Elephantman

You really have missed the point and you nicely display why common sense isn't that common. In most walks of life anything to do with safety you test, test and test again, release the results and then implement. On the basis of your argument fluffy pillows would be better than air bags; what matters is how the fence absorbs the impact and captures the rider and bike; if you don't know the answers then don't comment.

No is the short answer but a number of my good friends did. I don't quite understand why my questioning of safety standards and request for verifiable proof should cause such angst with some posters. In most other walks of life this research would have been conducted in an objective way prior to any implementation of the solution. It is clear from the lack of responses that this has not been done, although I do note Tsunami's comments; however there is a difference between a manufacturer conducting tests as part of their production/marketing effort compared to an independent test by an accredited safety organisation. I'm just a bit astonished, I guess, as safety is so important.

..... in the week when there should be such positive publicity about a new British World Champion a troubled ex British World Champion garners nearly as much coverage as Tai's win on the BBC website.

The majority once believed the world was flat; they were wrong! I don't know if you and your fellow riders are wrong or right and actually should I really be that worried it will not ruin my day either way. However if in 10 years time the empirical evidence shows that there are more serious injuries than in the last ten years where do you go from there? A good idea need to have proof that it is a good idea particularly where safety is concerned; I still cannot find any proof!

Except you do not know and cannot be certain that these fences improve safety; you just think they do based on subjective evidence. That is why the facts need to be established because there should be no compromise on rider safety; including allowing the manufacturers of air fences to avoid conducting scientifically valid research to prove their efficacy!

You undermine the validity of your opinion by rather crassly comparing and equating the results of scientific research to messing about with a bouncy castle and garden fence. If you don't have any objective factual evidence then your opinion is no better than mine. It seems odd that your worst ever accident involved an air bag and your helmet broke; I'd be asking why? How many helmets have been broken on impact with an air bag in comparison with other types of safety fence might just be a good question to pose? Is it more likely a helmet will break due to the different forces applied when a wearer hits the air bag compared to other types of fencing may be another?

Then I go back to my original theme which is where is the independent scientific proof that air/polyfoam fences are safer then other alternatives? If there isn't any then someone is selling the sport a pup. All the comments I have read so far about the benefits of these fences have been subjective opinion; not hard objective facts. When you base your decisions on opinions and not facts the first to get their opinion heard usually wins; I'm suggesting this should not be the case when it comes to safety.

So if there has been no FIM demand yet clubs are collecting donations/fundraising on the back of a statement that there is an FIM requirement that is tantamount to a fraud is it not?

Nice effort but irrelevant. There is no proof; if there were it would be readily available to back up the manufacturers marketing efforts. The reason there is no proof is that it would be horrendously expensive to do the work; I don't know if you've notice but speedway doesn't have two brass farthings to rub together; they cannot afford the research. They also cannot afford to implement the technology which is why many have passed the hat to raise funds for a safety device that is scientifically unproven. So it appears the following is or may be true: Air fences are not compulsory under FIM rules except for World Championship events. There is no independent scientific evidence that shows air fences are safer than other more traditional solutions. Speedway has no spare cash around to waste on unnecessary expenses. So why are these fences being foisted on clubs who don't need them and can't afford them? If I apply the usual level of scepticism found on this forum I would assume that someone with a financial interest in Air Fence production has used their influence to persuade the sport that they are a must have. Of course scientific testing and proof would make this conjecture irrelevant; so where is the proof?

Having read that the rules on safety barriers/air fences only seem to apply for world championship events; so why is British Speedway bringing it in carte blanche when there is no proof (apart from opinion) that they are actually safer?

So no independent research to verify that air fences are safer; just twaddle from the manufacturers and a feeling its a good thing, plus if the riders want it must be right. That's all right then!

Having done some further research it is not an FIM directive; the directive only applies to World Championships. So why is this unproven technology being foisted upon British Speedway? This extremely relevant to British Speedway not just Sheffield; people are out working hard to raise money to purchase something which is not a mandatory requirement; who is conning who? Where is the evidence that safety will be improved by the installation of Air Fences?

