Christian Devereux
PFD Report
All Responded
Ref: 2014-0240
All 1 response received
· Deadline: 21 Jul 2014
Coroner's Concerns (AI summary)
A HANS type device likely would have prevented or reduced fatal head and neck injuries in a collision. Many drivers in the race were not using these affordable and beneficial safety devices.
View full coroner's concerns
(1) During the collision between the Mini and the Mustang Mr Devereux would have suffered a major movement of his head in a forwards and backwards motion.
(2) It is likely that his head and neck would have suffered an extension and a turning motion as his car spun
(3) He was wearing a helmet which would have added at least 2 kilo’s to the weight of his head
(4) The fracture of the skull and his neck had resulted from this movement of his head during the course of the collision.
(5) He was not wearing a HAN’s type device, and had he been wearing one it is likely that it would have prevented or reduced the injury he received.
(6) It was estimated by the witnesses that approximately 50% of drivers in that particular race were wearing HAN’s type devices.
(7) The cost of buying a HAN’s type device is approximately £200, which is considerably less than the cost of a helmet, and a small amount compared with the cost of entering that specific race.
(8) The advantages of wearing the HAN’s type device considerably outweigh the disadvantages.
(2) It is likely that his head and neck would have suffered an extension and a turning motion as his car spun
(3) He was wearing a helmet which would have added at least 2 kilo’s to the weight of his head
(4) The fracture of the skull and his neck had resulted from this movement of his head during the course of the collision.
(5) He was not wearing a HAN’s type device, and had he been wearing one it is likely that it would have prevented or reduced the injury he received.
(6) It was estimated by the witnesses that approximately 50% of drivers in that particular race were wearing HAN’s type devices.
(7) The cost of buying a HAN’s type device is approximately £200, which is considerably less than the cost of a helmet, and a small amount compared with the cost of entering that specific race.
(8) The advantages of wearing the HAN’s type device considerably outweigh the disadvantages.
Responses
Noted
The Motor Sports Association details its history of considering frontal head restraints and insurance policies, and provides statistics on affiliated clubs, license holders, officials and authorised events. (AI summary)
The Motor Sports Association details its history of considering frontal head restraints and insurance policies, and provides statistics on affiliated clubs, license holders, officials and authorised events. (AI summary)
View full response
Dear Mr Chapman Re: Christian Devereux (deceased) Thank you for forwarding the Regulation 28 Report to which we respond as follows. The MSA has considered the use of frontal head restraint devices since they first came into existence. The FIA as the world governing body first introduced them solely for Formula One. I have not specifically researched it but after approximately two years they extended that requirement to other world championships. At the time the devices typically cost in the order of £1,200. Having covered the World Championships the FIA then moved the requirement on further but still do not make such devices mandatory "across the board". With effect from 1st January 2005 the MSA made specific provision within General Regulations for competitors to use what was then known as a HANS device and is now ref erred to as an FHR. In order to use an FHR the helmet has to be compatible and in 2005 there were very few helmets that were compatible. Thus there was not only the significant cost of the FHR but also the cost of a new helmet. It is only within the last couple of years that it can be taken that virtually all helmets sold for use in motorsport are compatible with FHR's. Aside from the cost consideration there was also the matter of availability for the HANS is subject to patent and supplies were thus inherently limited. Over the last nine years the cost implications and availability have both improved. During this time the MSA has regularly reviewed the issue as to whether the use of FHR's should be made mandatory in all MSA authorised motorsport, in certain sectors or competitors left to make their own decision. Over this period the MSA has given publicity to the use of FHR's. British Touring Cars, British Formula Three and British GT were the first to make the use of THE ROYAL AUTOMOBILE CLUB MOTOR SPORTS HOUSE. TEL: •44 10) 1753 765 000 RfGISHRFD OFFICL MOTOR SPORTS ASSOCIATION RIVERSIDE PARK. FAX: •44 10) 1753 682 ')38 '>EE i,,',AIN ADDRESS RH;J;TFRED NUMBER: LIMITED COLN BROOK, WEB: IVWW.MSAUK.ORG IJ44829 ENGLAND SU OHG, UK VAT NO: 242304895
