TGQuote:
Originally Posted by TheGrump
Yup. I'm done.
G
Printable View
TGQuote:
Originally Posted by TheGrump
Yup. I'm done.
G
Graham. The insults do not help,Quote:
Originally Posted by dominion
Small wonder you got so few replies to such a serious issue.
My disclaimers above are exactly the ones that you should be using too.
The rules betray the fact that you too should be deferring to professional opinion,
since they are not written in the language that any solicitor would use.
I certainly am a member of FRA and have been for twenty years.
I do not operate races, and sadly have spent so much time injured I have not run any in the last five years either, but I know the plight of race organisers, indeed am acquainted with several, and I know enough about the law to know the rules as they are can stack up a heap of potential trouble for them.
I was not at the inquest , but I am aware enough of the detail of what took place before and during to know the rules as I suspected can be used , indeed were used, as a rope to attempt to Hang the organiser with.
In the interests of race organisers, you should publish UKA legal view as presented there if only to prove to organizers just how vulnerable they are to your rules, and how such as UKA have no cognisance and attach no weight to the fact that our sport has risk. They will hang you just the same. I am sure that testimony and opinion would worry other organisers, were they to hear it,
But I am aware enough of my own limits to know that this is a task we both Should leave to the professionals.
These rules will be used as the yardstick to measure civil and criminal negligence with, so the words must be carefully chosen. Which sadly, they have not.
Organisers, I really do suggest you take advice from your perspective.
Talking to yourself isn't a good sign Graham ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
I have tried to air genuine concerns about the rules as they are now imposed.
I am disappointed that NONE of the points of substantive issue have been addressed by those appointed to do it, instead of which I have received a stream of thinly veiled insults and sarcasm from such sources.
For that reason I have little interest in continuing the dialogue.
My Summary
1/ The rules are NOT an innocuous document, or a private document of restricted concern to FRA and race organisers to be discussed behind closed doors only by those appointed, and the case can never be considered "closed". It would be dangerous NOT to review it, in the light of coroner remarks.
The rules can indeed be used as the backbone of a civil or criminal action against an organiser and need continous monitoring for potential problems or improvement. It is a sensitive legal document, and needs treating as such with proper definition and change control. If grahams comments on an oversimplistic document naming were true to designate age and applicability, then why does the document have a 13_ rather than 14_ prefix, since it purports to be valid next year not now? Why are there two documents with a 13_ prefix?- how do I know whether it is in force now?. If a race accident happened today, which of the rules were in force. Simply not good enough. These things need to be explicit IN THE DOCUMENT WITH THE CHANGELOG
2/ I understand that at a recent hearing even lawyers for UKA more or less used the previous rules to suggest negligence , without reference to or cognisance of the fact that we are a risk sport. I think FRA should circulate that UKA opinion because I believe it would highlight to organisers how vulnerable they are and how UKA view "the rules"
Not withstanding that.
3/ When bad things happen inevitably a number of pressure groups use 20/20 hindsight to state things as obvious, which were not so in foresight, then demand a kneejerk reaction that "rules need strengthening" My view is we need to be very careful of the unintended consequences of doing so - and certainly do what is right for us, not because of related organisations who are not familiar with the specifics of our sport such as UKA , if as I suspect they were part of the reason for change.
THE MAIN ISSUE
4/ There is clearly a difficult conflict of interests between:
a/ improving runner safety
b/ making more onerous and impractical demands of race organisers
c/ leaving organisers more exposed to legal actions should the worst happen.
In the over zealous reaction to a/ I question whether c/ has been properly thought out and THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF MY CRITICISM
MY CONTENTION, AND MOST OF WHAT I HAVE ARGUED ON THIS THREAD
5/ It is my contention that ambiguous , loose and careless wording will VASTLY increase c/ whilst do nothing for a/
6/ By way of example Use of words such as "compulsory sections" of courses without definition of "compulsory" is clearly inadequate legal drafting and in the category of things which will do nothing for a/ whilst certainly aggravating c/.
