I think we should stop critisising ROs, even by association, AI != AW.
ROs should be free to mandate whatever equipment they feel is required, it is for the safety of others as muchy as for the runners themselves.
Printable View
I think we should stop critisising ROs, even by association, AI != AW.
ROs should be free to mandate whatever equipment they feel is required, it is for the safety of others as muchy as for the runners themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dominion
Doesnt really belong on this thread - but this is where you were reading: and I would rather not post this on a thread of the name of the site. This site has been the sustained target of hackers over a number of years, and moved at least once to a virgin installation.
It has had all the best practice precautions taken, although I will decline to say what has been done: to avoid giving the hackers a clue as to what is being done currently.
But I have left some of the spam in to allow the host company admins that own and lease this server to me to investigate the next breach if any. Bear with us.
I have over a hundred sites, but for whatever reason only two or three of them ever get attacked! No idea why the hackers choose this one. It has neither page rank nor traffic. Have not even bothered setting pretty permalinks, since could not give a damn about SEO friendliness, as a result google rarely if ever scans it so the hackers are wasting their time - if they did their SEO monitoring properly , they would know their spam links are not being indexed, moreover the google penguin update(s) have made prime keyword links like theirs damaging not helpful.
[am hoping the hackers read that, to realise how genuinely futile their actions are!]
I agree. But any mandate should not be seen as taking away responsibility from the athlete. It's no different to the state saying that when you drive a car the tyres must be legal, you must drive within the speed limit and you must have an MOT.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfella
These do not take away the personal responsibility that is on the driver to drive safely on the roads.
The request for competitors to carry a waterproof jacket doesn't either. Someone who decides not to would be like a driver on the motorway not wearing a seatbelt - stupid, putting their own well-being at risk, but more importantly putting the well-being of others at risk and duty of care extends beyond just the competitors as far as I'm concerned.
I have to consider the marshalls, rescue team and the other volunteers involved in the event.
All I'm doing Wynn is demonstrating how easy it is to rip holes in the AW's rules in true AI style. So which rule takes precedence paragraph 2 or 5? Do I manage my safety 'wholly' and comply with rule 2 but not 5, or do I manage my safety 'partially' and comply with rule 5 but not 2?Quote:
Originally Posted by wynn
Bad critical thinking CL. There is no contradiction at all except in your head.Quote:
Originally Posted by CL
You imply rules are mutually exclusive they are not. Complying with one instruction does not in anyway compromise the ability to comply with the other, because carrying of that amount of kit, does not compromise the safety of the runner, so does not interfere with his agreement to managing his own safety.
The key is the runner must proactively weigh up conditions before starting. And decide whether and what extra is needed for safety. Is is that express instruction to decide in "on the day runner instructions" that I think is missing from FRA rules. I do not have a gripe with the idea of specifying a minimum so long as it is explicitly rather than implicitly stated as "not warranted as sufficient"
The RO must not be seen to be telling you what kit is sufficient for conditions on day. Only the runner must choose that. It is quite appropriate for the RO to lay down a level subject to that runner decision.
If Wynn asks you to carry a golf ball and you enter under those conditions but then refuse to carry it, you will be disqualified. You also have a duty expressed in the conditions to ensure you carry enough kit to stay safe - in ADDITION to any other mandated items.
Safety legislation, guidelines and codes of practice, uses two different words here to emphasise that very distinction. "Suitable" and "sufficient". Something can be suitable, but not be sufficient.
The minimum kit is "mandatory" and intended to be (but deliberately not stated as "suitable" to avoid the implication of being warranted as such) it is specifically stated as not "sufficient" to force the runner to choose.
I come back to the first point I made, which trumps all of that.
Those are the entry conditions. Do what the RO says. You don't like them don't enter - go somewhere else.
Playing Devil's Advocate, and don't have a specific example, but what if the RO's requirements actually caused injury or death?Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
What?????Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHeathens
You come down to whether that was reasonably forseeableQuote:
Originally Posted by TheHeathens
Sure - it is just possible for a mandatory waterproof top to end up asphyxiating a runner, or the runner being left hanging by it even!. Nobody would blame the RO unless that was a reasonably forseeable consequence of his instructions (it is not) or it had happened in the past a few times (it has not to my knowledge) and the RO did not heed the clear need to revise their recommendations, or put other reasonably practicable control measuresin place.
