New safety rules

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

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.

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....

---

You seem to be prejudging the outcome of the coroner which isn't out yet and coming to some odd conclusions!

Also your point over the safety rules not protecting RO enough seem to overlook the issue of risk. No amount of rewriting of the rules will change the risks of fell races. Unless race routes are going to change dramatically ie not be in the hills, over rocky ground, where you can get lost then the risks don't go away. No one wants this and therefore RO have to mitigate for the risks as best they can ie ask for relevant experience ensure people carry necessary kit etc. Seems to me that this is all covered well enough by the rules and there is no need to change them further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

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 very fact that she was running with someone may have lead her to take risks (however slight) that she might not have taken running solo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

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.

---

I'd say you are in danger of going against much of your advise over recent days, which if I'm correct is not to be so prescriptive that you fence an RO in to courses of action that are not relevant to their event and location.
The running in pairs as an example. The Sedbergh Hills race relies much more on navigation skills than say Anniversary Waltz.
Yet if we say something applies to all Lakeland A Cats - well you know where I'm coming from.

I'd rather see an approach where we added more flesh to the terms that we attach to certain races eg ER, NS, LK, PM.

PM - for example tells me very little as I'm not sure I know a race that couldn't claim to be marked in at least part of the route.
For example (and at risk of being lambasted for poor terminology :) )

I'd add FM - Full Marked - Race Routes should only be described as fully marked if the next course marker is visible in clear weather from the previous marking and markings are never more than 100 metres apart.
Partially Marked - Race Routes may be described as partially marked if :-
1. A route along a clear path, track or trod is marked at each junction / route option encountered.
2. A route where there is no clear path, track or trod is Fully Marked to the standard set out previously.

If it doesn't meet either of the above, it shouldn't be advertised as marked or part marked as it could be misleading to some athletes.

LK - it's a bit of a red herring in my opinion. Even running on your own athletics track is an advantage so I'm not sure what real relevance this adds.
We never vet entry to a race (as far as I know) based on a demonstration of local knowledge and rather than attach LK to a race, I think it would be more useful to have a section on the website that explains to athletes the benefits of recceing, particularly with other people who are familiar with the area.

What reccing has done for me has refreshed my navigational skills that I gained as a teenager and my love for maps. I hadn't used those skills for 20 years until I started fell running.

NS - we insist on kit and we do kit checks. But we advise Navigational Skills, but it is advise and again I'm not sure it is policed.
If a route isn't PM or FM then it will require navigational skills. So I see the addition of NS to a race in the calendar another red herring.
I'd rather see a piece on the website where it outlines the importance of navigation skills because I don't think athletes realise. They tend to enter races where 90% of the time they follow the guy in front and all is well, that's until the weather turns, they are detached 25 metres and lose site of the athlete in front.
They then are trusting to luck as they don't have the requisite skills to deal with that.

That is probably typical of the majority of fell runners and it should be a priority to try and resolve. It's amazing the number of athletes at my club and others that say of the upcoming relays "I'm Ok, just don't put me on the Nav leg" or "why do they make me carry a map and compass - I don't know what to do with them".

I know there are navigation courses out there and I doubt they could cope with all that need them, but I would welcome an initiative where representatives from clubs, perhaps the coaches or a Fell Captains, could attend a Nav Awareness Day / Training Day.
They could then go back and set up sessions, recces for their members that encouraged them to start learning.

ER - When I started Fell Running, I started with Rivington Pike. I loved it, so I then went on to other local short races around Darwen Tower, Pendle and Fairsnape.
Then I wanted a challenge - the Three Peaks when it was the World Champs about 6 years ago. They take the ER quite seriously and ask for 2 AL,AM or BL as a way of demonstrating some competence.
So I went out and did some. Anniversary Waltz, Chipping and Sedbergh Hills all met that standard. I also reccied extensively and gained experience in the area.

Perhaps we need a little bit more vetting of the ER.
eg. Anyone entering an FRA Fell race must have completed at least 2 races at a lower category level within the last 2 years, unless that race is a FRA "Short" Race.
L & M races could then have a section on the entry form for runners to detail this.

