PFD report

Simon Timothy Harding · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 5 Feb 2025•Somerset

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
7

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
1

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 raised7

  1. Insufficient and ineffective track steward coverage for immediate assistance
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide adequate supervision and emergency assistance coverage at recreational activity venues
  2. Absence of safety briefings for riders before track use
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable safety arrangements for organised motorsport events
  3. Failure to control track access and maximum rider numbers
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable safety arrangements for organised motorsport events
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.5

  1. Position

    Responsibility for concerns about a racetrack bike crash lies with DCMS rather than the Department for Transport.

    Stated by Department for TransportRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

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

Insufficient and ineffective track steward coverage for immediate assistance

Wider context from the report

“(a) There did not appear to be any method meaningful of rider registration before participants could access the Track. The only requirement placed on riders was provide their name and phone number before accessing the track. They were not required to provide details of a Next of Kin and/or medical information to assist paramedics or other professionals in safely and accurately treating them should they be unconscious and unable to communication and give this information for themselves. There appeared to be an assumption that those accompanying the rider on the day would know this information. (b) There did not appear to be any kind of safety briefing for the riders before using the Track. (c) The Track itself was largely unregulated. There was one operative ‘Marshall’ at site who was not wearing the high-vis clothing provided and remained confident that he could be clearly identified within the 4 acre site due to carrying a clip-board. At the time of the incident the steward was in the on-site burger van. Despite having a maximum number of riders at any one time, this was not checked or regulated due to the uncontrolled nature of Track access and absence of effective stewards. Adult riders of all skill sets with all speeds of bike could ride together. There was no attempt to segregate riders based on their skill, ability or power of their bike. (d) Following on from the above point, there was one Marshall to cover the entire Track site which limited the ability to provide immediate and effective assistance in the event of an incident or accident at or on the Track. (e) Staff at the venue (on the day of the incident, the one Marshall) had no first aid training. By pure chance, two spectators at the Track on the day were medically qualified professionals and coordinated the CPR between themselves until paramedics arrived. Whilst I am satisfied on the evidence that the layout and organisation of the Track did not, in and of itself, contribute to Simon’s death, the areas of concern highlighted above do, in my opinion, create an enhanced and unmitigated risk that death may occur, over and above the usual risk associated with this type of recreational activity. It was highlighted during the Inquest that there is an absence of mandatory regulation and implementation of minimum standards that moto-cross venues must confirm to. Whilst various organisations exist that seek to promote and raise minimum standards for such venues, membership of these organisations and compliance to any standards is entirely optional and at the discretion of the venue operator. The owners and operators of the Track appears to be entirely unaware of any such organisations of Minimum Standards documents. I am concerned that without minimum standards for safety and risk management, there is a risk of future deaths. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide adequate supervision and emergency assistance coverage at recreational activity venues.

Open source report

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

Absence of safety briefings for riders before track use

Wider context from the report

“(a) There did not appear to be any method meaningful of rider registration before participants could access the Track. The only requirement placed on riders was provide their name and phone number before accessing the track. They were not required to provide details of a Next of Kin and/or medical information to assist paramedics or other professionals in safely and accurately treating them should they be unconscious and unable to communication and give this information for themselves. There appeared to be an assumption that those accompanying the rider on the day would know this information. (b) There did not appear to be any kind of safety briefing for the riders before using the Track. (c) The Track itself was largely unregulated. There was one operative ‘Marshall’ at site who was not wearing the high-vis clothing provided and remained confident that he could be clearly identified within the 4 acre site due to carrying a clip-board. At the time of the incident the steward was in the on-site burger van. Despite having a maximum number of riders at any one time, this was not checked or regulated due to the uncontrolled nature of Track access and absence of effective stewards. Adult riders of all skill sets with all speeds of bike could ride together. There was no attempt to segregate riders based on their skill, ability or power of their bike. (d) Following on from the above point, there was one Marshall to cover the entire Track site which limited the ability to provide immediate and effective assistance in the event of an incident or accident at or on the Track. (e) Staff at the venue (on the day of the incident, the one Marshall) had no first aid training. By pure chance, two spectators at the Track on the day were medically qualified professionals and coordinated the CPR between themselves until paramedics arrived. Whilst I am satisfied on the evidence that the layout and organisation of the Track did not, in and of itself, contribute to Simon’s death, the areas of concern highlighted above do, in my opinion, create an enhanced and unmitigated risk that death may occur, over and above the usual risk associated with this type of recreational activity. It was highlighted during the Inquest that there is an absence of mandatory regulation and implementation of minimum standards that moto-cross venues must confirm to. Whilst various organisations exist that seek to promote and raise minimum standards for such venues, membership of these organisations and compliance to any standards is entirely optional and at the discretion of the venue operator. The owners and operators of the Track appears to be entirely unaware of any such organisations of Minimum Standards documents. I am concerned that without minimum standards for safety and risk management, there is a risk of future deaths. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable safety arrangements for organised motorsport events.