Which is part of why it needs FRA to ACTIVELY review incidents in ours and other related sports, and publish the lessons learned from them - not just the ones that kill - but also the ones that had the power to, and even amend rules because of them. The way they talk is scottish hill running is a different sport so largely irrelevant. Which is ridiculous. Only the management is different.
It also needs RO to review their race plans in the light of incidents occurring in them, that may not have caused a problem in the case in question, but had the power to do so.
How did the same number and name appear twice in results? Something went wrong, and that something needs investigating. I have seen a few times.
Also - Some lost soul on a big lakes trail event could not reach the phone number advertised as the "safety number". The RO needs to get the bottom of these - because it has the potential to be a problem NEXT TIME - even if it did not cause other than embarrassment this time - and the fact of it happening before, but not heeded DEFINITELY creates a potential legal liability for the RO. And the review has to be done at the time, when it is all fresh in peoples minds, and the outcome published for all to see. Mandatory race plans should contain a section for incident review.
But as I keep saying it is not just about law. Or culpability. It is about improving raw safety.
So many people go off at tangents from the last crinkle on langdale (how bad is fellrunner navigation??!!) that I think it is incumbent on the langdale organiser to say that in the race description "be warned at the end of the crinkles - you have a turn left to take - that many people keep missing! so study the map there (and generally) please!" It has not happened yet, but that could be an underlying cause for a tragedy - a runner going off piste there, getting lost in mosedale, off little stand or cold pike, falling, and becoming injured , dying of hypothermia before found, Whilst- I doubt if the RO could be blamed for it, to me that is not the only point. It is stopping obvious possibilities for fatalities. Learning from specific experience.
Grudgingly FRA has suggested putting "specific hazards on courses" into race descriptions originally a suggestion of mine. But so far nobody has actually asked me, what you do actually mean by and do with that suggestion and why - and what to put in guidelines concerning it: because, quote graham "we dont need janet and john, you have written it all a gazillion times".
They do need janet and john. There is a specific example of what I meant. A hazard is not just a rock like the bad step - there is one for navigation, clearly, the fact that it routinely confuses, is plenty enough to say it is confusing. And navigation errors are dangerous, ergo that is a specific hazard of the langdale course - ergo worth mentioning in the description - the decision to put it in the description the direct result of a mandated race post mortem review.
As it is, a group of us have had more to do with highlighting the incidents that give rise to precedents (such as Grand Raid, Zugspitze etc) - even that issue at the end of the crinkles - than FRA, and that is wrong.
The draft pack of revised documents (including safety requirements) currently being considered by SHR and WFRA make no kit stipulations. They only demand that the RO covers it in the race plan, which means the RO is free to deal with it in whatever way he/she sees fit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
Guidance will be available but it's for the RO - and more importantly the runner - to make the decisions based on the nature of the event, weather, etc. Which is how it should be.
The basic tenet will still stand though - whatever rules the RO sets are a pre-condition of entry.
I could not possibly put it in more simple terms. AI grasped the concept.Quote:
Originally Posted by wynn
If you are saying that the runner is wholly responsible for their own safety and then the RO's requirements led to their death then this leaves you open to criticism.
ROs requirements are primarily to protect against bad weather but what if, using AI's example, the waterproof top led to asphyxiation in mild conditions? However unlikely the event, the possibility still remains - in this case, it would be the kit requirement that led to the runner's death.
As I said, I was playing Devil's Advocate but something to consider.... I would prefer a 'recommended' rather than mandatory kit requirement.
And as I said, it is not whether the kit did have a contributory cause, it is whether that was a reasonably forseeable consequence of that instruction, that could lead to a negligence claim. So I doubt that any liability could ever attach, because hundreds of thousands wear such garments every week on the hills without the bizarre happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHeathens
As regards reasonable forseeability:
The clause in our rules stating that field size has to be such that there is no forseable risk of accidents in crowded areas - clearly does create a liability ( solicitors have pointed at - but FRA not listening) since the risk of a group of any size moving over rocks is forseeable. So you cannot run a langdale or borrowdale with that clause in: both of which have a first trip up mile whilst runners are tightly packed, cannot see, and trampling is also possible. Those accidents in the first mile are forseeable hindsight and foresight.
Because of that inane piece of drafting the RO cannot even do the responsible thing of warning the runners of the clearly forseeable risk in the first mile, (the correct control measure) because in doing that he is owning up to a risk the rules say he should not have - owning up his course is not compliant and so is rulebreaking, putting a further target on his back, in event of problems!
