Safety Matters

I said last summer that institutional change is next-to-impossible.
It isn't about being right.
It is about politics, and what is achievable, and when this is achievable.

________________________________________________

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stolly

I think check points in races aren't there primarily for safety and, with that in mind, shouldn't really have too much safety responsibility thrust upon them. The original reason for check points was surely to make sure runners were visiting the peak or route markers concerned (ie not cheating) rather than to look out for lost souls? For example the checkpoint on the Fairfield Horseshoe is at the summit windshelter at the half way point 5 miles in whereas the checkpoints of the Full Tour of Pendle are all over the place, probably no more than 2 miles apart on average due to its convoluted route. So just on checkpoint count, some races get closer scrutiny of where runners are than others. If you take that to its logical conclusion you'd have the barmy situation of enforced checkpoints at what every mile or something, making for really really boring race routes. For sure checkpoints should look after runners if they need to but the real business of looking for any one missing should be left to the end of the race. Certainly its only at the end that you can realistically tally who's finished and who's still out.

As for the Edale Skyline example, although runners are relatively high up for most of the race, making things dodgier in bad weather, its an easy race to bail from if a runner needs too (just head into the valley) so, in that respect, I'd say its a pretty safe race.

---

what Stolly said (I've emboldened the point that I stressed about a year ago)

take the example of a "score" type "O" event, where you're out in a big area with say a 4 hour time limit and there is no set route anyway...

you have to trust that the entrants have the mountain-craft to look after themselves or to plan/find/execute escape routes (experience requirements spring to mind here)

or are we saying that any old muppet can enter and they'll be kept safe by the marshals under any/all eventualities?

there will always be the chance of a tragic accident (look at what happened to Ayrton Senna in F1 for instance)

or we could all stay at home in bed under the duvet with the curtains drawn, worrying about a meteor strike...

(oh and btw, I myself was "temporarily mislocated" off the back of a long, exposed winter race in poor vis recently...)

I think I'm finally able to crystalise AI's hundreds of thousands of words into something more tangible.

AI's main point is: Qualified safety experts should be involved in drafting the new guidelines.

Since this is what a few others have been saying too. Can be perhaps debate this point and stop insulting each other.

Graham, I'd be interested to hear your take on this. Specifically:

Do you agree, and if not why not?
If we were to get some qualified safety experts involved, what would be the timelines and the process (next year's guidelines possibly)?

Very well said Noel!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graham Breeze

[SIZE=2]Stolly,


Of course, if RO choose to register with another body from 2014 that is their decision; but it will be tragic if any RO for an English fell race has to attend an English Coroner's Court having left the English governing body family for the wrong reasons.

Regards,

Graham

---

It would also be tragic if any of the RO of English Fell Races permitted under the English governing body family found there insurance was void.
Quote: Fellrunner Magazine Spring 2014 Secretarys Report page 5.
We have also been reviewing various issues in relation to insurance cover for races and intend to issue a paper for Ro's.
Commitee meeting 8th february Skipton, members endorsed further action to review the FRA documentation and insurance as mentioned above.

This wouldn't be anything to do with the UKA athletics Insurance cover for event organisers.
General points to note.
Hazardous activite exclusion, this policy does not apply to liability arising out of hazardous activities which increase the risk of bodily injury or damage to property. This includeds but is not limited to amusement rides, bonfires, bouncy castles, fairground rides, fireworks, and inflatables.

Right or wrong I for one aint taking any chances.

Andrew Hirst
RO Pendle Cloughs Fell Race

Having just returned from flagging the route for tonight's Liver Hill Race I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist on Snorkel and flippers. There will be a strict kit check at the start, finish and at other strategic points along the route. Come along and join in the fun.

You have to be careful Lefty. You could impair the field of vision with a snorkel and the flippers are a trip hazard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by studmarks

Right or wrong I for one aint taking any chances.

Andrew Hirst
RO Pendle Cloughs Fell Race

---

Andrew,

Well thank you for admitting you might be wrong!

As you know I was completely involved with the Belfield tragedy from before his body was even found up to and including the 4-day Inquest 17 months later (and since) and I have never had the slightest doubt about the FRA/UKA Insurance cover and have stated this publicly over and over again.