It may be a little onerous for regular racers to fill that part in, but it would take very little time and adds weight to the advise "ER".

As an RO I'd prefer measures like this which would be sensible and quantifiable. I'd also prefer as an athlete because again it's clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

The lack of mountaineering skills has nothing to do with UKA's involvement in the sport..

Its British Athletics

---

:confused:
type in uka.org.uk and see where you get to!

Thanks to the various views.

It was just a thought - lob a stone in a pond, see what ripples come back. Not intended as mandatory on the organiser to call it, just mandatory on runners to abide if asked.

One more weapon in the armoury of options to be considered at the point an RO is questioning borderline.

One of the fatalities I gather back 1992 time, inexperience was a part of the problem, so forcing newcomers to go in pairs if not done that route may not be much of an imposition: first of the big ones I did (duddon) I stuck to someone like glue...it makes me feel old to say when.


Will leave that there.

The 1991 fatality was recorded as misadventure. I believe that the single most important finding at the inquest that persuaded the coroner to record this verdict was the evidence of a fellow competitor who just also happened to be a MR member. He had noticed that the eventual victim was about to set off into adverse conditions with no compass or map and had offered to share his to ensure safe passage. His offer was declined because the victim wanted to run faster than his steady pace. If she had accepted the offer, would she have survived? Almost certainly yes. That fact alone meant the coroner could not place the blame on the RO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

G.

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.....
.

---

Strongly disagree with this. The notion for me is all about personal responsibilty - being forced to run in pairs would represent, to me, another further dumbing down of our great sport and an attempt to de-risk it. If people are coming to races unprepeared, from an athletic rather than outdoor and mountaineering background as discussed the the onus should be on educating these new people not lowering the bar to the lowest common demoninator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard123

Strongly disagree with this. The notion for me is all about personal responsibilty - being forced to run in pairs would represent, to me, another further dumbing down of our great sport and an attempt to de-risk it. If people are coming to races unprepeared, from an athletic rather than outdoor and mountaineering background as discussed the the onus should be on educating these new people not lowering the bar to the lowest common demoninator.

---

It was only an idea, not even one that appeals much to me. I like clag races.

But there were two issues not one.

The question of whether to force newcomers race as a group, (which would not affect others, so the lowest common denominator would not apply) and the question as to whether to group all when conditions make hypothermia and /or going off route a lot more likely: used as alternative to cancelling or shortening the race.

Which would you rather if given a choice? Bad weather cancellation , low level route, or the normal route but done as a group?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

He had noticed that the eventual victim was about to set off into adverse conditions with no compass or map

---

Was that already in the rules back then? (One would presume so..)

Some on here seem to think route markers are a bad idea because they are not a 100% guarantee of safety. I get really confused, the only 100% guarantee of safety (which I actually did on the day in question last year rather than racing in Wales) is to stay at home and hope you don't fall off a ladder.

Does a marked route (and thank you to WP for expanding on that) guarantee 100% safety? No, of course not, and as you can see from the other UK mountain running death last year (during a race in Greece).

Would it, on balance, have helped at Buttermere last year? Quite possibly a yes.

Could marking of crucial sections be another bad-weather option for ROs? Fellrunners don't see it that way, apparently.

Even if that meant the only alternative was cancellation? We don't cancel races 'cos we're not in Wales

And I know that others believe flagged routes would encourage the wrong kind of people to race. I don't see why all races have to be alike (marked, unmarked), or why some parties take the prospect of any race being marked as such a threat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LissaJous

Was that already in the rules back then? (One would presume so..)

Some on here seem to think route markers are a bad idea because they are not a 100% guarantee of safety. I get really confused, the only 100% guarantee of safety (which I actually did on the day in question last year rather than racing in Wales) is to stay at home and hope you don't fall off a ladder.

Does a marked route (and thank you to WP for expanding on that) guarantee 100% safety? No, of course not, and as you can see from the other UK mountain running death last year (during a race in Greece).