So, there is a pack of documentation doing the rounds of SHR and WFRA.
Why not publish it and put a link on here so the rest of us can view and comment?
It will be made public in due course, when all the properly interested parties have had a chance to review and comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecky
You're right but it doesn't stop expensive legal action from occurring; the argument being is that if the RO hadn't made the kit mandatory, the accident wouldn't have happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
I agree that the chances of such an accident happening are extremely remote but if you are mandating anything, then you are also taking on a modicum of responsibility.
I am an interested party, obviously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellhound
Haha the Heathens is trying to out pedant the pedants :)
It's like running with a bobble hat and swallowing the bobble. I sure hope the new safety rules cover that eventuality off :)
It is clearly not the responsibility of the Langdale Horseshoe RO to tell runners to turn left at a particular point in the course. Navigating with a map and compass is all part of the sport we love. It is why so many fell runners also enjoy the challenges of orienteering and mountain marathons. Further, having map-reading ability and a responsibility for one's own safety (rather than being "told" which way to go) is surely important at all times? Otherwise where does it all end up? Red and white marker tape stretching 15 miles round the entire course? The thought fills me with horror...
I offered to present the approach (jointly with andy till he was pushed off committee) for the purpose of "selling" it to committee for months. Given up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecky
Consistently refused, as were Andy W's various sensible suggestions - and in as far as it could have affected meaningful documents and events - the rules (now wrongly frozen), the statements to coroner - the meetings with ROs, now are passed/ too late to have intended effect.
The refusal even to even hear it is reprehensible : by people who made a bad mistake in accepting nem con a set of dreadful rules back last july (and accepted as such) so clearly need advice but wont take it.
Not so. The basic document framework is easy. Pointed out several times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecky
The effort document is "guidelines for creation of race plans" - and to create that document in a professional way , needs exactly the same now , as I said it did when first commenting on problem rules in my first few posts over six months ago.
One of the biggest problems with the july rules was the lack of involvement of a broad church of RO in creation of it, and the lack of a group of RO critiquing before release of it, taking legal advise on behalf of RO only.
It always needed two teams of RO - about 10 in the first group to make sure that the prime variations are represented, mountain, parkland, moorland, long short, summer winter, with& without road crossings, navigation or not, rocky or not, fields of 100 and 500 or 1000 etc. Hard to do with less than 10 RO or races . It also needs a commitment from them to put the effort in, attend meetings and so on. That involves interaction. A lot of safety documentation is talking to the people that have to do the job. As in this case.
Could have got most of that by having an opportunity to ask questions in a couple of RO meetings. Harder now.
It then needs a second team who were not part of the creation (so see the documents through fresh eyes, so judge them on what they say, not what the first group intended to mean. The second interaction could be done only electronically - but does need a broad church of comment..
Any technical documentation drafter will tell you that tramlined thinking is a problem. A lot of the jargon and use of words may make sense to those who drafted it, but means something else or nothing to others. And it has to be readable by all. Take "critical marshalls" in our rules. Never defined. EXTREMELY bad. Bad communications, misunderstandings, ambiguity are the source of many accidents, so this must not be done in a buckshee way.
Only when passed by both teams does it become the "public" document circulated for general comment.
I estimate at least a hundred man hours involved in creation of it start to finish ( I have done the first couple) ,and a score of hours at least for each of the RO. by the time they have finished. I have created many SOPs before so can estimate that. This is not just writing an SOP, it is creating a document to explain how to get others to do that in place of training and accreditation, and because of that has to be far more bullet proof.
I would guess knowing the propensity of public bodies to waste money, the HSE similar "event organisers guidelines" probably took many 1000's hours to produce: so 100 is not that much. Except HSE guidelines are generally designed to be normally read by competent people. Ours cannot assume knowledge of safety except of fell racing - so ours has to be more bulletproof not less.
That said the plan that arises could be as short as 10 pages, depending on what is involved in the race.
But the guidelines have to work just as well for the three peaks, and mountain marathons as well as it does for a summer up/down.
It is not hard , or easy. Just a job for a properly qualified person to do.
Either they buy the idea on the basis of presentation, a which case it is supported by FRA and done to the point of trialling. Or not.
Just not going to put that kind of effort in in pure speculation - or without the commitment of a varied RO team. And it will take addressing the FRA core safety personnel weakness issue to be resolved, and a different attitude to qualified help. to even get me interested in helping now.
