Printable View
Police Witness?Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
I thought you said you were not at the Inquest?
So is this more fantasy of the "I wasn't there but a friend of a mate met someone on the bus who heard that something or other might have been said, or not" kind?
See PMQuote:
Originally Posted by Khamsin
You may have known, but you have also shown you jump to conclusions without full knowledge of the factsQuote:
Originally Posted by Norman Bates
Richard,Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Since you ask, the history of the inclusion of non-FRA permitted races in the Calendar is as follows:-
- Until and including 2004 the FRA provided Permits and associated UKA insurance for all the races in the FRA Calendar including ones in Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales.
- Since 2005 UKA have not allowed the FRA to provide Permits for races outside England. Permits have to be provided by the relevant Home Country body affiliated to UKA.
- The FRA committee decided to continue to include race details for events outside England in the Calendar, for information only (see Organisers' Page on the FRA website) since they were of interest to members.
- Once it was decided to include events outside England which are not Permitted by the FRA it was also decided to accept other races in England that met the criteria of a fell race even though they are not Permitted/insured through the FRA. Such races currently include races organised by an orienteering club, a walkers' event that also has a race for runners, one or two races that obtain their licenses from RunBritain and a few events which obtain insurance from the WelshFRA (not affiliated to UKA). The WFRA is willing to provide insurance to members who organise races outside Wales.
At the beginning of the race section of the Calendar it explains that races Permitted/insured through the FRA are indicated by "(R)" after the name of the race. The FRA does not know the Permit/insurance status of other events and advises people to contact the organiser if they want to know.
Margaret Chippendale (FRA Fixtures Secretary 2003-2012)
I see there is some more information of relevance to safety rules on the fellrunner homepage. http://fellrunner.org.uk/
I hope sensible steps can be taken to address these concerns without making it prohibitively difficult to organise races in future.
I understand Margaret, but on point 4, especially with the safety review at hand I find it strange that th FRA will rubber stamp a race in which they have almost no say in the safety procedures.Quote:
Originally Posted by MargC
Devolved responsibility of other associations in other nations is common practice, but you will not get UKA accepting a few long standing races with a tradition. They have to be permitted through the proper channels - full stop. They will not even show the results in the rankings unless they are permitted with UKA.
Richard Taylor (Quaver Protectors 1973-76 :D)
Re point 4, it is always possible that at some future date the FRA may decide that non-FRA/NIMRA/Scottish Athletics/Welsh Athletics Permitted/insured races should not be included in the FRA Calendar. Since I am no longer a committee member I wouldn't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
However, this would result in the FRA Calendar containing very few races in Wales. The vast majority of Welsh races (over 70) are insured by the non-UKA affiliated WFRA. Welsh Athletics (UKA affiliated) only provides Permits/insurance for a few mountain/fell races.
Moreover there are so few Welsh Athletics Permitted races that in a number of years the UKA British Championship has included a non-Permitted, WFRA insured Welsh race eg Ras y Aran and Moel Wnion in 2011and 2012 respectively.
It would appear that the Fra have already addressed the issues raised in the Coroners findings in the latest draft.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
I didn't read it like that on my first read through, specifically with respect to communication with marshalls etc. However, on re-reading the new safety guidelines, I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lefty
Seemingly despite the ( many ) words of wisdom by alwaysinjured that its ( almost ) business as usual for next years calendar.
I help run a lake swim in the summer on a Tuesday night. We have anything up to 80 people in the water at once. We agreed with the council that every person who wanted to swim would register. This involves a disclaimer that they are fit to swim and any medical conditions are listed,as well as contact details etc. Every member is then filed and a number is given for the season which is written on each swimmers hand. This is written on each swimmers hand during registration every week.
We have a simple chart that has numbers 1-200 (we had 180 registrations this year) with two boxes to the side of each number. As people pay every week,we tick their own personal number.....as they come out the water we then put a tick in the second box to confirm they are all in and out safely.
Im guessing this is the type of system that the coroner has in mind. It really is pretty straight forward and I cant see how all Race organisers can't take this on board.
