http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/race-organisers-due-court-over-13539280

Wonder how this is going to pan out, its going to be stressful for any volunteer marshal or race organiser at any sort of race in the near future.

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.

It certainly was at Pearce last time I was there

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.