if this isn't the case, perhaps something similar will be put in place at the request of the insurance companies.

Haven't been to a DH race in the UK recently, but if this isn't the case, perhaps something similar will be put in place at the request of the insurance companies.

Is the other person the commissaire?

Both Kev and Mike run the PMBA enduros, as well as other gravity based stuff.

The other person is Mike Marsden, the race organiser, and person behind Borderline Events.

When news came that there had been a death at a DH event, absolutely nobody in the field of DH racing was surprised whose event it was.

When news came that there had been a death at a DH event, absolutely nobody in the field of DH racing was surprised whose event it was.

Care to expand or are you just throwing around aspersions?

As someone who's marshalled almost all bike discipline events, and most of the time just been bunged a high viz and told where to stand it does make you wonder, what if this had happened to you?

When I've marshaled at the BDS there are taped off zones on the outside of corners & we were told to instruct spectators to stand up-slope from the track

Wasn't it shortly after this that British Cycling decided to pull back from enduro?

It looks like that article has picked the wrong race series too?

When news came that there had been a death at a DH event, absolutely nobody in the field of DH racing was surprised whose event it was.

Was the taping and marshalling that different to any event ever held at Innerleithen?

Wonder if this'll have an effect on "Marshalls? lul wut?" Enduro

dragon - Member

As someone who's marshalled almost all bike discipline events, and most of the time just been bunged a high viz and told where to stand it does make you wonder, what if this had happened to you?

Hels has given me most of the marshall briefings I've had, I don't find them lacking. Not the same with all organisers/marshalls. Anyone doubt that Kev knows how to marshall?

From my marshall's point of view with crowd control, the biggest problem is you've basically got no power. I almost had to call in a flag at one race because people were obstructing the course and just would not be told to get off the track, there's not much to be done about that if spectators insist on going where they shouldn't. And that's just keeping them off track never mind keeping exclusion areas. Everyone knows better. And that's before the photographers show up

With my health and safety hat on, injuries to spectators at races are very rare, and the actions needed to reduce that further are pretty extreme- wide exclusion zones around tracks, which would require visual contact marshalling to police (impossible for enduro and XC) and still no real way to deal with noncompliant spectators... Or total banning except in small controlled areas but again, how is that enforced? Tree harvesting ops show how hard it is to close a forest.

Anything I've ever attended that Mike and Kev have put on has been very well organised, the best of 4 different series that I've raced in.

Tragic, i really feel for everyone involved

I think the FAI is still ongoing following the incident in the Jim Clark Rally in the Borders from a couple of years back, similar issues regarding marshalling and spectator management. I imagine there will eyes looking at the outcomes from that inquiry and seeing if any changes need to be made at similar events.
I was recently working with the doc who was in charge of the medical side of that event and he said it was awful to deal with.

I've only done marshalling at a DH event once and it was a great couple of days.

The road cycling tour series, the one around cities in a loop they have a large number of security guards on crossing points and barriers everywhere, obvously done for the risk assesment.

Also how will the trail centres fare,do you ride at your own risk because theyre private property, and obviously carry public liability insurance, thats going to be hugely hiked up if the case above wins.

I have undertaken just about every role at a DH event in the past ten years, except racer ! That includes marshal, chief marshal, event organiser, Asst Commissaire, Commissaire.

I have even marshalled at a Borderline event in Innerleithen, at least five years ago.

It is not that hard to do safety properly, and handing a marshal a vest and a radio and sending them up the hill, for those of you who have had that experience, is not doing safety properly.

I imagine BC are in court as the Commissaire who signed off on the course inspection was acting for them.

Having done a bit if marshalling at enduros and DH.But also at rallies and race circuit I think it's a worrying time for any volunteers.But there has been a lack of training on marshalling front for some time in most sports now.Hi viz and flag and off you go really.