Here or similar is what a legal document would probably contain
***************************
Definitions
"compulsory" sections of courses are limited too:
(a) Flagged parts of a course close the start and finish of a fell race.
(b) Sections specifically designated and documented as compulsory by the race organiser
(c) Routes across private land where designated as such by the organiser
"compulsory" specifically does not include sections of courses where by reason of custom or practise, or limited route choice , or local byelaws, or because it is the shortest or only realistic route, or because it is shown on a map, whether or not produced by organisers, that all runners in practice follow the same course except and unless also falling in one of the categories specified above,
That is what legal documents generally do , before daring to use the word "compulsory"
Then at least you know what it means, and you have a cat in hells chance against claims4u of saying the corridor on Borrowdale is not "compulsory" - I will wager claims4u would try to argue that, if it helped their case, and they might even win.
************************************************** **************
For that reason legal documents (which this clearly is) do not contain loose wording, and having seen many legal documents use carefully crafted expression I am alarmed that is not reflected in these rules.I contend this document was not in essence drafted by a qualified party, and if reviewed by one, it was not significantly amended by them. For the precise reason it does not contain language or definitions like the above.
7/ I contend It needs professional drafting. At very least gaping holes like the definition of "compulsory" need inclusion otherwise the entireity of primarily fixed route course apply, particularly because other FRA statutes demand "keeping to paths", thereby preventing route choice, compulsory sections are now warranted "free from hazard" which is clearly errant nonsense of some parts of those routes. It certainly ALL needs better defining.
8/ Graham has indicated that substantive recent professional advice has been taken. I don't doubt that it hasin respect of the recent inquest. I still question how much of it has influenced the rules document.
9/ Until such redrafting has taken place , my suggestions is race organisers take advice on their position. There are a bucket load of potential problems with the rules, I have only attempted to point out a few examples to urge the powers that be to get it reviewed professionally from a race organiser liability (not FRA) standpoint
10/ People have commented on my statements that I have stated my own limitations
that I am "not competent to give advice on the matter" and inevitably in a sarcastic rather than useful way. I can say that I stated that because I knew the question would come up, as it did from at least one poster "why don't you redraft it, and send it to the committee" - and my comment is this is TOO SERIOUS AND DANGEROUS for amateurs to meddle, so get a professional to do it. I will know when it has been, by the language , structure and concepts. Like defining before using words.
Please read the definition of "straw man" falacy. My status makes no difference at all to the veracity or otherwise of what I say. Whoever raised my 10 word status as being more important than my 6000 word message is guilt of just that logical falacy.
Race organisers, Ignore at your peril.
At last, a long AI thread I can read all the way through!
Cogent points, well made.
Whats next?
Have we been 'getting away with' a poorly controlled situation for too long?
Or is minimal control and intrinsic element and key attraction of our sport?
My prediction:
Within 5 years only AS and some AM races will remain non-commercial and amateur.
Most AL and severe AM races will be commercially organised and the £5 race fee will be a distant memory.
Wheeze I understand your point.. but there is a reality versus idealism issue.. we would all love for no rules and races for 50p.. but these things get debated because something forces them to.. not just boredom.. and in this case a tragic event.
No chance... in North wales and the lakes the AL's will remain non-commercial..Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
I'm surprised Lecky. You've shown you haven't gone back over the thread properly because one committee member acknowledged being irked in a post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecky
I would add to that some rather prickly contributions from the Grump and Graham. One can argue the Grump might not be "establishment" but he certainly seems close to the action.
and then there's you. You are clearly a bit put out as well as anyone looking at this post will see.
You probably won't, but if you took care to read my comments on this thread you will find that I was supportive of the draft safety rules, complimentary of the committee and understanding of the difficult situation that they have to handle. I've then contributed when the debate diverted to the matter of waterproofs - I have industry experience and those contributions were not negative in anyway to anyone.
So no need to email and no points scoring on my part.
and certainly not "constantly" disagreeing as you assert.
