New safety rules

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheGrump

Disclaimers cannot be used to override the law e.g. absolve someone of legal responsibility, and generally are of no value.

---

Ok, so when there is a 50mph speed limit on a road, I drive at 50mph and fail to take a corner, who's fault is that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

Are many people against the new rules?

Not seen many say they are?

---

Not against them as such, just against the fact that there seems to be a need for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigfella

Not against them as such, just against the fact that there seems to be a need for them.

---

Exactly.. and whats a forum for if its not to debate things... throw out new ideas.. 'shut up or get out' seems the view.. 'its my ball'....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fozzy

My very simple argument would be that if you don't like the "new" rules (which I still think aren't really new, just slightly clarified versions of the old ones), then don't race. No-one is making you.

---

Dumb answer fozzy.

People are entitled to an opinion in free speech and in an organisation if enough are un-happy a democratic vote would be in order.

Mr Robinson who has been requested to give evidence at the Mr Belfield inquest regularly races with no vest but is a ambassador to our sport, with his tireless work in organising and behind the scenes work.

If it goes too rule based I see the Bigfella solution of breakaway groups starting and the end of the old FRA.

If you don't like the rules you could always just not register the race?

Or you could register it with ARC which continues to use a 4 year old 'cut and paste' of FRA rules without the new stuff? http://www.runningclubs.org.uk/ (Click on rules)

And they don't use this metric malarkey!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigfella

Not against them as such, just against the fact that there seems to be a need for them.

---

But the committee do see the need for them, even if you do not. The forthcoming inquest maybe one such reason? I don't know. I am not full position of the facts of why these changes are needed. I suspect neither are you.

A sensible question might be to ask (politely) the people who've drawn up the rules for the reasoning behind the clarifications. This could lead to a sensible debate. Which would be perfectly reasonable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by So Wood

Dumb answer fozzy.

People are entitled to an opinion in free speech and in an organisation if enough are un-happy a democratic vote would be in order.

Mr Robinson who has been requested to give evidence at the Mr Belfield inquest regularly races with no vest but is a ambassador to our sport, with his tireless work in organising and behind the scenes work.

If it goes too rule based I see the Bigfella solution of breakaway groups starting and the end of the old FRA.

---

Sorry, but I get very frustrated by the attitude on this forum sometimes - I can be easily irritable, I know this - it is symptom of the fact that I have depression. But it doesn't make my last post any less valid.

I am all for free speech and for good, vigorous debate. This is healthy and good. I enjoy good, logical debates.

But, sometimes it comes across on here as though people are just whinging for the sake of whinging. This does annoy me.

Please feel to debate, but if you do so, make sensible points clearly identifying your evidence and line of reasoning. Take emotion out of it. Take "back in the day we all ran on the fells in our pants and nowt else and nobody died" out of it and think about each point in isolation, then pull it all together and think about the big picture.

BTW, I give this advice for all debates. Logic is wonderful when used properly and without being unencumbered by emotion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dominion

If you don't like the rules you could always just not register the race?

---

I suspect this would open the RO up to all sorts of legal difficulty, and perhaps the runners as well. Maybe. Again I am not sure. I am sure the FRA committee would be willing to point out why this would be foolish and could lead to problems for all fell races?

BTW, the whole thing about using metric measurements was the finest spell of whinging about nothing that has ever been displayed on this forum.

It was sheer stupidity about the change of two numbers from one scale to another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fozzy

But the committee do see the need for them, even if you do not. The forthcoming inquest maybe one such reason? I don't know. I am not full position of the facts of why these changes are needed. I suspect neither are you.

---

Quite right, I'm not in full possesion of the facts but I just hate this increasingly litigious (spelling?) society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigfella

Quite right, I'm not in full possesion of the facts but I just hate this increasingly litigious (spelling?) society.

---

As do I. I can only think it's a bad thing, that in all things (in general) we seem to be following the US model/example.

I blame it on the fact that we keep voting (socially conservative) Libertarians (at least financially) in the form of the Tories into government.

But I digress, unfortunately we do live in an increasing legalistic society which wants to assign blame to everything, and we have to live within that framework for the time being.

Borrowdale - 1st male Ricky Lightfoot, number on shorts!! 1st lady Nicky Spinks number folded!! DQ'ed next yr what nonsense..