Would it, on balance, have helped at Buttermere last year? Quite possibly a yes.

Could marking of crucial sections be another bad-weather option for ROs? Fellrunners don't see it that way, apparently.

Even if that meant the only alternative was cancellation? We don't cancel races 'cos we're not in Wales

And I know that others believe flagged routes would encourage the wrong kind of people to race. I don't see why all races have to be alike (marked, unmarked), or why some parties take the prospect of any race being marked as such a threat.

---

You are making a but of an assumption: Not convinced it would have helped at Buttermere because reading from the coroners report, it was considered a probable deliberate off route descent to get down off high ground, just done in an unfortunate place. So routefinding marked or otherwise may have played no part in it.

Not sure what you meant about the other runner...the trackers said he was hours off route at the point he fell, so routefinding may have had some hand in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LissaJous

Was that already in the rules back then? (One would presume so..)

Some on here seem to think route markers are a bad idea because they are not a 100% guarantee of safety. I get really confused, the only 100% guarantee of safety (which I actually did on the day in question last year rather than racing in Wales) is to stay at home and hope you don't fall off a ladder.

Does a marked route (and thank you to WP for expanding on that) guarantee 100% safety? No, of course not, and as you can see from the other UK mountain running death last year (during a race in Greece).

Would it, on balance, have helped at Buttermere last year? Quite possibly a yes.

Could marking of crucial sections be another bad-weather option for ROs? Fellrunners don't see it that way, apparently.

Even if that meant the only alternative was cancellation? We don't cancel races 'cos we're not in Wales

And I know that others believe flagged routes would encourage the wrong kind of people to race. I don't see why all races have to be alike (marked, unmarked), or why some parties take the prospect of any race being marked as such a threat.

---

Love the colour coding :). But like AI said if you're suffering/injured/hypothemic its at that point that you might purposely choose to leave the route of the race, whether flagged or not, just to get off the hill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

It was only an idea, not even one that appeals much to me. I like clag races.


Which would you rather if given a choice? Bad weather cancellation , low level route, or the normal route but done as a group?

---

I know AI and I've been wholly supportive of you on this thread. .. . just not on this point ;)

And which option would I choose... ?? option 4 - run the race as intended ala The Great Lakes last year ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard123

I know AI and I've been wholly supportive of you on this thread. .. . just not on this point ;)

And which option would I choose... ?? option 4 - run the race as intended ala The Great Lakes last year ;)

---

Yes. The Great Lakes race last year was an absolutely fantastic outing, one of the best ever in fact (says he as one of the herberts who went to far to the south coming over Stonesty Pike, effectively off my Pete Bland race map, and ended up doing a roundabout trudge to the finish via Wrynose and Blea Tarn).

Haha. . a few did that I think, but isn't that what racing is all about? making your own choices, suffering the consequences ;)

I wish I had a transcript or tape of the race briefing though . .. bloody brilliant!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stolly

Yes. The Great Lakes race last year was an absolutely fantastic outing, one of the best ever in fact (says he as one of the herberts who went to far to the south coming over Stonesty Pike, effectively off my Pete Bland race map, and ended up doing a roundabout trudge to the finish via Wrynose and Blea Tarn).

---

OOpss.

Every year some manage that on the langdale race too , by failing to hang a sharp left after the last crinkle.

In fact you can tell how claggy it was on a langdale race day ,by how many come in from places like cockley beck and three shires.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LissaJous

Was that already in the rules back then? (One would presume so..)

Some on here seem to think route markers are a bad idea because they are not a 100% guarantee of safety. I get really confused, the only 100% guarantee of safety (which I actually did on the day in question last year rather than racing in Wales) is to stay at home and hope you don't fall off a ladder.

Does a marked route (and thank you to WP for expanding on that) guarantee 100% safety? .

---

The event was a multi-leg relay and I can't recall under whose rules it was run. The route was marked....tape on poles about 100 metres apart. By the time the leg was run, viz was down to 10 metres..............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

You are making a but of an assumption: Not convinced it would have helped at Buttermere because reading from the coroners report, it was considered a probable deliberate off route descent to get down off high ground, just done in an unfortunate place. So routefinding marked or otherwise may have played no part in it.

