I was agreeing with you - poking fun at us including me - we are an outspoken lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by OB1
Printable View
I was agreeing with you - poking fun at us including me - we are an outspoken lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by OB1
in a lay context " compulsory" can mean what you like. In a legal context if undefined it means what a judge decides on the day on the basis of argument and precedent, and that may be nothing like what you think it means, which is why it has to be defined, and in properly drafted legal documents such words always are.Quote:
Originally Posted by luxinterior
Or better, get rid of the ridiculous idea of stating " no hazards" in compulsory sections then nobody will care what it means any more.
The rest of that section is drafted no better, because the route clealy temps you down bad step which is arguably in contravention of rule 4 demanding that RO should not choose a route that tempts people to rock climb - and if push came to shove - a lawyer would definitely try to argue that rule had been broken.
People forget a guy went headlong over bad step, in the race, but amazingly ran away with an egg sized bump, instead of being dead with a broken neck, another possible outcome. If that had happened those rules would be scrutinized in the coroners court and by police. It would no longer be up to the dead runner on whether to iniate proceedinds.
The RO would find it hard to say the route did not tempt them to use it - and the fact of a previous faller, and nothing done about the route, would make a claim of negligence for the RO on breaching rule 4 very hard to defend.
The stakes are higher than people seem to think.
Crazy those rules.
Barking.
It is a place for professionals, not well meaning amateurs to draft them.
WITH PROTECTION for the RO this time, not the insufferable " I am allright jack" coming from runners and the FRA.
Few people are qualified to comment on any aspect of events leading to or taking place at the recent Inquest; and certainly no one who was not even there but is using hearsay and anecdote to grind their axe.
FRA fell races rely totally on race organisers.
The FRA will therefore always support its race organisers.
Fairly obvious I think.
Mike & Hazel Robinson received unswerving support from the FRA from the moment Mike rang me 18 months ago on the morning Brian Belfield was found to a couple of weeks ago when we both spent 4 days at the Inquest.
Talk to them.
Then choose: fun of the Forum or fell running reality?
I just googled that inquest and what reporting there was of it on line seemed to be skewed towards looking for fault more than anything else. In the scheme of things anybody could get disorientated in bad weather, slip, and bang their head and all fell runners I think appreciate that. Heck the weather doesn't even have to be extreme. All the same a really usefull insight into how 'facts' might look or be presented in the cold light of dayQuote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
None of this is fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
They have been through enough,
We will know when you are serious about supporting RO s when you start addressing the weaknesses in the rules which is the rope the next ones will be hung by.
Get a legal opinion from an RO point of view on the points made before someone comes a cropper. Like is it wise to certify any section of a course hazard free? Play the "what would happen if" games needed to make sure there are no unintended legal consequences.
I fail to believe ANY solicitor would recommend a client RO sign up to that, or some of the other warranties the rules now demand.
Then amend as advised.
It is all I am asking.
Why do you always attack the messenger and demean his motives, rather than heed the message?
Wheeze said. he was dead against UKA/FRA linking.. which I would cause animosity. In Wales especially it was very contentious..Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
I suppose my experience of GB/UKA is as a runner. I've competed with the support of WA and UKA.. incomparable. I just found it so professional. Everything dealt with, early selection, kit, hotels, there was nothing you wanted, it really changed my experiences about how athletes should be treated.
But, There is now real UKA (GBA) recognition of mountain and fell running. This weekend I was at the GBA celebration dinner and they had a review of the years and of course it was dominated by the track and field, but ultra and fell/mountain were mentioned in the talks and pictures shown.
I think that can really inspire the kids especially, to push on and gain a GB vest. that helps participation and keeping them in the sport..
Son has numerous GB vests, which is how I got sucked in (suckered in?) to athletics management, so I know a lot of what goes on , and how the sport works up to senior levels, and it really is chalk and cheese with fell running: the entire philosophy is different.Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
I supported wheeze in saying that I do not think Minimal races are either a bad thing or impossible to find legal formulas that allow them to run without exposing organisers, but it will be increasingly hard to do that with the UKA tie up, because of how they view the role of event organiser, so difficult to do with their insurance.