FHR's mandatory through Championship Regulations, their example being followed by a number of other race championships since then. FHR's are mandatory in the British Rally Championship and in facilitating drivers from the age of 14 years to compete in specific Junior Circuit Race Championships there has always been a mandatory requirement for FHR's to be used in those championships. Competitors in various sectors have individually chosen to use an FHR despite it not being a mandatory requirement. There are some vehicles, particularly historic vehicles, where the use of an FHR is impractical through such reason as there being no mandatory requirement for use of a roll overs protection system (ROPS) or driver restraint. There are many historic cars which are of such a structure as to make it impossible to fit a ROPS or restraint. At their meeting of 4th March 2014 Motor Sports Council ordered that all specialist committees specifically considered whether it was appropriate for the use of FHR's to be made mandatory in their particular sector of the sport. This process is ongoing. In considering the issue, the specialist committees are required to consider what, if any advantage there would be, the practicality of wearing an FHR in that particular environment, what the cost implications would be, whether making such a requirement mandatory would discourage people from entering the sport, whether such would result in some retiring from the sport. There are some sectors of the sport where it is clear cut that use of an FHR is inappropriate, eg. Autotests, Trials. It is less clear cut in other areas. In racing there is a significant percentage of competitors who chose to wear an FHR, overall, probably more than 60% of competitors using cars where there is no vehicle issue that makes use of an FHR impossible/inappropriate use an FHR. The review you request was already underway prior to HM Coroner's Inquest touching the death of Christian Devereux. Should you wish for the result of that review be communicated to you then please contact the undersigned, noting that we anticipate the review to be completed by the end of 2014. A standard document setting out the organisational structure of MSA authorised motorsport is appended which you may find useful in understanding the processes that are used in drafting and implementing regulatory requirements.
FHR's mandatory through Championship Regulations, their example being followed by a number of other race championships since then. FHR's are mandatory in the British Rally Championship and in facilitating drivers from the age of 14 years to compete in specific Junior Circuit Race Championships there has always been a mandatory requirement for FHR's to be used in those championships. Competitors in various sectors have individually chosen to use an FHR despite it not being a mandatory requirement. There are some vehicles, particularly historic vehicles, where the use of an FHR is impractical through such reason as there being no mandatory requirement for use of a roll overs protection system (ROPS) or driver restraint. There are many historic cars which are of such a structure as to make it impossible to fit a ROPS or restraint. At their meeting of 4th March 2014 Motor Sports Council ordered that all specialist committees specifically considered whether it was appropriate for the use of FHR's to be made mandatory in their particular sector of the sport. This process is ongoing. In considering the issue, the specialist committees are required to consider what, if any advantage there would be, the practicality of wearing an FHR in that particular environment, what the cost implications would be, whether making such a requirement mandatory would discourage people from entering the sport, whether such would result in some retiring from the sport. There are some sectors of the sport where it is clear cut that use of an FHR is inappropriate, eg. Autotests, Trials. It is less clear cut in other areas. In racing there is a significant percentage of competitors who chose to wear an FHR, overall, probably more than 60% of competitors using cars where there is no vehicle issue that makes use of an FHR impossible/inappropriate use an FHR. The review you request was already underway prior to HM Coroner's Inquest touching the death of Christian Devereux. Should you wish for the result of that review be communicated to you then please contact the undersigned, noting that we anticipate the review to be completed by the end of 2014. A standard document setting out the organisational structure of MSA authorised motorsport is appended which you may find useful in understanding the processes that are used in drafting and implementing regulatory requirements.
