Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
I also think blanket - one size fits all rules and undertakings do not help such as Stating "no hazards" unnecessary or otherwise.
Far better to describe each race as witton says pointing out typical hazards, then nobody can say they did not know.
I'm not sure either:Quote:
Originally Posted by George
"Safety Rules
4 Course Design
1996 - 2013
Courses must not be unnecessarily dangerous and should be designed to prevent any temptation to gain advantage by negotiating rock climbs or steep unstable slopes, where dislodged stones may fall on those below. Compulsory sections must not include such hazards or comparable foreseeable dangers.
Organisers of courses which traverse high mountain or moorland terrain should consider having an alternative route available for use in adverse weather conditions.
2014
Compulsory sections MUST NOT include unnecessary hazards or dangerous sections and all courses MUST be designed so runners are not tempted to gain advantage by negotiating hazards such as rock climbs or steep unstable slopes where dislodged stones may fall on those below.
Organisers of courses which traverse high mountain or moorland terrain should
plan an alternative route for use in bad weather."
Quote:
Originally Posted by FellJunior
Steady on Felljunior!
If you, George and one or two others (including the FRA Chair) start introducing facts to this thread it will spoil it for the conspiracists, anti-UKA lobby and barrack room lawyers and we will never reach the magic1000 of the same points over and over and over and over again.
That would indeed make a change for the better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khamsin
The sarcasm of people who make no attempt to study the issues, and understand even less about them is certainly not helpful to the debate.
A debate is where there are two sides, preferably both listening to each other. Is this a debate where one person keeps repeating the same thing over and over again?
Several RO including those who have taken advice , and others who prefer not to post here consider there is a serious problem. The lack of debate is a part of that problem. If you consider there is only one issue repeated, you are not reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecky
Some people just don't get it.
There is an issue. The FRA Committee have acknowledged it on the FRA Website.
First the documentation was questioned only for it to dribble out that it was draft. I say dribble advisably because it was leaked to me before the FRA website announcement was posted.
Then we have had Madeleine's acknowledgement that the concerns expressed on the forum and perhaps elsewhere are being listened to and will be taken in to account when the final documents come out.
Now I would much rather this be off-forum and done in a manner where RO's consultation day was put together where we could discuss the matters at hand.
Maybe that is still possible?
But for anyone who intimates that this is a scaremongering campaign should just take note of what the Committee have eventually put out.
So much fuss has been made on this thread about so called hazards, no race organiser in his right mind is going to put on a deliberately ' hazardous ' event. As Jim points out its not new it's been in the rules ever for ever and a day, only a slight change in the wording. No one has ever seen fit to make a claim on the Fra ( UKA ) race insurance and just how many Fra registered races is that over the years, many hundreds ! As has been pointed out the final draft will be subject to legal scrutiny, it's also been pointed out that members of the committee have taken note of the many points raised here on this forum as well as by those who took the time to air their concerns ( as requested ) when the first draft came out.
The hazardous event last week was langdale. I would have to check the calendar to see what it is this week.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lefty
They have not taken note of the comments as evidenced by the barely modified draft containing the same nonsensical expression.
An RO admitted to me this week that all the counting problems that were cited by UKA as failure of duty of care had also happened at their event, because that is the reality of marshalling, not the idealised view that was presented as expert testimony which is used by coroners to determine cobtributory negligence.
Legal advice says the rules are a problem
Those are the realities and RO with sense are getting worried.
How long before the FRA Safety Rules include the line "All Long races and races run in foul weather MUST use electronic tracking of participants" or something similar?
There are two issues of patience and trust.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Patience for the FRA Fixtures Secretary who is trying to get a Calendar of 500 races out on time despite immense uncertainty following the Belfield Inquest and being asked questions by RO about their one or two races that neither he nor anybody else can answer because the Coroner may turn the fell running world on its head any day.
Trust in the Committee to get things right, because they always have in the past and it is the same people like Jon Broxap or Scoffer who are still running things. They were elected to do a job so let us let them get on with it.
