New safety rules

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fozzy

By the way, personally, I think that we should be going down the route of using SI or something similar, as we use at Orienteering events - like they use at the 3P and other races.

Very quick, very reliable, and easy to process the data.

But that's my opinion and we've opened that can of worms on here before. It apparently goes in the face of the freedom of fell racing. Especially when wearing your brand-new, ultra-light, super-waterproof £250 jacket and your £200 headtorch or whatever.

I don't think we want to get into that debate again! :D

---

Totally agree.. this has been suggested many times.. I mentioned FRA sportident kits in each area.. especially for AL's its just such an advantage on so many levels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazTheSlug

you need a list of the numbers in the race and you need to check them off

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

It seems straight forwards, you have a list of numbers and/or names.. you tick off.. pure head counting is dangerous we all realise that. 1-100 maybe marginally simpler but as long as its a list in numerical order it is simple enough..

---

Ditto. For the finish line, the head count is a secondary check as it can go wrong for all sorts of reasons (including multiple runners arriving at the same time). What is vital is to have a list of who has a race number and to reliably account for them all at the finish line (and try to stop anyone ducking out of the funnel before being recorded).

In bad weather especially, CPs are always going to be less reliable for race numbers, but hopefully accurate for head count. They aid where to look if someone is missing. But how long do the marshals wait for someone who may have gone down to the valley (accidentally or on purpose), or who may have missed the CP, or any number of other things?

But I guess then you arrive at the committee reasoning: the head count must be known and accurate, so that the CPs are aware when their job is done, or are able to radio in that x runners are seriously overdue. Race control can then decide whether the runners are really missing, or have turned up at the next CP, or if it was CP1 maybe they turned back.. etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fozzy

I don't quite understand why you think it's such a big issue? Maybe you could explain?

---

Because this is a learning-by-rote solution that won't 'solve' the underlying problem anyway. What is needed is a deep awareness of the potential for mistakes at all stages from issuing number to checking them off at the end, and what to do if different head-counts are returned for diifferent CPs (which will happen almost every time).

If we were going to be really pedantic we should add EAN-8 style check digits to all the numbers, so numbering would go 17, 24, 31, 48, 55, 62, 79, 86, 93, 109, 116, and so on. Removing the last digit gives you the 'normal' number series, and (almost) no single-digit error or swapping gives another valid number.

And as I said initially, the bit I think is really important is to do with bad-weather cancellation/alternative courses.

issue every runner with a barcode instead of a number (like Park Run) which is scanned at every CP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

issue every runner with a barcode instead of a number (like Park Run) which is scanned at every CP.

---

Not a bad solution.

Which is effectively what SI is. Only more reliable, and proven to work in the vast majority of weathers. It costs slightly more than the barcode system, but also provides more info.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

issue every runner with a barcode instead of a number (like Park Run) which is scanned at every CP.

---

By Jove, Witton that's brilliant.

Your bar code could be issued with your FRA membership so any sanctions imposed can be followed through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stagger

By Jove, Witton that's brilliant.

Your bar code could be issued with your FRA membership so any sanctions imposed can be followed through.

---

How about an FRA microchip implanted in your body à la Jason Bourne while you're at it? :rolleyes:

You should all try helping out at Parkrun just to see how well it really works ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss July

How about an FRA microchip implanted in your body à la Jason Bourne while you're at it? :rolleyes:

---

Great answer.

Bar code tattooed on forehead.

The new proposals are problematic, as they have some very real negative consequences for the sport. I often run topless, for the simple fact that I get too hot and this puts me at risk of dehydration: can anyone give a valid reason why I 'must' wear a top, as this will decrease my personal safety? I have taken part in races where organisers have insisted on the carrying of full waterproofs on blazing summer's days, yet not provided one drop of water, or even insisted that any was carried- this is not a proper duty of care to the competitor, it's dumb adherence to rules rather than intelligent, dynamic risk assessment
Similarly, many runners have pointed out that numbers worn on shorts are actually more likely to be seen by marshals than ones covered by a top in poor weather; I now fold numbers and put them on my shorts after having lost more than one from a top, torn off by strong winds. Let's engage brain before casting these rules in stone- Pertex and water on hot days and full waterproofs when actually needed. Numbers to be clearly visible . Runners to be treated as intelligent adults...