Not sure what you meant about the other runner...the trackers said he was hours off route at the point he fell, so routefinding may have had some hand in it.

---

My point was that the race in Greece was not (as far as I can ascertain) supposed to be nav. It was a case of a marked/obvious route gone wrong.

1991/1992; I only meant the map/compass rule (quite possibly not obligatory if it was a short, marked relay leg).

If you're in trouble the last thing you'd want to do is head away from a marked route and any likelihood of being found/helped by other runners/reaching a CP/ or being rescued. Of course hypothermia may affect decision making/rationality. Even on an unmarked route, in the circumstances I would want to stay on the race route unless already lost/unsure of direction, or just possibly if desperate for shelter from the weather. That would only change if I was very sure of it being an escape option. Same if you're on your own in the mountains and something happens, you don't want to be away from recognized paths/routes, especially if you don't have a phone/signal. A marked course should simply reinforce this being the safe place to go.

The flags in a Skyrace will often be eg every 10 metres anywhere there is a big chance of losing the way, or serious consequences.

Please don't get the impression I am on a mission in favour of marked courses; I don't have a problem with them, but yes I love unmarked courses on distinctive mountain routes, preferably when the weather's good and I have had a chance to recce. But don't expect a race to be an International favourite on those terms.

I'm much more concerned about people (not) carrying warm clothing in severe weather conditions.

I don't want to see more route markers in races. I find it hard to see red flags and tape because I'm red/green colour blind. And 8% of men with Northern European ancestry are too. Running down the intake fields to the finish of the Turner Landscape Race I nearly tripped over a couple of flags before I saw them, and I managed to miss a number of flags on the Loughrigg race when I was supposed to pick them up on the way back from marshaling on the top.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LissaJous

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.

---

You must run with higher calibre runners than me. One particular runner went off route following someone else, nobody including the runners in question actually knows where they went. But they ran without markers for 20 minutes before turning round, and they didn't double back either.

The very same individual got lost briefly on his next race, and for the hat trick got so lost on the following race he arrived at the finish by car.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don't fear the sweeper

I don't want to see more route markers in races. I find it hard to see red flags and tape because I'm red/green colour blind. And 8% of men with Northern European ancestry are too. Running down the intake fields to the finish of the Turner Landscape Race I nearly tripped over a couple of flags before I saw them, and I managed to miss a number of flags on the Loughrigg race when I was supposed to pick them up on the way back from marshaling on the top.

---

I was going to bring up that point but thought it'd be too much of a minority point to count! I too am red/green colour blind and struggle following red tape even in the clear daylight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam Harrison

I was going to bring up that point but thought it'd be too much of a minority point to count! I too am red/green colour blind and struggle following red tape even in the clear daylight.

---

Hmmm, but wouldn't it still be a piece of tape sticking out like a sore thumb, regardless of its color?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graham Breeze

best practise

---

Pfff, engineers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rocksteady

Hmmm, but wouldn't it still be a piece of tape sticking out like a sore thumb, regardless of its color?

---

You'd think wouldn't you? Problem being tape tends to be put quite close to the ground, and being red/green colour blind effectively makes red things camouflaged against green surfaces... A few months back I had the job of clearing up markers after a Yorkshire 3 Peaks event and I really struggled to spot them all (whereas people I was with couldn't believe I hadn't spotted them).

So flags can be yellow & something else, or red & white.. discussion has now veered towards disability rights in reverse, as if one solution must work for everyone or else not be used at all, which is completely counter-productive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LissaJous

If you're in trouble the last thing you'd want to do is head away from a marked route and any likelihood of being found/helped by other runners/reaching a CP/ or being rescued.

