Elephantman

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?

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!".