For all that the image of UK Athletics and the experience of it are two different things. The sad reality is that the essential prime mover that gets kids through the ranks to international level, is a lot of people who quietly devote all their time to coaching and competition management, and yet they barely have a voice in how the sport is run, and continuously fight for the things they need. They are not the kind of people that get invited to the kind of do you went, it is the blazer brigade, well known athletes and upper echelons that tend to get invited instead. Or that was true when I was involved.
Some of the silly catch 22 s still annoy me. Take you cannot get funding (or even selected for international competitions) unless you are a prospective/finalist/ medal hope , and you likely cannot become a prospective finalist/ medal hope unless you are able to get funding, and experience of international competition, because of the need to train full time to stand a chance of being good enough. It is those lower down, not those already earning that need the funding!
I am an athletics fan that attends meetings, yet I despair of how badly the events are marketed, even to people like me. It is luck that I discover they are either on, or on TV. All is not as rosy as seems.
Thats what it wasn't.. everyone in the room was an athlete or coach.. we had a few office staff maybe.. but it was Neil Black and then we had the ultra coaches, not sure mountain running lot were there.. then loads of 16-18 year olds.. on every table there must have been 3-4 16-18 year olds. It was a dry event presumably for that reason. Of the big names there weren't many, Adam G and Hannah England were the two biggest I think..Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
I think this was the first time for that sort of meal so they said.
I'm sure there is still a lot of blazer brigade but I find it much less than in football..
I really am glad. Maybe as Bob Dylan said "the times they are a changin'"Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
Is five years since I was last involved in athletics event organisation. A decade was enough for me....pain thresholds being what they are. Probably ought to leave it there related the event: a bit off topic the thread.
Except in as far as UKA philosophy and custom and practise on event organisation, is far removed from the needs of the average fell race.
A course to an athletics organiser, is somewhere essentially under his control, where he/she can segregate, spectators from athletes from dangerous areas from traffic. And where public and athletes include many minors, so organiser is totally responsible for telling them what to do and where to do it. Where he is in direct communication with all of the other officials, and can SEE!! Where the course can be inspected minutely and any hazards found and removed, and will be the same when it is inspected, as when it is used some hours later.
A far cry from a fell race.
I think I detect clashes of expectation and experience on a whole number of levels. In regards to the last post a clash between UKA and fell running: the latter with little experience of the somewhat wilder nature of the fells (and the people who choose to run on them). But I also sense an "old school" who have grown up with, and are used to, both the mountain environment as a whole, the ethos and approach to fell running specifically and who grew up with a sport which whose lack of regulation and rules was one of its attractions.
But we (sadly) live in changed times. People have different expectations. The new rules are a reflection of this, and the debate on these pages have been an attempt to draw attention to some of the issues that the (more general) shift in focus to managing risk and the potential for litigation when things go wrong which is now prevalent in society as a whole (where someone, somewhere must be responsible, for whatever befalls us). I think we all agree that fell running is a risky sport and it's a sad reflection on wider society that it's felt there's need for regulation etc, but that's the way it's gone and we'll have to get used to it. It's surprising that we've got away with it for so long, frankly.
So: the Rules should be as watertight as they can be, within the boundaries and limitations of the environment we find ourselves. It seems from discussion on here that they aren't, and, without going into massive detail, I'm inclined to agree. There's a Health and Safety culture out there, folks, and people who will exploit it if they get the opportunity. This, coupled with the changed expectations of people new to the sport, or coming into it from other areas where there is more regulation, has huge potential to cause problems across the board from the FRA to ROs and, ultimately, to us humble runners who turn up and try to comply with the rules, but just want to get out into the hills and "enjoy" ourselves.
It seems a real shame that some real issues raised here don't really seem to be given the full consideration they perhaps deserve, largely, it seems to me, as an outsider, based on clashes in personality and issues over protocol.
