A lot of us will be car sharing within our clubs so its probably not as bad as it looks. If you look at the car park at events, plenty are turning up in twos at the least.
Printable View
A lot of us will be car sharing within our clubs so its probably not as bad as it looks. If you look at the car park at events, plenty are turning up in twos at the least.
I think the athletes were generally car sharing where possible Ady - I know ours certainly did. I think the more local teams often have people who have other things on during the day so we had a couple of instances of people coming, running their leg and going but even they had others in their cars at some point.
I would suggest that there were a large amount of spectators following the race and that added quite some traffic at certain points of the race.
I've looked at using a minibus, it would be logistically a nightmare. Assuming 2 teams like we had this weekend.
Start at Leg 1 and drop the runners off and make you way to Leg 2 - OK so far.
Leg 2 runners set off - load up Leg 1 runners and proceed to the end of leg 2. Drop off Leg 3 runners.
Leg 2 A team runners set off approx 30 minutes before the B team runners - and then B team Leg 2 runners have to get on the minibus.
You would not make it to Leg 4 for the A runners to be in place.
So to use a minibus, you would probably need 2 minibuses working in tandem, or a minibus with a couple of support cars assuming 2 or 3 teams.
I agree that a lot more effort goes into sharing transport at relays as there is a lot more organising involved for the teams but fell relays are a tiny percentage of the race calender hence my post above.
I think info on the Relay website for spectators/supporters on good places to watch/park would be a good idea and perhaps ease congestion at places where parking is restrictive.
Future events cancelled
It is with regret that we have to announce that due to problems caused at this years event by runners leaving gates open despite our best efforts that United Utilities have withdrawn access permission for future events which means sadly that the 2011 event will be the last. The event website will remain in place for information purposes only until such time it will be closed down.
Many thanks for your help and support in the past and good running for the future
Graham Wright (Chairman) Rossendale Harriers
Just had this through - a real sickener for all those involved in the event I'm sure. I would hope Graham that there's still something can be done as the grounds for this would most likely have access isssues for many races and the public in general.
Was there a specific location that was the problem?
So much for us good folk loving and respecting the countryside - lets hope all those who saved vital seconds by not shutting gates, or because they were not last did not do so take responsibility
Sarah
That's bad news indeed. It's all well & good slagging people off for not closing gates, but where do you draw the line? I must admit if there's a runner in close(ish) view, say within 50 metres, & there's no livestock, then I'll leave the gate open, doesn't make it right I suppose though.
However, if I can't see anyone, even if I'm fairly sure there are people behind me in a race, then I'll always close the gate.
It's a real shame to lose the race, I quite enjoy it, a real social day out. Would the gate issue be mostly on Leg1, bearing in mind how many gates there are?
The race organiser has ever year been very clear - close the gates behind you, the race is now cancelled because runners did not - ergo the runners who did not close the gates are to blame.
Personally unless the runner is just behind you, and taking the gate as you leave it you should close it - 50metres is a considerable distance and how well did you check where the livestick is (an irrelevent point if you have been asked to close the gate, not just close the gates if you can see any sheep)
Closing the gate means those behind you have to open it, so it slows them down anyway
You're right - it's all my fault the race is cancelled & I apologise for that :confused:
In all seriousness though, you are right in what you say. If it really is that much of an issue then everyone should close gates regardless. Then the downside is it causes animosity amongst fellow runners; rather a cheery "thanks mate", you get a grunt & before you know it everyone's falling out - no simple answer that allows harmony unfortunately.
As for "how well did you check....." if in doubt it gets closed, simple as that. All I was saying was that certainly in my case there's no intention to cause issues (although I concede I may have contributed to it!), just to make it a bit easier for others.
Is it really the gate issue that's caused it, or is it just the straw that broke........?
There's been several issues over the last few years regarding traffic / parking / gates, & maybe it's just one step too far.
As per Whitton Park's post it is the withdrawing of permission to run across UU land due to the open gates according to the organiser
I agree its not an easy one, I do not close the gate if some-one is close and yes I have had grunts back, and at times grunted, but this race in particular has been explict about asking for gates to be closed, and now it seems we all get to loose it
The gate problem seems to be on leg 2 round the Cant Clough and Hurstwood resses.I ran this leg myself and with two teams close behind yes, we did leave these gates open, i guess other closely grouped teams would do the same...in which case the team with a big enough gap behind them should close the gate.Farther on in the race with no-one behind us we did ensure gates were closed.Quote:
Originally Posted by alfa_scud
i've spoken to Leffty and apparently United Utilities have photographic evidence to back-up their claim.I realize what i'm about to say will come in for criticism,but having had to deal with this company in the past I got the impression that they would rather not have events taking place on 'their' land and would welcome an incident to halt future events.
