British Fatalities Analysis

[Guest compost]

I've seen on this forum many times questions asking is Speedway safer now than in the past. So using the 'In Memoriam' website (created by Steve Brown - thanks for the name Gustix) as the data source here is a breakdown of track related fatalities in BRITISH Speedway by year and by decade-

6 deaths - 1929 & 1931
4 - 1930, 46, 48 & 53
3 - 37, 47, 50, 77, 82 & 83
2 - 38, 51, 52, 56, 65, 72, 75 & 84
1 - 35, 36, 45, 55, 59, 60, 62, 66, 78, 79, 81, 87, 89, 94 & 02

By Decade (ish)
Pre war
23 in 11 seasons gives an average of 2.1 per year

40's
12 in 5 (45-49 as war years had their own dangers) averages 2.4

50's
15 in 10 for 1.5

60's
5 in 10 for 0.5

70's
9 in 10 for 0.9

80's
11 in 10 for 1.1

90's & 00's
1 in 10 for 0.1

10's
nil

The 40's would be the most dangerous period followed by the years 29 to 31.
There would appear to have been 4 in 33 years from 1985 to date.

Analysis may have errors in (i.e. I might have missed someone - sorry) and data given by source may not be accurate.
Several fatalities were listed as 'natural causes' (e.g Kevin Holden in 1977), I have included those in the above figures (I thought that Kevin died as a result of a track crash which was why ?)

 

No real surprise about the early years of the sport being the most dangerous (after all everyone was learning and it was at a time of little health & safety). Bit surprising that the next worse period was the sports peak viewing period, the late 40's (and early 50's). I suspect the 40's toll was due to the huge influx of riders, coupled with the big expansion in track and team numbers, into the sport after the war.

Edited August 15, 2017 by compost

[TonyMac 720]

I've seen on this forum many times questions asking is Speedway safer now than in the past. So using the 'In Memoriam' website as the data source here is a breakdown of track related fatalities in BRITISH Speedway by year and by decade-

 

6 deaths - 1929 & 1931

4 - 1930, 46, 48 & 53

3 - 37, 47, 50, 77, 82 & 83

2 - 38, 51, 52, 56, 65, 72, 75 & 84

1 - 35, 36, 45, 55, 59, 60, 62, 66, 78, 79, 81, 87, 89, 94 & 02

 

By Decade (ish)

Pre war

23 in 11 seasons gives an average of 2.1 per year

 

40's

12 in 5 (45-49 as war years had their own dangers) averages 2.4

 

50's

15 in 10 for 1.5

 

60's

5 in 10 for 0.5

 

70's

9 in 10 for 0.9

 

80's

11 in 10 for 1.1

 

90's & 00's

1 in 10 for 0.1

 

10's

nil

 

The 40's would be the most dangerous period followed by the years 29 to 31.

There would appear to have been 4 in 33 years from 1985 to date.

 

Analysis may have errors in (i.e. I might have missed someone - sorry) and data given by source may not be accurate.

Several fatalities were listed as 'natural causes' (e.g Kevin Holden in 1977), I have included those in the above figures (I thought that Kevin died as a result of a track crash which was why ?)

 

No real surprise about the early years of the sport being the most dangerous (after all everyone was learning and it was at a time of little health & safety). Bit surprising that the next worse period was the sports peak viewing period, the late 40's (and early 50's). I suspect the 40's toll was due to the huge influx of riders, coupled with the big expansion in track and team numbers, into the sport after the war.

 

Interesting. Presumably your analysis does NOT include those killed at training schools or in practice sessions? Not that I think they should.

[OveFundinFan 4,141]

 

 

Analysis may have errors in (i.e. I might have missed someone - sorry) and data given by source may not be accurate.

Several fatalities were listed as 'natural causes' (e.g Kevin Holden in 1977), I have included those in the above figures (I thought that Kevin died as a result of a track crash which was why ?)

 

 

It was Kevin Holden that died of a ruptured aorta whilst racing and was dead before he hit the ground. So that should be natural causes?

