[Closed] Inquest into Mark Kingston's death at Swinley trails held

RIP indeed but no mention of said tree. I think for most of the last 5 mountain bike rides I have done there have been tree's close to all sides of the trail. Not sure why you want them removed.

Terrible event and my thoughts still go out to the family

However, i'm pleased that there is no input from the H&S Executive.

Do you really want rules to be set out in trail centres around the country laying down strict guidelines on how close trees can be to trails??

The Crown Estate has enough issues with people trying to sue them over crashes which people have of their own accord - any official guidelines would help generate more of a blame & litigation culture which would completely sanitise and throttle our sport.

Tragic incident. But what we do carries a risk. It's partly why we do it. You shouldn't base "rules" on one tragic event.

Is the tree in middle of the trail? If not, it is rider error, not the fault of the tree. Pure and simple.

As above, the last thing that should happen is the HSE getting involved: we'd have flat, featureless trails made out of bark chippings.

I feel for Mark and his family, I really do, but it has to be accepted this was a horrible, freak accident, caused by rider error. I've ridden around Swinley many times and never given the trees a second thought, as they are off the trail, just like thousands of trails around the World.

Inquests like these could result in the death of the sport in this country if we're not careful.

RIP Mark.

Its terrible that anyone should die in the process of doing something they love, but its a good way to go.

With regards to the tree, sorry, but they were there before the trails. If I cock up on one of my local singletrack blasts and smack into a tree Im not going to demand that the FC / landowner get it cut down immediately. I'll dust myself off, hope the bike is ok and carry on with my ride.
Doing anything involves risks, mountainbiking possibly more than other leisure activities. You cant avoid all risks and you cant expect others to remove them for you.
Ride within your limits.

I'll dust myself off, hope the bike is ok and carry on with my ride.

you hope...

Agreed that it's a tragic accident, and my thoughts are with his family and friends, but it's madness to want tree placement considered.

Thanks for the post. RIP.

Thanks for the update RipMK. As MKs riding buddy this must be a tough thing to deal with. I suppose there is some comfort from the inquest that there was nothing untoward contributing to this and it was, sadly a freak accident. Hope this helps you, and MKs familly move on.

As others said. If you were to do a risk assessment of a mountainbike route using the same criteria you'd apply to a workplace it would always come out as unsafe.

The best you can do is make it as safe as reasnobly practical, which ultimately means doing all the easy/cheap things like building a trail to a grading system and removing the most dangerous bits. It would lie outside the bounds of reasnoble to remove any trees close to the trail in a forest. And on that trail in particular the trail is really wide (which contributes to its speed) and most people on this foum will have crashed at some point at similar speeds and been flung 2,3,4m off the trail, which just shows how unlucky Mark was. But that can't be a reason to remove every tree within 5m on the trail and replace with a soft smooth landing.

The HSE covers Health & Safety at work, not leisure activities, so irrelevant in this instance. The Coroner has authority to instigate further investigation or remedial work at his/her discretion.

Accidents happen. Stay safe!

The trees around that trail look pretty mature. Likely due for harvesting soon...

Yes, apparently there is due to be massive amounts of harvesting in the next year at Swinley. Can't remember the details but it will be a significant amount.

remove every tree within 5m on the trail and replace with a soft smooth landing.

and if you did that, people would just go faster and hurt themselves in a different way when it went wrong.

Road racing is a lot more dangerous than MotoGP mostly because there is no room to crash without smacking something and stopping instantly.

There is no reason why forestry commission trails should have trees or trees without impact pads right next to the trail. They cut the things down all the time anyway.

The trail centres aren't going to be less fun because there are less trees in daft places and crash pads on the ones that are. Keeping trees right next to the trail is about profits, I'm quite happy to ride trails with lots of trees but I'd also much rather just pay more for parking and hear/see less serious injuries involving them.

There is no reason why forestry commission trails should have trees or trees without impact pads right next to the trail. They cut the things down all the time anyway.

The trail centres aren't going to be less fun because there are less trees in daft places and crash pads on the ones that are.

Yes, there are various reasons. One is cost, another is a potential increase in liability. An overriding one, as evidenced by the majority on this thread, is that it is not necessary or wanted by mountain bikers.