Dave, I've selected some of the phrases from your last post to reply to. This has been debated many times over the years. I fully recognise that I am 'old school' in the current climate but of course, 25 years ago, I too was 'new school'. And, surprisingly enough, Elf and Safety was just as pervasive then. And it WAS because fell racing offered a refuge from red tape and control that I and many others found it to be our natural home. There is no reason why it can cannot continue to be so. It just needs the appropriate ethos in the senior minds of the sport. I suspect that has changed over the years rather more than anything else. And, of course, a shift from a mountaineering ethos to an athletic ethos eventually brought us into the UKA fold....which was supported by a positive vote from the FRA membership as a whole. I spoke passionately against the UKA link up at the time but put up and shut up when the vote went so much the other way. C'est la vie. But the sort of issues we see now are exactly what I feared.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mole
I don't accept that argument about changed times and different expectations. But I do accept that most people apparently want something different out of fell racing compared to what I felt when I entered the sport. But then I race mainly in a little bubble down here in south wales when we get excited by a field of 100. 500 charging off into a bleak day in the lakes is something entirely different.
Dave, your post really does (in my view at least) provide a good summary of the balanced view at this interlude ;) in the thread's proceeedings. Your last paragraph on its own encapsulating the ambience shown on here (in my view at least). Maybe there is a different private ambience from those not participating on here? Especially maybe if they feel they have said everything they need to say via email? It is difficult to gauge. Where do we go from here though, before 01/01/2014? A group hug? A petition? A revolution? Nothing at all? What is the most appropriate way forward for the circumstance?
PS. I think in your second line where you say 'latter' you probably mean 'former' ('UKA' rather than 'fell running')? Minor point of clarification.
Are you serious.. BOFRA? why did they split?? As I said many times.. Peoples federation of the North Walean Republic of C'fon.. we'll do this 1000 times.. its what they do.. look how many clubs Eryri have formed or split from.. Menai... Cybi.. WFRA also stepped away.. red tape and arguments since day dot...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
What to do?Quote:
Originally Posted by OB1
It seems to me if FRA are unwilling to engage in a dialogue or action , about the problems noted here, and since those commenting show no signs of even being civil, let alone engaging with it, then the ROs will have to act instead.
Maybe they should anyway.
Their interests whilst similar are not the same as FRA and so the advice they would get on the legal risks they face from the new rules are wholly different from FRA
Perhaps a group would like to get together to take advice on just one part of one rule to test the water, and ask what is the nature and scope of legal risk they face from stating they are running under FRA rules, and in doing so warranting their courses are free from hazard in compulsory sections.
Having got a written legal opinion , Against written terms of reference ( the only opinion you can really trust) I suspect the advice will be that they cannot reasonably make such a declaration, and therefore will be obliged to cancel.
If that is what it takes to kick FRA into reviewing the rules and getting a professional redraft , then it has done its job. If it rules "no problem" it brings the RO professional indemnity that can help if the advice proved wrong
I hope I am wrong. but from my experience as responsible person and director of a dangerous companies health and safety policy, and a decade of involvement with contractual legalese, I doubt if I am.
I am not offering any advise to anyone ,other than advising them to take advise.
It is too dangerous to leave any of this to chance.
It seems to me that even FRA and those in power are underplaying their own vulnerability with such intransigence. It seems to me If they change rules as they have, and they know what most of the courses are, and they know or reasonably should have known that the established courses are not compliant, or if they deem themselves not competent to judge whether they are compliant they failed to take advice, to ascertain whether they were compliant,then to allow the races to be listed as compliant, when not, then they may be as guilty as the organisers for allowing a non compliant race to run.
For example - they know that langdale route over the last crinkle inevitably encourages runners to "take advantage negotiating a rock climb " by taking the shortest route over bad step. They also know that people have fallen there. They know it is potentially dangerous, and the difference between scramble and rock climb is semantic not real.
So it seems to me that FRA cannot ask langdale RO to sign up for a rule That says the course must not "encourage runners to take advantage by negotiating a climb" because they know that is a dubious claim. If someone falls and dies, then those words and undertakings will be scrutinised and ALL parties involved in stating compliance or allowing compliance to be stated will be potentially held to account, including FRA officers personally. Limitation may not help them in the case of anything deemed to be criminal negligence.
The correct response it seems to me is to modify the undertakngs so all existing courses are compliant, or help organisers to change the route, if they feel those routes are non compliant. To impose the rules knowing or suspecting races do not comply, but allowing them to proceed, is a risk I would not like to take. The rule may have unintended legal consequence where saying nothing about it in the rules might have been safer for all concerned,
All I am asking is for powers that be to get professional drafting and advice on problems identified from RO perspective.I am happy to be proven wrong.
