http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news?articleid=3061550

What is so secret about safety improvements why can't they just tell us what they intend to do instead of being so cryptic all the time.

Where,if anywhere, is really safe to watch/marshal.

Nowhere in the world is 100% safe is it? It's about acceptable risk, isn't it? I would certainly never have imagined the series of events I think happened, could happen. It has often occurred to me, marshalling at the bottom of Bray that a bike dropped there at what? 180mph? hitting something... kerb or wall, could bounce in any direction at all for a very long way, not to mention bits flying off like giant shrapnel.. and it happened, but at Joey's not Bray.
Who would have predicted the awful accident last year on the road, where a young lad out cycling was hit by a runaway wheel... Life is full of risks, and we have to look out for them, do what we can to rule them out, and then get on with it.
When it does all go wrong, we have to look at what happened and see what we can learn from it, if anything.
Like you, I'm not sure what is so secret, but I suppose while the inquest is to come things may be sub judice. Revealing something might affect the way witnesses described what they saw?

You are dead right about acceptable risk my only concern is that these days some people think any risk,however small, is unacceptable.It seems to me that in all walks of life people take risks and if that risk doesn't pay off then things tend to improve,or is that a sweeping generalisation.

What is also of concern,as we are reading in papers about the floods,is insurers refusing to offer cover or the premiums being so high as to make things unaffordable.

It is a real concern. We need to be allowed to make our own minds up, but that is balanced by the need for us to take responsibility for our own actions. However, even then things can become litiginous.
When I was running an event in Scotland a couple of years ago, the broker explained to me that, should one of my participants become disabled, or worse, it might not be them that sued, but their relatives, or their estate. So... I take full responsibilty for my own daft decisions, but...
Also, he admitted obliquely that the particular risk we were looking at had NEVER resulted in any known accidents and therefore no claims, but the premiums climbed dizzily... because it just MIGHT happen, and the longer they went without an accident the shorter they reckoned the odds!!! In other words the safer it was the more likely it was that an accident would happen... I think...
Of course, when the government says as the British one did a few days ago that flood plains must be used for housing... who is taking responsibilty there? the government (I doubt it) the seller (nah) the insurer (hmmm) the buyer... I think so...