Oh dear I've gone and done it now I've returned my races(s) registration form for next year as I suspect have most other race Organisers, this despite Als assumption that we are all doomed. Fear not I predict little change in next years calendar.
Printable View
Oh dear I've gone and done it now I've returned my races(s) registration form for next year as I suspect have most other race Organisers, this despite Als assumption that we are all doomed. Fear not I predict little change in next years calendar.
You might well be correct in many respects but I remember deliberating for several years before entering my first AL (Edale) as I didn't think I had the necessary experience. Now I know I don't have the required fitness but thats another story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Will it? I seem to remember that a chunk of Ilkley Moor is council owned, but the rest is private. I'd be interested to know how much racing actually takes place on public land? (What's your definition btw?)Quote:
Originally Posted by wjb
I'm involved in marshalling duties for four races, and they are all on private land.
Lefty - I really am disappointed by sarcasm, though from other posting it no longer surprises me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lefty
I can only comment that as a fellrunner, and as someone experienced at reading "safetyese" and "legalese" languages all their own, that the rules are unclear to me and ill defined, and that is a problem all by itself: but the parts that are clear should be worrying any RO, but few seem to be worried. I hope nobody gets to find out the hard way that "no hazards in compulsory areas" is almost certainly more wide ranging and onerous in legal definition than the committee or you intend or believe, but if push comes to shove it will assuredly be that legal meaning that will prevail in any judgement. I hope for your sake it is not in a negligence claim.
If ROs prove to be so apathetic in assessing the risk they are taking themselves, you are probably right about the calendar, but then that attitude to assessment of risk, does not bode well for the race risk either.
All I can do, indeed all I intended , is higlight a problem and ask powers that be to consider it, and take it under advice.
As an RO what you do about it, is clearly up to you. I only hope the apparent arrogance shown generally on this thread does not lead to a catastrophe from which fell running never recovers.
Such events are unlikely. But as statistics tell you, getting the worst out come on a dice, does not reduce the chance one iota that it will happen again on the very next throw. And again the following day. But this time it happens you will have less legal wriggle room. These rules could be the rope that hangs you: you will certainly be judged by compliance to them. I hope it never comes to that.
When I said public land I meant land that we are free to run on, such as Ilkley Moor or the majority of the countryside in other places. I'm not sure if you saw my original post but I was discussing the rule which says that if a race is cancelled then people should not run the route unofficially. I was merely enquiring that, unless someone is specifically trespassing or running 'out of bounds', then how could they be disciplined for going for a run after the race is cancelled, if that run happens to cover some or all of the race route?Quote:
Originally Posted by shaunaneto
Does this mean that recces are no longer allowed?
Don't be daft. If the land is open access you can run on it when ever you like.Quote:
Originally Posted by wjb
Yes that's what I thought, but not after a race has been cancelled according to the new rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stolly
isn't this simply a case of the RO, in the event of a group of people running the route after a race has been cancelled, being able to say "nothing to do with me: it breaches the Rules"? Especially important, I'd have thought, in protecting the RO from liability if said group then gets into trouble......
That might be a belt and braces rule - for example were the race cancelled because the landowner had withdrawn access permission, the race organiser wouldn't I guess want a bunch of fell runners going round anyway as if they were flaunting things. Land owner permission is required for all races as I understand it but, if the land's open access, individuals can run on it when ever they like. Some race organisers respectfully ask runners not to recce certain stretches of a route pre-race, often where they're trying to keep on the good side of the landowner, but if its open access people can technically run on it if they want. I haven't done the 3 peaks fell race for yonks but probably run the route one way round or the other 5 or 6 times a year and I wouldn't like to feel that I was some way restricted from doing so, due to the rules of a race I don't even run in :)Quote:
Originally Posted by wjb
I had to drop out of the Edale Skyline the weekend before last because I had nobody to cover for my border collie Harry. I asked if I could race with Harry but, in order to hold the race, the RO had to agree with the land owners (the National Trust?) that no dogs would be involved. He also asked me not to run round such that it might appear I was in the race which again was fair do's so I just ran a reverse half skyline with Harry going the other way and meeting the race coming the other way at Mam Nick. If the race had been cancelled I'm certain I could have run the whole route anyway; its not as if totally unrelated walkers or runners have to abide by such a rule is it?
Ha, you said the exact same point as me but miles more concisely Dave :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mole
Ah trespass, tis but a fading memory.