Open source report

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

Failure to control track access and maximum rider numbers

Wider context from the report

“(a) There did not appear to be any method meaningful of rider registration before participants could access the Track. The only requirement placed on riders was provide their name and phone number before accessing the track. They were not required to provide details of a Next of Kin and/or medical information to assist paramedics or other professionals in safely and accurately treating them should they be unconscious and unable to communication and give this information for themselves. There appeared to be an assumption that those accompanying the rider on the day would know this information. (b) There did not appear to be any kind of safety briefing for the riders before using the Track. (c) The Track itself was largely unregulated. There was one operative ‘Marshall’ at site who was not wearing the high-vis clothing provided and remained confident that he could be clearly identified within the 4 acre site due to carrying a clip-board. At the time of the incident the steward was in the on-site burger van. Despite having a maximum number of riders at any one time, this was not checked or regulated due to the uncontrolled nature of Track access and absence of effective stewards. Adult riders of all skill sets with all speeds of bike could ride together. There was no attempt to segregate riders based on their skill, ability or power of their bike. (d) Following on from the above point, there was one Marshall to cover the entire Track site which limited the ability to provide immediate and effective assistance in the event of an incident or accident at or on the Track. (e) Staff at the venue (on the day of the incident, the one Marshall) had no first aid training. By pure chance, two spectators at the Track on the day were medically qualified professionals and coordinated the CPR between themselves until paramedics arrived. Whilst I am satisfied on the evidence that the layout and organisation of the Track did not, in and of itself, contribute to Simon’s death, the areas of concern highlighted above do, in my opinion, create an enhanced and unmitigated risk that death may occur, over and above the usual risk associated with this type of recreational activity. It was highlighted during the Inquest that there is an absence of mandatory regulation and implementation of minimum standards that moto-cross venues must confirm to. Whilst various organisations exist that seek to promote and raise minimum standards for such venues, membership of these organisations and compliance to any standards is entirely optional and at the discretion of the venue operator. The owners and operators of the Track appears to be entirely unaware of any such organisations of Minimum Standards documents. I am concerned that without minimum standards for safety and risk management, there is a risk of future deaths. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable safety arrangements for organised motorsport events.

Open source report

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

Failure to segregate riders by skill, ability and bike power

Wider context from the report

“(a) There did not appear to be any method meaningful of rider registration before participants could access the Track. The only requirement placed on riders was provide their name and phone number before accessing the track. They were not required to provide details of a Next of Kin and/or medical information to assist paramedics or other professionals in safely and accurately treating them should they be unconscious and unable to communication and give this information for themselves. There appeared to be an assumption that those accompanying the rider on the day would know this information. (b) There did not appear to be any kind of safety briefing for the riders before using the Track. (c) The Track itself was largely unregulated. There was one operative ‘Marshall’ at site who was not wearing the high-vis clothing provided and remained confident that he could be clearly identified within the 4 acre site due to carrying a clip-board. At the time of the incident the steward was in the on-site burger van. Despite having a maximum number of riders at any one time, this was not checked or regulated due to the uncontrolled nature of Track access and absence of effective stewards. Adult riders of all skill sets with all speeds of bike could ride together. There was no attempt to segregate riders based on their skill, ability or power of their bike. (d) Following on from the above point, there was one Marshall to cover the entire Track site which limited the ability to provide immediate and effective assistance in the event of an incident or accident at or on the Track. (e) Staff at the venue (on the day of the incident, the one Marshall) had no first aid training. By pure chance, two spectators at the Track on the day were medically qualified professionals and coordinated the CPR between themselves until paramedics arrived. Whilst I am satisfied on the evidence that the layout and organisation of the Track did not, in and of itself, contribute to Simon’s death, the areas of concern highlighted above do, in my opinion, create an enhanced and unmitigated risk that death may occur, over and above the usual risk associated with this type of recreational activity. It was highlighted during the Inquest that there is an absence of mandatory regulation and implementation of minimum standards that moto-cross venues must confirm to. Whilst various organisations exist that seek to promote and raise minimum standards for such venues, membership of these organisations and compliance to any standards is entirely optional and at the discretion of the venue operator. The owners and operators of the Track appears to be entirely unaware of any such organisations of Minimum Standards documents. I am concerned that without minimum standards for safety and risk management, there is a risk of future deaths. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable safety arrangements for organised motorsport events.