It is at the finish that you will need your greatest number of helpers – ideally you need two people at the finish line taking times; two more at the other end of the funnel taking numbers; two people separately recording numbers to provide the second independent record; two people hiding somewhere putting the results on the board and one person acting as a runner between the six finish marshals and the results team; a total of nine people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecky
Gates in particular need marshalling; all too often runners leave them open behind them in the heat of a race; younger helpers are very useful as gate marshals and often love the responsibility.
Now I wouldn't put a "younger helper" anywhere in a marshalling position on their own. That's my personal choice as an RO, but I was making the point that I don't see that this particular passage needs to be in there. I know my route, my race, my landowners and my gates. I am able to make a judgement that of the 7 gates on my route, 3 do not need marshalling
That goes against the guidelines that
You should familiarise yourself with this document and ensure that you plan and manage your race in line with its requirements
- hence my question who are the FRA to advise me in such a specific way.
Those guidelines probably apply to fell races where marshalls are out on hills.
Finally, your words.
Which underlines the problem. Fell races come in all shapes and sizes and I agree that these guidelines probably don't apply to me at Witton.
But the guidelines are for all. These atren't guidelines for ROs of races of CAT AL,AM, BL....
They are guidelines for all.
I have taken on board some of the comments made by AI and I think he makes some relevant points.
Having read through the replies to the concerns raised by Witton Park and alwaysinjured recently, I'm quite shocked and worried by the disdain, disregard and immaturity shown in return, especially from Committee member(s). Instead of answers to genuine questions and concerns that have been raised, cheap digs and sarcastic replies have formed the main body of response. I hope in vein that the concerns have at least been taken on board and someone will address them.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
I have no idea who Grump is.
Sam, it is possible that the points raised have already been considered, and don't need to be reconsidered. I don't know, as I haven't been involved.
The document was available in draft form for god knows how long for people to comment on, it will never be ideal in everyone's eyes, talk about winging after the horse has bolted, we managed pretty well on a set of 'inferior ' rules for many years and no doubt the need will arise for revision in the future, in the meantime get on with it.
I do not think it has to be that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
But without meaning to open old debates, I think what prevents minimal racing on going is association with UKA whose concept of experience and responsibilty of participants, over prescriptive rules, race organiser duties, and nature of terrain and weather risk are so far removed from fell running that we in effect speak in a foreign language to them, which in reality has no more in common than both athletics and fell runnning use legs for transport and first across the line wins.
I think it is possible as other extreme sports seem to do, to define a race as the obligation to time stops and starts , disqualify any who fail to go to places specified with no more than a liquidated liability specified if even that little duty is screwed up, but it would need other insurance than UKA tomdo it. I suspect - do not know that the rule tightening frenzy had Some pressure from Those quarters.
I find it somewhat contradictory that the FRA response to what it perceives as its current risk to being cited as counterparty in actions against an organiser emanating from its rules and supervision are sufficient to demand it to hide behind the veil of limitation, with all that cost and upheaval, yet the rules which in essence are what could lead to that vulnerability are apparently of such little consequence a committee drafts them rather than a professional used to mitigating risk. Go figure. I cannot.
Clearly it needed reviewing after , rather than before the coroner reached a view and numerous lawyers scrutinized it. Do you organise races? If you do, how are you going to eliminate all hazards in compulsory parts of the course? Even if you could affird to smooth tarmac your course to comply and eliminate trip hazards, you would not get planning permission, and it would cease to be a fell course if you did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lefty
I do organise races and have done since 1967 longer than most people. First of all before the Fra and rules even existed and then under several revisions and updating of rules brought in by the Fra. No one has defined hazards and most long standing hazards these days have been looked at and changes made not because the rules said so but because race organisers are generally sensible people and have the interests of the people they organise races for at heart. You previously mentioned the Borrowdale race. The previous start up Bessyboot was a definite hazard, it was changed, there are now no real hazards only natural obstacles to be overcome, the same encountered by any individual walker or runner. A barbed wire fence might well be considered a hazard, a bull in field or a farmer with a shotgun yes but a stony path or a narrow lane come off it they are part of the natural landscape, an obstacle to be encountered and overcome, all part of the challenge of the event.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
As an aside, I was in race with a partner in crappy weather at some point recently (or not so). My partner and I both had waterproofs on. My number was on my vest inside my waterproofs.