Mind you the farmers in Scotland can be a volatile bunch - when Harry was a mere pup he inadvertently ran into a field full of sheep at the Arisaig end of Loch Morar. One minute he was running beside me and my daughter on the main cart track and the next he'd run through a 20 metre wide gap in the wall into the field. It just so happened that the (mentally unstable) farmer was sat in his car right beside this gap in the wall (probably to stop his sheep getting out), saw Harry run in and then went stark raving bonkers, ranting and raving at our 'sheep killer' of a dog. This scared poor Harry witless and we had a hell of a time getting him back.... meanwhile the farmer went to get his gun. Long story short it all turned out okay but I'm sure the right to roam in Scotland puts a few farmers way way over the edge, an edge one or two of them are plenty close enough to anyway :)Quote:
Originally Posted by shaunaneto
Well put Stolly I suppose that makes sense. I think I remember running the opposite way to a runner with a dog at Edale so must have been you, although I've been trying to block those last few miles from my memory!Quote:
Originally Posted by Stolly
The new Safety Requirements do not spell out all possibilities but, for example, in 1980 the Ben Nevis race was infamously cancelled at the "last minute" but 9 runners ran the full route anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stolly
If a similar situation were repeated and a runner were to die it is inevitable that the race organiser would be summoned to the Inquest and cross-examined in great detail on exactly what he said and did and did not say and did not do.
No race organiser should be put in that position and the new FRA Safety Requirement has been written to remind runners to act responsibly.
That was the very incident I had in mind.
An update has appeared on the home page.
What surprises me (though it wouldn't surprise me if I'm alone and outspoken such is the mind-set of most fell runners in Britain) is that the FRA go to all these lengths to ensure competitors' safety as regards kit carrying, yet we in Britain seem far less worried about the prospect of people getting lost in the hills, becoming injured and dying of hypothermia in bad weather because they weren't found in time. We all seem to accept the unmarked nature of most courses and therefore the potential need to navigate, as just part of the sport. Yet when you talk to athletes and organisers of races abroad they'll say 2 things; that it doesn't sound fair to them because it would favour the local athletes, and besides, isn't that more like orienteering? The concept seems very strange to them, as I say, a very 'British' fell running thing.
Bottom line here is it doesn't matter what they think, or indeed what we think, I just ask myself what a judge would say, the kind of judge that would rule an organiser negligent because he allowed a runner to compete carrying only pertex and lightweight bottoms rather than full waterproofs with sealed seams. If an unfortunate runner did have all the right kit in his bumbag but came to grief as a result of getting lost, would the same judge rule it was his own fault because he should have known how to use the map and compass that the organiser so responsibly made him carry? I wouldn't have thought so. Just makes me wonder, that if we're going to kit check every runner like school children before a race (and I don't blame organisers if that's what it takes), should we not then show them the right way to go, rather than send them off into the mist to fend for themselves? Doesn't seem to add up to me.
Decent point TimW about the navigation element. I'm fortunate I can navigate but I suppose marking some of the courses out there is nigh on impossible.
If it takes a top fell runner 4 hours to complete, it would take an age to mark out the route and then take those markings down.
Is there more money in the European races?
Look at the 3 Peaks where we have a £20 ish entry fee and close to a 1000 entries each year now. That gives them a budget to be able to significantly mark and marshall the route in a way most races can't.
I've read the post on the FRA announcement. I'm scratching my head a little though. I fully understand how the comments of the coroner have to be absorbed and considered.
I might be wrong, but I would suggest that the coroner is going to look at the events surrounding the race and tragic accident in question.
That race in particular is not a typical race. It's one of the toughest medium races in the calendar in some of the most challenging terrain in England.
Lessons have to be learned without a doubt, but we wouldn't rewrite the highway code on the basis of what happens over the Cat & Fiddle.
Please don't anyone take this as criticism of anyone or anything. It isn't. It's just an observation.
WP, I read the website post slightly differently in context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
I read it as saying that the opportunity to incorporate the coroners comments will also be used to revise the document to reflect other comments.
To me the website post of 11th September was perhaps misleading in that it implied (in layman's terms if not legalise) that the 1st September update to the safety requirements was 'final for 2014', whereas it really meant to say that is was, in the committee's view, 'final' to present to the September inquest and as a draft for RO advanced registration proceedings for 2014. Different timelines, pressures, considerations etc.
Again, like you just my personal observation.