Open source report

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

Failure to obtain riders’ next-of-kin and medical information before track access

Wider context from the report

“(a) There did not appear to be any method meaningful of rider registration before participants could access the Track. The only requirement placed on riders was provide their name and phone number before accessing the track. They were not required to provide details of a Next of Kin and/or medical information to assist paramedics or other professionals in safely and accurately treating them should they be unconscious and unable to communication and give this information for themselves. There appeared to be an assumption that those accompanying the rider on the day would know this information. (b) There did not appear to be any kind of safety briefing for the riders before using the Track. (c) The Track itself was largely unregulated. There was one operative ‘Marshall’ at site who was not wearing the high-vis clothing provided and remained confident that he could be clearly identified within the 4 acre site due to carrying a clip-board. At the time of the incident the steward was in the on-site burger van. Despite having a maximum number of riders at any one time, this was not checked or regulated due to the uncontrolled nature of Track access and absence of effective stewards. Adult riders of all skill sets with all speeds of bike could ride together. There was no attempt to segregate riders based on their skill, ability or power of their bike. (d) Following on from the above point, there was one Marshall to cover the entire Track site which limited the ability to provide immediate and effective assistance in the event of an incident or accident at or on the Track. (e) Staff at the venue (on the day of the incident, the one Marshall) had no first aid training. By pure chance, two spectators at the Track on the day were medically qualified professionals and coordinated the CPR between themselves until paramedics arrived. Whilst I am satisfied on the evidence that the layout and organisation of the Track did not, in and of itself, contribute to Simon’s death, the areas of concern highlighted above do, in my opinion, create an enhanced and unmitigated risk that death may occur, over and above the usual risk associated with this type of recreational activity. It was highlighted during the Inquest that there is an absence of mandatory regulation and implementation of minimum standards that moto-cross venues must confirm to. Whilst various organisations exist that seek to promote and raise minimum standards for such venues, membership of these organisations and compliance to any standards is entirely optional and at the discretion of the venue operator. The owners and operators of the Track appears to be entirely unaware of any such organisations of Minimum Standards documents. I am concerned that without minimum standards for safety and risk management, there is a risk of future deaths. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable safety arrangements for organised motorsport events.

Open source report

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 first-aid training for venue staff

Wider context from the report

“(a) There did not appear to be any method meaningful of rider registration before participants could access the Track. The only requirement placed on riders was provide their name and phone number before accessing the track. They were not required to provide details of a Next of Kin and/or medical information to assist paramedics or other professionals in safely and accurately treating them should they be unconscious and unable to communication and give this information for themselves. There appeared to be an assumption that those accompanying the rider on the day would know this information. (b) There did not appear to be any kind of safety briefing for the riders before using the Track. (c) The Track itself was largely unregulated. There was one operative ‘Marshall’ at site who was not wearing the high-vis clothing provided and remained confident that he could be clearly identified within the 4 acre site due to carrying a clip-board. At the time of the incident the steward was in the on-site burger van. Despite having a maximum number of riders at any one time, this was not checked or regulated due to the uncontrolled nature of Track access and absence of effective stewards. Adult riders of all skill sets with all speeds of bike could ride together. There was no attempt to segregate riders based on their skill, ability or power of their bike. (d) Following on from the above point, there was one Marshall to cover the entire Track site which limited the ability to provide immediate and effective assistance in the event of an incident or accident at or on the Track. (e) Staff at the venue (on the day of the incident, the one Marshall) had no first aid training. By pure chance, two spectators at the Track on the day were medically qualified professionals and coordinated the CPR between themselves until paramedics arrived. Whilst I am satisfied on the evidence that the layout and organisation of the Track did not, in and of itself, contribute to Simon’s death, the areas of concern highlighted above do, in my opinion, create an enhanced and unmitigated risk that death may occur, over and above the usual risk associated with this type of recreational activity. It was highlighted during the Inquest that there is an absence of mandatory regulation and implementation of minimum standards that moto-cross venues must confirm to. Whilst various organisations exist that seek to promote and raise minimum standards for such venues, membership of these organisations and compliance to any standards is entirely optional and at the discretion of the venue operator. The owners and operators of the Track appears to be entirely unaware of any such organisations of Minimum Standards documents. I am concerned that without minimum standards for safety and risk management, there is a risk of future deaths. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate staff competence to provide first aid.