How did the marshals know which team we were?
My partner had his on his shorts.
Bingo. Neither of us had to take off our bags and faff around at a checkpoint trying to struggle a smock up over a number to show who we were.
And as for trying to shout our number at them, we were both going so hard that we couldn't speak, let alone think enough to remember which number we were.
Yes i know all the arguements for sticking yer number on yer chest, but in the sport we do, sometimes, its more sensible not to.
I take my hat off to organisers, and I agree about bessyboot speaking as a victim of a falling rock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lefty
I suggest you take advice.
You may not have defined " hazard" but , you do not have to. The law certainly has done as endless precedents and compensation payments for victims of "hazards" when the risk came true have proved.
The committee should have said " unusual" or "extraordinary" hazards to protect people like you. They did not, and now you are very exposed. A rabbit hole for example , particularly concealed , is a dangerous Hazard everywhere, yet you are certifying to say there are none on your course. How? If someone then trips and breaks their skull on the wall next, a coroners court may have to debate the meaning and your undertaking that there were no hazards, where somebod found one, which at very least puts you on difficult ground legally. The police will look at breaches of rules to determine whether to press manslaughter charged. UKA if they are true to form will consider it valuable to point out to the coroner And police all of the rules you broke, and never once mention that fell racing is risky.
The FRA will sit on the sidelines pontificating uselessly about its even harsher rules, when the current ones are already impractical.
Are you still comfortable?
This is not over - it has not even started - as a stream of cancelled races for anything less than perfect weather will prove if organisers are to comply with that piece of inadequate drafting too. Safety law demands that the person is taken in to account assesing danger or risk. What is dangerous for you, may not be for me, but even lesser conditions can be lethal for someone else. Nightmare. How the flick are you able to make such a judgement? So I expect to see a lot of races cancelled, and I suspect many for good.
All because of drafting of rules.
We shall see.
I give up asking for the committee to take advice, all I can do now is reinforce what I said.
Take advice before organising under these rules. Ask your solicitor for example what your exposure is if you say there are no hazards on your course, and someone has an accident there.
The FRA are so confident they have high tailed it for cover to a limited company in double quick time,and their exposure As only a counter party is less than yours.
I hope it never happens again. History says you can count on history repeating, all we can change is the outcome.
The general philosophy behind the following requirements is that the:
COMPETITOR *has primary responsibility for his/her own safety on the fells.
Understood by most fell runners
If they have, then great, but it would still be nice to hear what the outcome of this was here rather than the aforementioned responses that alwaysinjured and Witton Park received.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecky
Absolutely true. But Not sure it will wash if you undertake the course is hazard free as part of your advert for the race. You cannot disclaim negligemce, whatever you get a runner to sign. Saying a course is hazard free if you know it is not is negligent, possibly even criminally so if the worst happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lefty
The FRA have introduced a big new problem for you.
I hope I am wrong. don't think I am.
Take advice before risk it. Not from the FRA, their interests are not the same as yours.
Why would any RO describe their course as 'hazard free'?? That's plain daft. Our course it's hazardous, that's why we do it! Are you sure you are not trying to invent a problem where non exists?Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
I do accept your point about UKA though.....I was dead against the closer union and blame those of an 'athletic' bent on the committee at the time. Sorry Alan B, I know it was all well intentioned and my minority view was proven to be a minority by the vote. But it was precisely this sort of scenario that I was worried about.
Wheeze - eureka - i think I am getting through now...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
I can only say Read what you are signing up for before saying your race is compliant - if you do you are stating per rule 4
"compulsory sections must contain no hazards"!!!
As you say it is impossible.
Is it beginning to dawn on people how dangerous that declaration is legally?