Or they may just not bother standing next time around.
I suppose the third issue is AI distorting the alleged reports of anonymous people who may or may not have been at the Inquest to feed his anti-UKA campaign. And I thought he despised anonymity.
You are making assumptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khamsin
I have read actual transcript and relevant parts of documents and that is what is horrifying me! I have suggested FRA make them available at least to RO as part of their duty of care, so that RO know what they are up against, and they can decide for themselves.
Have you read them? I doubt it.
That same committee rightly perceives that whilst the risk is low, the civil outcome could possibly be so disastrous that they have ( my view rightly) become ltd. The risks faced by RO are inevitably so much greater than that, that nobody, certainly not someone as illinformed as you appear to be , should be playing down their risks
Having rules which are ambiguous helps nobody, particularly when those rules in both legal and ordinary english make some of the races non compliant, since at very least that will jeapourdise the insurance, if not be used as further cannon fodder by expert witness next time. We all hope it will not hapoen, but history is against that, and we owe it to organisers to prevent unnecessary exposure.
Think of the RO please,some of whom are getting advise that they have problems with it all.
Rather than insult me, why not express an opinion on one of the issues raised? Even the last few? Is going through a slippy river bed when there is an adjacent bridge
" unnecessary" so Is that race compliant ( therefore insured ) or not? If the answer is not crystal clear , the words used are not good enough for a document that has legal intent or application. How is it even possible to argue the bad step is not a rock climb as judged by a " reasonable man", so how is langdale compliant?
Of the Inquest proceedings?Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
I don't believe you.
This is not a game khamsin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khamsin
The testimony was given in public. I made it my business to find out,not because of any ghoulish interest in that event, but because I knew that " compliance" could come back to haunt us, from other safety proceedings. I wanted to know how that played out in reality, and my worst fears were realised.
The rules now have to be changed to allow for that reality.
The rules should for example state " it is accepted that marshalling cannot be perfect, and it is likely if not inevitable that count errors will occur, so that consideration should be given to count backup procedures where reasonably possible. It is also accepted that communication systems can be unreliable particularly in high mountain terrain so consideration should be given to sweepers whose function is to relay messages in place of electronic means" or whatever...
So chop of at the knees "expert testimony" that implies that either can be made perfect and presented as failures of duty as was recently the case.
The rules as they are even more dangerous for an RO.Quite apart from the ludicrous notion of having no hazards. Saying specifically check communications, because it fails to follow through on advice. And then what? The rules do not say, other than another tripwire for an RO. Should therefore an RO cancel because of an inevitably dicky radio? Be sure Someone will mention that comms failure now in proceedings if that is in the rules, and if history repeats that someone will be UKA.
With the best will in the world,
There is a 100% chance there will be another inquest.
There is a 100% chance that every line of the rules will be scrutinized for compliance.
there is a 100% chance that all non compliance will be presented as failure of duty.
There is a 100% chance that failures of duty will be considered in deciding negligence.
There is a near 100% chance that coroner statement of caused by or contributed to by negligence and evidence relating will be used to commence civil proceedings
There is a 100% chance that insurers will use non compliance in deciding whether they have to pay.
As wynn says, she does not want to lose her house over a fell race.
That is why we can no longer leave it to chance.
The rules need to reflect how they may be used against an RO in legal context.
Far better for the rules to say little, but a specific description is then produced by the RO of hazards and procedures for the race. They can be measured against what they state.Nobody xan say they did not know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FellJunior
I am now struggling to see what the current draft rules for 2014 are, since your wording above for 2014 differs from what I posted a fortnight ago in post #552 (I simply cut and paste from the 2 documents on the FRA website, as repeated again below). Are you referring to a potential current re-draft of the current draft? I'm confused. For example the undefined word 'unneccessary' seems to have crept back into the rules in the last fortnight? I am very confused now if we are even debating the same documents :confused:
********
Khamsin, re-read carefully, are you dead sure the message is the same?