I for one, cite riding in woods as one of the reasons I ride. The idea of having to ride in a tree-felled moonscape, ala Afan, with no variety except sun bleached grey brash and stumps, because some chump wants to remove 'unacceptable risk' fills me with horror.

If something has to be done, rather than remove the tree, perhaps speed control via trail design should be looked at, just like it is pretty much everywhere else? Of course, that's harder to do than just buzzing down some trees with a chain saw.

I'm sorry that someone I've never met died out riding. I hope he was having a good day otherwise.

Cutting down trees in a line may make the remaining trees more exposed to the wind, more likely to lose branches or fall over. That's not a good idea.

Tarmac the lot if you like, it's for your own safety, but I shan't go there. Personaly, if I happen to expire by smacking into a tree, I don't want the tree blamed.

Firstly, I am sure that Marks death is a tragedy for his family and friends - as is death for most when it happens at a relatively young age and unexpectedly.

Secondly, the quote below from Tom_W1987 is just all sorts of wrong. Mountain biking is not meant to be inherently safe. It is an activity with a level of risk. Sometimes that risk has consequences. This risk exists on trail centre trails as much as anywhere else with similar geography, flora etc... We should be looking to manage our own risk levels to a degree we are comfortable with - not expecting others to do this for us, not abdicating our own responsibility.

Tom_W1987 - Member
Road racing is a lot more dangerous than MotoGP mostly because there is no room to crash without smacking something and stopping instantly.
There is no reason why forestry commission trails should have trees or trees without impact pads right next to the trail. They cut the things down all the time anyway.
The trail centres aren't going to be less fun because there are less trees in daft places and crash pads on the ones that are. Keeping trees right next to the trail is about profits, I'm quite happy to ride trails with lots of trees but I'd also much rather just pay more for parking and hear/see less serious injuries involving them.

Im pretty sure that Tom_W1987 is taking the mick. If he's not, well.....

Very sad accident & I tip my head every time I go past the spot.

Remove the tree though? If you start doing that where does it end?

RIP Mark, may you never flat again.

Accidents happen, it you can't accept that, stay indoors, in bed, asleep, indefinitely.

Im pretty sure that Tom_W1987 is taking the mick. If he's not, well.....

I think he's sulking because he crashed on some wet roots because his tyres didn't have magic wet root grip 🙂

Health and Safety Executive, which I thought might have been involved to look at the accident scene to question trail safety. I think there is a tree that is too close to the outside of the corner exit that should be removed to reduce the risk of a similar accident happening again.

Yeah don't come to Scottish trails,you won't like them 😉

removing trees or adding padding to trees at somewhere like Swinley would not be practical?

I remember the huge cost to cover the old Esher Shore bike park in high density vinyl pads where our risk assessment felt that the trees were a major risk if falling from a trail - we were not allowed to remove trees due to the site's status as a protected woodland.

[img] [/img]

I'd hate to think of the cost to do a trail centre!

esher shore - Member
we were not allowed to remove trees due to the site's status as a protected woodland.

Weren't you kicked out so they could demolish that woodland to build on, or is it still there?

Sad it went as never got a chance to ride that stuff.

My condolences to Mark's family. This is was a tragic accident and, likewise, I also think of Mark - a fellow MTBer I'd never met, every time I ride past that spot. I'm sure he was enjoying himself while out riding there and I take comfort in that.

I think some on this thread might do well to debate things respectfully. This is a public space.

My feeling on riding through this section a number of times since - is that this was a very unlucky accident, but it may have something to do with a slight off-camber section I now note around the left-hand turn at the top. That is all.

It's just one of those weird things. Removing trees was/is not going to help much.

Reading this earlier, think it came from the Craik forest thread(?)
http://www.ornjournals.org.uk/stories/managing-off-road-cycling-is-a-risky-business-or-is-it/

The Catch22 question being:

"Do i want to ride exciting, but potentially dangerous trails, that could lead to my death, or sanitised dull trails, the riding of which would just make me wish i were (dead)..... ??

❓

It's a very sad accident but it's just that an accident. I can't see the need to sanitise the trails , tight twisty single track is what it's all about for me and many others. Maybe if you never get out in the real world you have a differnt outlook ?