I am urging the committee to at least use the words " unusual hazards" and define "compulsory" to make it less of a disaster.
Better still get a professional rewrite.
Organisers take note and take advice.
"compulsory sections must contain no hazards" has no place in the guidelines as we all accept that there are hazards in fell racing and there won't be race a in the calendar without hazards in compulsory sections.
An RO needs to identify hazards and assess them.
Are they acceptable hazards? If so fine.
Are they unacceptable hazards?
If so do whatever is reasonably practicable to reduce the risk of those hazards to an acceptable level.
eg the road section to Ribblehead in PPP has marshalls and a coned section for runners plus signage for the road users.
If the risk presented by the hazard cannot be reduced sufficiently then that hazard must be removed.
eg. a pothole on route might be taped around.
It's not that complicated, it's what we all do as ROs every time. In fact it's also what we should be doing as coaches when we have a session.
Wheeze - I understand what you are saying about the UKA tie up. But I would take a different view. Fell Running can perhaps learn from the rest of athletics in terms of the writing of rules and how safety is dealt with.
I know the FRA has tried to avoid risk assessments and deals with safety in a different way, but perhaps a similar approach to UKA cross country permitting might work better where the RO fills out a risk assessment?
That's basically why I plagiarised the UKA CRoss Country rules as a draft for a potential set of fell rules, because the rules for cross country have been evolving over a longer period and are written in a more water-tight way.
By the same token UKA can also learn I think from Fell Running. Mainstream athletics can be a little stuffy at times.
Are you people all injured? I go away for a race at the weekend, and come home to find 5 pages of lengthy debate! I guess Always Injured is (the clue's in the name).
On a lighter note
Do these meet the new FRA kit requirements
Attachment 7220
[QUOTE=Witton Park;559190]"compulsory sections must contain no hazards" has no place in the guidelines as we all accept that there are hazards in fell racing and there won't be race a in the calendar without hazards in compulsory sections.
Those are your words, they are not from the new document.
And it seems to me the same Section 4 message has been in the Handbook for over 20 years.
I really dont get the UKA animosity.. I read a post by the great Craig Jones.. about UKA being involved in fell running and therefore wanting olympics and fell running.. odd... but the point was that UKA ignore fell running. They don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
I was at the GB athletics (UKA) celebration dinner this week, great event, and Neil Black UKA Athletics Performance director gave a superb talk, really did enjoy it, and he did mention fell runners. Fell and ultra are becoming integrated into UK/GBA and receiving the funding. The great thing was we had a dry meal.. because it was 16 upwards.. so the juniors. There is now real buy in from UKA into our sports and funding of youngsters, how can this be a bad thing? I was sat on a table with Hannah England and she talked constantly to the 4 16 year olds on our table. Would that have happened 5 years ago? 10 years ago?
I think it was a superb step to bring together fell running/mountain running and UKA. I think fell running can learn from the professionalism. There's too much fear of the new and unknown.
What animosity?Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
Just a recognition As someone involved in both, indeed with junior and senior internationals in arhletics, it is just that they are poles apart in philosophy, and at a practical level organisers have a completely different set of problems from those in fell racing. The two are talk and cheese.
Their ideas of the function of a race organiser are incompatible with fellrunning, and that has consequences, not least as I understand it UKA lawyer did a hatchet job at the recent hearing, made no reference to the fact that we, unlike athletics have a risk sport, which was certainly not helpful for an RO. They also emphasise armies of administrators , committees, marshalls and such like, hard to do in our context. But don't confuse the topheavy administration with professionalism: there are better organised riots - the ones who actually make athletics work who turn out every week to coach and marshall, have no voice at all in the way the sport is run - and they are the ones who get junior talent through..Will carlings remarks about rugby run by 100 boring old f@rts is a better description of the blazer brigade who seem more interested in authority than any responsibility or work.
I am sure there are a few perks for some, but that is scant reward for finding we can no longer operate minimal races without the philosophy of belt and braces.
In athletics they would find it hard to understand why anyone would want minimal - big is beautiful there.