This years (current 2013) Section 4
4 COURSE DESIGN
Courses must not be unnecessarily dangerous and should be designed to prevent any temptation to gain
advantage by negotiating rock climbs or steep unstable slopes, where dislodged stones may fall on those
below. Compulsory sections must not include such hazards or comparable foreseeable dangers. Organisers
of courses which traverse high mountain or moorland terrain should consider having an alternative route
available for use in adverse weather conditions.
The new (2014) Section 4
4 COURSE DESIGN
Compulsory sections MUST NOT include hazards or dangerous sections and all courses MUST be designed so runners are not tempted to gain advantage by negotiating hazards such as rock climbs or steep unstable slopes where dislodged stones may fall on those below.
Organisers of courses which traverse high mountain or moorland terrain should plan an alternative route for use in bad weather.
****
The opening line and the overall message are quite different in meaning if you read them carefully. Now which seems more reasonable? I'd go with 2013 personally, but maybe the FRA lawyers think otherwise.
They were Seemingly quietly changed unnannounced. Presumably the changes referred to by Madeleine.Quote:
Originally Posted by OB1
My opinion the word " unnecessary" was not put there by legal advice, or certainly not in the context of a written opinion obtained for and on behalf of RO, which is what is needed. How for example does langdale comply?
My comments on document change control tables used in any professional process appear to have been ignored
Oddly enough it was 'leaked' to me as well, and I'm not even an RO just a plebby member.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
As I subsequently said in post #620:
"...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'...."
Now we have folk quoting 2014 wording that appears (to me at least) to differ from the 'current draft' (1st Sept per website homepage news items of 11th September and 9th October).
We have taken into account your views (as I said above). We are planning to send a note to Race Organisers shortly with latest version of the FRA Safety Requirements. We have not done so before as we thought it would be confusing to have lots of different versions. We had hoped that the Coroner's letter would have arrived by now and we could incorporate everything in one go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Madeleine
Thank you Madeleine and AI for clearing up that point of confusion.
There have been some intelligent, and one or two not so intelligent, points of view on this very serious subject which happens to be an absolute minefield and the discussion could go on for eternity.
My point is about the role of race organisers and their volunteers who I have leapt to the defence of before in my odd rambling on these pages and will now staunchly defend again to the tilt.
These people are the very lifeblood of the fell racing calendar as we know it. Qualified, experienced or not, liability for injury or tragedy cannot lie in any sense or form with an RO or a marshal. We, the runners, the adults, take the risk and we are in charge of our own safety, our own lives, just like we are when crossing a busy road and other daily non-fell running activities that require personal responsibility.
I'm quite experienced I suppose but got lost and disorientated on my own in June on the Kentmere Horseshoe which I have trained and raced many a time. The weather turned nasty and for about half an hour things were a bit panicky but my compass got me back on track and in the end I aborted the intended route and retraced my steps instead. Didn't take much with me, just a windproof top and the said compass which was only in the bag by chance. Lesson learned? Yesterday at Llanberis, my nav skills were dire and it was a proper wake up call. I was completely reliant on my partner for all that business. Was I wrapped up enough? Only just and my 'waterproof' came under some scrutiny before in our team tent before I set off. I fall into the trap of thinking, 'whatever happens out there, it'll be reet', but my passive attitude to all things kit bag is in fact a bloody stupid lack of common sense which I know is shared by one or two others out there. This was solely my responsibility as far as I am concerned
Perhaps we should all, regardless of how experienced or even bravado we think we are, take a look in our kit bag and ask questions on how we could improve our own safety.
RO's by definition, organise races. Adult competitors should organise themselves and be entirely responsible for that. In the light of what's going on, would I be put off by becoming an RO when I hang up my inov8's or even before then? Yes. And plenty like me I suspect. Here endeth fell running as we know it perhaps. As Blencathrafrommykitchen suggests, the future could be all singing and dancing events by professional organisers. This is just my opinion.