It would be easy to get that guidelines document 90% right quickly.
The problem is , if it is the mainstay of race safety, 90% is not good enough.
I have written a long email to the powers that be on one issue of concern to me, for example, that should be in those guidelines- but only ever raised in an oblique way before, and has not been considered elsewhere on these threads. I will wait for a response before deciding to write further on it here. Wonder if I even get an answer?
Couldn't agree more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkley Swimmer
Picking one place on a course to say "be careful navigating here" and then NOT saying the same in all the other places that going astray is possible must surely leave the RO open to liability.
And, anyway, how does this move the responsibility for self to the Runner and away from the RO? Something that AI has been on about for months?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkley Swimmer
I actually oppose most course marking - except in as far as it forms an agreement with a landowner on permissive routes on private land - because it can never be done well enough to be foolproof creating a mountain of work, and it does detract from the event in the way you say.
But it does not alter the fact, that known blackspots should be highlighted.
Places at which people either regularly get injured, or regularly go off route.
I actually oppose the giving of a bearing/ or landmark, marking of the point or marshalling it ( solutions to the problem). Only highlighting the problem.
Why? because the very pronouncement of a problem, and the fact that many succumb, heightens safety awareness for the need for caution , and that "follow the leader" provably does not always work, which is something an RO should do. Get less idiots being more cautious, doing more recceing, gaining more nav skills knowing the problem is real, not overstated. In short being better in formed of the risk they are taking. How is that ever a bad thing? How does it detract from the race?
Who else was at langdale that year the clag was well down, and Helen Diamantides as was came in about 4th?. It was streaming with water. Runners were coming in for hours after, from mosedale, cockley beck, three shires....Scores of them. One of our club mates ended in eskdale!!???? In addition - A vet I seem to remember, came in with broken arm from having tried to descend to the tarn in the wrong place further on. After that experience If that was my race I would have said something in following years particularly claggy ones along the lines of:
"Don't think you can follow the leader. Get your compasses out, you will need them. Runners go everywhere in clag on this race, for example from the end of the crinkles where they just seem to go everywhere instead of turning for Pike of Blisco - You have been warned".
At very least...as the RO you might get to go home earlier next time!
I agree with AI that highlighting the hazards is an important thing for an RO to do but it does raise a dichotomy (as Lecky says) in that it could leave the RO exposed if someone fell foul of a hazard, either physical or navigational, elsewhere on the course, or off it in the latter case.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
The key thing is that the RO should highlight what he/she believes are the most significant hazards (and that will depend on a number of factors) but should make it clear that such highlighted hazards are not the ONLY hazards the runner will encounter.
AI has, of course, explained this previously.
I refer you back to the warning given to entrants in the Conestoga Trail Race in America, published in Boff Whalley’s book and previously posted by me on this forum:
“Warning: This is not your standard 10 mile race. The footing is uneven at best and can be dangerous. A fall is probable. An injury is possible. Insect bites, sprained ankles, lacerations and broken bones are some of the possible hazards. There will not be medical teams immediately on hand and our insurance will not cover your medical bills. You are responsible for your own self. Do not enter unless you are willing to risk and assume responsibility for any injuries that you may incur.”
A good starter for any organiser’s warning to runners! :)
That just needs fine print Andy. Here the way it is done on the waltz, after mentioning a few issuesQuote:
Originally Posted by Fellhound
"if they have any doubts,[ the competitors should ] train on the route to ensure they are competent to race there. The competitor must accept that these are only a selection of the hazards and not necessarily the most dangerous, because the entirety of fell course is hazardous, and the competitor should not enter without sufficient experience of the same or similar terrain."
Love your description from Boff Whalley too!
Curious terminology citing "broken bones" as a hazard, rather than risk, (although a broken bone is a hazard that could lead - for example - to the risks of exsanguination, shock, necrotic tissue, or dying of hypothermia, waiting for rescue!). Or is that a nitpick like "insect bites" (pun intended). We also trump all of those at the waltz by saying "and there have been fatalities!"
I've no issue if a RO gives out a few handy route tips before a race. But if he/she says nothing that's fine by me too. I certainly wouldn't take the view that the RO was somehow "liable" if the RO said nothing and I then got lost.