It still amazes me that mtb race marshalls still don't require any formal training. Generally there's a desperate request on FB 4 days before an event offering a pie and a pint and £40 for their day.
Why is there not an organisation offering trained marshalls for hire ? Surely the competitors who are paying increasing entry fees deserve that much.

I think formal marshal training is what will come out of this. Which will require significantly more organisation from race, you know, organisers.

Tragic event but you would have thoughg her boyfriend would have told her where to stand / not stand - I can see this being raised in court. Personally I see this ending in a "no spectators" rule

Tragic as it may be and by the sound of it an actual accident, let's hope this legal action is stopped dead in it's tracks otherwise it could end up in some ridiculous no spectating ruling and where's that going to end ?

Are the race organiser and marshals expected to ensure the riders stay on their bikes as well ? Of course not.

Are people not responsible for themselves anymore ? These days it seems not - it's always someone elses fault 🙁

The problem is spectators want to see a spectacle so will invariably seek out likely crash points.

I had a crash at EWS tweedlove in the first year last descent of last stage b4 pebbles, chasing someone down I was at a speed way above my ability , clipped a rut and had a big tumble.
The were spectators everywhere, lots of kids no real taping. My bike was catapulted down the hill and missed a couple of ten year old kid by less than a metre, as well as being very painful, scared the crap out of me and the kids.
( As an extra negative I had to gingerly take it thru the last section infront of all the hecklers in the last bit of woods as I'd bust my front brake and was very winded)

Anyway I told the people in the finish tent and explained that they needed to move spectators, but no one was interested.

I'd say that the tweedlove events are some of the better organised races too, the UKE series on the other hand....

Either way it's a tragedy, im not sure that you can allow for every eventuality in a race and still allow spectators, without knowing specifics, of crash and whether it was taped safely.
No mention of medical cover, access for paramedics etc, so in assuming they had that side of it covered.

Generally there's a desperate request on FB 4 days before an event offering a pie and a pint and £40 for their day.

And that's pretty much as it should be. Would trained marshalls hired at great expense have avoided this tragic accident? No.

IT's a tragedy for the family involved, no doubt.

The aftermath though is just one more example of lawyers ruining something that has worked fine for years and should be left as it is.

Why would you give up your time to volounteer as a helper if there's a risk of court action for a 'mistake' you may or may not have made?

All good points bedmaker. And folk moan enough about event costs as it is.

Bedmaker, I generally agree, however the Lawyers will make mincemeat out of these two guys. How can you call some one a Marshall when he has had no training, and if his briefing in the tent beforehand counts as his training then he will be liable surely ? Accidents will continue to happen, however the spectator areas will become smaller, will be taped and will be patrolled.

i've raced one of kev and mike's events and can't say i noticed anything lacking re the marshalling of it all, but then again i was riding (arguably) as fast as i could so probably wasn't taking that much notice!
i've marshaled, race organised, been involved with risk assessments and held marshal briefings for the Brownbacks race series up at lee quarry too, and despite the fact that we briefed our marshals as thoroughly as we possibly could (and had BC commissaires commend us on how thorough we were), you simply cannot legislate for spectators or other non racers at events doing whatever the hell they want, short of halting the race itself.
i can only hope that a decision is reached based on facts and not emotion/bias.

That's surely exactly the role of the Marshall though - to report to the chief Marshall that there is a hazard on or near the course not included in the race risk assessment and that the course should be closed until the issue is resolved.

It's a little early to guess the outcomes of the rally FAI but I think there is enough evidence that you can expect to see the following recommendations:

- marshalls must undergo some training (but that could be on site)
- each Marshall must have the hazards associated with their segment highlighted to them
- each Marshall point must have an effective means of communication to the chief Marshall
- each Marshall must be empowered to request closure of the course if they are concerned about on or near course hazards
- risk assements must identify (and signage and tapes must mark) no go zones for spectators

Closing the course is an effective way of forcing spectators to move, as it disrupts their viewing. The bigger issue is with randoms like dog walkers who feel entitled to walk through a live event, and don't care if you have to stop racing.

