New safety rules

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norman Bates

Yes Richard you read it correctly, not just my opinion though I'm just relaying the general feeling of most fr I know. Wait and see, time will tell, I predict that those many words will prove irrelevant, mark my words.

---

It is disappointing that the well being of RO is of such little concern to you and your friends that you see fit to post in such fatuous fashion.

Reality is all of us hope that the many words will indeed prove irrelevant as you suggest, that there will not be a "next time".

Equal reality is there is a 100% chance there will be a next time for a fatality, history says you can count on it, and all of the rules you consider unimportant, will be scrutinized in deciding where negligence lies.

That may not worry you, it worries me, and it scared the hell out of a lot of people in relation to the recent inquest, all of whom I think were relieved at the outcome, and heaved a collective sigh of relief, and I with them.

All should be very wary of making it worse for "next time". One thing you learn from history, is we have a habit of failing to learn from history. I hope that is not true in this case.

As a Race organiser since I first heard of the tragic events on the Buttermere race, I have been awaiting, and anticipating the consequences arising from the inquest and subsequent Coroners report.
I have been following this issue with interest and increasing concern, through the media, the numerous statements, and pre-empted drafts of rule changes sent to members and RO’s from the FRA Ltd committee, and also comments made through this thread.
At the beginning on the Forum we had individuals discussing if they would have to buy some new waterproof kit, run topless or not able to fold there numbers in half, looking at the bigger picture and how things have transpired, this seems all inconsequential.
Most of the rules which the committee have imposed on kit I agree with in principal, and are only common sense, they are mainly rules that have been in place and are only being enforced, anyone with any Mountain craft or knowledge of the hills would not dream of venturing out without this kit for an A cat race or day in the hills, and they only serve to protect and reduce the risk for the competitor.
The main point of concern I feel is that the very essence and heart of the sport, the low key Fell Race is in danger of being lost.
The likes of the Three Peaks with its corporate sponsorship and ever increasing fees will survive the changes, they will have at there disposal the resources needed to fulfil the requirements imposed by the new rule changes, training of marshals, electronic scoring, even field hospitals and helicopters if they wanted!
Races for instance like, Borrowdale with large fields, should survive, but what about the vast majority of races in the calendar those which attract less than 100 runners, charging nominal fees, entry on the day, only wanting to cover costs, relying on limited number of volunteers and resources, how are they going to survive, and find the investment to buy survival tents and communication devises etc, I have borrowed the FRA radios when or if a more established race doesn’t require them on the day, and they are only directional, and at my race location were totally inadequate, only being able to contact the marshal monitoring traffic on the road at the start, mobile phones also have limited signal so cannot be relied on.
I have entered my race for 2014 under the FRA/UKA rules and insurance, hoping that in the meantime some safety rules that are tenable are produced, and support for RO’s by the FRA Ltd n the event of an incident occurring during an event is forth coming.
But as I see it we are being used as Guinea Pigs and Scape Goats left to fend for ourselves in any future court case arising if forbid a similar tragedy occurs.
I don’t confess to have intricate knowledge of the laws, let the legal buffs sort that one out, all I want to do is organise a Fell Race to give something back to the sport, but who in there right mind would stick there neck on the line, risk legal action, or loose there house, never mind have the audacity to even ask anyone to volunteer to help marshal the course and put themselves in the same position on your behalf.
I will wait and see over the winter months what transpires and hope that common sense prevails, if not I feel I will have no choice but to cancel the race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

It is disappointing that the well being of RO is of such little concern to you and your friends that you see fit to post in such fatuous fashion.

Reality is all of us hope that the many words will indeed prove irrelevant as you suggest, that there will not be a "next time".

Equal reality is there is a 100% chance there will be a next time for a fatality, history says you can count on it, and all of the rules you consider unimportant, will be scrutinized in deciding where negligence lies.

That may not worry you, it worries me, and it scared the hell out of a lot of people in relation to the recent inquest, all of whom I think were relieved at the outcome, and heaved a collective sigh of relief, and I with them.

All should be very wary of making it worse for "next time". One thing you learn from history, is we have a habit of failing to learn from history. I hope that is not true in this case.

