David Worthington

Office 020 8391 3913

cE HUMANRACE 020 8399 3579

— races@humanrace.co.uk

=
z

a
“RAGe~ www-.-humanrace.co.uk

Unit 6 - The Typhoon Business Centre - Oakcroft Road - Chessington - KT9 IRH

Christopher P Dorries — CH
Office of H.M. Coroner 1 RI

The Medico-Legal Centre
Watery Street |
Sheffield
S3 7ES

19° October 2018
Dear Sir,
Re: Mr. David Worthington (deceased)

Regulation 28 Response

Thank you for your feedback and the advice set out within your Regulation 28: ‘Report to Prevent Future

Deaths’, dated the 29" August 2018.

As you heard during the inquest into the tragic death of Mr. Worthington (‘the Inquest’), Sportive events
require extensive planning. A primary focus for Human Race during the planning of all our events is always

the health and safety of the participants, volunteers, staff and the general public.

As you made clear from your personal experience, you are aware that Finkle Street Lane is; a carriageway
with traffic travelling in either direction, the subject of a speed limit of 60 mph and has a good tarmacadam
surface. Plank Gate is an un-adopted carriageway just off Finkle Street Lane, which leads to an equestrian
centre. There were no signs or street furniture put in place by the Highways Authority to advise users of
Finkle Street Lane that there was a junction to an un-adopted carriageway around the bend, or to suggest to

road users that it was in any unsuitable for cyclists to pass along it.

Prior to the event, as you heard, a formal risk assessment was performed of the route in general and of the
junctions which the Sportive would pass through (at which riders would be required to make a decision by
performing a manoeuvre). In addition, prior to the event (the day before and on the morning of the event)
the route was both driven and ridden by the route management team, along with a motorcycle marshal,
meaning that further dynamic risk assessments were performed across the route by a number of individuals,

likely with different subjective views of risk.

As part of our approach to the management of the Sportive in question, we employed motorcycle marshals
(‘MOTOs’) from a supplier that works across all of our events. The MOTOs are often, but not exclusively, ex
members of the police service. As part of the verbal and written briefing which they receive prior to an event,

they are all instructed to raise any issues which they identify either before or during an event with event

control (all are in radio and telephone contact with the event control room). On the day of the event in

question there were 16 MOTOs on duty.

The route which the event was to take was presented and formulated at Safety Advisory Group meetings
with the Local Authority and the Police in attendance. During those meetings, no concerns were raised about
the junction between Finkle Street Lane and Plank Gate. Prior to the event, the Event Director drove the
route with colleagues in the Route Team and decided to put in position a further ‘slow’ sign part way down
Finkle Street Lane to help remind road users (including motorists) to slow as they travelled down the long

downhill section of the road.

On the day of the event, prior to the start, one of the MOTOs employed drove the route and did not make
any suggested alterations to the route. As we have already said, there were a total of 16 MOTOs on duty
during the event, who all performed dynamic risk assessments as they travelled around it throughout the
event. You will recall the evidence of the MOTO who gave evidence during the Inquest, that he would not
have raised issue with the junction between the Finkle Street Lane and Plank Gate, even with the benefit of

hindsight.

As the event moves each year, the probability that we would be hosting an event which travels along Finkle
Street Lane again, is low. However, should that ever happen, given Mr. Worthington’s tragic death, we would
now be on notice of the particular issues concerning the junction between Finkle Street Lane and Plank Gate
(as identified by the Police Officer who gave evidence at the Inquest), which had not previously been raised
with us by the relevant Local Authority, the Highways Agency or the Police. To that end, we would pay
particular attention to the entrance to Plank Gate at Safety Advisory Group meetings and any potential
control measures which could be put in place to mitigate against the risk which you have identified would be

given further consideration.

In your regulation 28 report, you respectfully submit that “there is room for a review of the risk assessment
methods used for future events”. As with any responsible business, we have attempted to learn from this
tragic accident. The very happening of it has re-enforced the need for us to consider all potential eventualities
when planning/risk assessing a route with the various stakeholders involved, however, it remains impossible
to conceive or plan for all potential eventualities outwith those which are reasonably foreseeable, specifically
in circumstances where the Highways Agency responsible for the road in question has not raised issue with
a particular area, asked for the section of road to be closed, or installed any signs or street furniture, which
might trigger a concern in the minds of those planning the route. To that end, we respectfully maintain that
it was not reasonably foreseeable, when planning and risk assessing the route for the event, that a coach
would be performing a three-point turn into Plank Gate having travelled down a road which was clearly

marked with ‘low bridge’ signs. In support of that contention, you will recall that it was confirmed during the

2

witness evidence which was read out at the Inquest that it was very rare for a coach to proceed down Finkle

Street Lane.

Whilst we respectfully maintain that the events which tragically unfolded were not reasonably foreseeable,
either prior to or during the event, we of course undertake to do our absolute best to ensure that, as far as
reasonably practicable, we consider all potential eventualities when assessing routes and planning future
events. As a company we analyse our events during their planning phase, during their delivery, and after the
event to evaluate what, if anything, can be improved upon and learnt for future events. To that end, Human

Race will of course take on board your comments when planning and risk assessing future events.

Yours sincerely,

Nick Rusling & |

CEO Operations Director
Human Race Limited Human Race Limited