[iris123 20,978]

I've seen on this forum many times questions asking is Speedway safer now than in the past.

Sure someone done some stats to prve it wasn't more dangerous now than 20 or 30 years ago

 

Fatalities are one stat,but i think the person who looked it all up(and i admire you people who go to all the trouble)actually looked at how many riders missed meetings through injury,which is important,possibly showing a broader picture than those who sadly died.

[Guest compost]

 

Interesting. Presumably your analysis does NOT include those killed at training schools or in practice sessions? Not that I think they should.

 

Actually it does. There were several for pre-war Audenshaw and the more recent Iwade.

 

It was Kevin Holden that died of a ruptured aorta whilst racing and was dead before he hit the ground. So that should be natural causes?

 

Thanks for the update.

 

Sure someone done some stats to prve it wasn't more dangerous now than 20 or 30 years ago

 

Fatalities are one stat,but i think the person who looked it all up(and i admire you people who go to all the trouble)actually looked at how many riders missed meetings through injury,which is important,possibly showing a broader picture than those who sadly died.

 

Thanks. No idea what the thread was ? I did wonder about looking at injuries but it would be just too time consuming and data would be very difficult to come by for years pre-Speedway Star. The good thing is that the rate has dropped off so in terms of fatalities the sport (in Britain) is safer today than it was.

[iris123 20,978]

 

 

Thanks. No idea what the thread was ? I did wonder about looking at injuries but it would be just too time consuming and data would be very difficult to come by for years pre-Speedway Star. The good thing is that the rate has dropped off so in terms of fatalities the sport (in Britain) is safer today than it was.

I think it was one of those "Why are there so many more injuries this season" threads on speedway general discussions that get started most years around the end of April-start of May.Probably about two years ago now and might have been from daveallen81? Not 100% sure on it though

[lucifer sam 3,953]

Compost, very interesting but you've missed out Wayne Garrett, who was sadly killed at Newcastle in 1992.

 

All the best

Rob

[norbold 7,108]

Great piece of work compost. To make it a more meaningful comparison, it needs to be related to the number of riders and meetings held during those decades.

 

Also 1 in the 90s and 00s is 1 in 20, not 1 in10 or 0.05 per year.

[chunky 6,091]

Despite the fact there seem to be an alarming number of high-speed crashes - usually the result of picking up unwanted grip - these days, I certainly feel that speedway is much safer now than it used to be.

 

One of the issues is that we look for reasons. Sadly, true "reasons" aren't always what they appear to be - or even what we want them to be. Of course, air fences have helped, but so has improved helmet design.

 

One other factor to perhaps consider is dangerous "tracks", and I am not talking about track conditions. As I said, it is difficult to pinpoint specific reasons, but look at tracks like Newcastle and Hackney. Both have a terrible record as far as fatalities, but is it an accurate reflection of the track, or merely tragic coincidence? Of course, a major factor in Hackney's history was exposed lamp standards, but does that mean it was too dangerous? Does that mean that with Hackney's demise, British speedway automatically became a little safer? Sounds feasible, but I am not convinced...

 

Without knowing the EXACT circumstances of each accident, it is hard to say. What if Vic Harding and Steve Weatherley had come together ten feet before/after the point they actually did? Those who died as a result of being hit by a machine; what if the bike went six inches to the left of where it actually hit them?

 

While simple statistics like the amount of tracks operating, and the amount of meetings and races completed can APPEAR to lead to a definite conclusion, I don't go for that. I am of the mind that in each particular fatal crash, it was simply a case of a bunch of unique and coincidental circumstances coming together to provide a singularly tragic conclusion.

 

Yes, it can make interesting - if macabre - reading, but I honestly don't think that there is any definitive reason for any individual fatality, or a seemingly connected series (ie at a specific track, or within a particular time frame) of fatalities.

 

Steve

[sommelier 1,118]

 

Interesting. Presumably your analysis does NOT include those killed at training schools or in practice sessions? Not that I think they should.

