PFD report

Christopher William Townsend · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 1 Apr 2024•Worcestershire

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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
3

Described in 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.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised2

  1. Lack of a requirement for a recorded event-specific safety plan at National and Club events
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate regulatory oversight of organised public eventsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable safety arrangements for organised motorsport events
  2. Failure of the grass-track event risk assessment process to produce event-specific assessments and meaningful conclusions about risk control
    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.

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.2

  1. Action

    Require a documented Safety Plan for all ACU-permitted events from the start of the 2025 season.

    Stated by Auto Cycle Union LimitedStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 31 May 2024.
  2. Action

    Review grass-track event risk-assessment proformas to address event-specific assessment and input requirements.

    Stated by Auto Cycle Union LimitedStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 31 May 2024.

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 a requirement for a recorded event-specific safety plan at National and Club events

Wider context from the report

“(2) However, in my questions to ████████ he confirmed that there is no requirement for organisers of events held under the ACU Regulations to prepare an event-specific Safety Plan at either National or Club events. There is such a requirement for ACU events held on an international/European permit (paragraph 3.26 National Sporting Code 2023). ████████ confirmed that whilst it is not an ACU requirement to prepare such a plan for Club/National events it is open to organisers to do so. Appendix 3 of the ACU’s publication provides an example of contents list of an event safety plan. (3) Planning for safety at motorsport events to which the public are admitted must be thorough, comprehensive and verifiable by being recorded. This allows organisers to record and disseminate safety arrangements for their events. The risks may differ in scale, but not substantially in nature, as between international and national/club events. (4) In my opinion, in the absence of such methodical planning and recording there is a risk of future deaths arising from the current arrangements for safety planning at ACU track race events. (5) I have carefully considered ████████ evidence as to the reviews that are being undertaken by the ACU of their procedures and guidance. This was provided in his written evidence, his answers in oral evidence and in the letter from him dated 5 April 2024. I have also carefully considered the cogent submissions on behalf of the ACU by ████████ of DWF, in particular as to Chief Coroner’s Guidance Note 5 (November 2020), especially paragraph 7 thereof. Nonetheless, I remain of the opinion that in the absence of a requirement for a recorded safety plan for each event there is a risk that future deaths will occur. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate regulatory oversight of organised public events; 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 of the grass-track event risk assessment process to produce event-specific assessments and meaningful conclusions about risk control

Wider context from the report

“(1) The risk assessment prepared for the grass-track event on 4 June 2024 was a downloaded proforma from the ACU publication “ACU Requirements for Safety Precautions At All Track Race Events Held Under An ACU Permit” (p.19 of 26). This document listed pre-populated control measures to address a list of pre-populated risks. The control measures were ticked “yes” or “no” by the organiser to indicate whether they were in place. The assessment of the level of that risk as high, medium or low was also pre-populated. This did not amount to a process that could produce an event specific risk assessment nor did it encourage organisers to record meaningful conclusions about controlling risk at their event. I was told by ████████ that this was a pro-forma for grass track events and that more complex, event specific risk assessments were produced for other types of event. He also confirmed that the risk assessment pro-forma were under review by the ACU and he produced an example of a potential new pro-forma requiring significantly more individual assessment and input. I accept that the ACU is taking steps to address the inadequacy of the grass track event risk assessment process. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable safety arrangements for organised motorsport events.

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

Require a documented Safety Plan for all ACU-permitted events from the start of the 2025 season.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The ACU's Board of Directors have considered the concerns raised and will ensure that a document entitled Safety Plan is a requirement for all ACU permitted events from the start of the 2025 season. The content of the Safety Plan will continue to be discussed by the relevant people within the ACU to ensure that comprehensive guidance is provided to event organisers in readiness for the 2025 season.”

Source location

Response from Auto Cycle Union
Page 2 · response
Published 31 May 2024

Open published response

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 grass-track event risk-assessment proformas to address event-specific assessment and input requirements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“He also confirmed that the risk assessment pro-forma were under review by the ACU and he produced an example of a potential new pro-forma requiring significantly more individual assessment and input. I accept that the ACU is taking steps to address the inadequacy of the grass track event risk assessment process.”

Source location

Response from Auto Cycle Union
Page 1 · response
Published 31 May 2024

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

    Continue discussing Safety Plan content within the ACU to provide comprehensive guidance for event organisers before the 2025 season.

    Stated by Auto Cycle Union LimitedStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 31 May 2024.

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

Continue discussing Safety Plan content within the ACU to provide comprehensive guidance for event organisers before the 2025 season.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The ACU's Board of Directors have considered the concerns raised and will ensure that a document entitled Safety Plan is a requirement for all ACU permitted events from the start of the 2025 season. The content of the Safety Plan will continue to be discussed by the relevant people within the ACU to ensure that comprehensive guidance is provided to event organisers in readiness for the 2025 season.”

Source location

Response from Auto Cycle Union
Page 2 · response
Published 31 May 2024

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

Official responses located
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026