2000 Goodwood FoS Inquest Verdict

[Steve Tarrant]

Now back from the inquest.

Verdict given is accidental death for the driver, as no medical or mechanical reason could be found to suggest otherwise.

BUT accidental death was also the verdict for marshal Andy Carpenter, and this I do not feel happy with.

Basically, in testimony it was established that during the safety check held on the Thursday before the event, the MSA safety office missed the fact that the gantry was there at all, and therefore didn't question its placement or its strength, but issued the track licence anyway. Therefore when we marshals used the track on the subsequent days, we believed it to be of use as a protective aid, which was not its intended purpose.

The bottom line is if the safety officer had identified it being there, he had the choice of adding additional protection in front of the structure, OR having it removed before the event.

And if it had been removed, we would not have even considered standing that side of the track.

I know I'm losing my chance of a knighthood by criticising our governing body, but basically it highlights if you see ANYTHING you don't like it's position or question its ability to do the job intended of it, including barriers, then its very much up to you to speak up to your observer and demand he takes it up with officials above him.

If we don't then things will slip back to the way they were and Andy's death will not have taught us anything.

Yes, I am angry as I type this, as I believe an accident that was avoidable and therefore shouldn't have happened has been allowed to occur and resulted in the needless death of a marshal.

I am now going to take the weekend off, to allow myself time to gather any more thoughts before writing anything further.


Steve

[Steve Tarrant]

Right, as promised I've had the weekend to reflect and discuss the matter with some approriate professionals.

I am now at ease with the verdict, on the basis this accident wasn't pre-meditated, caused by any ill-health of the driver or the car not being mechanically sound. My solicitor has clarified the basis on which the inquest should have been held, and also that coroners do (and on this occasion) did dig as if looking for blame. But that is for a prosecution to seek out, not an inquest.

But some issues were raised that pertain to our safety and conduct. It was raised several times, and also reported in the press coverage, that we were not standing on the post.

I have personally been to several other circuits, and the practice of standing the other side of the track parallel to the post, or further along the bank on the same side of the track as the post, is pretty commonplace. BUT if we are to believe the HSE recommendations, then we are supposed to all stand shoulder to shoulder at the post only.

I believe this would be a dangerous practice as you increase the amount of bodies in one place, and that should a vehicle pull off / crash on the opposite side, then you and your equipment would have to cross the circuit.

Many will remember the death of Tom Price at Kyalami, where a marshal carrying an extinguisher across a track was hit by Tom's car killing both of them. Are we to supposed to go back to that type of marshalling? I sincerely hope not.

There are aspects from the evidence given last week which still haunt me. It's been claimed the gantry was not seen during the safety inspection the day before the event, yet evidence was provided it was there a fortnight previously. Also that it was an unauthorised structure, yet it was the third year of its use.

What was highlighted was the good training we as marshals do receive from our clubs, as recognised by the HSE, and that we do have the right NOT to put ourselves in danger.

And if you don't like being put somewhere you consider dangerous that you speak up for yourself.

I hope now this will form the basis for some discussion by the group for making our participation within the sport as safe as is possible.


Steve

[EvilPumpkin]

Hi Steve,

Whilst I know you're not happy with the outcome, I imagine it's a relief to have the experience over with. I hope you and Jackie came through it ok without any more pain than is to be expected.

Not being familiar with the configuration of the Goodwood, I can't comment on layouts/gantrys/structures.

However, in general I would like to make a couple of points based on what you've said:

• When we are trained, one of the things we're told is NOT to stand in a big clump. Firstly because if we're all standing together and something does go wrong, we're one big giant target. Secondly, because if you're standing in a group like that, then you are almost definitely either going to be blocking another marshal's escape route, or having your own blocked. This is only common sense.
  
• It is my understanding that the majority of safety barriers around posts are more for the protection of the driver and to reduce their speed than to protect the marshals. Certainly armco doesn't offer much protection and catch fencing is not going to stop a really determined high flying car as was demonstrated at a couple of UK circuits last year. Marshals (as an entity) should make their own determination as to where they need to stand for safety and to enable them to best reach an incident should one arise.
  