Or am I getting cynical with old age?............
Not cynical, just all the more reason to shut the gates....
Maybe us Fell runners sometimes need to stop finding ways of blaming ourselves and wonder why a photographer just happened on that spot at that time........Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrump
The following is from the event rules:-
19 Every single gate must be closed. Teams observed not closing gates will be instantly disqualified. Do not assume that the team behind will close the gate. Even if it means closing a gate on an approaching team......close it !
We have had complaints from farmers and United Utilities rangers in the past so please ensure you follow this rule.
Who else can we blame if someone chose to ignore the rule?
Yet more self important patronising nonsense from the man who wrote the book.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrump
This was clearly just an excuse for UU to withdraw permission. If not this, then they would have found something else in the near future. If it was the gates mentioned then it's especially petty as they are nowhere near public roads and the chances of livestock loss would be extremely remote. I've never slammed gates in the face of other runners and I'm not going to start now.
Instead of arguing with each other, maybe we should be looking at whether or not UU are acting legally in this matter and whether or not there is a diversion that could be used. This is an excellent event and I for one would rather see it go ahead in heavily modified form than abandoned completely. Countryside access is going to get ever more difficult in the next 5-10 years and we need to be willing to fight our corner.
Im not trailing through 30 odd pages to find out whats happended.
Ive re-rubbed my eyes three times now....have I just read that the race has been scrapped because UU have withdraw permission because someone left a gate/alot of gates open?
Al - thats about it
Are you seriously suggesting that any gate away from roads is ok to leave open - I can see that going down well with the various farmers and landowners who support races etc
Gutted to hear the news - I do hope the door may still open for some sensible discussions, a lesson has been learnt and a point made - I am convinced the race could be run with a renewed focus the gates issue
Yes but livestock can also get lost on the hill if they wander off, it will take hours if not days for the farmer to find lost livestock, or for him to assume it's dead and spend an equal amount of time filling the claims form in. The upshot is a number of runners haven't abided the rules and there is no more race. Consider this: was it UU who made the initial complaint, or the tenant farmers who complained to UU about runners leaving gates open?Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyA
WELL DONE every single runner who thought they could save valuable seconds not closing 'THAT GATE' or you'd get a really nice little thankyou rather than a grunt from someone 50 meters back.
You've well and truly FU**ED UP one of the best relays in the area :angry::angry::angry:
I'd say let him without sin.........Quote:
Originally Posted by multi coloured
I think from time to time we've all done it - I can say having run leg 1 two years running that I've not once had to open a gate yet but I have shut some behind me, it's so congested that it would be silly to abide by the letter of the law.
Reasonable behaviour would seem more appropriate.
I would hope there's a way of negotiating out of this.
I run leg 5 final descent the opposite way many times in training and always make sure the gates are closed because of the livestock escaping and ending up in Waterfoot.
It doesn't take much to close a gate, maybe seconds. It's a shame this has happened and UU seem to be trying to catch us out if that's the right phrase. I'm gutted. I wish UU would put more effort into clamping down on motorbikers ripping up the Rossendale countryside.
I have good mate who is a UU ranger - he's normally very positive around fell running and is totally anti dirtbikes - interested to get his take on this
Horrific news. This is probably a good time to mention that on the Torver Show race, the 5 bar gate before the beck crossing (SD 280957) is unmarshalled and it is the runners' responsibility to ensure it is kept shut. I checked this last year at registration.
door or gate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Trig
I think we're all guilty of leaving the odd gate open in a race, and if you're one of the few that close it everytime then I stand corrected.
I also think that some of the responsibility should be taken by the landowners to ensure that if public footpaths/bridleways are used through private land, then livestock are not within the immediate area (i.e. the same field) for the duration.
Organising clubs could share this responsibility by using sweepers, to run behind the last competing team, making sure that all gates are closed.
Sharing the responsibility would help alleviate the already pressure-filled situation that a race brings.
There were plenty of walkers on our leg on the day, who is to say it wasnt some of them that left the gates open?