---

Well Al I am a RO myself are you ! You haven't got a clue what it's like to wear the race organisers head and what we go through on the day of the event have you ? I'm not sure what your motives are but don't trust them whatever. I prefer to put my trust in the Fra getting right for me than subscribe to your scaremongering because that's all that it is. Time will prove you wrong.

[QUOTE=studmarks;561851]It seems to me that race organisers can either listen to the ravings of AI who isn’t a runner, isn’t a lawyer, isn’t a race organiser but does love the sound of his own voice or the FRA who have looked after the sport for 40 years and will still be doing so in another 40 years.

[QUOTE=Khamsin;561861]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by studmarks

It seems to me that race organisers can either listen to the ravings of AI who isn’t a runner, isn’t a lawyer, isn’t a race organiser but does love the sound of his own voice or the FRA who have looked after the sport for 40 years and will still be doing so in another 40 years.

---

My sentiments exactly, thanks for that Khasmin and well done Norman, tell it like it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norman Bates

Well Al I am a RO myself are you ! You haven't got a clue what it's like to wear the race organisers head and what we go through on the day of the event have you ? I'm not sure what your motives are but don't trust them whatever. I prefer to put my trust in the Fra getting right for me than subscribe to your scaremongering because that's all that it is. Time will prove you wrong.

---

Yet you yourself admit there are problems doing what is asked of you in the " non runners in race thread" where non runners clearly cause runner accounting problems for both marshalls and finish funnels, and you now know - assuming you can read - that these discrepancies are treated as negligence. Hence coroner remark 6 - no doubt the overcount a result of just such non runners, and treated as failure of duty.

Strange, you do not see it as a problem.
Get your head out of the sand, is my suggestion. Read the evidence.

Sure it is highly unlikely a runner disappears and dies in your race or any race. But it will happen to some RO, and the rules will be inspected minutely again.

I just do not think undertakings should be made to a coroner which you as an RO know cannot be guaranteed - like infallible counting - or as studmarks says communications - where is your problem with that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

Yet you yourself admit there are problems doing what is asked of you in the " non runners in race thread" where non runners clearly cause runner accounting problems for both marshalls and finish funnels, and you now know - assuming you can read - that these discrepancies are treated as negligence. Hence coroner remark 6 - no doubt the overcount a result of just such non runners, and treated as failure of duty.

Strange, you do not see it as a problem.
Get your head out of the sand, is my suggestion. Read the evidence.

Sure it is highly unlikely a runner disappears and dies in your race or any race. But it will happen.
I just do not think undertakings should be made to a coroner which you as an RO know cannot be guaranteed - like infallible counting - where is your problem with that?

---

The new rules recognise the fact that there are or have been problems in certain areas in the and are aimed at rectifying those problems, how can you find fault with that ? They are aimed at runners and organisers alike, if they make certain runners think twice or are more aware of the problems they may cause the RO I'm all for that, you for some strange unaccountable reason are not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

these discrepancies are treated as negligence. Hence coroner remark 6 -

---

As we can all read the coroner nowhere mentions "negligence" in his comments so is your suggestion not just another inflammatory lie?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norman Bates

The new rules recognise the fact that there are or have been problems in certain areas in the and are aimed at rectifying those problems, how can you find fault with that ? They are aimed at runners and organisers alike, if they make certain runners think twice or are more aware of the problems they may cause the RO I'm all for that, you for some strange unaccountable reason are not.

---

I am all for RO being given teeth against runners, and my view lengthy bans if needed, who refuse to comply with safety policy, which has direct parallels in corporate safety. I have never said otherwise. The runner who neither contacts nor returns to race HQ to withdraw is a liability the sport.

But that does not mean I support bad rules - and whilst persistence has got some rough edges removed the nonsense still remains, on courses, weather and a host of other issues. It is still unconditional and mandatory for long races to commence a search for unnaccounted runners before the end of a race, which is at best an action to" consider"

I can't help noticing how the recent posts of 'Norman Bates', 'Khamsin' and 'Lefty' are almost completely devoid of anything constructive. This is a serious and valuable debate. If you've nothing useful to offer please don't post.