But they have effectively in that many (if not most) roads in Derbyshire now have a 50mph limit imposed and if you believe the signs it has a lot to do with the number motorbike accidents. If the lemmings choose to kill themselves then fine, just don't impose restrictions on the rest of us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
But why would you want a marked course (except through farmland possibly) as navigating (or learning the route by reccy) is a large part of the sport. If you fully mark the course as many on the continent are then surely its a different sport. I believe the 3Ps was fully marked one year as it was in some championship or other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Like the A50?Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfella
I know what you mean, but I think you know what I mean.
I'm not saying they would want a marked course.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfella
I think Tim does make a good point. I can see the appeal of marked courses and in reality if you go to most races locally to me they are more or less marked in some way all the way, whether that's because of the presence of lots of marshalls, keeping to established tracks and trods.
It's the longer ones where the navigation comes in and it's not that feasible to mark them anyway, unless they have a PPP style budget.
I am arguing that for many people it is not desirable to have marked routes and that to do so is effectively a different sport. Appreciate what you say about many local fell races though, same here in the peak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
A marked course is no use if your in thick clag and 5 meters of it and heading the wrong way.
I don't understand the distrust of marked routes. If after a minute you can't see any flags, then at worst you're lost by a minute, and you know to backtrack until you find some markers again.
Marked routes can't be a replacement for the ability to navigate in a long race.Quote:
Originally Posted by LissaJous
If you, for whatever reason (injury/exhaustion/deterioration of weather), need to get off the course to somewhere safer/warmer, you HAVE to know which way to go.
I don't distrust a marked route but it's not much use to me if it isn't going in the direction I want to go.
On a personal level, the fact that courses aren't marked is part of the fun, it's exactly what the sport is about. Fell running is a sport born out mountaineering and a love for the hills, and the ability to navigate is a huge (and very enjoyable) part of that. It's not easy (running on a compass bearing is much more difficult than walking on one!), but none of us pick the sport because it's easy.
On a more serious note, as keever has just said, the ability to navigate competently is an absolute essential regardless of whether the course is marked or not. It's the same argument as to why we don't put up signposts in the hills: Because people will become too reliant on them and find themselves stuck when something goes wrong.
Regarding how easy it is to follow markers in the clag: I think people forget how hard it can actually be. If the clag is thick then you're not going to be able to see more than a few metres, and so there'll inevitably be times when you're running without a visible marker. As LissaJous says, if you don't see a marker for a few minutes then you could turn around to backtrack. But, with all the adrenaline of the race I think it's more likely to be a case of "oh I'll just push on for a little longer, I'm sure I'll see a marker soon". I've done it before when following cairns up routes in the Alps (admittedly when it was pitch black, but then again being in thick clag isn't much difference), it really is all too easy to do. Even if you do decide to backtrack at some point, if you're in featureless terrain that could be easier said than done, and it also doesn't prevent you running off a cliff in the meantime.
On a side note, I welcome the response from the FRA, and I'm pleased to hear that the final rules will be subject to "legal scrutiny".
Glad to see the new initiative is taking place per the post on main site.
On a different issue:
I really don't want to see marked courses, do not think it is practical, and it would detract from the sport
I do think the dialogue between me and IanD hit on a useful idea, don't know how widely it is considered.
Perhaps a solution for Lakeland A races is to run them in pairs EXCEPT for those who can prove they are experienced runners over that specific course and only then in better weather. If conditions are poor, then no exceptions: run in groups which must not separate..
So that no “new runners” on any A course are ever left alone, and none are left alone in wintry conditions of low visibility.
That one measure possibly would have helped in the case of all of the fatalities I am aware. It is easier to see hypothermia in someone else, than yourself, and clearly a second person can raise the alarm immediately of any occurence. As far as I am aware (correct if wrong) there have been no fatalities in pairs events? In the fellsman you cannot proceed beyond some checkpoints except in groups, and if weather turns nasty during an event (as opposed the start)
Of course the course record/ race winner/ top ten types may have a problem with that , but it is the fell "runners" association rather than fell racers, so mid to back of the packers like yours truly would be happy with it.
And on a reasonable day, the top people can still race. They generally stay together in championship races for the first few checks anyway.
[QUOTE=Sam Harrison;559593]On a personal level, the fact that courses aren't marked is part of the fun, it's exactly what the sport is about. Fell running is a sport born out mountaineering and a love for the hills, and the ability to navigate is a huge (and very enjoyable) part of that. It's not easy (running on a compass bearing is much more difficult than walking on one!), but none of us pick the sport because it's easy.