I for one hope not. In fact, the concept of personal responsibility should allow a move in entirely the opposite direction. If only it were that simple...Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ73
This thread is long and complex, like the issues it debates. One thing I thing we are all agreed on is that we'd all like fellrunning to continue as far as possible with it's original ethos, with the emphasis on personal responsibility and the organisers duty of care being kept strictly within what is practical in the framework of an adventurous sport that takes place in (often) wild and difficult places.
The challenge for all of us in fellrunning is to figure out how we can best do that without being completely irresponsible and without hanging anyone "out to dry". I believe all the 6000+ words expended by 'alwaysinjured' and a number of others have been an honest attempt to achieve that. We are still not there (hence the debate goes on)and it's not simple but that is the problem that the FRA, race organisers, and individual runners have to solve, against the background of a recent tragedy.
We are all surely aiming for the same thing so lets keep sight of that fact and try to get somewhere meaningful without dissolving into different camps.
Fellrunning has historically had a carefully preserved culture which has served us all well and I wouldn't like to see organisations such as UKA being given an excuse to move in and take a stronger hand in the management of our sport. We may be stuck with affiliation to them (for now) but we are still in a position to say "hands off, we can manage this", as long as we don't end up squabbling amongst ourselves. What's that line about 'divide and conquer'?
So, will all those who voted for stronger affiliation with UKA now reconsider their position?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellhound
I was of the view (now reinforced) that this was the wrong decision if we are, indeed, all agreed that fellrunning should continue within its original ethos.
Oh, and yes, I include fell racing within that umbrella.
That being said, if fell racing is better served by an athletic ethos, then we should move even faster to ensure that counting of competitors going out into dangerous terrain and weather is more secure. We should embrace electronic monitoring. We have to decide. I can't imagine how the RO in question feels. Mr Belfield would not have been saved by a dibber/ident but at least a timely search for him would have been mounted.
If only it were that simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ73
As someone who spent a while digging round: here is what seems to be....
(take advice - this is just an unqualified opinion)
I mentioned how a precedent on "rugby" had decided that organiser compliance with rules and duties could impact on your agreement to the principle of "on your own head be it". You are agreeing to the risk only in the context of assuming the organiser meets the rules, and does his bit.
There are other precedents where that came from. For example you would have thought that a golfer would be consenting to the likelihood of being hit by a golf ball whilst on a golf course, as indeed the disclaimers you are obliged to sign as a member of the club may state. ( other than being used as a deliberate target of course!)
It is not that simple.
A recent case held that a golfer could indeed claim against another who struck him with a ball, even having shouted "fore" to warn him, more importantly ( from our perspective) the CLUB (defacto event organiser) had to divvy up part of the damages because they failed to indicate the nature of the hazard of a tee behind and left , on the next tee where the golfer got hit albeit 150 yards away, and 50 yards off to one side.
"on your own head be it" appears only true if the organiser alerts you to the risks you are taking, so you can be deemed to have accepted that risk. Even knowing the "generic risks" of a golf course is not enough , if there are specific reasonably forseeable additional risks, they should be highlighted.
The moral of the story is certainly NOT to play down the risks with ludicrous statements in course compliance of "no hazards" - but my view go the other way completely.
The general rules or guidelines should not give assurances, and certainly not where they are manifestly impossible like guaranteeing communications to work, or procedures to count runners being made to sound foolproof.
The RO should instead of playing down the hazards should actually play them up - actually stating the hazards in a course description. If there is scrambling it should be noted in the description.
So The rules should not define what should be done (or not be done), but rather demand that race organisers specify what they actually do in a number of critical categories, such as a course description, procedures at checkpoints, how they are counting (eg collecting race numbers and so on), and list the duties on runners as part of that, noting that they will use reasonable endeavours to check people through, and define at least one backup for that to make sure, but nothing in life is foolproof. Fools are too ingenious. Mistakes are inevitable.