Jon - I can see how that works well for the swim and how it would at the finish of a race (eg handing in your last tag at the Jura finish) but I think a large part of the difficulty is that marshals who have set off on to the hill sometimes long before registration closes and who dont have reliable comms back to base (and with all preceding CPs, either direct or via base) dont know how many runners to expect and have no way of knowing if someone is overdue. I think the FRA have to publicly accept that this is likely to occur in some races and make it clear that we are making an informed decision that this is acceptable on some occasions.Quote:
Originally Posted by JontheVron
I agree but im not so sure if that is the point they are making. They want each person to be ticked off as they finish. If they are missing say no. 46. They can then ask each marshal who is taking numbers to see if they've had no.46 go passed. If he was running up to say CP4 but didn't make cp5. It makes the search a little easier. The individual CP's don't need to do anything but tick off numbers as they go passed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark G
They also want to have a list of numbers out on the hills,and not just physically how many people are out running.
Clearly "all 101 runners are back" is not good enough, as small errors that cancel each other out are all too easy to make. Each individual number/runner needs to be accounted for. There will surely be times in most races when at least some of the marshals will be unaware of which runners they should be expecting - unless all the marshals and the start/finish can communicate with each other constantly it is bound to happen. But as long as they meet up and compare notes when appropriate for the race/conditions disaster should be avoided.
Good to see Peejay adopted the Bofra format of counting all the runners through the funnel at the start and then registering each runner at the summit numbers and counting back in again.
A very safe format that is easy and works.
You're ignoring the point that Mark G has already made that very often the CP marshals do not know how many runners have entered nor their numbers so they will not have a nice little list on which to tick off numbers as the runners go past.Quote:
Originally Posted by JontheVron
we used to use some thing similar for racing dinghies at big venues, you would sign in for the race and take a numbered elastic band when you returned to shore you put the band back on it's numbered peg. if it wasn't returned to the peg within 20 minutes of coming ashore you got disq.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark G
On marshalling I always take a number(even if not asked to) and write a time they pass in 5-10 minutes blocks. if asked if I've seen no 63 not only can I say yes but give an approximate time.
Pit rules Ian, you took a cheque when you went down and handed back when you came up.Quote:
Originally Posted by IanDarkpeak
Perfect every time.
Maybe one to follow?
That is effectively what the RO at Langdale did when he collected numbers in at the end.
I can't see how marshals can tick numbers off a checklist when they could be on an exposed summit, possibly in bad weather and at the early checkpoints during a popular race when the runners are coming through thick and fast.
What would be useful at the finish, would be numbers with a tear off strip that can be pulled off on the finish line, as well as recording the number as happens now.
Not ignoring anything. They don't need to know who has entered. The tick list from a marshal can be used at the end of the race to narrow down a search for a runner who hasn't made it to the end. No point looking at the start of a course when a runner has only missed the last check point.Quote:
Originally Posted by shadbolt
My concern would be where do you draw the line ? Short races ? I'd also agree with others, asking marshals to do anything more than stand there in what is often hostile conditions is difficult and will probably put off some volunteers.
One thing i'd like to see is an insistence on presenting the route in either map form and/or description prior to a race. It gives people the opportunity to get familiar with the surroundings in good weather. It makes people more equipped to deal with potential bad weather on race day. There seems to be a reluctance, in my experience, to reveal a route as if its some big secret by some.
Two issues I can see that might prevent the above is OS map copyright and potential private land (race day only) access.
It's a tough one,but one that needs serious consideration.
Couldn't you just have one person taking times, one person taking numbers (as currently happens). AND one person ticking off numbers against the list of numbers who started.
You're right tho' Dom, that's not going to work at checkpoints, unless they all have radio contact with the race organiser, which isn't always practical. Could the sweeper take a list of numbers who started to each checkpoint? That way each checkpoint would know if someone hadn't come past, and which number they were.
I'll be interested to see how ROs interpret is the best way to do this. I'm hoping over the coming months, some sort of consensus develops.