Open source report

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

Absence of mandatory minimum safety and risk-management standards for motocross venues

Wider context from the report

“(a) There did not appear to be any method meaningful of rider registration before participants could access the Track. The only requirement placed on riders was provide their name and phone number before accessing the track. They were not required to provide details of a Next of Kin and/or medical information to assist paramedics or other professionals in safely and accurately treating them should they be unconscious and unable to communication and give this information for themselves. There appeared to be an assumption that those accompanying the rider on the day would know this information. (b) There did not appear to be any kind of safety briefing for the riders before using the Track. (c) The Track itself was largely unregulated. There was one operative ‘Marshall’ at site who was not wearing the high-vis clothing provided and remained confident that he could be clearly identified within the 4 acre site due to carrying a clip-board. At the time of the incident the steward was in the on-site burger van. Despite having a maximum number of riders at any one time, this was not checked or regulated due to the uncontrolled nature of Track access and absence of effective stewards. Adult riders of all skill sets with all speeds of bike could ride together. There was no attempt to segregate riders based on their skill, ability or power of their bike. (d) Following on from the above point, there was one Marshall to cover the entire Track site which limited the ability to provide immediate and effective assistance in the event of an incident or accident at or on the Track. (e) Staff at the venue (on the day of the incident, the one Marshall) had no first aid training. By pure chance, two spectators at the Track on the day were medically qualified professionals and coordinated the CPR between themselves until paramedics arrived. Whilst I am satisfied on the evidence that the layout and organisation of the Track did not, in and of itself, contribute to Simon’s death, the areas of concern highlighted above do, in my opinion, create an enhanced and unmitigated risk that death may occur, over and above the usual risk associated with this type of recreational activity. It was highlighted during the Inquest that there is an absence of mandatory regulation and implementation of minimum standards that moto-cross venues must confirm to. Whilst various organisations exist that seek to promote and raise minimum standards for such venues, membership of these organisations and compliance to any standards is entirely optional and at the discretion of the venue operator. The owners and operators of the Track appears to be entirely unaware of any such organisations of Minimum Standards documents. I am concerned that without minimum standards for safety and risk management, there is a risk of future deaths. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate regulatory oversight of organised public events.

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

Responsibility for concerns about a racetrack bike crash lies with DCMS rather than the Department for Transport.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Our officials have advised that the matters of concerns raised would not be appropriate for DfT to respond but is for DCMS, as the bike crash happened on a racetrack and not on the public highway.”

Source location

Response from Department for Transport
Page 1 · response
Published 6 February 2025

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

Current health and safety law does not require trained first-aid staff for participants and spectators, although guidance recommends considering them.

Verbatim wording from the response

“HSE confirms that health and safety law as currently drafted does not place a requirement for trained first aid staff in relation to participants and spectators, though guidance does strongly recommend that such persons are included in any first aid needs assessment (HSG112, paragraph 159).”

Source location

Response from Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Page 2 · response
Published 6 February 2025

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

Practice tracks are not legally required to obtain authorisation to operate under the cited regulations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The ACU is able to authorise motocross events and venues such as practice tracks under the Motor Vehicles (Off Road Events) Regulations 1995, but this is not a requirement for practice tracks to operate. We understand from the ACU that this tragic incident took place at a private motocross practice facility at a venue not known to the ACU, and the event was not regulated or permitted by them or any other authorising body.”

Source location

Response from Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Page 1 · response
Published 6 February 2025

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

Individual motor sport event organisers are responsible for protecting participants’ safety and wellbeing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The safety and wellbeing of everyone taking part in sport is absolutely paramount. There will always be risks associated with participating in motor sports, but it is important that robust measures are in place to reduce the risk of major injuries and health issues. It is the responsibility of individual motor sport event organisers to ensure that they protect the safety and wellbeing of their participants.”

Source location

Response from Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Page 1 · response
Published 6 February 2025

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

Event and venue operators have workplace health and safety duties under HSWA and associated regulations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Regardless of whether an event is regulated or authorised by a governing body, it is important to be clear that health and safety laws apply. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) applies workplace health and safety law in relation to those with duties under the Health and Safety at”

Source location

Response from Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Page 1 · response
Published 6 February 2025

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.1

  1. 1

    Work with Sport England, HSE, ACU and other stakeholders to assess possible actions to improve motocross track safety.

    Stated by Department for Digital, Culture, Media and SportStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 6 February 2025.

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

Work with Sport England, HSE, ACU and other stakeholders to assess possible actions to improve motocross track safety.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In conclusion, I share your concerns about the safety of motocross events held on private facilities without the involvement of an expert organisation such as the governing body. As a result of this tragic case, officials from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will look to work with Sport England, HSE, the ACU and other relevant stakeholders including the Department for Transport to assess what actions may be possible to improve track safety further and help prevent future deaths at motocross activities. We will set out next steps as appropriate as soon as we are able to.”

Source location

Response from Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Page 2 · response
Published 6 February 2025

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