The Langdale Horseshoe is a good example of the wider point being debated. Should the RO warn people about the bad step? Or should runners have a look at the map and work out there is a way of avoiding it completely. I go another way down which is just as quick. I offset the fact that this seems a bit wimpy with a sense of satisfaction that I seem to be one of only a handful of runners who've discovered this easy alternative route. My heart will sink if the day arrives when the RO tells everyone at the start to go that way because it is "safer". To me that simply isn't fell-running as I know it to be.
There are two easy routes not one. The wainwright route - left just before the step , and the gulley going right after the top but some way before the step, which then swings south to the foot of the step. Since the "wainwright" route has been in the books for the last 50 years or so, the revelation is not going to change anything, although I fail to understand why more dont use it when the step is backed up!. A lot of people think the step is fun and would prefer it to the other routes - indeed I went under the chockstone once. (not the guy who went headfirst down it than ran away with an egg sized bump... he may prefer a different way!)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkley Swimmer
For all that because few races include serious scrambling or climbing , the RO should mention that one of the natural ways descent paths lead does go down what to all intents is descent of a rock climb, so that following runners may lead them there. Runners should therefore familiarise themselves with that area to decide which routes are safe for their level of expertise in the prevailing conditions. One result of that is that people who hate rock descents will stay away.
Nobody can say they were not warned.
Getting novices to reccie that area will result in fewer casualies on the day. And the RO defence of "volenti" (on your own head be it) requires runner knowledge of the risk being taken. So saying something definitely helps the RO - it is not all about the runner - the words are there to protect the RO too..
So, what potential navigational errors were highlighted on the AW?
The current FRA documents say (my italics):
This is pretty clear that navigating the course is the competitors responsibility, so not necessary for the RO to indicate any places where someone might make an error.Quote:
Anyone who competes in FRA races must be aware that FRA races are organised on the premise that competitors have the necessary skills to cope with the navigational problems which may occur, whatever the weather. In many FRA races, designated with the NS abbreviation, navigational skills are essential and competitors must find their own way round the course. Visibility can be poor at any time of the year and following the runner in front is not a substitute for the sound exercise of the competitor’s own skills and judgement.
The acquisition of these skills is the responsibility of the competitor. To assist members of the FRA in acquiring or honing these skills, the FRA delivers bi-annual Navigation Skills Courses, details of which are available via both the FRA website and The Fellrunner magazine. The FRA also advises on available external courses.
As well as navigating round the route, an important factor for runners to remember is that if injured, or in distress, they may need to get themselves off the fell safely and quickly, without the assistance of others and without putting themselves in greater jeopardy and so escape route planning is an
important aspect of the sport.
Lecky 3/4 of a field can't navigate.
Just take Ireland this year, Devils Beeftub Scotland couple of years ago (Less than 3 mile) Great Lakes 2 years ago. Its happening in a champs almost every year.
That would mean in less than clear conditions only a 1/4 of the field could navigate a course using a map and compass.
So what do we do with a competitor who cannot navigate?
" There are two easy routes not one. The wainwright route - left just before the step , and the gulley going right after the top but some way before the step, which then swings south to the foot of the step. Since the "wainwright" route has been in the books for the last 50 years or so, the revelation is not going to change anything, although I fail to understand why more dont use it when the step is backed up!. A lot of people think the step is fun and would prefer it to the other routes - indeed I went under the chockstone once. (not the guy who went headfirst down it than ran away with an egg sized bump... he may prefer a different way!)"
Wainwright shows and discusses both routes on pages 16/17 of the Crinkle Crags chapter.
Lecky - let's roll back to last September when the FRA via GB issued the new Safety Requirements as a finished article.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecky
How quickly did they have to launch a further review?
Since then, they've had rushed reviews of the Safety Checklist and we have highlighter pens all over the Guidelines.
So just be patient please, allow for proper process.
The new "pack" is not the solution, it's what ROs and Competitors do with it that matters. But I do think it is better and it has been received well so far, but is out now on a second wider consultation which may find issues.
If you want an early look, get on the WFRA or SHR committees :D
Every single one of them signed to say that they were experienced enough to navigate in the conditions they were running in. They might have been lying, but, to my mind that means that they have taken the risk of failing to navigate correctly on themselves. If the RO has to point out every site where they MIGHT get lost, then, as someone has said, you may as well tape the whole route and fellrunning would die.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stagger
The great thing is that when fellrunners get lost virtually every time they are competent enough to find their way off the hill by themselves. And yes, I can think of the few occasions when that has not been the case.