Then the FIM need to overturn their directive until the science backs up the gut feel. This is about safety not commercial interests. You never make a safety directive without hard evidence; it could be argued that speedway has been cavalier with the dangers of the sport over the years; that doesn't mean that you should be cavalier when attempting to improve safety. CAS can normally have the power to overturn directives of sports governing bodies so if a promoter or association feel strongly enough they could argue the case at CAS.

I still haven't found any concrete research that provides evidence that air fences are safer than the type they have at Sheffield. I'm struggling to understand why when a sport is financially flat on its backside that an expensive unproven "safety" device is being foisted upon clubs. Without research evidence to support the installation of air fences the only thing one can conclude is that someone has done a very good "selling" job and some others have done a very poor job of "buying".

I remember his photo's well. Is that the same Steve Bacon who raced for Whipps Cross Cycle Speedway team in 1967/68? http://www.spokesman-online.co.uk/15.html Team photo towards the bottom of the page posted 26th March.

I always wear a helmet but as you will be aware a number of organisations position cycle helmets as something they are not. I would never suggest not wearing one; the reference was used to demonstrate how when discussing safety the facts don't always back up the general beliefs.

It may sound a bit naive of me but I'd assumed that people would be more interested in getting off there backsides to support the fund raising for Ricky rather than postulating on who may or may not turn up. I'm confident that that is what the true speedway supporters who are able to will do; they will turn out, pay their money and enjoy what I'm sure will be a good nights entertainment. This is one thread where I feel I'll get full support by saying, "if you have nothing positive to post; post nothing!".

Correct which is what cycle helmets are designed to protect you from (and why in my opinion you should choose to wear one); however most fatalities on cycles are caused by being hit by a faster moving vehicle (or being crushed by an HGV)so don't kid yourself that wearing a helmet will prevent this. So that begs the question are we all kidding ourselves re air fences?

Unfortunately you cannot state that as if it is fact; it may be the case that they would all be alive; but without the independent research to back it up it is just your belief that they would all be alive. Have these fences been tested using crash test dummies for example? Have bikes been propelled in to them from different angles to measure what happens? It's a bit like the argument that cycle helmets save lives, this is what politicians and the helmet manufacturers want you to believe but the reality is that cycle helmets are designed to protect cyclists from falls not from the impact of motor vehicles. It is the impact of motor vehicles that kills cyclists. So although it may seem logical to wear a cycle helmet in reality they do little if anything to help protect from the type of accident that will lead to a fatality. So the question is do air fences actually improve safety and if so how much over other fences designs, or do we just all feel better about air fences because we believe that they should improve safety, even though there is little or no factual or investigative evidence to back up that belief?

Yet another glib answer; and as anyone with a modicum of experience knows the trouble with common sense is that it isn't that common! Where are the facts that I can study that's not an unreasonable request to make is it?

This is exactly the sort of response that totally discredits this forum. I ask a serious question and this is the best effort at a response so far. And by the way if after hitting the kids bouncy castle I rebounded in front of and were hit by three motorcycles doing 60-70 mile per hour, or my motorcycle bounced off and fell on me; the brick wall may have been the better option! Which is why I asked for a steer on the research that has been conducted; can anyone point me in the right direction?

Can anyone point me in the direction of the research that was done to verify that Air Fences offer more protection to riders than more traditional safety fencing? I'm getting a bit boring in my latter years and this stuff interests me. Thanks

That's not good is it?

Thanks so that's the riders covered; but what about officials? The other point to note is that I'm not sure that the wording covers "acting like a childish buffoon". It's actually a serious point as the tweets that I read fall in to that category and I'd argue are unseemly and unprofessional but I'm not sure that they are, "foul, abusive or offensive language, profane activity or fraudulent comments". However it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that damage can still be done without falling foul of those definitions. So is there an process of applying a sanction to an official who has basically acted like an idiot?

Is there any guidance/rules issued by the authorities on the use of social media by riders and officials? As most marketing professionals agree social media can be a very strong tool for building a following and delivering positive messages about an organisations or in this case a sport. I have no interest in Elite league speedway but I am none the less concerned to see an official of a club using twitter in what can only be described as an infantile way. Any rider or official using social media inappropriately is by default damaging the image of speedway and therefore damaging the club that I follow. Are there any rules and if not why not?