[img] [/img]

That looks like a children's playground not any kind of bike trail. I'd go of my way to avoid riding it.

This was undoubtedly a tragic accident but events like this are surprisingly, thankfully, very rare considering what we do for fun.

If I had a sudden irrational fear of trees I'd stick to the skatepark. I like my mountain biking steep and sketchy. Without the risk and sense of danger and achievement that comes with it you might as well be riding an X-box.

@sharkattack - do a Google Image search on "esher shore". It was way more than the bit in the photo, but I assume that was the beginner stuff. Point that was being made though is the H&S/insurance insistence of daft padding where it is not required.

Thing is you can trip over on the street walking and hit your head, resulting in a bleed on the brain and death. What then? Soft impact surfaces on the pavements? Well, a bit like all children's playgrounds are now no fun or risk. In my day it was concrete surface to land on. Knocked some sense into some kids 😀

"Do i want to ride exciting, but potentially dangerous trails, that could lead to my death, or sanitised dull trails, the riding of which would just make me wish i were (dead)..... ??

This is like stating that riding Laguna Seca is boring because it has run offs as opposed to quaint Isle of Man cottages to hit.

I'm not saying turn all trail centers into Afan, I'm just saying that I've seen some pretty ****ing stupid things that were blatantly obvious at many trail centers and downhill tracks. I don't think we should have a legalized culture of safety and all the litigation that does with it - I do think that the community should spend a little more time thinking about it informally among themselves.

hing is you can trip over on the street walking and hit your head, resulting in a bleed on the brain and death. What then? Soft impact surfaces on the pavements? Well, a bit like all children's playgrounds are now no fun or risk. In my day it was concrete surface to land on. Knocked some sense into some kids

Yeah, tell you what....lets go back to the dark years of F1....for the lolz....things are only fun when people die.

How many of you wear helmets?

I wear a helmet,knee pads and do drops that could break my neck. Controlled risk which some day might go wrong. If there is zero risk, zero fun.

I'm not saying turn all trail centers into Afan, I'm just saying that I've seen some pretty **** stupid things that were blatantly obvious at many trail centers and downhill tracks. I don't think we should have a legalized culture of safety and all the litigation that does with it - I do think that the community should spend a little more time thinking about it informally among themselves.

This does somewhat change the original message Tom, but now I think I find what you are saying more reasonable.

I'm an old guy. I was going to go with some youngsters (40 and 50 yr olds) for a 3 day weekend round Snowdonia. Turns out it's going to be windy tomorrow so I'm doing a day windsurfing off the welsh coast then a lot of drinking then 2 days biking.
Somebody might die.
Risks known in advance.

Risk mitigation's a big part of what we do when digging with the FC. Not avoidance; even if we could avoid all risk we wouldn't. But reducing unneccesary risk. Like, if you have a jump or drop, you check out the fall zone and make sure there's nothing in there that'll make a crash worse than it has to be- rocks, stumps etc. Basically the same ideas as runoff. Clear sightlines so that people know where they're going, clear trail verges etc.

And that does take into account trees too- not that we cut healthy trees down if it's at all avoidable (if nothing else, a tree is less dangerous than a stump, and extracting stumps is a pain in the arse). Rather, we place the track to minimise the risk in the first place. A high speed straight won't usually have a big tree right at the end of it,so that if you go straight on, you don't just get planked. And we brash (debranch) a broad section around the trail, and smooth the branch scar to remove "death spikes" so that if you do steam into a tree you're less likely to get stabbed, or to lose an eye.

Without knowing the corner I wouldn't want to comment on specifics but clearing the entire radius of a corner exit of trees is a big area- not something we'd consider. Generally we'd avoid a tree in the main exit- ie, straight on. And we'd try and avoid them in the "near miss" of running wide out the corner, to avoid "running wide" becoming "smack bar on tree, crash"

But exit speeds if you make the corner (or nearly) are usually smaller and you're more in control of your options, so it's a lower concern. And trees can help define a corner, helping keep people on track.

The most noticable difference between a well made trail and a shonky one in forest is generally about drainage and branches tbh. That, and hazards in obvious fall zones- especially fallen trees dragged to the outside of corners, rocks cast off the trail into downslopes

All, thanks for your thoughts and good wishes.

