Recipient

MC FederationIncludes reports addressed to a minister or senior office-holder acting for this organisation.

Pin Request correction

First report 20 Jul 2015•Latest report 6 Nov 2015

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Sport governing body. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports
2

Naming this recipient

Published responses
50%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
1

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

50%published responses found
0stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from MC Federation linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Addressed to: Chairman, Motor Cross Federation.

    Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

    AI-generated summary

    Carl Hughes · 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

    On 2 August 2015, Carl Hughes fell from his motorcycle during a novice motocross event and was run over by another competitor, sustaining fatal back fractures. The principal concern was that body protection was not mandatory, and the report states that wearing it might have prevented the fatal injuries.

    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. The report was sent to MC Federation; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of mandatory body protection requirements for motocross competitors

    Wider context from the report

    “That during the course of the Inquest I heard evidence that Motor Cross events of this nature require competitors to wear mandatory protective equipment of helmet, gloves and boots. It was not however mandatory for competitors to wear body protection. I believe that had Carl Hughes been wearing body protection it would have been unlikely that he would have sustained injuries which would have proved to be fatal. ”
    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

    The available information does not establish that body protection would have prevented the injuries sustained or their consequences.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Dealing with the case in point, because the precise mechanism of the accident, the protection being worn by Mr Hughes and the extent of the accidental injury is not known, it is possible that the same injuries could have been sustained had body protection been worn.”

    Source location

    Carl-Hughes-Response
    Page 4 · response
    Published 6 November 2015

    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

    Mandating specific protective items is not practicable because equipment lacks consistent approval standards and requirements could exclude equipment already used voluntarily.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “It would be possible to amend the MCF regulations to mandate the wearing of specific items of body protection but again, it would not be practicable to do so. There are currently no requirements for the very wide range of body protection equipment to be CE or BSI approved and so, for example, to require participants to wear only CE approved equipment would be very limited and may exclude protective equipment currently being used voluntarily by MCF participants.”

    Source location

    Carl-Hughes-Response
    Page 4 · response
    Published 6 November 2015

    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

    A unilateral mandate could drive participants to other or unorganised events, displacing rather than resolving the safety issue.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “If the MCF did mandate the wearing of ‘body protection’, whether generally or specifically, there is the very real risk that those current members and participants will choose not to take part in MCF events. It is anticipated that the requirement to purchase the equipment may be an expense too far for some, or alternatively that it will be seen as unnecessary and some extension of a “Nanny State.””

    Source location

    Carl-Hughes-Response
    Page 4 · response
    Published 6 November 2015

    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

    Mandating body protection generally is not practicable because the term covers a wide range of equipment and is unworkable in regulation.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “It will be recognised that the ACU and other National, established motocross organisations do not mandate the wearing of ‘body protection’ generally, or even specific items under that general heading.”

    Source location

    Carl-Hughes-Response
    Page 4 · response
    Published 6 November 2015

    Open published response

  2. Central Hampshire

    AI-generated summary

    BRADLEY MARK HARRY HOOPER · 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

    Bradley Hooper died after coming off his motorbike during a motocross practice session and being struck by another motorbike at a jump. Concerns included a marshal using a mobile phone and facing away from the riders, and the allocation of an inexperienced 16-year-old marshal to the position.

    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. The report was sent to MC Federation; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to allocate inexperienced and younger marshals to low-risk positions

    Wider context from the report

    “2. The marshall at Point 11 was aged 16 at the time of the incident and had only marshalled on one previous occasion. Although he claimed to have made this known to the Chief Marshall no action was taken to allocate him to a low risk position, notwithstanding the current club marshalling rules of Portsmouth Motocross Club which states that those aged 16-18 should be so allocated. Portsmouth Motocross Club should ensure that marshalls are allocated to positions based on the experience of each individual and that it should review its rules in light of the MCF Code of Practice (once that is updated) and its affiliation to MCF. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to MC Federation; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of appropriate smartphone-use warnings in marshal briefings

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The evidence showed that the marshall at Point 11 had earlier been using his mobile phone to take photographs of passing riders and at the time of the incident was facing in the opposite direction to the direction of travel of the riders, so that he was unaware of Bradley Hooper coming off his machine and did not show a yellow flag until after the fatal collision. The MCF Code of Practice makes no reference to appropriate warnings which should be given to marshalls at briefings about the use of smartphones whilst practices or races are under way. ”
    Open source report
Back to top

Published response patterns

Compared with other recipients in reports included in PFD Monitor

Describes published response evidence, not performance.

Published responses found

50%
50%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
All other recipients
47%25%27%<1%<1%
  • Completed
  • In progress
  • Planned
  • Unclear
  • Partially completed

Statuses reflect what recipients said at the time. PFD Monitor does not verify whether actions happened.

Types of action described in responses

Percentages use all actions described by each group. An action may have more than one type, so percentages do not total 100%.

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026