So is there some new rules or something? :D
So chucking javelins, hammers and discus around an infield that people are running round isn't a risk sport? I wish it were true because I wouldn't have been getting a bunch of emails from some disgruntled athlete who nearly got hit by a hammer that went over the back of the cage!
Both 'athletics' and 'fell running' have safety issues to address - just not the same ones. "compulsory sections must contain no hazards" pretty much stuffs up every aspect of athletics. Stream crossings in cross country, water jumps in steeple chase races to name but two.
I agree, indeed most of the international athletes And events I have been involved with , are indeed throwers, and it is shameful how athletics, track owners, councils and the rest seem to treat throwers as a second class sport. But the hazards are very different, as is the way of mitigating risk. Most of the problems come from too many people together, where in fellrunning getting isolated is normally a factor in problems. Hammer competitions are generally finished before a track programme even commences to avoid the people concentration.Quote:
Originally Posted by dominion
It is UKA who seem to dislike the principle that fell running is inherently riskier than running around a track, which is part of the attraction, or that competitors are happy with that, and so happy to absolve organisers of responsibility for them, so it is unhelpful to force more responsibilty on organisers than competitors themselves want to see. Nanny state strikes again, is alive and well in UKA. The concepts of getting lost or suffering from disorientation due to hypothermia are hardly common on a track, so there is a very different way of thinking.
An athletics event organiser is made responsible for the saftey of public and participants, and rightly so because many of them are below any age of responsibility so cannot be relied on to manage their own safety , from the moment they arrive at an event to the moment they leave. It is also reasonably practicable to do.
It is a world apart from fell running, when participants in essence have to manage their own safety from the moment they leave the start compound, to when they arrive at the finish, on a course which is inherently hazardous in between.
In contrast A hammer event properly organised when cages are inspected and set up properly poses little more risk than any other event. The main participants at risk are the judges in the outfield, which is why calling sequences are used to ensure no throw takes place until their attention has not only been requested, but also acknowledged by each of them prior to each individual throw. I have run a lot of hammer, discus and shot competitions, and a few javelin in my time! It is up to the event organiser to make sure that nobody involved in any other field or track event is at risk whilst other events takes place, generally by making sure there are none in the case of hammer.
[QUOTE=Khamsin;559200]Khamsin, re-read carefully, are you dead sure the message is the same?Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
This years (current 2013) Section 4
4 COURSE DESIGN
Courses must not be unnecessarily dangerous and should be designed to prevent any temptation to gain
advantage by negotiating rock climbs or steep unstable slopes, where dislodged stones may fall on those
below. Compulsory sections must not include such hazards or comparable foreseeable dangers. Organisers
of courses which traverse high mountain or moorland terrain should consider having an alternative route
available for use in adverse weather conditions.
The new (2014) Section 4
4 COURSE DESIGN
Compulsory sections MUST NOT include hazards or dangerous sections and all courses MUST be designed so runners are not tempted to gain advantage by negotiating hazards such as rock climbs or steep unstable slopes where dislodged stones may fall on those below.
Organisers of courses which traverse high mountain or moorland terrain should plan an alternative route for use in bad weather.
****
The opening line and the overall message are quite different in meaning if you read them carefully. Now which seems more reasonable? I'd go with 2013 personally, but maybe the FRA lawyers think otherwise.
****
Another professional engineer, offshore this time - strictest H&S regime in he land (ha ha!), so I couldn't help myself coming back on, sorry.;)
You sound like one of those headmasters who will not allow conkers because of the health and safety riskQuote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
At the end of the day it all boils down to risk - this coming Saturday I will hopefully be running Langdale with a few hundred other people. Any of us could trip and get hurt during the compulsory initial section BUT, even if I did get hurt, I am not going to sue anyone. I'm fairly confident no one else running would either. So the risk to the organiser is fairly minimal.
[QUOTE=OB1;559219]What is it about engineers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khamsin
I have expressed my doubt that any lawyer has expressed a view that it is practical for a race organiser to comply - they may have been asked to look over it and perhaps commented that it does not pose problems for FRA , but that is beside the point.
