Many good points posted in this thread, too many to quote so forgive me if I pick and choose. Like FC my work involves Risk Assessments, and it is a good observation that they are intended not to eliminate all risk but to reduce it to an acceptable level. An acceptable level for motorsport is unlikely to be the same as in an office environment, and we should beware of Insurers and Coroners who would like it to be so, for that will surely kill the sport. However that should not stop us from taking all reasonable precautions to mitigate the risk, and an effective RA is part of that. Simply carrying out the RA is not enough, the mitigating activities must be carried out and this is seems is why the tragedy of the 26th became an even bigger tragedy.

The RA for the sector had evidently identified the danger of an out of control bike mounting the bank and landing in the area concerned, and it should have been posted Prohibited. That RA doesn't need to be re-done every year unless the course has changed in the area (in which case it should be re-done before the next race event) however for the sake of confidence and increasing bike speeds a re-assessment every 5-10 years would make sense. Thus I don't have an issue with the RA being dated 2004 but rather why it wasn't correctly implemented.

In Aviation, the industry I work in, accident investigation is critical and is carried out in a way not to apportion blame on individuals (which will simply lead to cover-ups and slopey shoulders) but rather to determine the root causes of incidents so they can be removed. As the saying goes, there is no such thing as an accident, there is a chain of events and if you break that chain at any point the "accident" will not happen. As such Mr Moyle, while doing a very thorough job of investigating the circumstances of the incident, utterly fails to draw meaningful conclusions or make realistic recommendations for the prevention of similar tragedies. He prefers to blame individuals and criticise the very nature of the races. Perhaps this is understandable in a Coroner who regularly has to preside over such emotional events, but it is not helpful. The field that has grown most in recent years is "Human Factors" which recognises that accidents are rarely the event of people neglecting their jobs or wilfully doing them wrong, but rather by the circumstances that push them down particular course of action. Click here for more information on HF. In simply apportioning blame Mr Moyle ignores the HF issues that were likely major contributors.

Looking deeper into the events there are some questions that I believe should have been asked, but were not.

1. Was Marc Ramsbotham's accident really unavoidable or unforeseeable? Without criticism of Marc I believe not. This TT was his first and he had not previously competed at the Manx GP. Riders are regularly accepted for the TT without having gone through the Manx, where competition is at a lower level and qualifying speeds are lower. Nothing stops a rider from riding to the edge or beyond of his capabilities at the Manx of course but there is less incentive to do so, and no prize money to race for. We had all the rubbish of the Course Licence foisted on us, which does NOTHING to prepare a rider for the challenges of the Mountain Course, yet riders are accepted into the TT with no experience of real road racing. Why?

2. Given that there were people whose responsibility included setting out and checking the Prohibited Area signage, why was it so hard to find anyone who accepted it was their responsibility? I suggest this is because the part-time volunteers were, as the Coroner suspected, simply doing what they had been told to by their predecessors. This should not be seen as a criticism of the post holders but rather of the system, which has loaded (onto the Marshalling organisation not least) a huge amount of additional responsibility to ensure that the task of maintaining course safety measures is carried out to the nth degree, including any new measures heaped on top. Workload is a key part of HF and the organisers need to consider whether the Chief Marshal and Sector Marshals have enough time as unpaid officials to do the job as required. Where training is the issue (as opposed to handover from the last person) then the training needs to be documented so all aspects are covered, adequate time and resources need to be allocated and the progress of the training and competence of the post holder should be assessed. IMC courses are all well and good but do not cover the extra range of duties required of the Marshalling control/management staff.

It's too easy to point the finger at individuals but if they are not trained and given the necessary support of course their jobs will suffer. That's not their fault (which is why I was sorry to see Cathy Pullen had resigned http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/Chief-sec...3930193.jp ). The system let them down and the finger should really be pointed at those who have put in or allowed to continue an inadequate system. If in doubt who that may be the Coroner indicated an intolerable degree of smugness in certain individuals, and that to me is key to the matter, not the hard-working individuals out on track.

For as long as the Organisers regard the TT and MGP as little more than cash cows and tourist attractions with disposable riders, and consider that part-time unpaid officials can be sent off with a pat on the back for thanks, to face the legal consequences if something goes wrong, we will keep chasing symptoms and events like this will simply hide in the background until another shortcoming is revealed.

My 2p is that certain actions need to be taken at the top to support the riders and officials and give them the tools to do the job, with the risk that the mountain of H&S regulation and persecution of Marshals will eventually kill the races:

1. Require all newcomers to the TT to have raced the Manx GP as a qualifying event and means of gaining course experience in a less pressured environment.

2. Engage a firm of H&S/HF consultants to determine the appropriate management structure of the organising committee, defining clearly the roles and responsibilities for each post and whether they can be carried out on a full time or part time basis.

3. Allocate suffient funding and facilities to run the recommended structure and provide the required training for the officials. This must include cascade training for deputy officials who would most likely be PT, and the FT officials must have the knowledge and available time to carry out that training.

4. Given the extent of Marshal-bashing that has taken place in recent years and the increased manning levels mandated, actions need to be taken to encourage more marshals to work the course, especially during practice weeks which are often the problem times. A pie and a pint is pretty inadequate given the cost in money and annual holiday that they incur to do the job. My suggestion would be ferry vouchers against the following year's event, worth 50% for the full practice week and 50% for the full race week, redeemable against attendance cards signed by the Sector Marshal and funded by the IoMTB. Those who wish to do so, or who wouldn't use the vouchers, could opt for a cash sum to be donated to the Helicopter Fund or Joey Dunlop Fund instead.

All the above would cost money but I fear the alternative would be the loss of the races and with them the tourist revenue.