---

This is a good point. Look at the handful of fatalities in the history of fellrunning and it's notable how many of the victims were off the race route when they met their demise. (think of Ted Pepper, John Rix, Bob English, Judith Taylor, and now Brian Bellfield)

In almost all cases you are better off being on the race route where you are massively more likely to receive early assistance, though I realise of you have inadvertently gone off-course the advice is not much use to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fellhound

This is a good point. Look at the handful of fatalities in the history of fellrunning and it's notable how many of the victims were off the race route when they met their demise. (think of Ted Pepper, John Rix, Bob English, Judith Taylor, and now Brian Bellfield)

In almost all cases you are better off being on the race route where you are massively more likely to receive early assistance, though I realise of you have inadvertently gone off-course the advice is not much use to you.

---

What of the welsh 1991 one (forget name) mentioned by Wheeze? - was that off route too?

Was Brian the only one believed to have gone off route deliberately?

If that was true, he would perhaps have done better to reverse sail, not just in order to use the good trod that descends to the valley between sail and ard crags: but also because in back tracking the route he would likely have seen or met , some other runner or marshall to say that he was intending to find his own way down.

I doubt very much you could formulate that as advice " to backtrack and tell someone" because of the wide variety of situations and the presumption that you know where you are, and you are where you think you are. Sometimes dealing with cold is simply about getting out of the wind on the tops, in the most expedient way.

Why does it always have to be somebodys fault, if its just an accident or an individuals missjudgement why can't it just be left at that. I doubt that there are any statistics to show the accident trends in fell running but surely it is only if there is a significant trend that action needs to be taken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spelling Bee

Pfff, engineers.

---

I am racked with shame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigfella

Why does it always have to be somebodys fault, if its just an accident or an individuals missjudgement why can't it just be left at that. I doubt that there are any statistics to show the accident trends in fell running but surely it is only if there is a significant trend that action needs to be taken.

---

Absolutely agree, and so do most fell runners. Trouble is, outsiders are not content to leave it at that. The world seems to have a crushing need to "blame someone", and they will look for any sign of impropriety to do that. So it is important not to make that any easier for them than we absolutely have to, the essential thrust of my previous comments.

Worse still, the media are very vocal with bad assumptions of what has happened, then silent on the truth. I well remember a rather wet and flooded karrimor, where the countries leading media lined up to tell us how 1000 people were lost and in trouble. Sorry we mean 100, sorry we mean 10. Then almost silent on the eventual truth - that these are hardened fellspeople who got back safely, with one exception I believe that one had slipped in a gully, and needed treatment for a leg injury, which could just as easily have happened to any walker on any day before or since.

The risk of mortality in a fell race is higher than cycling or driving to the race per hour, by perhaps an order of magnitude, (where is the surprise in that?) but since serious injury cycling per hour is 30 times higher than mortality - I am guessing a statistical case could be made that you are less likely to get serious injury running on fells, than riding to the race by road. (or driving by car, I read an analysis somewhere that said the stats are not that dissimilar per hour).

I would hazard a guess that the health benefits from regular training in respect of better weight management, diet, aerobic exercise and so on, result in less risk of such as coronary problems or weight related problems than the population as a whole, to the point where the actual mortality rate amongst fell runners is substantially lower than the average population, so are far less of a drain on the nations health resources. I doubt the same papers that print blame stories would ever print that, but it might be a useful stat to wield against the nay sayers.

Might just do some sums to see whether it is true... Lies, damn lies and statistics.

Wow. 669 posts on this thread. You can jump if you think I'm reading through all that, I've got ladies knocking at my door wanting some action....would anybody care to summarise the above?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

The risk of mortality in a fell race is higher than cycling or driving to the race per hour, by perhaps an order of magnitude, (where is the surprise in that?)

---

Well it surprises me. Does anyone even know how many hours are spent fell racing? Do you have a source?

Anyway, the number of fatalities in in fell races is so small that I'm not sure that it makes sense to calculate a risk of mrtality per hour.

I agree with some of your more general points about the safety rules issue though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

What of the welsh 1991 one (forget name) mentioned by Wheeze? - was that off route too?

Was Brian the only one believed to have gone off route deliberately?

If that was true, he would perhaps have done better to reverse sail, not just in order to use the good trod that descends to the valley between sail and ard crags: but also because in back tracking the route he would likely have seen or met , some other runner or marshall to say that he was intending to find his own way down.