It may follow that signs need to highlight the risks more like at motor racing events. I don't think we will end up with no spectator events - but quite properly spectator safety should be considered, not just participants.

Quite who and why they have been selected for prosecution is interesting, and must be down to their mistakes e.g. Not having a proper risk assessment in place (or not executing its findings). I think the implications for basic volunteer marshalls are minimal - it's the chief Marshall, commissaire, and event organiser who need to take note - but BC's processes are pretty rigorous (not sure if that has changed as a result of this). I can imagine marshalls briefings being recorded to prove they were suitable and sufficient.

The gutter press will probably make 'anarchic mountain bike event' capital out of it come what may. 🙁

Quite who and why they have been selected for prosecution is interesting

pretty standard line of succession. If I was supervising a student in the lab and they got hurt due to lack of proper health and safety then myself, my line manager and the head of the department would be liable for the injury.

That's surely exactly the role of the Marshall though - to report to the chief Marshall that there is a hazard on or near the course not included in the race risk assessment and that the course should be closed until the issue is resolved.

well yeah, and we did halt a race once (or twice) because of course encroachment (not from spectators, but a local horse riding group who felt that we were ruining their lives/enjoyment of the quarry by having 4 o 5 races a year for a couple of hours on a sunday morning but that's another story).

this has the potential to get very messy indeed.

poly - Member

Closing the course is an effective way of forcing spectators to move, as it disrupts their viewing.

At the minor expense of ruining about 10 race runs.

The kind of taping & spectator management being talked about (& potentially required as an upshot of this case) is feasible at a DH race, at a 5- 10 stage Enduro race potentially over a big area, is going to place a huge burden on the organisers

And this ladies and gentlemen is why it's getting harder an hard to actually do anything these days.

Sorry, but this incident needs to be filed under "**** happens".

Do we think the deceased would want the sport limited as a result of her death? I suspect not.

Personal responsibility and common sense are increasingly given the heaveho because someone MUST be found to be at fault!

So here's my question:

In the case of a rare event occurring, one that could be foreseen (ie is possible) but that is so rare as to be incredibly unlikely (remind me again how many spectators or even entrants have been killed in the entire history of mtb racing of all forms?), shouldn't prosecutions only be brought where there is definite evidence of deliberate malicious action ??

ie, being a marshal and doing your best, should be enough in the incredibly rare event of someone getting seriously injured or killed.

Otherwise, sport, and everything else is going to have to stop, and we'll all just have to sit at home on our couches and die of heart attacks from being massively over weight and unfit........

Maxtorque - how about you wait and see what the evidence is, and the exact details of the crimes charged. Clearly the HSE are of the opinion that the required rules were not followed, i.e. Someone they considered should know better didn't do their best (to use your words).

I wasn't there to be able to comment on how unlikely that crash or it's consequences were.

In contrast AFAIK no prosecutions were brought in either of the rallying fatalities currently undergoing the FAI. That suggests to me there was some real difference in how they managed risk.

So here's my question:

In the case of a rare event occurring, one that could be foreseen (ie is possible) but that is so rare as to be incredibly unlikely (remind me again how many spectators or even entrants have been killed in the entire history of mtb racing of all forms?), shouldn't prosecutions only be brought where there is definite evidence of deliberate malicious action ??

No. The absence of malicious intent should not by itself preclude prosecution. It seems reasonable to expect race organisers to have some responsibility for the safety of their spectators.

ie, being a marshal and doing your best, should be enough in the incredibly rare event of someone getting seriously injured or killed.

Being a properly trained and empowered marshal probably is.

In this case, per the first linked article, a marshal is alleged to have failed to ensure that his health and safety duties as a marshal were complied with. We don't (I don't, anyway) know how high or low the bar of duty compliance is set, or what this marshal did or didn't do.