At Shutlingsloe, Mrs Noel and I are considering counting runners, and ticking off numbers before we all set off. Similar to at Grasmere, but with someone ticking them off on a sheet. Then using that sheet at the end as well. It might seem overkill for such a short race on a nice day, but I don't want to be complacent.
Whilst the current debate is related to the recommendations of the coroner and is very important I would like to return to the question of FRA total waterproof cover for AL, AM and BM races?
I have trawled the internet and this forum thread to identify proposed equipment and sources. It seams that for jacket and leggings it will set you back
£150-200 for non goretex but pertex garments thus more for goretex
less than £150 lesser material garment or sale item.
This may be a financial barrier to some who want to take part and my experience of fell races , so far, is that they are friendly, participative and inclusive. Is there another way to finance meeting the FRA rules ? Share kit if not racing ? hire kit ? RO provide spare/old kit ?
Any ideas ?
Noel - I know Shutlingsloe having been there for the FRA Junior races.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
Ultimately these days everything seems to revolve around risk assessment which is why I think there has been a move to try and get the requirements less prescriptive and allow ROs to set up procedures that are OK for their own race.
Your race is a prime example why.
The whole race is conducted in an area that can be seen from the Start / Finish area, so in a risk assessment the risk of a runner going astray would be minimal compared to say Fairfield or Tour of Pendle.
The risk of a runner going down with injury is a more likely hazard and with appropriately placed marshalls you can have every runner in a marshalls eyeline and so it would be easy to identify them, if they do have a problem - that's a similar method we use when we handle cross country races.
Of course like all races, you will have to have a Foul Weather back up plan if the clag is down.
So hopefully the final requirements will allow you some slack and not tie you in to the same set of procedures as an AL.
We used the proposed race number matrix/check list at our 4 race mid-week series in the summer. No CP, so only used at the finish line, which was not close to race HQ. In conjunction with other cross checks; number of entry forms, number of race numbers issued, number of records prepared for the results system, start line head count, number of finishers recorded, it is very effective in identifying overdue runners.
What proved particularly useful was to be able to quickly look up the entry form details and be able to provide a profile - male, female, vet, young, club. Knowing the club means other runners from the same club can be asked to make themselves known and provide further information. Far more reassuring than "we're missing someone", hang on while we work out who.
Obviously there are potential difficulties in providing accurate check lists to CP marshals, but I believe these can be overcome by a variety of means and techniques. Similarly, competitors can help by making sure their number has been recorded. The crucial aspect lies in point 6 of the Coroner's letter; discrepancies must be investigated, even if they turn out to be false and the runner is accounted for e.g. at the next CP or the finish.
Thanks WP. I'll give some more thought to what system we use on the day. You're right - getting lost is a lot less likely than falling and breaking something in the bluebell woods, or slipping while getting back into the river.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
I'd come up with the idea of getting the field to 'count off' at the start. Starting with 1 everyone shouts out their number in turn until you finish at the last registered runner. If the count stops you note a DNS and radio the checkpoints with a list of DNSs. This sytem wouldn't be possible without race numbers being consecutive from 1, and you'd need to quarantine the start area to stop Jonny-come-latelys sneaking in after having been logged as DNS.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
Yes, how do you know when to return to registration if you don't know how many started? You might have a big hike ahead of you requiring you to set off for your post an hour or so before the start.Quote:
Originally Posted by shadbolt
and longer sometimes. I'm sure there's worse but I bet the CP3 and CP4 marshalls at Sedbergh Hills are out there for quite some time and I wouldn't know what the communications are like out there, but perhaps unreliable.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr brightside
I believe there's been cases in that race where athletes have gone astray between those 2 checkpoints and ended up at CP5 on the Calf, missing 4 out.
So CP4 counting would be out, and maybe raise an alert, but by CP5 it could be OK. So a difficult call to say at what point you decide someone is missing.