The race organiser needs to keep an audit prove he has communicated and supervised all critical processes, to prove he acted responsibly
But at the end of all that - no runner can say they "did not know" - they can be assumed to have assented to the risk they are taking, because the risk is defined, provided the organiser does what the organiser says.
If I were an RO the rules/guidelines would scare the life out of me, as they are or tweaked.
Guidelines may well be intended to help, but in safety legal context breach of guidelines is treated as evidence of breaches of the underlying statute, and are cannon fodder for hostile counsel.
So general guidelines should be eliminated in favour perhaps of an organiser just saying what they do, then doing what they say. If FRA disapprove of the schedule , or it does not tick the important boxes above, then FRA do not have to grant a permit!
This is forrest gump legal speaking...RO take advice!
Wynn
Thank you for your comments as a RO, which reinforce my concerns as if people like yourself are concerned about the ability of their races to meet the rules in the real world none of us would blame you for not going ahead with them. I sincerely hope it doesn't come to that but unless the final draft allows some degree of flexibility to reflect reality I fear that it might. Or it might alter the races beyond recognition and turn them in to athletics tracks on the hills as has been quoted somewhere in the last 87 pages. Please dont give up - we value your races and others like them because they aren't athletics tracks.
Presumably you mean as required by section 7 Event Information.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
Exactly as long as one day before I surrender my life membership.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
" - - would not have been saved by a dibber/ident but at least a timely search for him would have been mounted."
There is a potentially distressing speculation in the above statement which anyone who attended the inquest will be anxious to correct. This is that any error in race management was a contributory factor in the tragic outcome. The four full days of evidence, including the post mortem, make it quite clear that such a speculation is unwarranted, nor is it made in the Coroner's narrative verdict. The inquest must not be re-run in public.
It's a great pity that this very clear conclusion has been obscured by other deliberations that would be better dealt with quite separately from the very sad tragedy that prompted them.
FRA should now focus on making the safety requirements achievable in practice without hanging a race organiser. It's time that ROs were involved in this process, but outside this open forum, which has usefully provided all the clear pointers needed.
I have helped on the results for many orienteering events, using electronics. Quite often we have to work out who has gone home without reporting back. Although I think electronics MAY help, they aren't the entire solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
Well, lets stop trying to fix what obviously aint broke then shall we.Quote:
Originally Posted by wkb21
THE 2014 FRA SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR FELL RACES and RULES FOR COMPETITIONQuote:
Originally Posted by TheGrump
4 COURSE DESIGN
Compulsory sections MUST NOT include hazards or dangerous sections and all courses MUST be designed so runners are not tempted to gain advantage by negotiating hazards such as rock climbs or steep unstable slopes where dislodged stones may fall on those below.
7 EVENT INFORMATION
General publicity MUST indicate:
* the nature of the event
* severity
* type of terrain
* suitability, or otherwise, for novices.
Specific information MUST be available for competitors prior to the race day and displayed at the point of registration concerning:
* race rules
* race route
* retirement procedures
* equipment to be carried
* checkpoint closing times.
Now Mr Grumpikins, you mention Section 7 and so I'm sure you're also familiar with section 4.
If Wynn fullfills section 7, she will be explaining the diagonal cut across as you start to ascend Robinson, where I've seen runners go up at differing points but ultimately they all end up having to climb the crags as seen in this link http://www.flickr.com/photos/8011535...57600142585102
go back a few picks and you also see some runners taking a line up across some loose rocks and yes I have seen some dislodged in the times I have done the race - but fortunately without incident.
Then we have the drop off Catbells.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8011535...57600142585102
Have you tried shimmy ing off there, particularly with the herds of walkers coming the other way who tend to hog the easiest lines.
So when the RO sets out the requirements under section 7, the concern is that they are actually contradicting some of the things that are set out not just in other sections of this document, but elsewhere in the other published documents.
So we all accept that AW is a fantastic race, in some of the most wonderful countryside we have and I don't think that any of us deem the terrain as anything we can't handle.