I remember watching a Saturday morning training session at Elsmere Port & a young lad died, if remember right, I think Kenny Carter was on track at the same time.

Cant think of the lads name who got killed

[Grand Central 2,654]

I remember watching a Saturday morning training session at Elsmere Port & a young lad died, if remember right, I think Kenny Carter was on track at the same time.

Cant think of the lads name who got killed

 

Stuart Shirley.

[Guest compost]

Compost, very interesting but you've missed out Wayne Garrett, who was sadly killed at Newcastle in 1992.

 

All the best

Rob

 

Hi Rob. Sorry but I did miss recording Wayne's sad demise which would put the 90's on 2 in 10 years for 0.2

 

Great piece of work compost. To make it a more meaningful comparison, it needs to be related to the number of riders and meetings held during those decades.

 

Also 1 in the 90s and 00s is 1 in 20, not 1 in10 or 0.05 per year.

 

Sorry norbold but it is 1 in the 90's (but see correction above) and 1 in the 00's (as the two decades had the same figures I lazily listed them as the same rather than, as I should have done, listed them individually).

[Sidney the robin 4,735]

Was Kenny Carter in the race when the young Chris Prime was killed.??

[sommelier 1,118]

Was Kenny Carter in the race when the young Chris Prime was killed.??

I can remember Kenny was in the practise ride when the lad at Elsmere died, I was there Mark

[Guest compost]

Despite the fact there seem to be an alarming number of high-speed crashes - usually the result of picking up unwanted grip - these days, I certainly feel that speedway is much safer now than it used to be.

 

One of the issues is that we look for reasons. Sadly, true "reasons" aren't always what they appear to be - or even what we want them to be. Of course, air fences have helped, but so has improved helmet design.

 

One other factor to perhaps consider is dangerous "tracks", and I am not talking about track conditions. As I said, it is difficult to pinpoint specific reasons, but look at tracks like Newcastle and Hackney. Both have a terrible record as far as fatalities, but is it an accurate reflection of the track, or merely tragic coincidence? Of course, a major factor in Hackney's history was exposed lamp standards, but does that mean it was too dangerous? Does that mean that with Hackney's demise, British speedway automatically became a little safer? Sounds feasible, but I am not convinced...

 

Without knowing the EXACT circumstances of each accident, it is hard to say. What if Vic Harding and Steve Weatherley had come together ten feet before/after the point they actually did? Those who died as a result of being hit by a machine; what if the bike went six inches to the left of where it actually hit them?

 

While simple statistics like the amount of tracks operating, and the amount of meetings and races completed can APPEAR to lead to a definite conclusion, I don't go for that. I am of the mind that in each particular fatal crash, it was simply a case of a bunch of unique and coincidental circumstances coming together to provide a singularly tragic conclusion.

 

Yes, it can make interesting - if macabre - reading, but I honestly don't think that there is any definitive reason for any individual fatality, or a seemingly connected series (ie at a specific track, or within a particular time frame) of fatalities.

 

Steve

 

I've been trying to work out how to reply to this!

In general I agree with what you've said though I think safety improvements in items such as 'body armour' and, especially, in todays treating and handling of accident victims have also helped considerably.

I also agree that the factors leading up to any single incident are uncontrollable and down to pure chance.

However, I do disagree with your final paragraph. I suggest that the design of certain tracks (the lamp stands at Hackney, the earth bank and poor track preparation at Audenshaw) would make a serious incident more likely. I would also say that at certain points in the sports history there would be a greater chance of a fatality - at the start of the sport in Britain you would have large numbers of untrained riders having a go on tracks managed by people who had yet to learn how dangerous the sport could be for instance. The same would apply after the second world war when again there was a large number of new and inexperienced riders coming into the sport and riding on new and unknown tracks - don't forget that the influx of new riders with new (ish) tracks in 1960 and the late 60's/early 70's didn't have the same sad outcome.