I and Morgan Williams (a lawyer), when he was FRA Secretary, met with the Insurance Company shortly after Brian died. I/we dealt with UKA and the lawyers being paid in full by the Insurance Co. I know the background to the separate lawyer plus a barrister representing Mike: again all paid for by the Insurance Company.

Some members having read some documents raised some questions which the FRA was obliged to explore, despite its experience of what had actually happened in the real -world case of a death of a runner in a fell race where procedures were not as good as they might have been.

I have now seen the full response from UKA etc. and it confirms what I have maintained all along to anyone prepared to listen to me i.e. no RO registering his race with the FRA need have any concerns whatsoever about the insurance cover he receives via UKA by registering his race with the FRA.

This response will now be issued in detail by the sub-group dealing with this which, as you know, includes Graham Wadsworth to whom I have talked at length in the past about what actually happened following the death of Brian Belfield.

When they were needed the Insurance Company did what we hoped and expected they would; which was just as well because if the FRA, and not the Insurance Company, had had to fund the legal costs for the Inquest the FRA might now be bankrupt.

In some circles it is glibly fashionable to criticise the FRA and its relationship with UKA but, as in other walks of life, sometimes having a big brother standing behind you can be very reassuring.

Regards,

Graham

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graham Breeze

Andrew,

Well thank you for admitting you might be wrong!

As you know I was completely involved with the Belfield tragedy from before his body was even found up to and including the 4-day Inquest 17 months later (and since) and I have never had the slightest doubt about the FRA/UKA Insurance cover and have stated this publicly over and over again.

I and Morgan Williams (a lawyer), when he was FRA Secretary, met with the Insurance Company shortly after Brian died. I/we dealt with UKA and the lawyers being paid in full by the Insurance Co. I know the background to the separate lawyer plus a barrister representing Mike: again all paid for by the Insurance Company.

Some members having read some documents raised some questions which the FRA was obliged to explore, despite its experience of what had actually happened in the real -world case of a death of a runner in a fell race where procedures were not as good as they might have been.

I have now seen the full response from UKA etc. and it confirms what I have maintained all along to anyone prepared to listen to me i.e. no RO registering his race with the FRA need have any concerns whatsoever about the insurance cover he receives via UKA by registering his race with the FRA.

This response will now be issued in detail by the sub-group dealing with this which, as you know, includes Graham Wadsworth to whom I have talked at length in the past about what actually happened following the death of Brian Belfield.

When they were needed the Insurance Company did what we hoped and expected they would; which was just as well because if the FRA, and not the Insurance Company, had had to fund the legal costs for the Inquest the FRA might now be bankrupt.

In some circles it is glibly fashionable to criticise the FRA and its relationship with UKA but, as in other walks of life, sometimes having a big brother standing behind you can be very reassuring.

Regards,

Graham

---

Graham

Thank you for your quick response.
I was just asking for clarification on the matter of insurance.
"I would just like to correct you on one point I had no idea that Graham Wadsworth was on the Sub commitee dealing with this point."
Actually I believe I am right in my decission to take my race permit away from the FRA. Not just for the safety issues reasons, but I no longer have faith in the way the FRA is being managed at this present time. But if ever I feel there is a time when I am wrong. "We can all make mistakes Graham" I would be the first to hold my hand up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by studmarks

Graham

Thank you for your quick response.
I was just asking for clarification on the matter of insurance.
"I would just like to correct you on one point I had no idea that Graham Wadsworth was on the Sub commitee dealing with this point."
Actually I believe I am right in my decission to take my race permit away from the FRA. Not just for the safety issues reasons, but I no longer have faith in the way the FRA is being managed at this present time. But if ever I feel there is a time when I am wrong. "We can all make mistakes Graham" I would be the first to hold my hand up.

---

Andrew,

OK I note that.

In my view the FRA does what it does and I think it does it well. It does not always present what it does clearly but the Committee are all volunteers, many with full time jobs, trying to serve the different needs of 7500 members, and the PR sometimes falls by the wayside.

I respect and admire race organisers. I have organised a few myself and I know how grim it is when you have missing runners. In my case they were juniors lost in clag, one was Alistair Brownlee!

I regret you de-registering Pendle Cloughs but it your race. All I want is that any RO considering leaving the FRA talks to a Committee officer first so there are no misunderstandings.

Regards,

Graham