QUOTE]
You put your finger on an important distinction there Sam, and one reason why this thread has run and run. The mountaineering ethos has been replaced with an athletics ethos because of the closer link up to UKA (or whatever it calls itself this week). Its the essential difference in philosophy that is generating the energy in this debate. I'm not saying its wrong (although I personally disagree with it), I'm just pointing out why I think we are all still bashing this around.
Of course, its nothing new. There have been issues ever since BAF.
[QUOTE=Wheeze;559604]I just don't see that at all. The mountaineering ethos is as strong as ever in places like the lakes.. its not in Wales because whenever the weathers bad you lot shorten so there is less dependance on those skills....Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Harrison
I think its incredible that despite Eryri's view that they are some traditional fell running club I'm the only welsh runner to have done summer and winter paddy buckleys.. compare that to the Lakes? every buggers done numerous BGR's...
The lack of mountaineering skills has nothing to do with UKA's involvement in the sport..
Its British Athletics
Don't seem to be able to edit my post two above about the idea of enforced running in pairs or groups in adverse weather , or forcing grouping up to proceed beyond checkpoints, if weather turns adverse
I believe may have made a material difference in all of the fatalities so far.
I wanted to add, that much of the field run in groups so it is hardly much of an imposition, and need only be imposed at race owner discretion as standard practise for Long A as a part way house between "normal running" and "bad weather route/cancel". Most of the problems have occurred when people get isolated.
It should be forced on all of those competing on that route for the first time.
So the "newcomer" factor is no longer such a problem.
There is one way and only one way to organize a race on a mountains, and the navigation fundamentalists will not rest until every race in Europe is run under FRA rules. Attachment 7223
Actually I think we just got distracted by the claim that continuous, unbroken tape would be necessary. I don't think the author of that statement can ever have been to a Skyrace.
That's an interesting proposition and I'm not sure where I stand on it. I suppose I have a NIMBY attitude about it: I wouldn't like to be forced to run with someone else (nothing against them!) but then I can definitely see the advantages.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
I believe certain LDWA and other events already have such a system in place?
The problem is, how do you define who is "experienced enough" to run on their own? That's likely to cause huge arguments. E.g. only if they've ran the course before, they must have some kind of qualification (ML, WGL etc), must have done x number of ALs...
Personally, I enjoy being completely on my own in atrocious weather - again it's one of the challenges of the sport that attracts me too it. I agree with Iain's point about Welsh races tending to be altered if the weather's bad and I think that's a real shame - my experience of this is the Peris Horseshoe being shortened a couple of years back and the Welsh 1000m Peaks being diverted last year when the weather wasn't really that bad at all.
Agree - and I've never been to a Sky Race but I did think it was an odd statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by LissaJous
The running in pairs thing is a bit daft I think. Firstly getting lost or potentially getting lost is part of the fun, secondly being new to a race is no indication of whether you're confident in the hills or not, or indeed know the hills like the back of your hand, thirdly it could lead to more inexperienced runners competing because they might feel reassured by their partner, fourthly if you've run a race countless times in good weather that can mean diddly squat in bad and fifthly it would make a solo event a team event and thats not what its all about.
agree.. there is too much notion that experience comes from racing..
I think its more dangerous.. people will seperate.. if they can't do it on their own they shouldnt be out there..
Not daft, just not ideal. At the moment an RO has to make an impossible decision in the light of the last fatality as to whether conditions are too adverse to run.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stolly
It gives a half way house before actually cancelling or amending.
Pairs can get completely lost, but that is not necessarily the only issue - it is whether one can call for assistance in the event of the other having problems either injury or hypothermia. Don't think mountain marathons have had a fatality (may be wrong) and the ability for pairs to aid each other possibly accounts.
On the fell relays I had to deal with a partner who became unable to run on a smashed up ankle, in a very out of the way and certainly invisible place. She would have struggled without me....
But the incidence of fatalities in fell races is extremely low, lets not forget that. Blimey you only have to look at Grough to see how many 'normal' hill walkers come to grief in comparison. The fact that its a race with a whole bunch of runners going (more or less) the same way makes it safer, miles safer than being out in the hills on your own for sure. So if a runner gets in trouble he stands a fantastically good chance of being helped. And pairing would ruin the sport.
I'm not particularly interested in making things safer at all but to me its more about not lumbering race organisers with stupid and unreasonable responsibilty. I still think runners signing a disclaimer alongside the RO stating their own requirements of the runner and their own specific accepted responsibilities is the answer