Secondly, it may be the case that the marshal didn't know what their duties were and/or how to perform them, hence the allegations against the organiser of failing adequately train marshals and (by extension?) failing to ensure the safety of spectators.

It was a British Cycling event, so they're here as the top of the tree, ie they signed off on the organiser who signed off on the marshal.

The allegation the organiser failed to report the death seems perhaps separate to the above?

Otherwise, sport, and everything else is going to have to stop, and we'll all just have to sit at home on our couches and die of heart attacks from being massively over weight and unfit........

Seems unlikely.

And this ladies and gentlemen is why it's getting harder an hard to actually do anything these days.

Sorry, but this incident needs to be filed under "* happens".

Do we think the deceased would want the sport limited as a result of her death? I suspect not.

Personal responsibility and common sense are increasingly given the heaveho because someone MUST be found to be at fault!

It's health and safety gone mad!

Based on the linked articles, I don't think the incident can immediately 'be filed under "* happens"'. Although that may, of course, be the outcome of the case.

I also don't think it's reasonable (or relevant) to presume, again absent greater knowledge, anything at all about what the deceased may or may not wish.

Yep, spectators need to demonstrate common sense and take responsibility for their own actions, but to a point. It is reasonable that race organisers and marshals also have responsibilities regarding spectator safety, again to a point. Perhaps aspects of this case will help clarify where these points lie.

+1 Markie
H&S is really important and what means your family comes home alive. This isn't a lawyers gone mad situation either as it's a prosecution not sue for cash. To bring a case they must have resonable evidence that somewhere something avoidable went wrong and they want to bring that to court to allow that to be heard. It's going to be a shit time for all those involved, in these situations your really want to be able to know you did everything you should have done that was expected of you.

I was supposed to be racing that weekend, wasn't the issue that the girl had stood by a marshal point as she thought this would be a sensible spot to spectate.

Unfortunately the marshal point was questionably positioned, I believe beyond the landing of the rather big drop before you come out into the finishing area.

Horrible accident to happen and a credit to Martin for carrying on letting bike use his farm.

Yep, spectators need to demonstrate common sense and take responsibility for their own actions, but to a point. It is reasonable that race organisers and marshals also have responsibilities regarding spectator safety, again to a point. Perhaps aspects of this case will help clarify where these points lie.

As Northy says though, what to do when people just ignore you? red flag the race?. I'm not disagreeing with you, it's a legitimate concern.

As Northy says though, what to do when people just ignore you? red flag the race?. I'm not disagreeing with you, it's a legitimate concern.

In the end firm rules work (most of the time) Red Flag as the course is unsafe - spectators to be moved or race organiser called up.
I applaud Si for his strong stance on a lot of issues like abusing marshalls etc. same rules should apply here - refuse to follow an instruction and get out. Try again and you kid/mate goes with you.

A lot comes down to marshall and rider briefings.

Down side as said is enduro etc where there is more course than marshal and limited track access for officials, spectators and photographers etc.

Exactly that.

Yup (sadly). If WRC can cancel entire stages because of spectator issues, a DH race should be able to halt proceedings for a period of time (as much as that would annoy the hell out of me if waiting at the top of the hill)

I don't know the details of the tragic accident. I've met Kev Duckworth and my impression was that he is a very straightforward and genuine guy who has put a lot of time into the sport. I can't think of a single event DH/enduro event I've done (including Tweedlove events) where there wasn't the potential for a similar freak accident at some point on the course.

The article doesn't say who is bringing the prosecution. Is it the CPS or is it a private action by a compensation chasing lawyer?

Organisers of a British Downhill Series Mountain Biking event at Llangollen in which a spectator died after being struck by an out of control cycle are being prosecuted under Health and Safety laws.

True, could just be poor journalism though.

I'm not sure I'd take the wording as fact, it wasn't even a BDS race was it?

