Elephantman

http://www.speedwaygb.co/news.php?extend.23260 I think this makes it clear; it is an Elite League idea and a particularly stupid one at that. It has the potential to be a farce; can you imagine be allocated two young riders who can't afford top equipment; seeing them get beaten every week and your team beaten because of their poor scores? It is an ill judged, ill thought out decision by an Elite league who are bereft of ideas. It would be interesting to know what the NL & PL teams think about it?

I thought that there were three different AGM's the EL, PL & NL. When people say the "BSPA" who exactly do they mean?

Great interview by Tai!

I don't know you; you are probably a great chap or lady. I don't like some of your posts!

Why don't you just telephone him? You know who he is and how to get hold of him and thanks to one of the posters on here last winter, he must know exactly who you are. It shouldn't be too difficult a conversation should it? Or you could ask me, or anyone else really, or you could ask Neil Machin as its his business and he's doing the selling!

And it wasn't an Iceberg that sunk the Titanic; it was these two in their trackside gantry...... Bring back hanging!

That is all fair enough but you failed to mention them causing Harringay Racers to close down!

Thanks; a fairly unclear statement! Does this mean that the BSPA have terminated the contract with Go Speed i.e. have withdrawn the licencing rights or, as people appear to be assuming Sky have terminated the contract with Go Speed/BSPA but does that necessarily mean that Sky will not renew; depending on what you are assuming, and bearing in mind we don't necessarily know who is in bed with who, this can mean many things.

Having done an internet search (and trust me I'm fairly adept at that sort of thing) I cannot see that Sky have made any comment on the viewing figures or the likelihood of stopping speedway coverage. The BSPA haven't commented; Nigel Pearson doesn't appear to have said anything; so where does this received wisdom come from? Well on count back it seems to emanate from the BSF! So the BSF had run a number of threads based on no facts stating that the Sky deal is ending; call me simple but would it not be better to wait until Sky make a statement before increasing the CO2 emissions through keyboard overload? After all if a deal is ending that doesn't mean it is not renewing or does it?

Unfortunately at the best of times we British are parochial; when it comes to sport quite tribal. The obvious solution is for all sports that have an interest in this site getting together and as this is at the design stage designing a true multi use Community Stadium. If West Ham F.C. can retrofit retractable seating to the Olympic Stadium then it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to work out how to do this over a speedway track/dog track or whatever in a new build. However it does require the people with an interest to also have the money; it is clear that the plan for Wimbledon AFC is to flog off some of the land for housing to pay for the stadium; more sport less room for housing. Perhaps that what they mean by community stadium; people live there!

Why is that the price you pay? Is it because we have become such an objectionable nation in terms of our attitude to people in the public eye? Why should anyone in the public eye have to put up with vitriolic and unnecessary comments? Criticism is fine; plain nastiness is not! The reality is the great unwashed keyboard warrior will often post things that they would never dream of saying to the person face to face; if you wouldn't say it you shouldn't post it.

Viewers are fully within their rights to criticise; but its not what you say its how you say it that causes the issue. Many of the post I read are about Nigel Pearson are quite vitriolic and personal in their attack; the post that started this thread is an example; it uses emotive language to attack the individual rather than attacking the individuals point of view. Rather like some describing a post as "awful" without justifying why it is awful and then suggesting the poster may be more at home in North Korea without justifying the statement either!

Having followed Speedway for nearly fifty years I can only recall one major TV channel that has committed itself to covering the sport properly. Who knows what they may choose to do next year but one thing for certain is that if coverage does continue I hope it is with Nigel Pearson. The fact that he is highly regarded within his industry; is good at his job and is clearly a speedway enthusiast is just part of the reason. The other part is that I would truly miss the confirmation that a minority of members of this forum are totally incapable of any rational thought process. I know that is true because if they were capable of actually thinking that would allow them to understand that their ill-judged, ill-informed diatribes against Sky and in particular Nigel Pearson do not enhance the reputation of the sport or add to the likelihood of any other significant TV coverage in the future. That's all!

No it isn't; you just want it to be; makes life a bit easier if people do not have to justify what they are doing

You are such a wit! I don't need to prove anything it is not me that is forcing what is an expensive and in some cases may be an unnecessary change on British Speedway. This is where people such as you miss the point. If air fences improve safety at a venue then they must be considered; if they provide the same level of safety or reduce the level of safety then they should not be a mandatory requirement. Without evidence and research your guess is as good as mine as to locations where they are or are not an improvement. All tracks are different shapes and sizes; may have different banking; may or may not be suitable for the installation of one type of fence or another. One size does not fit all; why do so many people assume it does when it comes to such a fundamental safety device? I don't mess about with safety I expect it to be properly researched and properly implemented; Air fences appear no to be in this category! I thought it was a reasonable question but many on here don't want it asked. I don't understand why?

