PFD report

John Frederick WRIGLEY · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 29 Sep 2023•Derby and Derbyshire

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
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

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.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised2

  1. Failure to adequately assess and provide additional energy-dissipating protection in front of the tyre barrier
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to assess underlying process risks independently of existing controls
  2. Insufficient assessment of wet-weather risks when deciding whether to allow racing
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable decisions to start, stop or abandon racing
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

    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 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

Failure to adequately assess and provide additional energy-dissipating protection in front of the tyre barrier

Wider context from the report

“1. The lorry tyre boundary wall remained in position on impact, moving only a few millimetres backwards; it did not absorb enough energy to slow the velocity of the kart. The lorry tyre barrier did dissipate energy; evidence provided by those investigating the circumstances indicated that the primary function of the tyre barrier is to protect what lies outside the track e.g spectators and to contain the vehicle within the confines of the track. Energy dissipating or impact absorbing protection such as Airfence/Recticel - a closed cell barrier - was available to be placed in front of the tyre barrier but was not utilised ; the view was that shallow angle contact with a closed cell foam barrier would result in ‘pocketing’ i.e. cause injury rather than mitigate a head injury. Super karts are not fitted with safety belts. This aspect, racer error and an inability to control the kart following such an error and loss of control was not taken into account when decisions were made regarding the placement of additional impact absorbing protection. Urgent action is required to review what additional type of energy dissipating or impact absorbing protection (e.g Airfence/Recticel) should be placed in front of the tyre barrier, where and in which circumstances. All risks, no matter how minimal, should be taken into account. Additional protection was available but not used. It may have reduced the potential severity of such an incident and prevented the death of a competitor or racer. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to assess underlying process risks independently of existing controls.

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

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. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable decisions to start, stop or abandon racing.

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 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

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

Existing barrier placement was appropriate, and Recticel-type barriers are unsuitable on straights because of pocketing risks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. All circuits Licenced for Regulated motor sport by the Statutorily recognised authorised bodies - Motorsport UK and the AutoCycle Union (“ACU”) in this case - rigorously apply the application of and requirement for appropriate barriers to be positioned at relevant locations and the types of which depend on the various track features (simply expressed as straights or corners).”

Source location

Response from Motorsport UK Association Limited
Page 2 · response
Published 5 October 2023

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 collaborating with national governing bodies and the HSE on motorsport safety matters through the relevant working group.

    Stated by Motorsport UK Association LimitedStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 5 October 2023.

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 collaborating with national governing bodies and the HSE on motorsport safety matters through the relevant working group.

Verbatim wording from the response

“18. This ASN as a Statutory authority has historically, and continues currently to collaborate nationally with other National Governing Bodies, and with the HSE on all such matters. Our contribution informs both the HSE’s knowledge and published guidance including HSG112 and the deployment of suitably installed and appropriate barriers as stated above, and is part of a working group in relation to such matters.”

Source location

Response from Motorsport UK Association Limited
Page 4 · response
Published 5 October 2023

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
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026