Rockhopper - Member
The article doesn't say who is bringing the prosecution. Is it the CPS or is it a private action by a compensation chasing lawyer?

kimbers - Member
The kind of taping & spectator management being talked about (& potentially required as an upshot of this case) is feasible at a DH race, at a 5- 10 stage Enduro race potentially over a big area, is going to place a huge burden on the organisers

From the UCI

Page 23 - "Security Zones" tape separation from the course edge to spectator zones
[img] [/img]
Example above

As Northy says though, what to do when people just ignore you? red flag the race?. I'm not disagreeing with you, it's a legitimate concern.

Yes.

When you ignore your risk assessment because it is inconvenient, people get hurt or die.

If you had a rider went down and blocked the course or wasn't in a safe location, you would hold the rest until the course was clear. Why wouldn't you do the same thing if it is a spectator?

HSE bring prosecutions directly themselves. It's them. Not ambulance chasing lawyers.

Although if it turns out that the organisers, marshall(s), British Cycling or whoever, was negligent and that caused or contributed to the death, I have no problem whatsoever with a subsequent civil claim for damages being brought.

I think those bemoaning the potential for curtailed events, or higher costs reflecting higher insurance costs and / or better marshalling need to remember that a family lost a loved one in pretty awful circumstances here.

Grim for all concerned. 🙁

edlong - Member

I think those bemoaning the potential for curtailed events, or higher costs reflecting higher insurance costs and / or better marshalling need to remember that a family lost a loved one in pretty awful circumstances here.

I don't think anyone's forgetting that. But it was a freak accident- life isn't without risk, and there's lots of risks that could be reduced to zero that we don't, because the impact would be too great. Risk should be mitigated where it can be but there's always a break-even point.

(I suspect the average spectator takes more risks getting on site than they do at trackside tbh)

I don't think anyone's forgetting that. But it was a freak accident-

But it was a freak accident

I obviously don't know the details, but the fact is that in other somewhat comparable sports (rallying, motocross etc) some measures are taken to reduce this risk that don't seem to have been taken here means that in the light of what happened, it's probably entirely reasonable to ask those questions.

If anything good was to come out of it in terms of the empowerment, training, clarification of responsibility or briefing of marshals then, having seen the same kind of evolution in motorsport, I certainly wouldn't think it will have been a bad thing (the case, not the accident which is terrible for all involved).

It's not health and safety gone mad, and it may even be as straightforward as some guidelines on the flyer on where to stand and where not to stand.

A few thoughts (bearing in mind this a case currently ongoing):

HSE is generally responsible for the Heath and Safety [u]at Work[/u] Act.
IANAL, but is a downhill race a work situation and if not, what is the applicable legislation? I assume the actual charge sheet will say, but I haven't found anything online.

The general principle of UK H&S is that risk must reduced so far as reasonably practicable. If if was, and something goes wrong, that's when it becomes a freak accident. If somebody didn't follow good practice, and doing so would avoided the harm, that's when there may be an offence.

The liability of an untrained marshal is likely to be low. In the Lyme Bay kayak tragedy, the unqualified instructors in charge of the teenagers who died weren't prosecuted; it was the Manager/Owner who put them in that position who was convicted.

The marshall briefing should encourage the marshalls to report in these things from the field.

Yet to see an ENDURO with enough marshal coverage to allow that to be effective

The freak accident thing is interesting, it's definitely not the first time a bike has flown into the crowd. The only freak bit is where the death is involved

HSE is generally responsible for the Heath and Safety at Work Act.
IANAL, but was this a work situation and if not, what is the applicable legislation? I assume the actual charge sheet will say, but I haven't found anything online.

Starting here

BRITISHCYCLING.ORG.UK "https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/zuvvi/media/bc_files/rulebook/2017/C8_-_Mountain_Bike_Specific_Regulations.pdf"

P131 - same as the UCI one above
and much more, there are rules on closures, marking etc. just because people are not getting paid (many will be from medics to marshalls and timers) does not make it exempt.
It should certainly never make people exempt from following process and best practice.