You didn't mention the AW and the best route off Dale Head;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Stagger
Ha ha, like I said, just playing Devil's Advocate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stolly
I'm with CL on this one though. You can't say that the entrant is wholly responsible and then enforce requirements upon them.
Obviously what I was suggesting entailed some 'Final Destination' like scenes to occur.
The RO highlighting past problems does not erode runner responsibility or increase RO liability.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecky
But reinforcing the existence of problems of any kind with examples that prove they are real does increase risk perception which in turn make it safer, without reducing enjoyment or challenge, which should be the goal.
I am not aware of a persistent navigation error location in the waltz or TWA. The waltz in essence follows a ridge. I suspect the greatest potential / confusing area is on and off grasmoor on TWA in clag but I have not heard problems reported there.
There is certainly a pattern at the end of crinkles on langdale by which time the the field can be separated - not least because of route choices there, making loss of contact more likely.
How about:Quote:
You can't say that the entrant is wholly responsible and then enforce requirements upon them.
"The entrant is entirely responsible for. their choice of kit. Thet are also responsible for deciding the date, time, location and route of the race. NS, LK. No toilets, no safety pins."
How about:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mole
"The entrant is responsible for their own safety. You will enounter many hazards, including (but not exclusively) XXX, YYY and ZZZ, in this race and you must accept that there is a real risk of injury or death. Previous incidents in this race resulted in:
- broken bones
- hypothermia
- etc
- etc
If you agree to accept the above risks, we recommend that you carry the following kit : AAA, BBB and CCC but this is at your discretion. We have a duty of care to our volunteers and we will not place them in danger; help may not always be readily available and carrying the above kit would have saved lives in the past."
Are we trying to save lives here or gain the moral high ground. If it's the former, ROs should make people carry kit. If they make it optional some people won't carry it.
It's not about taking the moral high ground, it's about getting people to take responsibility for themselves which, ultimately, will save many more lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
You're actually creating moral hazard by insisting on requirements; people may assume that the RO will take responsibility for them and take excessive risks.
Hang on a sec, I've missed a trick here.
How about compulsory life assurance before you're allowed to race on the fells? There's a friendly financial planner in South Manchester who can secure good rates ;)
That was a pre planned time saving measure that did not improve my race position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecky
Having competed in Mini MM with Dark & White to the Kinder Trial, I can get myself round most routes:-)
Quote:
"Don't think you can follow the leader. Get your compasses out, you will need them. Runners go everywhere in clag on this race, for example from the end of the crinkles where they just seem to go everywhere instead of turning for Pike of Blisco - You have been warned".
Nobody should need to be told this at Langdale! And in clag you can get lost well before the crinkles, especially if you're mindlessly following the crowd!
I actually think we need to go further back than the rules to make the sport safer - maybe go back to something published by Graham Breeze in a past magazine and elswhere - "Fellrunning and the media"! We need to stop selling it as something to 'tick off' or bragg about and the less the sport is falsely glamourised in the media, the better...
Too many don't seem too have any experience (and common sense) BEFORE entering a fell race. Many of us, myself included, have bitten off more than we can chew in a race, but a navigational error for example should result in a red face and an attempt to improve ones navigation skills rather than a safety note to future competitors!
I don't claim to have any answers and am quite grateful that I am no longer on the committe, but maybe rather than quibbling about the exact wording of rules, we need to go back to the roots and develop a culture of self-reliance. In our clubs, amongst our mates, with our juniors, etc...
I doubt ANY rules alone will change peoples perception of what fellrunning is all about, but every fellrunner out there could lead by example!
A club colleague posted yesterday about her experience at the Evesham Half Marathon last weekend.
This was for a race that barely goes above 250' !!
Mandatory Kit
Drink container of 500ml capacity or greater - and at least 500ml of fluid at the start.
Windproof jacket - full sleeved (for Winter races, waterproof is advisable)
Emergency nutrition (gel, energy bar, sweets, etc.)
Head covering (hat, multi-use covering, hood)
Mobile phone, charged
Foil blanket or full-sized bin liner
Whistle
Head / Hand Torch (for any race over 50mi or starting after 4pm)
First aid kit, including
tape (micropore, zinc oxide, flexible, or similar)
plasters
blister plasters
field dressing (absorbent pad w/ a gauze bandage)
Recommended Kit
Trail shoes (road shoes may do if it's dry, but we wouldn't recommend it)
Windproof leg covering for Winter races
They apply their kit regs to all races regardless.