All I GET for my suggestions is thinly veiled insults and remarks on my status which is not the standard I expect of responsible people on a sensitive subject
I am not offering advice to anyone, I am not scaremongering for effect, just trying to avoid a worse catastrophe, which if it happened could destroy fell running.
Dave, your post sums up nicely the response I've been trying to formulate in my head for the past few days!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mole
And I sincerely hope you get what you ask for. You've expressed a genuine and worrying concern and received some frankly shocking disdain in response. I think it's now time for a sensible mature response from those in the power, and I look forward to hearing one (though I might add that I'm loosing optimism that we'll get one).Quote:
All I am asking is for powers that be to get professional drafting and advice on problems identified from RO perspective.I am happy to be proven wrong.
All I GET for my suggestions is thinly veiled insults and remarks on my status which is not the standard I expect of responsible people on a sensitive subject
Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Harrison
Thing is, if a professional drafter knew what was in their heads, they could easily turn it into legalese that say precisely what they mean. The fact that it is not clear even to fell runners who know the routes, proves the wording is too far too loose and ambiguous.
Take that langdale situation.
Are they trying to outlaw bad step? it really is not clear.
I for one do not think they should do that, but it is certainly possible to interpret the rules that way. The race is being run today - it should have been cancelled or rerouted today, if it was believed it is now too dangerous.
If for example they want to allow bad step , but exclude such as broad stand there are a variety of ways to put that in legalese - here is one way to do that - that leaves langdale RO FAR less exposed.
"organisers must not choose routes that encourage runners to take advantage by negotiating rock climbs or dangerous ground EXCEPT where such scrambling, climbs or ground forms part of a normal route undertaken by walkers or is undertaken as part of a recognised footpath"
(the two variants are probably needed , since in some places the foot paths are far from clear across a wider area of scrambling - like prison band - but for all that walkers regularly use it)
That clearly outlaws broad stand, since it is not a recognised path, or used by walkers, but causey pike which is certainly a scramble/climb is still on limits as a walkers route.
Then to mitigate the effect of that, an annexe can be used to make specific exceptions,where problems do exist on paths, using drafting for example:
" All routes contained in Annexe X from time to time amended by the committee are deemed unnacceptable route choices for any race listed under FRA rules "
"Annexe X: Organisers please note: With effect from <date> the following routes are unnacceptable route choices for a race run under FRA rules by reasons including but not limited to objective danger, conflict with other public use, problems with landowner consents, or potential erosion and no existing or new races will be permitted to use them.
The ascent or descent of Jakes Rake on Pavey Ark
The descent (not ascent) of Halls fell on blencathra
The traverse of the base or face of Esk Pike from esk hause to ore gap on the north side. ( a pet one of mine...don't think fellrunners should mess up hillsides)
The ascent of great calva from the skiddaw side. (the bob graham scar)
etc etc (just a few examples - can include what you will..)
The annexe can be reviewed annually, to fine tune the effect of rules, to avoid modifying rules so often.
A professional drafter can make the document express what you want it to say without ambiguity, or the worry of unintended legal scope. That is what professional document drafters do: the extend or reduce the scope by careful choice of words, specific exceptions and inclusions, and qualifying words and to define words such as "compulsory" where used, whose meaning is far from clear. As it is, it is hard to know what the rules mean or are intended to mean, even for someone who has been fellrunning for 20 years. If it is not clear to organisers or competitors, it has manifestly failed as a set of rules.
And that IS legally dangerous.
A lot of people have expressed that "consultation window is over" - "it should be left to the next rule update".
Which is nonsense for two reasons. (1) the ambiguity is now, and the time bomb is ticking for when bad drafting might explode in an RO face. It is not a case of changing them, it is a case of being clear on what they mean, and ensuring they say what they actually mean (2) if any races run before the end of the year, are made non compliant under these rules in effect deemed by new rules as too risky, it is incumbent on powers that be to act on that danger now, not post jan 14, because in all obligations under safety related legislation you are obliged to act on information as fast as is reasonably possible. Leaving it indefinitely leaves you exposed legally to claims of negligence.