Sent To
- RAC Motorsports Association
Response Status
Linked responses
1 of 1
56-Day Deadline
21 Jul 2014
All responses received
About PFD responses
Organisations named in PFD reports must respond within 56 days explaining what actions they are taking.
Source: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
Report Sections
Investigation and Inquest
On 9th May 2013 I commenced an investigation into the death of Christian Murray Cecil Devereux, aged 50. The investigation concluded at the end of the Inquest on 29th April 2014. The conclusion of the inquest was:
The Cause of death was:
1.a. Head injury consistent with being sustained in a road traffic collision
The Conclusion was:
Accidental death as a result of a motor collision.
The Cause of death was:
1.a. Head injury consistent with being sustained in a road traffic collision
The Conclusion was:
Accidental death as a result of a motor collision.
Circumstances of the Death
On the 5th May 2013 Mr Devereux was driving his Mini Cooper S motor car in a race at the Donington circuit in Leicestershire when his car was in a frontal collision with a Ford Mustang. As a result of the collision Mr Devereux suffered head injuries from which he died at the scene.
The evidence of the Consultant Forensic Pathologist was that Mr Devereux had suffered (amongst other injuries): a) A linear skull fracture across the base of the skull which had almost connected to become circumferential. b) A fracture of the left transverse process of the lower cervical spine over the course of the left vertebral artery c) The skull fracture and associated bleeding over the base of the skull will have resulted in sudden disruption of electrical signals from the brain to the rest of the body. This is likely to have resulted in almost instantaneous death.
Mr Devereux was wearing a full racing harness and a helmet, and was sitting in an approved racing seat, which had head height “wings” to reduce sideways head movement.
There was little internal intrusion of damage into the car itself. The damage to the Mini was to the nearside front.
The collision was investigated by the police and your technical Director, who also came to the Inquest on the 29th April 2014 to give evidence.
The evidence of the Consultant Forensic Pathologist was that Mr Devereux had suffered (amongst other injuries): a) A linear skull fracture across the base of the skull which had almost connected to become circumferential. b) A fracture of the left transverse process of the lower cervical spine over the course of the left vertebral artery c) The skull fracture and associated bleeding over the base of the skull will have resulted in sudden disruption of electrical signals from the brain to the rest of the body. This is likely to have resulted in almost instantaneous death.
Mr Devereux was wearing a full racing harness and a helmet, and was sitting in an approved racing seat, which had head height “wings” to reduce sideways head movement.
There was little internal intrusion of damage into the car itself. The damage to the Mini was to the nearside front.
The collision was investigated by the police and your technical Director, who also came to the Inquest on the 29th April 2014 to give evidence.
Action Should Be Taken
The RAC Motorsports Association is concerned with writing of the regulations under which motor sport in the UK is governed and is in a position to influence the wearing of HAN’s type devices.
Consideration should be given to:
1. increasing the numbers and types of races where the wearing of a HAN’s type device is mandatory,
2. with a view to achieving in a planned way, complete usage on all races,
3. increasing the publicity given for the device,
4. strongly advising drivers to wear the device,
5. Increasing the awareness of new/young drivers.
Consideration should be given to:
1. increasing the numbers and types of races where the wearing of a HAN’s type device is mandatory,
2. with a view to achieving in a planned way, complete usage on all races,
3. increasing the publicity given for the device,
4. strongly advising drivers to wear the device,
5. Increasing the awareness of new/young drivers.
Copies Sent To
following
Similar PFD Reports
Reports sharing organisations, categories, or themes
Related Inquiry Recommendations
Public inquiry recommendations addressing similar themes
Review CCTV monitoring SIA licence requirements
Manchester Arena Inquiry
Unregulated recreation safety
Establish standard for event healthcare services
Manchester Arena Inquiry
Unregulated recreation safety
Mandatory Ambulance Liaison Officer at events
Manchester Arena Inquiry
Unregulated recreation safety
Data sourced from Courts and Tribunals Judiciary under the Open Government Licence.