Recurring concern

Unreliable decisions to start, stop or abandon racing

Get email alerts

Request correction

First reported 28 Mar 2019•Latest report 29 Sep 2023

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures in the dedicated race-management process for deciding whether to start, continue, stop or abandon racing, including criteria, risk assessment, weather or track-condition assessment, incident response and related decision guidance.

Not included

Excludes ordinary driving or competitor errors where race-management decisions are not deficient.
Excludes physical track, barrier, equipment or facility hazards unless the assertion specifically concerns the race-management decision to allow, stop or abandon racing.
Excludes generic emergency planning, supervision or communication deficiencies not directly tied to decisions about whether racing should proceed.
Excludes motorsport safety concerns outside decisions to start, continue, stop or abandon racing.

Reports: 2
Individual concerns: 2
Date range: 2019–2023
Stated actions: 1

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

Cowes Week Limited1

Isle of Wight Council1

Isle of Wight NHS Trust1

Motorsport UK Association Limited1

Concerns and responses across reports

Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

29 Sep2023
Derby and Derbyshire
Concerns raised1
1. Insufficient assessment of wet-weather risks when deciding whether to allow racing
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Respondent positions 3
1. Position
  Wet grass cannot accelerate a kart; it may only reduce retardation compared with drier surfaces.
  Stated by Motorsport UK Association LimitedDisputes the concern
1. Position
  Mandatory wet-weather risk assessments by trained, licensed event officials mean no further action is required.
  Stated by Motorsport UK Association LimitedExisting arrangements considered sufficient
2. Position
  Wet grass does not justify abandoning competition, because grass can be wet in varied conditions and wet-weather sport is practicable in the UK.
  Stated by Motorsport UK Association LimitedDisputes the concern
AI-generated summary

John Frederick WRIGLEY · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

John Wrigley died after his kart left the track during a qualifying session on 3 May 2021, crossed wet grass and struck a lorry tyre wall at high speed. The report raised concerns that additional energy-absorbing protection was available but not used, and that insufficient regard was given to wet grass and wet-weather risks when deciding whether racing should proceed.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Insufficient assessment of wet-weather risks when deciding whether to allow racing
Wider context from the report
“2. It had been raining and although water was not pooling on the track (which would have been a visible indicator to consider stopping racing on safety grounds) the grass area adjacent to the track was wet such that when Mr Wrigley left the track and moved onto the grass, the wet grass caused his kart to accelerate and collide with the tyre wall. Insufficient regard was given to the fact that the grass was wet when deciding if competitors should be allowed to use the track. Racer error and an inability to control the kart following such an error and loss of control onto grass was not taken into account when decisions were made regarding the use of the track by competitors. Urgent action is required to review the risk assessment of whether to start or stop a race due to wet weather. ”
Source location
John Frederick WRIGLEY · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Wet grass cannot accelerate a kart; it may only reduce retardation compared with drier surfaces.

Verbatim wording from the response
“11. Regarding HMC’s observations at paragraph 5.2 of the Report, we note HMC’s comments regarding features between the track and barriers, in particular in this case wet grass. We unavoidably but respectfully comment that HMC’s averment that ‘.. wet grass caused his kart to accelerate and collide ...’ is simply, and scientifically wrong. The fact of the grass being wet could not cause the kart to accelerate without additional force being applied to the kart. Its retardation qualities may be reduced compared, for example, to dry grass or some other surface, but it cannot cause objects to accelerate.”

Source location
Response from Motorsport UK Association Limited
Page 3 · response
Published 5 October 2023
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Mandatory wet-weather risk assessments by trained, licensed event officials mean no further action is required.

Verbatim wording from the response
“12. HMC’s comments regarding risk assessment in wet weather is noted, however that is already undertaken by highly trained and licenced officials at each Event as stated in Evidence at the First Hearing. As those assessments are already a mandatory part of Regulated motorsport, no further action is required.”

Source location
Response from Motorsport UK Association Limited
Page 3 · response
Published 5 October 2023
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Wet grass does not justify abandoning competition, because grass can be wet in varied conditions and wet-weather sport is practicable in the UK.

Verbatim wording from the response
“13. Of concern however is the premise of the comment at paragraph 5.2 because it suggests at one possible level that whenever grass is wet competition should be abandoned. However, grass may be ‘wet’ for any number of reasons, even in otherwise dry weather depending on the time of year, including when freshly cut or dewed. At”

Source location
Response from Motorsport UK Association Limited
Page 3 · response
Published 5 October 2023
Open published response
28 Mar2019
Isle of Wight
Concerns raised1
1. Inadequate criteria for abandoning racing during a major incident
This report raised 4 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 1
1. Action
  Review strong-wind and incident race-abandonment criteria, including alternative mainland casualty drop-off points.
  Stated by Cowes Week LimitedStated in progress
AI-generated summary

Wayne Andrew ROGERS · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

Wayne Andrew ROGERS, aged 62, died after being thrown from a racing yacht and dragged through the water when a spinnaker sheet became caught around his ankle during Cowes Week. He was rescued, received CPR, and was pronounced dead at hospital; the medical cause of death was drowning. The report raised concerns about ambulance capacity and emergency response arrangements, safety equipment, race abandonment criteria, and the use of continuous sheets on boats.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Inadequate criteria for abandoning racing during a major incident
Wider context from the report
“6) A review needs to be carried out of the criteria for abandoning racing in the event of a major incident. ”
Source location
Wayne Andrew ROGERS · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 3 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Review strong-wind and incident race-abandonment criteria, including alternative mainland casualty drop-off points.

Verbatim wording from the response
“6) We are reviewing again the criteria for abandoning racing in the case of strong winds and / or an incident. We feel this worked well in 2018 but further work is being undertaken in this regard to ensure that any lessons learned are taken on board. In particular we are looking at alternative drop off points for casualties on the mainland, if that is nearer to an incident location or is an easier location to reach in certain wind conditions. This was not the case in this instance.”

Source location
2019-0105-Response-by-Cowes-Week-Limited
Page 2 · response
Published 9 June 2019
Open published response

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Not included

Reports over time

Concerns raised1

Insufficient assessment of wet-weather risks when deciding whether to allow racing

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.3

Concerns raised1

Inadequate criteria for abandoning racing during a major incident

Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1

Respondent positions 3

Actions described in response 1