All I can do is bat away until the message gets through (I hope)
All I am after is an acknowledgement that these concerns are being actively addressed, that advise is being sought, and I will then await the result with interest and the shiny new set of better defined rules ( not necessarily different rules)
Sam, without trying defend a named person (but we all know who I mean), you have to try to see past an acerbic style and salute a committee member who is at least engaging enough to put views up here for us all to take pot shots at. I agree, the style does not help but, if you feel that strongly about it I would suggest a letter to the committee or an attendance at the AGM because they will always listen to such formal approaches. The situation is very much damned if you do and damned if you don't. My own views are clear but, knowing they are a minority, I'm happy enough trotting them around on here without doing anything more formal...although I am considering it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Harrison
Wheeze, spooky or what. Funnily enough I dropped my letter in the letterbox on this mornings run, probably right when you were posting. I tried to keep it civil, short, and to the point, it was certainly on a single page of A4. Right, back to work, and hoping for an early Xmas present from the committee.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
Come on folks, get your letters in and get back to work or get back out running!
That is the problem wheeze.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
I don't mind a little acerbic or sarcastic banter mixed in with cogent views or arguments, whether or not they support my own. People can call me what they want without offending me, provided it does not halt progress. But I have not seen any pertinent views expressed from that quarter on the matter in hand, to take a pot shot at or otherwise: without the insulting acerbic precursor, the rest of the recent messages are actually void of anything else!
Interaction or conversation is what produces results: with a one way letter you cannot be sure whether what they understood of what you said was what you wanted to communicate, and all ideas need refining by bouncing ideas back and forth. Impossible on a letter exchange in a period of less than months. and difficult in the narrow confines of a general meeting.
The other problem with "formal" communication is you place an obligation to act, and a paper trail, which in and of itself can leave the other party exposed, if something was expressed, not acted on and the worst comes to the worst, some smartarse claims lawyer might view that failure as negligence, and that is not what I want. I don't want anyone in fellrunning, organisers marshalls or FRA to be any more exposed than the minimum possible. Which is why I want the rules tightened up , loose wording removed, and made less ambiguous.
So "formal" is not good because formal can be remembered if ever push comes to shove.
A lot of work done by safety agencies is done off the record unrecorded on an informal basis, to avoid later legal repercussions, unless they are forced by inaction or severity to make it formal - they would rather not use a gun to the head.
It makes for kind of macabre reading but I find following Grough kind of puts into perspective how dangerous the hills can be but, at the same time, just how few of the mountain rescue callouts, disasters and fatalities are actually to do with fell races or fell runners
So the statistics seem to support the fact that what we have been doing for years is perfectly good enough and one isolated incident, albeit a very sad and tragic one, does not change this, statiscally it is an anomolly. Please, I don't want to offend anyone and I might feel differently if I were personnally involved but I would hope not to.
So, rather than write or phone you repeatedly put the same complaints over and over on here? Where they are available for anyone to see and for people to potentially use to show that the FRA hasn't taken the matter seriously? (Which I believe they have, by the way.)Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
Interesting.
If somebody repeatedly had a go at something that you had done in a public forum, would you eventually get fed up with them and stop responding?
They would not have to do it repeatedly: I would do them the courtesy of responding the first time, taking note of what was said, without insulting them in the process, and I would certainly look into whatever was said to make sure I had not missed something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecky
Repeating comes from failure to address the issue, not my failure I hasten to add.
I think if you were an RO hauled across burning coals you would think very differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfella
These documents are only read by hostile lawyers when something goes wrong, which is rare - but the documents are also the safety net.
If I am landing on a safety net, I would prefer it was not full of holes, indeed the nature of the safety net would make a massive difference to whether I was willing to take to the high wire (ie organise a race) in the first place.
This safety net seems to have some very sharp spikes in places! ( or should I say it has hazards in compulsory sections! - my form of acerbic/sarcasm, which is rather more on topic)
I think things have changed now.. you do get many incompetent runners.. many total novices.. its great more are getting into the sport but we've had a few there by the grace of god incidents.. Wendy Dodd was talking about one lakeland race where she found someone wanting to lie down, they were very cold, awful weather, they'd have been dead in minutes..Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfella
I was marshalling in the Elidir race in pretty shocking weather and I'd say 1/3rd of the field had no idea of the route.. nor had a map.. or couldn't have used it. It was a bit of an eye opener how much people think a race is a safe environment..