HSE is generally responsible for the Heath and Safety at Work Act.
IANAL, but is a downhill race a work situation and if not, what is the applicable legislation?

If the event was being run as a commercial enterprise (which I assume is the case if it was paid for) then it is a work situation - the organisers and paid staff were at work. Not sure why this is even a question tbh..

But it was a freak accident- life isn't without risk, and there's lots of risks that could be reduced to zero that we don't, because the impact would be too great.

I dont even think its unforeseen never mind a "freak accident"- I assume freak here means highly unusual circumstances a crash at a Downhill race cannot be classed as that surely. Its practically inevitable.
Perhaps the bike hitting someone is "freak" but again i think its foreseeable all be it quite unlikely. however its also easy to mitigate against

Risk should be mitigated where it can be but there's always a break-even point.

I have not enough details here to decide on this case whether this was done

It's an organised event, it will come under a lot of H&S legislation.
Starting here

It should certainly never make people exempt from following process and best practice.

If the event was being run as a commercial enterprise (which I assume is the case if it was paid for) then it is a work situation - the organisers and paid staff were at work

If you had a rider went down and blocked the course or wasn't in a safe location, you would hold the rest until the course was clear. Why wouldn't you do the same thing if it is a spectator?

That's not what I was implying at all.

If there are people standing at the outer edge of a fast, flat out corner, and you as an 8 stone marshall with a high viz vest on ask them to move, and they refuse, would you red flag it?. You'll be doing a lot of flagging.

Not to mention the amount of photographers lying down at potentially dodgy corners to get their shots, the amount of them in crazy places at Ard rock incredible.

And in response to edlong, I don't think anyone commenting on this doesn't understand the tragedy and horrible loss of this situation.

If there are people standing at the outer edge of a fast, flat out corner, and you as an 8 stone marshall with a high viz vest on ask them to move, and they refuse, would you red flag it?. You'll be doing a lot of flagging.

If there are people standing at the outer edge of a fast, flat out corner, and you as an 8 stone marshall with a high viz vest on ask them to move, and they refuse, would you red flag it?. You'll be doing a lot of flagging.

Maybe the first time you would. I reckon once the new "ground rules" are established and spectators realise that the event will be stopped until they move, the problem will solve itself. It's just about resetting people's expectations.

If the event is stopped due to the odd recalcitrant nobhead that won't move, I suspect the 8 stone marshall will be supported by all the other spectators nearby and that nobhead will move, or be moved.

But it was a freak accident

Good to know that judge and jury are here on STW and who cares about the evidence.

HSE accept that freak accidents happen. They don't always prosecute after they investigate. Risk management doesn't remove risk, it just manages it (duh).

That there is a prosecution suggests that HSE believe it was not a freak accident and that it would have been preventable if reasonable risk mitigation was in place.

If the event is stopped due to the odd recalcitrant nobhead that won't move, I suspect the 8 stone marshall will be supported by all the other spectators nearby and that nobhead will move, or be moved.

There are more well intentioned, well behaved people in the world that some people sometimes think (myself included), take the time to explain to them nicely and cheerfully that it's in everyone's best interest, and things really needn't be all that difficult.

That pic up there^^ with the 1.5m wide "safety area". What happens when a bike flies clean across that, and hits and kills a spectator. On current evidence, we can expect that to occur by around the year 2050.

This is the problem, a total lack of personal responsibility.

Why, would anyone volunteer to be a marshal if this guys gets prosecuted? The risk to reward ratio is then highly skewed and the sport as we know it will disappear.

H&S is vital where risk probabilities and consequence combine to a significant outcome. That's the bit everyone misses. You do a risk assessment, multiply the chance of the event happening by the severity of the results should it happen.

What H&S seem to do now, based on ridiculous knee jerk reaction, is attempt to prevent ANYONE EVER dying or being injured, which is not only impossible, but counter-productive.