So why can we not chop away some of the prescriptive directions and allow an RO to just fullfill section 7 and apply the safety arrangements to their event that they know, through their local knowledge and experience, are the best measures to put in place.
Stuck with affiliation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellhound
Postal Ballot of Full Membership 2007 (2853 replies)
In favour of affiliation with UKA. 86 %
In favour of disaffiliation from UKA 14%
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8011535...57604637599232
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8011535...57604637599232
Fond memories as this was my first Lakes race.
and where does this fit in?
http://www.petercull.com/p741706182/h565ee30#h565ee30
Did you vote to get us in to the Common Market as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khamsin
Interesting to read this alongside SMOTS, page 68 onwards...
Yes, indeed, I dipped into that last weekend. Also Chapter 21 "Risk and Responsibility" of FiTC.Quote:
Originally Posted by dominion
That was then. This is now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khamsin
Times and voting changes the colour of governance just like any other election.
Anyone who reads UKA testimony , particularly race organisers , will probably come to the conclusion that with friends like that we probably do not need any other enemies.
It is reasonable to consider or conclude in reading it , that UKA are trying to steer a conclusion of marshall and RO "training" so the natural progression to " certification " hence "accreditation" and from that comes " control" and "domination" to bring this unruly FRA into doing what it is told without question, like other parts of athletics. Ask Kate Reed what happens when people who do not understand a sport are allowed authority over it, completely destroying her olympic 10k chances, and those who did know and did object, such as her coaches ( and her) were not only rendered powerless to prevent it, but also were largely silenced by the accreditation. " do it our way, say nothing, or we will not let you do it at all"
For the most part I stayed out of that debate first time round despite having seen a lot of "barking" decisions within athletics, except to express the impossibility of demanding graded officials, which in my view is still impossible. I am no longer silent now I have seen the true colours flown.
That for the present is a secondary issue: here and now is to stop the rules from hanging out ROs to dry - to protect them from impossible warranties and assumptions such as that counting and communications can be made error free, or the impossibility that a course in any part can be made or warranted hazard free.
Wkb21, sorry, what part of my post was speculation?. I have read the inquest summary. It is quite clear. Mr Belfield tragically slipped and fell into a stream. No electronic aid would have helped him survive. But the summary also states that it was his poor wife who raised the alarm that he was missing. An electronic ident would have pinpointed him before this.
Grass is greener re your earlier point Wheeze.. we can leave the UKA/GBA umbrella but these issues will still surface. This split and form new bodies at every disagreement cannot be the best way to approach this. We will always have the risk of death when running in the mountains and alongwith that comes the threat of legal action.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
Do agree re your last point though. These changes have come about because of many things, no doubt Brian's death has led to the FRA taking a serious look at safety as well. However any changes arising don't mean they would have saved Brian and I do think its been done well and I can certainly understand no statement until they have officially heard from the coroner.
But when any death occurs in a sport you take a closer look at see what could be done to improve its safety. You ask the 'what ifs' and not just surrounding this one case, that's just reactive and no way to improve general safety, so this is a more proactive general response.
I don't think it is perfect but tbf it has been set out that these can be changed year on year if a good case is made. I for one do think a rating of waterproof or approved jackets would be helpful, but it seems thats a 'no.. for now.. but will reconsider in the future'.
You can certainly see the need for RO's to cover themselves, maybe there is a way they can form a limited company as a group.
Limitation cannot help with criminal liability.Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
The rules need modification not only to avoid reinforcing false expectations of how far it is possible to marshall or control with certainty, but indeed to deliberately squash such expectations, because those expectations are what the ill informed use as a yardstick to measure duty of care, from which stem negligence claims.
I have urged in the background: Because time is of the essence it needs a caucus of four or five RO outside committee because of conflict of interesrs, to represent RO interests in a panel with onhand legal support, to batter out a workable compromise with FRA. Wynn? witton? You need a couple of others, perhaps one more dangerous race RO to represent the spread of races on such a panel.Any takers?
Okay I'm officially bored stupid by this thread now