PFD report

Carl Hughes · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 6 Nov 2015•Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Concerns raised1

  1. Lack of mandatory body protection requirements for motocross competitors
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.4

  1. Position

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

    Stated by MC FederationDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do 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. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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
Back to top

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

Data last updated 7 September 2026