New safety rules

Don't think I said inconsequential... not between the two bodies, I think they should be the same, same terrain, same risks...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LissaJous

1. It's difficult getting in to your little gang AI
   
   • The posts are excessively long and the good points are buried.
   • You are a bit obsessed with the version control rather than the points others are making
   • You should be aware how few people will exhaustively read such an exhausting thread.
   
   
2. Of course it is an altered version of an FRA original.
   
   • But are you more comfortable with the wording?
   • Or do you agree with IainR that the semantic differences are inconsequential?
   
   
3. Fellhound's revisions
   
   • I questioned whether readers are aware this is NOT the FRA working document
   • No reply/comment/confirmation that this is the case
   • I added that I would be more comfortable with Fellhound's wording if I was ever to organize a race
   
   
4. A few pages back I suggested an 'alternative' idea
   
   • At registration runners could be asked if there is anyone who would quickly realize if they are overdue
   • If not, they could go on a list for extra 'oversight' to check their return
   • I am not particularly attached to this idea
   • But it was meant to be an out-of-the-box idea to provide a second tier safety net that might actually achieve something in the case of an incident
   • Instead of trying to perfect a system that cannot be perfected (or mandating that it should be perfected)
   • As usual, no reply or comment was forthcoming

---

Consider the following paras bullets.

• Where is the bullet on the editor screen? I do not see, and cannot be bothered to type in command mode!

Not sure I have a gang, but you are welcome to join!

Document control is important when you end up with several versions of something on your computer from several sources of the same name and cannot work out the sequence. As I do now.

Begs the question of what rules we are presently working to too. According to the book it is 2013 per coroner, but that is not what you get if you download which is a multiply amended draft purporting to be in force, but known to be in flux. No safety conscious organisation would ever allow that question which would be self evident reading the document.

I have not read the WFRA document. I looked at sufficient to see that a heap of problems are still there some of which have been amended even in FRA draft so it is back issue. Do you think any of it is better? Happy to read parts if you think worthwhile? I am recieving drafts from others and doing my best to comment on them.

Some of this needs a lot of words to argue the case, it is not a trivial subject - like how the coroners points came to be, and the correspondence with the rules as they were, and the points put by UKA under "failures of duty" cannot be written in a few paras. It is dull and terse subject!

When fellhound owned up to his version posted by Wynn, I was at pains to point out it was not accepted by anyone. There is a consensus of several of us that prefer fellhound wording and treatment of some issues, a consensus except where it matters that is. I think fellhound hopes to win a few more battles over some issues yet. Watch this space.

Fellhound SHOULD be on the rules subcommitee as the safety professional. Reminds me of "yes minister" when sir humphrey said of a cockup he made "But I did not know anything about it (the key subject) , if I had they would never have given me the job"

It is somewhat annoying that whilst the powers that be have occasionally taken a sideswipe at all of the views expressed here, the people expressing them and so on, there has never been a debate of any of the issues per se. Madeleine stated that most on this thread had been read, discussed and discounted. But what or why?.

I tackled one issue officially , explaining why to change, what to change and how to change. Got the answer "do not agree" - hard to know what is disagreed with, the problem , the objective or the solution. The problem is real, I can quote it by quoting the rules. The problem is still there.

I hope fellhound gets on better than I did.

Sorry about not seeing your views. There are unhelpful posters who make facile and fatuous remarks, which can distance the serious posts, so I miss things. Not convinced about the registration idea. Arguably the basic process of ensuring all runners accounted is more or less THE critical function of an RO, so better to duplicate systems by the RO rather than rely on backup from outside.



Tskk...too many words ...again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

Not convinced by that Stolly. Races encourage a "follow the crocodile" mentality....

---

The advantages of following a crocodile shouldn't be underestimated. At least you're with a bunch of others and not on your own :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stolly

The advantages of following a crocodile shouldn't be underestimated. At least you're with a bunch of others and not on your own :)

---

Until the clag comes down and you're on your own!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pinchy

Until the clag comes down and you're on your own!

---

I have even heard of people who become detached on the great lakes ending up down at hardknott when they lose the back of the crocodile in clag....now who was it??? its a problem this memory lark when you are my age! Very bad weather gives me a clue..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

When fellhound owned up to his version posted by Wynn, I was at pains to point out it was not accepted by anyone. There is a consensus of several of us that prefer fellhound wording and treatment of some issues, a consensus except where it matters that is. I think fellhound hopes to win a few more battles over some issues yet. Watch this space.

---

Just highlighting that bit. This is an important point that was very easily missed. I think some have read it believing it was the FRA's stance and hence decided there is no issue.

Thanks for reply & lists are easy to create if you go to the advanced editor.

WFRA document, no particular need for you to read it, some bits are the same as the FRA's, and others much less reliant on the word MUST. The document was only created a few days ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LissaJous

Just highlighting that bit. This is an important point that was very easily missed. I think some have read it believing it was the FRA's stance and hence decided there is no issue.

Thanks for reply & lists are easy to create if you go to the advanced editor.

WFRA document, no particular need for you to read it, some bits are the same as the FRA's, and others much less reliant on the word MUST. The document was only created a few days ago.

---

Advanced editor - where where where... is that a profile kind of a thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

Advanced editor - where where where... is that a profile kind of a thing?

---

Next to 'Post Quick Reply' is 'Go Advanced', or else if you generally hit 'Reply to thread' you should already be there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

I have even heard of people who become detached on the great lakes ending up down at hardknott when they lose the back of the crocodile in clag....now who was it??? its a problem this memory lark when you are my age!

---

Haha I just took a slightly dodgy line is all, along with about 20 others. In fact our line was okay but we'd actually gone off the edge of the race map making navigation really quite difficult. And if in doubt head down :). And I was as safe as houses running back to Langdale via Wrynose and Blea Tarn :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stolly

Excellent bullet pointing :)

---

Plus one. I really enjoyed it.