I doubt very much you could formulate that as advice " to backtrack and tell someone" because of the wide variety of situations and the presumption that you know where you are, and you are where you think you are. Sometimes dealing with cold is simply about getting out of the wind on the tops, in the most expedient way.

---

Carol Matthews perished off route...which was pretty much a straight line between 2 points. It is believed she fell into the 'parallel error' trap whereby she continued to ascend straight up the hill whereas the marked line slightly contoured off to the right. She subsequently found herself in a trackless waste of peat hags, in very poor visibility and a chilling wind. By the time anyone know she was missing, the weather had deteriorated to a strong storm and the light was fading. She was found the following morning curled in foetal position against a hag. She was never more than half a K from a path. She must have circled in terror until the cold got to her. Only wearing a singlet and shorts. No extra gear. It still haunts me now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

The risk of mortality in a fell race is higher than cycling or driving to the race per hour, by perhaps an order of magnitude, (where is the surprise in that?) but since serious injury cycling per hour is 30 times higher than mortality - I am guessing a statistical case could be made that you are less likely to get serious injury running on fells, than riding to the race by road. (or driving by car, I read an analysis somewhere that said the stats are not that dissimilar per hour).

---

If you are going to make a statement like that, the least you can do is reference the statistics that prove it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lecky

If you are going to make a statement like that, the least you can do is reference the statistics that prove it.

---

Don't you think the threads long enough?
:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lecky

If you are going to make a statement like that, the least you can do is reference the statistics that prove it.

---

Ruddy heck lecky.... would not have thought it was so controversial, and I am not sure adding another 20 pages of evidence is helpful to the thread!
Will have to dig up some old stats I have read.

Just picking up a couple at random...

Following is plausibility not proof...

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2014.pdf

Holds that the risk to a cyclist is around 1 per 5.6 million hours.

Following is guestimate: Fell running we have around 500 races a year, with average 100-200 participants, on average running an hour in each one (more shorts than longs) so order 100,000 race hours a year across all participants. Fatalities around 1 every 5 years ie 1 per 500,000 hours. (probably more risky because there are more running hours now, than in the past, so past fatalities were occuring on fewer running hours)

So roughly an order of magnitude in it.
None of this exact but roughly illustrates the point.
As someone point out, the number of incidents is so small that the numbers do not hold much statistical significance as a measurement, rather than detection of risk.


Stats tell there are 30 times the number of serious accidents than fatalities road biking (presumably means life threatening...some govt agency figure) . I am guessing that there are far fewer serious accidents fell running as a ratio of fatalities, So serious fell and road cycling accidents are not dissimilar per hour - same order of mag. Point I am making is fell running is still not more massively risky than riding (or driving) to the lakes! Less than/only an order of magnitude in it.

The other point I was making, that the health benefit of running and fell running undoubtedly is far greater in reducing mortality, than the small incident rate increases it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

Ruddy heck lecky.... would not have thought it was so controversial
Will have to dig up some old stats I have read.

Just picking up a couple at random...

Following is plausibility not proof...

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2014.pdf

Holds that the risk to a cyclist is around 1 per 5.6 million hours.

Following is guestimate: Fell running we have around 500 races a year, with average 100-200 participants, on average running an hour in each one (more shorts than longs) so order 100,000 race hours a year. Fatalities around 1 every 5 years ie 1 per 500,000 hours. (probably more risky because there are more running hours now, than in the pas)

None of this exact but roughly proves the point.


Stats tell there are 30 times the number of serious accidents than fatalities biking. I am guessing There are far fewer serious accidents fell running as a ratio of fatalities,

So serious fell and road cycling accidents are not dissimilar per hour - same order of mag. Point I am making is fell running is still not more massively risky than driving to the lakes! Less than an order of magnitude in it.

---

Now i'm well and truly scared of driving up to do Langdale tomorrow !!!!! Better not let the wife read this thread plus the one about no *** before a race

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

Ruddy heck lecky.... would not have thought it was so controversial, and I am not sure adding another 20 pages of evidence is helpful to the thread!
Will have to dig up some old stats I have read.