Taken from earlier comments on this thread by a number of posters. You have read all the posts have you? If you have you will know that there are no statistics available only opinion and hearsay which is exactly my point. You show me your evidence and I won't show you mine; but if you really want to be so distasteful as to run down a list of riders who have suffered life changing injuries that's up to you.

Point me to the sarcastic post? All I've done is ask very simple basic questions; if you see that as sarcastic then it is you that have a problem. I am not questioning the Deanmachine's right to hold the view he does; I'm questioning if that view is right for all situations. There is no evidence that it is. Now there is an argument that one life saved is worth the cost of these fences; however if the result is that many other riders suffer serious life changing injury then the decision becomes a trade off between what on balance is best. This is where evidence is required from testing and research. This evidence is clearly not available. So that begs the question why is this technology being forced on British Speedway when there is no evidence that it is better than some of the current solutions? By the way I'm not suggesting that a brick wall is better without an air fence in front of it; it clearly isn't. But many of the traditional fences that collapse around a rider when they hit it have got to be better than an air/polyfoam fence with an Armco barrier or solid wall behind it!

I consider it a badge of honour that people of such limited scope should consider me retarded. I started this thread to get a bit of light reading just out of interest but with every response from the likes of you and with no evidence from the industry what have we discovered: 1. Air Fences have not been tested in any meaningful way prior to deployment at speedway stadia 2. Air Fences are not an FIM requirement unless you are running an FIM event 3. Poorly designed or incorrectly installed Air Fences have caused serious injury to a number of riders 4. Most serious injuries in speedway happen where the rider falls at the fastest point i.e. down the straight; air fences do not address this 5. Perfectly adequate safety fences are to be replaced at a huge cost on no evidence that they will improve safety 6. Speedway has not got a licencing and accreditation process that forces those who are making profit from the sport to pay for and demonstrate that their products improve safety over and above current technologies. and most worrying of all 7. A forum wishes to supress debate and questioning of the subject! And they call me a retard? British Speedway is been had over here and just because you don't like my questions and conclusions means nothing; some of you have displayed your ignorance by the fact you cannot answer with facts only with abuse. When starting this thread I wasn't digging for anything but the responses seem to show that somebody should be digging and I've got a feeling the more you dig the smellier it will get. Change the C in your moniker to an RS and you'll be getting there.

So none of you are that bothered that perfectly safe wire mesh fences that have protected riders from serious injury for decades (e.g. like Wimbledon, Rye House)are to be replaced by something that is not proven to be better and that have clearly been a factor in some riders serious injuries. It appears to me many of the most serious accidents don't happen on the bends they happen on the straights; I don't believe anyone is addressing this issue? The problem many have you have got is when the simple question is asked you have no answer except your bigoted opinion. Is it any wonder that the media and general public don't take speedway seriously when the people who earn a living out of the sport don't take issues such as research and safety seriously. As has happened for decades in the sport some people are more interested in making a fast buck out of speedway and the current fashion seems to be Air or Poly Foam Fences. What they are doing is providing a sop to make everyone believe that speedway takes safety seriously. A "£10 sport" won't pay to have things tested properly to prove they are better than current installations, but are forcing clubs to spend £1,000's for something that they do not know with any certainty will improve safety at their circuit. Other sports force the manufacturers to prove the safety of their products and the manufacturers pay to have them accredited for use. What does speedway do ...... b*gg*r all! And many of you are happy with that situation I think it is a disgrace. That is the issue that I have; plain old fashioned ignorance and lemming like behaviour.

I guess I'd be convinced if I'd had your experience. For riding bikes on the road I always recommend Honda's. I'm one hundred per-cent convinced that when I hit the car that pulled out in front of me on a roundabout without the driver looking, it was the fact that I was on a Honda that ensured I did not do too much damage Are you as convinced as I am?

Show me the analysis of those 1000's of serious crashes in to air fences and you might have an argument; but I don't believe they have been analysed, recorded or documented in any way. In fact you can't even state that there have been 1000's of serious crashes with the air fence. You are making it up as you go along; which is a shame because you may be right; but I have seen nothing but opinion to say that you are. Opinion without the research to back it up is fairly worthless, particularly when it comes to smatters of safety.

That's all anyone needs to know really; arguing the toss over the rights and wrongs of this fact are a waste of time. Still that won't stop one or two!

Why are you struggling to understand that there is no proof that they are any safer than some traditional speedway fences? Or have you a financial interest in flogging them? It is astonishing that people like you do not question the research behind safety products.... to use your abbreviation FFS its staggering!

In this one response you display the total ignorance of the topic you are commenting on! Quit now while you're behind. Absolutely correct; but the "common sense" brigade don't wish to question or understand anything other than, "Absolutely no one in their right mind could question the safety of a "softer" landing area over a solid one in the event of impact". The level of complacency of those who are arguing that air fences must be safer just because they are softer is quite staggering. What is needed is real research not biased opinion.

Good points well made; but you really are not allowed to questions these things; common sense isn't it! Wasn't Simon Stead's dreadful injury this year caused by his bike bouncing off an air fence?