Statistically it is still low, and will remain that way but runners are putting more pressure on RO's.. so you can understand more rules and regulations.. I think their hand is somewhat forced there. As someone said it is down to runners to take responsibility for themselves, but unfortunately that isn't enough.
We've seen it on here, people will advise people to do races if they cant get around a route solo.. which is just staggeringly incompetent.
I do agree with Wheeze that fell running should have as few rules as possible, but unfortunately thats just not the way of the world anymore and its not enough.
The "follow the number in front of you" mentality worries me too! I remember a langdale race in clag where people were coming in from all over the map , hours later, having followed the number in front of them into armageddon. Those are my kind of races, I can out navigate a lot more people than I can outrun.Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
I even took the time and trouble to explain in the car park to someone who had not yet done it how to navigate at sedbergh, explaining the critical part over the cols to checkpoint before the path up to the calf, even citing the key bearings and gave him a highlighted one page map. Yet who shall be nameless , followed a well known lady runner, straight up the wrong ridge to the calf one checkpoint to early , and retired failing to finish the route.
The problem with navigation in clag is , if you do not know where you are, working out what to do next can be a problem, and unless navigation is in the back of your mind at all times, you are not keeping tabs on where you are. That needs to be impressed on runners, keep checking the features you expect to see check off in your mind as you pass them, then at least you have some inkling on where you are , or were at the last known location.
More races run in pairs might be one partial answer to the safety concerns: they do it at county tops and on mountain marathons.
Would it not be beneficial to request a meeting to sit down and chat about all this? All sides are doing it all for the good of the sport, unless we iron out issues all this typing will be pointless.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
None of us are perfect, no one has made any mistakes on purpose if any has been made, but surely to god we are able to sit down round a table and iron it out??
Just a thought?
I backed away from this thread for a little while. Partly in consideration of what Lecky posted as I have plenty of respect for him, what he has done on the junior side and I was under the impression he felt similarly of me, based on the "working" relationship we had back then and the regular chats we have when we meet up.
So was I being just objectionable for the sake of it?
I think not and I think Lecky acknowledged himself that he hadn't read the thread through - who can blame him after all it's so long and it has many twists and turns.
I genuinely feel that AI has raised some genuine concerns.
I'm an experienced RO and that covers all the main athletic disciplines and what this thread has done has made me read the RO's literature more thoroughly. So regardless of all other matters, that should be a good thing in itself, as I'm sure other ROs will do likewise.
I think that Sam Harrison has got it about spot on and I do hope that people in positions to re-look at this are gracious enough to do so.
If they do not want to do so in the public glare of the forum, then they can certainly instigate a dialogue away from the forum.
I also think the letter idea might be useful and may well go down that route myself.
I agree Amex. A good idea. I've recently seen a shift at England Athletics and attended a road show at Trafford.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amex
They listened to everyone's opinions and you can see that they have taken quite a lot on board.
So maybe the way forward would be to have a ROs conference and invite ROs to come along and discuss the matter.
I'm sure a venue such as Marl Pits in Rossendale, or Horwich RMI could be set up.
'AI' could you clear some space in your inbox? I have a PM for you.
well said AIQuote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
We should all be able to get about most routes after the last edition of The Fellrunner Mag :D
But watch out, There should be no excuse after every one has read part 2 of my "navigation for fellrunners" appears in the next Edition. I give it 4 weeks for every one to go out and practice and then we should all be ok ;) ....I wish
we've got a night race tomorrow. solo for competent navigators and pairs for those requiring some assistance.
Done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellhound
Very well said Sam, sums up my view entirely. I think AI has raised some very valid concerns and it’s a shame these are not being more widely discussed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Harrison
Ok but the majority of any given route will usually be on public land so say, for example, Ilkley Moor fell race was abandoned, could someone be disciplined for going for a run round the route anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by wolley tha
Thats the main thing really.. people do a Nav course then think they can nav.. it then needs hours out in the hills just getting used to matching contours and landmarks, using a compass.. so its all second nature come a race.. most people don't ever practice.. run for 20 mins following people.. in no idea which way.. then get a map out under pressure in a race.. and have no chance of being able to relocate.. well thats what I do anyway.. :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by IanDarkpeak
Due to a failed BG a couple of weeks ago I decided to make my own way from Wasdale back to Keswick via Sty Head, Angle Tarn, then north from there. I was very experienced in the mountains before starting a family - really comfortable with map/compass. I have had probably no more than 10 trips to the lakes in the last 13 years. (Daz's race last summer was my first lake district race) I could not believe how rusty I was on that trip to Keswick just simple things like relating contours to features on the ground was beyond me. I got to Keswick OK but most of the trip I had only a vague notion of where I was. Having a big target like Derwent Water to head towards helped :oQuote:
Originally Posted by IainR
It is a case of if you don't use it you loose it.