Just picking up a couple at random...

Following is plausibility not proof...

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2014.pdf

Holds that the risk to a cyclist is around 1 per 5.6 million hours.

Following is guestimate: Fell running we have around 500 races a year, with average 100-200 participants, on average running an hour in each one (more shorts than longs) so order 100,000 race hours a year across all participants. Fatalities around 1 every 5 years ie 1 per 500,000 hours. (probably more risky because there are more running hours now, than in the past, so past fatalities were occuring on fewer running hours)

So roughly an order of magnitude in it.
None of this exact but roughly illustrates the point.
As someone point out, the number of incidents is so small that the numbers do not hold much statistical significance as a measurement, rather than detection of risk.


Stats tell there are 30 times the number of serious accidents than fatalities road biking (presumably means life threatening...some govt agency figure) . I am guessing that there are far fewer serious accidents fell running as a ratio of fatalities, So serious fell and road cycling accidents are not dissimilar per hour - same order of mag. Point I am making is fell running is still not more massively risky than riding (or driving) to the lakes! Less than/only an order of magnitude in it.

The other point I was making, that the health benefit of running and fell running undoubtedly is far greater in reducing mortality, than the small incident rate increases it.

---

That's not like for like.. I take it that is cycling, not bike racing, so you can't compare fell racing and cycling.. it has to be fell racing and cycle racing.. or you have to include all the non-race hours people log which I guess would probably be a good 10 x that of racing.. probably more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

That's not like for like.. I take it that is cycling, not bike racing, so you can't compare fell racing and cycling.. it has to be fell racing and cycle racing.. or you have to include all the non-race hours people log which I guess would probably be a good 10 x that of racing.. probably more.

---

Ian - I think you are are missing the point: It illustrates how low it is not how high... As you say, allowing for training hours, the numbers pale into insignificance. It is not the racing that gives the danger to cyclists by and large, it is proximity to traffic.

The point is: Motorcyling is far more dangerous, and horse riding even more dangerous than that.
I read that a horse owner can expect a serious incident or accident every 500 hours, with a dozen fatalities every year, and a lot more paraplegics where they came from.

My point exactly Iain. Statistics can be made to say pretty much what you want, especially when they are just made up.

There have been a lot of posts on this thread that are exaggerations or misinterpretations, that, if people took account of them could be quite worrying. This doesn't help get a balanced view.

And I agree with Richard that this thread is long enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

Carol Matthews perished off route...which was pretty much a straight line between 2 points. It is believed she fell into the 'parallel error' trap whereby she continued to ascend straight up the hill whereas the marked line slightly contoured off to the right. She subsequently found herself in a trackless waste of peat hags, in very poor visibility and a chilling wind. By the time anyone know she was missing, the weather had deteriorated to a strong storm and the light was fading. She was found the following morning curled in foetal position against a hag. She was never more than half a K from a path. She must have circled in terror until the cold got to her. Only wearing a singlet and shorts. No extra gear. It still haunts me now.

---

I know how how you feel.

Different context, I have owned a variety of businesses most of my working life, employing quite a few people over the years. I had a retail business once, and within a week of opening a branch in east manchester two armed thugs walked in on a friday night, one hit me with an axe (fortunately not serious), and the other held a knife to the throat of one of the girls I employed at the till who was petrified.
The perpetrators were locals who were eventually caught and sent down for five years, but she, another local who was one of the nicest people you could ever meet, she was never the same again. She was extremely nervous, agorophobic, panic attacks and her life was a living hell She never returned to work. I kept in touch, only to discover she committed suicide a couple of years later, at the time they were due to be paroled. A life sentence.

That still haunts me. I can never forget, and a part of me blames myself. I turned the business into fort knox, and sold it (almost gave it away) and from employing hundreds off and on have never employed anyone else ever since, nor will I. The feeling of responsibility is hard to handle when someone dies or is seriously injured even if it is not your fault.