Or alternatively, you could remember to shut gates behind you - simpler solution to the stated problem. Why should the landowner/farmer take responsibility for the event? When permission is gained for the event to cross the land, one assumes that they have the right to make the use of the land conditional - for example shutting gates. It's not difficult to do. And whilst I wouldn't shut a gate on someone 5m behind me, I would for someone 15-20m behind - for 2 reasons - it will slow them down and also even if the following team/runner is in sight, it could take time for them to reach the gate in which time livestock could possibly escape (only takes a few seconds). It also reminds the following runner that they need to shut the gate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth
How can United Utilities withdraw access from the bridleway? I thought the bridleway was a public right of way, and so, as far I understand, the landowner cannot deny access from the path (as opposed to a permissive path, where the landowner can deny access to the path), see below for definition:
http://www.naturenet.net/row/rowdefi...html#Bridleway
Also, if the offending gate is the one directly after Cant Clough Reservoir, then (I might be wrong and would have to check) I think the pedestrian gate to the side of the main gate may not have a latch on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonG
I think I am right in saying that rights of way only apply to individuals - not to organised events. Permission still has to be sought from the landowner for events.
If I'm wrong, doubtless someone will be along shortly to correct me.
The landowner/farmer should take responsibility for the livestock, not the event. And why should the landowner have the right to make the use of the land conditional? It is a public right of way, bylaw.Quote:
Originally Posted by fozzy
Moth, Just shut the flippin' gates.
See my post aboveQuote:
Originally Posted by Moth
Fozzy is bang on here. This was done to death in another thread a couple of months back. An individual running is a different issue to an 'event'. Whatever anyone says, shutting a gate would have stopped the ban. Keep bleating on about it all you like, the ban is in place and gates left open is the stated cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by fozzy
Anyone willing to hold their hand up and admit to leaving a gate open on the day?
I personally think that any race organiser who expects every single runner to shut gates probably hasn't had much experience of fell races. Most races I can think of (with gates) have marshals on them to ensure that they are shut and so that stock cannot pass through with the runners (which is just as important).
If there are too many gates for them all to be marshalled, maybe the event wasn't suitable for the course - because, as sure as eggs is eggs, sooner or later one of the runners would leave a gate open.
I'm not condoning it - merely being honest about what we all know goes on in races, and suggesting marshalling as the only method which is guaranteed to work.
I think a sit down talk with UU by the organisers/reps of other clubs to get the full info and which legs/gates were involved and a plan provided to stop the problem happening again would be a way forward. Sometimes there are other contributing issues that are under the surface and getting these out in the open as well can help. What about bringing in UU as sponsors and call it the UU PBR, get them some publicity and on our side?
I also think that competing clubs should help Rossendale out with marshalling a large event like this. Maybe clubs who enter 3 or more teams should provide a couple of marshalls each ?
This is a marvellous event put on by Rossendale and much loved by runners and it would be a shame to lose it without any further actions being taken.
Obviously marshalling every gate isnt feasable on this event. How about spot checks with unidentified marshalls keeping an eye on problem areas and instant disqualification for any offending teamsQuote:
Originally Posted by Yorkshire Thug
In which case, it was equally obvious that, sooner or later, there'd be problems with gates being left open.Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Head
Runners who are racing against other teams will not always close gates because that's not the priority in any keenly contested race. We all know this. That's why race organisers have to marshal gates.
Perhaps this relay should be conducted in the same manner as a car ralley, where the event becomes a time trial with the closing of gates and conforming to all other countryside rules is part of the competition.
With so much wisdom how could this tragedy happen?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorkshire Thug
I agree with Alf that the way forward would be to sit down with UU, if possible.
Hopefully they hadn't already made their minds up before the race and weren't just looking for evidence to justfy a decision they had already made.
Presumably no livestock were lost and the chances of that happening are very low as sheep keep their distance from humans (especially running humans). It would be interesting to know whether there have been any actual (rather than theoretical) problems arising from the event and how they could be avoided if the event were allowed to continue.
I have heard UU have stopped triathletes training in several ressies. Maybe there is a general movement within UU to discourage any kind of sports on their land, which would be a shame.
On leg 2 I recall a really bolshy farmer, aggressively driving his tractor down to the ressie amongst on-coming runners, shouting folk to close the gate. I closed the gate, but felt bad about it because there were other runners only just behind me. Possibly this farmer is the source of the complaint, backed up by a conventient photographer.