Pah! I work on the notion that the best way to get to know a particular stretch of hills is to get lost in them a few times first :)
So we create a new sport, leave fell running for the numpties with loads of rules and regs to stop them killing themselves (or others). Then the rest of us do what we enjoy doing with low key races, low entry fees, and like minded experienced individuals doing what they enjoy.Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
we all had you down as one of the numpties :pQuote:
Originally Posted by bigfella
Amex, I am all for sorting it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amex
But there are several separate conversations going on, not all can be sorted out by group discussion.
There is minimal races, vs more infrastructure and support, and in essence that discussion has moved on. Guys like wheeze hanker after the old days of someone in deckchair collecting a quid, saying "off you go lads" I guess I am getting old, I preferred those days too. So in building terms, should it be big, or should it be small? Wheeze prefers small, so do I . times have probably moved on.
There is then discussion about rules, whether they are done and dusted.
Here is my take on that, using the same analogy.
A group of people decide to build a building, the FRA project manage the build, the RO have to live in it, so everybody gets a say on what they would like to see, draws a sketch. Some get accepted some do not, some rejected. Some say big, some say small, In the end the FRA are charged with deciding what it should look like, and that consultation has gone, but all agree it has to withstand some weather battering from outside sources.
The next thing that happens with a building is you get an architect to turn the chosen sketches of what you want, how big and what the rooms do, into rigorous plans and check with building regs and do structural calcs to make sure it really can stand a gale outside, snow and ice, and earthquakes and the architect will tell you what it can do as it stands or how to change it to make it more bombproof. Then it is built, and if it blows over - the architect is to blame. The architect is not usurping anyones influence on what they want. Just making sure it does what you say you want it to do.
I get the uncomfortable impression we have built the building from the set of draft sketches, and there is something that doesn't look right compared to other stormproof buildings. I am not trying to change what we want, or anybodies picture of the building, or telling them bigger or smaller, and I am really not qualified to say what shape the building should be to work well, they all know more about races than me, just trying to say, from experience, it does not look like it can withstand a gale - so asking whether an architect seen it? - have we really checked it Do we know how resilient it really is if an earthquake happens? Please- please get an architect to look over it.
No amount of meetings of ROs can fix that knowledge of how resilient the building is, unless we wait for a storm big enough for it to collapse. Once we know how sturdy is, maybe a meeting of RO will tell you whether they are happy with the strength, or whether they want it more bombproof, or whether smaller and bombproof is better than bigger and less so. We need the architect to look over it first and make sure it is fit for purpose.
Another analogy even more pertinent.
It would be funny, if it was not true! Really really embarrassing.
I once wrote a letter to a german client of mine about a contract for glass manufacturing equipment. As a mark of respect, I got it translated into german. I wish I had not. I made a mistake. The one I chose to write it and translate it - someone fluent in german, who happened to be working in the company I ran, from the set of notes I gave him, wasn't as good as I thought at German when it got too technical. I rang the customer, and he laughed his head off for the next five minutes, with german expletives flying. My first exposure to the word flick. I digress. In the end he let me into the joke. What should have said something about "snapping equipment" and we all thought it did - was a lengthy description of "snapping shrimps". I should have gone outside to get someone fluent in technical german. I tried to do it with a wellmeaning employee who knew some german but it turned out, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Fortunately in that case, no reall harm was done ,except to my pride. The client let me off having to supply him with four metre long snapping shrimps, and settled for the snapping equipment instead.
We have to get the legal "snapping shrimps" out of our rules....make sure they r say "snapping equipment" instead. Make sure they say when translated out of legalese, what we meant to say. I am not convinced they do. A group meeting will probably not help that. Only a qualified opinion.