• I think sometimes as marshals, we suffer from a certain level of "superman" syndrome. They say familiarity breeds contempt and I know I have occasionally done silly and dangerous things simply because I lost concentration. I've seen marshals on TV and at a number of different circuits standing in places they really shouldn't be and I shake my head and tut. And then the next week, I find myself lounging in a gravel trap against the armco and realise somewhere, someone is tutting at me! We get to be so used to being a part of motorsport, we forget that it can happen to us too. The best marshals can (and have) been injured or killed simply by being unlucky - so we need to ensure that we're not making it more likely by doing silly things.
  

I guess that's my tuppenorth for now.

[Tony_J]

Steve
I echo EPs sentiments and best wishes for the future.
As far as armco is concerned I was involved in an incident at Oulton a couple of years ago when a Touring Car clipped the armco then proceeded to fly over my head and land across the catch fencing. The clipped armco was unsupported at one end because it provided a cross over for us to get out. This armco collapsed on a marshal, he was knocked unconcious when he hit the deck. Remarkably neither he nor I suffered any lasting harm. But it proves the point that such barriers will only support a glancing blow and that depends on the type of ground the supporting posts are in.
As far as track inspections go I would not want to be an MSA steward with the obvious burden of responsibility that it carries, but we have all commented critically on manning levels and certain aspects of safety from a marshals perspective. Can a steward being driven around a track really assess the conditions?

[JimW]

Steve

I am very glad to see your second post and hope that this is another step forward on your tough path.

=====================

It is my understanding that the majority of safety barriers around posts are more for the protection of the driver and to reduce their speed than to protect the marshals.

I think this may not be quite right. The concerns of the Organisers (and I use that term to include all concerned from FIA, MSA and so on) are first for spectators, second for "officials and employees" and lastly for competitors. That seems right to me if you consider the relative degree of willing and knowledgeable acceptance of the risks of what they are undertaking of each of those groups.

So the barriers protect spectators, marshals and drivers in that order.

Of course we all expect barriers and other protective measures to do a good job for all of those categories of people. However, there are some logical contradictions. The barrier must stop a car even if in doing so it adds to the danger for a driver.

[Steve Tarrant]

Tony_J

It's not the stewards of the day that I am upset with. They, like us, are usually volunteers and their function is more to see the meeting is run in accordance with the permit of the meeting, and to provide the first level of appeal in judicial matters.

No, the person I refer to earlier sits in Motor Sports House, and is a full time paid employee of the MSA. It is his job to visit and pass all circuits before ANY motorsport can be run.

And with Goodwood being a temporary venue, he has to re-visit it every year before a track licence is granted.

Hope this clarification helps.


Steve

[Bodysnatcher]

glad that you've got it over with Steve, and that you've been able to come to terms with the verdict.
I think I can read between the lines about what (and maybe who) you believe was the major contributing factor to the accident's tragic outcome for you & Andy.

A couple of obvious points, more related to permanent circuits.

Originally posted by Steve Tarrant


But some issues were raised that pertain to our safety and conduct. It was raised several times, and also reported in the press coverage, that we were not standing on the post.

Steve

Looks like we need a tighter definition of post....
OR have I got the wrong idea thinking that Mr Symes of the MSA passes the whole circuit as being "safe".

Circuit owners have for years seemed loath to make any changes that directly benefit us with safer working conditions. Of course, if the MSA's safety inspector says that the circuit is suitable, then why should the circuits spend money (as thay see it) unnecesarily.

Temporary stuctures are a big problem even at permanent circuits - advertising banners/hoardings are a right bloody danger at times. Anybody here remember the Donny GP where the boards were 3 feet above the top of the wall, flush with it and then wired to the catch fencing.....

[chrisgr31]

Well I am not a marshall so can only comment on what I have read. However I am stunned that the MSA safety officer didn't even notice the gantry.

With the benefit of hindsight it was plainly obvious that the gantry was dangerous as it would appear it only needed a car to hit the bottom of it for it to fall down.

Unfortunately though we all make mistakes, however some have more far reaching consequences.

As has been said it merely shows the importance that if you think something is unsafe you should speak up.

Chris