One of my gripes about solicitors and why they are useless in a commercial context is they are always happy to propose words that protect their own client that none of the other parties can sign. The document ping pong that arises allows the solicitors to charge way in excess of the value of the task.
If a race organiser asked for his own counsel opinion they would I suspect tell them not to sign, using the normal obscure language they do such as " appears unduly onerous" ( you have to know how to translate!!).
In lay language that clause is errant nonsense, whoever wrote it had no concept of how the word hazard is used in safety legalese context, and therefore had no business writing it.
As alan sugar once remarked about advertising agencies - I have written big books on solicitors - cheque books, and whilst I do not reccomend it to others, I ended up re writing most of the contracts and documents myself and had far fewer problems after that, but then I have had decades of experience with legal and semi legal documents, and this one screams out to me that no qualified person was involved in drafting it, the language, structure and concepts betray that.
HahahahahahaQuote:
Originally Posted by luxinterior
(Its nothing to do with fell runners accepting the risk; its whether their spouse feels the same way when their fell running other half ends up breaking his/her neck backward somersaulting off of Bad Step)
In all seriousness, AI what's wrong with you?
Re-read my post carefully.
It effectively supports the central thrust of yourand WP's and others' message.
But what is wrong with me also being an engineer - don't you believe me, do I need to PM you my certificates or something?:confused:
#
I feel like phoning CL and asking him to create a diversionary tactic on another thread.:p
But the bad step isn't one of the compulsory sections that Always is worried about. It is optional - when I did Langdale couple of years ago I somehow missed it, no idea how. i'm looking forward to actually going down it on Saturday. If I do now do a back somersault and break my neck it will be down to karma and I will get my wife to sue you and Always!!! (that is a joke but I have no idea how to put those funny faces into a post)Quote:
Originally Posted by Stolly
Right, I'm settling in for the next post.
Coffee in hand, biscuits at the ready.
Its okay I have no axe to grind on this but I think that the route of the Langdale Horseshoe naturally points you at Bad Step with most runners going that way. I take your point that its not compulsory but if I was a race organiser I'd be reminding runners pointedly of that before the off - its shown as 'the route' on race maps for example. And the most obvious alternative to Bad Step (the little trod to the left) is itself a bit exposed and not exactly hazard free.Quote:
Originally Posted by luxinterior
Last time I ran Langdale, in an ironic twist of fate, it was my bum bag (chocka with compulsory safety kit) that inadvertently caught on the rock behind me and flicked me off Bad Step - I did do a backward somesault and ended up kicking Bad Step and busting my left little toe - I didn't kick Bad Step in a Basil Faulty tree thrashing rage after I hasten to add :) but as part of my actual back flip. Other than the toe smarting and feeling generally bashed and bruised I was able to carry on.... but that could have ended up much worse.
Anyway its all about the potential for non-fell running dependents that might consider suing race organisers and nothing at all to do with the runners themselves who wholly accept the risk - something that I know the FRA are absolutely conscious of
Absolutely wrong. I have fought constant battles over the years to use practicable interpretations of safety, and if you read HSE press releases you will see that they too are scathing about many public employee over zealous interpretations too.Quote:
Originally Posted by luxinterior
Does not alter one iota that nobody can or should certify anything hazard free, and the stakes are way beyond claims: get it wrong and a race organiser could easily end on a manslaughter charge, as one very recently nearly did. These documents are not innocuous since they are used to test negligence claims. My gripe is FRA have made it almost impossible For an RO to defend themselves now, with some of the crass drafting of rules about weather and hazards.
I like to think no current fell runner would ever sue an organiser. An agrieved family might, or such a runner may feel obliged if he loses his income for several months, and bailliffs come knocking. The lawyers they would employ are ammoral. They would consider only how to win, "fair or reasonable" does not come into it. only legal interpretation, so lets not give them an open goal. A successful claim would sound the death knell for fell running as it is.
Stop thinking about you, and consider race organisers.