So, lets balance risk with reward. Lets take into account the hundreds of thousands of people who have had a great deal of fun from MTB events over the last 40 years, and not throw the whole thing away because of one extremely unlucky inccident.

(btw, the HSE SHOULD investigate, report and suggest, or even mandate, changes to the way an event is run IN FUTURE when those changes are demonstrably capable of bringing a MEANINGFUL REDUCTION IN RISK. However, imo, simply prosecuting someone for being human achieves precisely nothing other than potentially killing the very sport itself)

If there are people standing at the outer edge of a fast, flat out corner, and you as an 8 stone marshall with a high viz vest on ask them to move, and they refuse, would you red flag it?. You'll be doing a lot of flagging.

Should be covered in a briefing but sign it first. Then flag it, then call the boss. There should be process and procedure.

should be raised in risk assessment, and signed by race organisers when setting the course up. covered in marshal briefing with specific mention to anything deemed higher risk. red flagged for any and all refusals to move or ignore signage.

grumpysculler - Member

Good to know that judge and jury are here on STW and who cares about the evidence.

Oh come on, what is the likelihood of a person at trackside being struck by a bike and killed? You need to be in the wrong place at the wrong time just to get hit never mind seriously injured. It's reasonably likely that a crash could lead to injury but the sheer scarcity of incidents demonstrates how freakish a tragic outcome like this is- this isn't rallying, there's not a ton of car going at 100mph with thick crowds of people lining the course.

Why, would anyone volunteer to be a marshal if this guys gets prosecuted? The risk to reward ratio is then highly skewed and the sport as we know it will disappear.

This is a big worry for me. It is already hard enough to get people to marshal at the best of times.

Also I've done 24 hour races (maybe not DH races admittedly) where marshals have been kids.

I notices hels hasn't bothered to come back and justify her comments on page 1.

Oh come on, what is the likelihood of a person at trackside being struck by a bike and killed? You need to be in the wrong place at the wrong time just to get hit never mind seriously injured.

I notices hels hasn't bothered to come back and justify her comments on page 1.

The other person is Mike Marsden, the race organiser, and person behind Borderline Events.

When news came that there had been a death at a DH event, absolutely nobody in the field of DH racing was surprised whose event it was.

She never replied to this, just some irrelevant CV, self promotion guff.

Would trained marshalls hired at great expense have avoided this tragic accident? No.

It is possible* that a marshall given a decent briefing (without additional expense) and empowered to act might have avoided this tragic event.

*obviously do not know the detail of the specific incident

A lot comes down to marshall and rider briefings

I'd echo this, it's been a while since I did a DH race, but marshalls seemed often to be "volunteers" siblings or WAGs dragged along by a participant, given a flag/hi-viz/whistle and left to it, I'm sure this wasn't universal but I saw enough of it.

Full briefings for all involved, and I would go further: BC as the governing body have a duty to provide better training to organisers, I did a BC course some time back for organising kids cycling and events (through my kids school) the content was interesting and it did include the basics of risk assessment, but I'm not sure the trainers were all that sold on risk assessments, it was just something they had to cover...

We did include "course assessment" and while hazards to riders were bought up, I'm not sure if we discussed spectator risks or appropriate placement/protective measures...

I think it will have to (probably already does now) form part of the commissar/lead marshall walkdown, irrespective of this cases findings.

And going further, once marshalls and riders are briefed what about communicating safety information directly to spectators? Put Information boards up, flyers and website/email communications even? telling them where to stand (or not) and to obey marshall's instructions... Everything should be considered...

The case has now been transfered to the Crown Court,late Septemebr, as its a very complicated case say both defence and prosecution.

I think my initial posting stands on it's own merit, I am not sure why it is being suggested that I need to justify it to anybody. My remarks were made without prejudice to any of the parties involved, and I am definitely not going to go into any specifics, given that it is an ongoing court action.

I will leave the internet lawyering to others !

Ah right, so you post casting aspersions about Mike, then fail to back them up? Speaks volumes about you.