I know at Duddon when I did it for the first time, my mates who had done the short race were sat in the finish field, enjoying a beer, sat in the sun and getting increasingly worried about me as I hadn't come in. They asked the officials, who were able to confirm that I was still on the move (just about :) ) due to the sportident dibber system being used.
Not sure how much the dibber system costs per race, but I'd be quite happy to pay an extra couple of quid at races like Sedbergh or other AM, AL races if it helps the RO comply with the requirements and also improves their race monitoring.
It's possible to monitor the movements then of every runner on course from the finish area.
Yes, we were discussing that this would help and should probably be used more often at long and remote races. I agree, it wouldn't put me off doing a long race if it were £3-4 more expensive to have the technology. But I do very few long races...Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
I'd be interesting to see the costs involved, and also the level of communication from checkpoints that they enable.
For several years now I've marshaled Bessyboot the first Checkpoint on the Borrowdale race along with the Bowland Mrt. As the race starts they radio in to see how many set off so we know how many to expect. ( this is providing the organisers get it right on the start line in informing the Mrt of the correct number of starters ! ) we collect ( with difficulty ) the number of every runner passing through Bessyboot. I remember the tally system being used which made it easier for the checkpoint marshals to track progress but I believe it was difficult for the organisers to set up. The use of radios in races like the Borrowdale is essential and as most people know the Fra have radios which organisers can use. Clubs though could purchase their own as a good set is relatively inexpensive. We use mobile phones to advise our marshals of numbers etc but radios are perhaps a better option. I think that the system of physically counting each runner through a funell or grid at the start so that the RO knows exactly how many have set should now become the norm. The dibber system can be expensive and is not infallible, it relies on the box or the dibber to be received back at control to be interrogated before information is gathered not too good if the dibber box is in a remote location ( unless the even more expensive option of sending information back to control by SMS is used and with that reception is not always assured ) Last year at our Boxing Day race we had a runner outstanding only to find after exhaustive investigation that she did not run and was at home, a relative had filled in the form and registered her to run. Counting heads at the start would have prevented a lot of worry. It may add to a bit more hassle at the start of a race but I hope that runners will understand the need and cooperate
Hi WP. Thanks for the PM. Clear your inbox mate. :)
Yes, you need to be clear that the dibber system will only help monitor a race retrospectively (I.e. on download either of the dibber or of the control boxes) UNLESS some of the control stations are linked to race HQ by mobile phone or radio link.
As the organiser of a nav event I'm interested to know how anyone can run a score or Spanish score type event and monitor it in the way I think the rules envisage as runners can take controls in any order. Are we going to end up having one or two mandatory sections on these events to track runners progress across the fells??
A head count won't identify the runner though, unless you check off all entrants as they enter the start pen. Which thinking about it isn't a bad idea...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lefty
A few more thoughts:-
On Jura the RO places all runners in a pen before the start and collects their first tag as they enter it so he has a record of who has actually started - provided nobody ignores his instructions. A similar thing happens at Ben Nevis.
Sportident is great but I dont think we can rely on it always to provide timely info unless there is a good link back to base (from the box itself, or if the marshals can download it on the hill and contact base one way or another). But I envisage the marshals at Green Gable in Ennerdale for example having a long wait for the last runners to arrive and easily taking 2-3 hours after that to get back to race HQ. So if a leading runner went missing it could easily be four hours or more before the info from that CP got back to the start. But I would happily pay for sportident if the RO wants it - on a personal level I'm happy to run without it but accept the need to protect the RO.
Using radios is fine, when and if they work. They dont always. I've spent many years trying to use different radio systems in the Lakes, none have worked all the time. I've used the FRA radios on quite a few occasions as well - they work up to a point, the new ones are better (but couldn't talk to the old ones last time I used them) but still not infallible. Lets use them by all means but we still need to have something to back them up.
page 100, I should have held out for post #1000!
How about a slightly different idea.. a list people can sign on to at registration if there is no-one who will quickly realize they are missing.
Wow...
Nearly
1000....
Posts :p
And thus endeth my contributions. Worthwhile as ever.