Tom_w1987: I think you understand.
Northwood:

And we'd try and avoid them in the "near miss" of running wide out the corner, to avoid "running wide" becoming "smack bar on tree, crash"

This is exactly what this tree is, and that is proved by Mark's tragic demise. I simply don't want anyone else to have to go through the pain and loss that Mark's family and friends have endured, when it could be avoided, a lesson could be learnt and we could at least know that something positive could come out of it - Nobody should be able to die there again.

I know you can't look at every tree and take out the ones that look like they might be a problem - that would be impractical. However, is it too much to consider doing something about the one that we know for certain was involved in someone's death? Just to make sure another freak accident doesn't happen again? Perhaps I am too involved to think clearly. It seems logical to me to try to learn from accidents in order to prevent the same mistakes. Surely that is our moral duty?

Nobody should be able to die there again.

Perhaps I am too involved to think clearly. It seems logical to me to try to learn from accidents in order to prevent the same mistakes. Surely that is our moral duty?

I talked to some people about pads on tree's etc. the whole risk assessment in mitigation side. You remove this one tree (and the stump)this says that you have deemed the tree to be too great a risk, next year somebody hits another tree and you then face charges that you didn't remove that on as it was dangerous, if you knew the first one was why didn't you act on all of them.

My thought may be different having raced DH in Shropshire and other spots where you spend your time aiming directly at tree's then catching the rut/edge to turn.

Just to make sure another freak accident doesn't happen again?

It's not that people are designing dangerous tracks but that riding carries risk.

Although I didn't know Mark, having hit something stationary (side of a car) at speed and coming off rather badly, I think about him and what might have been for me rather often. It put my crash into a context I had not previously considered (although everyone around me had!)

Accidents happen to real people. People we know and people we don't know. My family has, like plenty of others, been touched with several tragedies. We try and mitigate risk to a reasonable degree, but sometimes bad stuff happens. Deaths from riding off road are rare, but they bring it home when they do happen.

RIP Mark.

Mikewsmith, I understand your response, and it is a common view obviously. We can't make the world totally safe. But also, we do have airbags on steering wheels (despite the cost) and not a spike instead (which would be a better deterrent). Northwood said trail designers / builders remove low branches that could blind someone, so they see a risk and they do something about it. But in this case a risk of people dying has been clearly shown to exist, yet no-one seems willing to consider doing anything about it. It just doesn't compute. To use another analogy: if there is someone that has been proven to be a danger to your kids, they are taken away - you wouldn't argue to leave them there and parade your kids past them everyday because it makes life "exciting" would you? Just because we do a risky sport/pastime, that does mean we should ignore unacceptable risks. After all, most of us do wear pads and helmets. From the sounds of some of the comments above you should take those off as it would make riding that bit more exciting. I for one ride for the speed and flow downhill after the technical and physical challenge of climbing uphill. Now, I get less of that speed/flow reward as I see far more risk from certain trees which I was ignorant of their risk before Mark's misfortune opened my eyes. I no longer get pleasure from the runs where such risks are present. It is a fine balance and you can't please all of the people all of the time. The sad thing is I struggle to get the enthusiasm to ride there (or anywhere) anymore now that my buddy has gone. I don't blame him for that, just myself.

Tragic though it is, one incident doesn't make good statistics.

If everyone who went down the trial smacked into a particular tree, there might be a case for moving the trail.

Not cutting the tree, that would be madness. The tree was there before the trail was put near it.

But most people manage to ride the trail without incident. Accidents will still happen, sad, but true.

Wouldn't it be easier to remodel the corner?

Any activity can cause injury. If you are worried that a activity may cause you injury dont do it. If you do decide to do it, then embrace the the dangers as part of the whole experience.

If we take ripmk's logic and apply it to roads, there would be constant roadworks remodelling junctions and bends all year round to make them safer.
People make errors of judgement when driving (or riding etc) and a small minority pay the ultimate price for their error.
You cant go remodelling the world to mitigate every possible risk from an infinite number of possible error scenarios.
Its one tree which happened to cause one death due to pilot error. Please don't decide for the rest of us what is best for us based on an emotional knee jerk reaction.