A lot of the actual rules seemed word for word copy and pastes.. the taping.. numbering etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by LissaJous
Printable View
A lot of the actual rules seemed word for word copy and pastes.. the taping.. numbering etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by LissaJous
That would be a good one to go in the rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
Well the original author of the document is Graham Breeze. But this version reads quite differently IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
I kind of disagree - my very first ever fell race was the 3 peaks and, yes, I did blag myself in. But its actually experiencing something that gives you 'experience' and it puts my back up if fell runners somehow consider themselves more elitest than others. Everyone has to start somewhere and people should be free 'to come and have a go if they think they're hard enough' (qualifying rules permitting). What ever else you can say about fell races they are miles more safe than just running in the hills on your own, something anybody can do when ever they want to. In some respects people may run fell races to actually become more au fait with an area or route, to later run on their own.Quote:
Originally Posted by dnf
Enough of the english is word perfect in common to suspect it is a modified version of an earlier version of FRA. I also suspect that WFRA will probably wait for FRA to settle before final changes of their draft, or turning the draft into active.Quote:
Originally Posted by LissaJous
I only hope they use better document and version control, so you can actually tell what is draft for comment, what is amended/ and or superceded and why, so what is the "latest" version, and what is active, and if so from when. Even that message (which any and every professional uses as part of the most basic quality standard per ISO9000, whether registered or not) has not been heeded. Sad.
Not convinced by that Stolly. Races encourage a "follow the crocodile" mentality, which leads people to places they may not have dared go on their own, and when someone loses contact in clag, having failed to study it, or without any knowledge of where they are, it can be very unsafe. Where people venturing on their own tend to be far more cogniscant of the need to map read for example. On their own , they may well have taken more precautionsQuote:
Originally Posted by Stolly
(Yes there are some nutters out there amongst the walkers too..no map, no compass, no body cover is not just a runner thing. Some people need a darwin award!)
The follow the leader mentality of races, and the expectation of being able to do it has consequences
Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
- It's difficult getting in to your little gang AI
- The posts are excessively long and the good points are buried.
- You are a bit obsessed with the version control rather than the points others are making
- You should be aware how few people will exhaustively read such an exhausting thread.
- WFRA Document: Of course it is an altered version of an FRA original.
- But are you more comfortable with the wording?
- Or do you agree with IainR that the semantic differences are inconsequential?
- Fellhound's revisions
- I questioned whether readers are aware this is NOT the FRA working document
- (If they even saw it at all)
- No reply/comment/confirmation that this is the case
- I added that I would be more comfortable with Fellhound's wording if I was ever to organize a race
- A few pages back I suggested an 'alternative' idea
- At registration runners could be asked if there is anyone who would quickly realize if they are overdue
- If not, they could go on a list for extra 'oversight' to check their return
- I am not particularly attached to this idea
- But it was meant to be an out-of-the-box idea to provide a second tier safety net that might actually achieve something in the case of an incident
- Instead of trying to perfect a system that cannot be perfected (or mandating that it should be perfected)
- As usual, no reply or comment was forthcoming
Excellent bullet pointing :)Quote:
Originally Posted by LissaJous
I think anyone who has seen the changes in road running should be concerned, especially Joan of Arc who has already effectively labelled PPP the dumbed down version of fell running.
As has been mentioned, the PPP is a £25K per year race and so has enough financial wherewithall to survive most of what comes to pass.
But what about Ennerdale etc where I turned up a couple of years ago to see less than 100?
Anyone with any connections to the road will see where it has gone with the drive towards H&S and full or partial road closures.
The typical race when I started in 2003 was £5 entry for a affiliated athlete. Now it's £10+.
Councils only interested if BUPA come to town, or it's a box ticking health initiative.
There's a drive to traffic free and we've lost quite a few historic races, not through lack of demand, but through lack of ROs prepared to carry the can combined with the financial resources to keep them going without engaging traffic management companies.
What next for fell? Who knows, but it will be different and I do think some significant races will be lost to the calendar.
Haha, I shall start a pedestrian management company and make a fortune :p
Don't think I said inconsequential... not between the two bodies, I think they should be the same, same terrain, same risks...
Consider the following paras bullets.Quote:
Originally Posted by LissaJous
- Where is the bullet on the editor screen? I do not see, and cannot be bothered to type in command mode!
Not sure I have a gang, but you are welcome to join!
Document control is important when you end up with several versions of something on your computer from several sources of the same name and cannot work out the sequence. As I do now.
Begs the question of what rules we are presently working to too. According to the book it is 2013 per coroner, but that is not what you get if you download which is a multiply amended draft purporting to be in force, but known to be in flux. No safety conscious organisation would ever allow that question which would be self evident reading the document.
I have not read the WFRA document. I looked at sufficient to see that a heap of problems are still there some of which have been amended even in FRA draft so it is back issue. Do you think any of it is better? Happy to read parts if you think worthwhile? I am recieving drafts from others and doing my best to comment on them.
Some of this needs a lot of words to argue the case, it is not a trivial subject - like how the coroners points came to be, and the correspondence with the rules as they were, and the points put by UKA under "failures of duty" cannot be written in a few paras. It is dull and terse subject!
When fellhound owned up to his version posted by Wynn, I was at pains to point out it was not accepted by anyone. There is a consensus of several of us that prefer fellhound wording and treatment of some issues, a consensus except where it matters that is. I think fellhound hopes to win a few more battles over some issues yet. Watch this space.
Fellhound SHOULD be on the rules subcommitee as the safety professional. Reminds me of "yes minister" when sir humphrey said of a cockup he made "But I did not know anything about it (the key subject) , if I had they would never have given me the job"
It is somewhat annoying that whilst the powers that be have occasionally taken a sideswipe at all of the views expressed here, the people expressing them and so on, there has never been a debate of any of the issues per se. Madeleine stated that most on this thread had been read, discussed and discounted. But what or why?.
I tackled one issue officially , explaining why to change, what to change and how to change. Got the answer "do not agree" - hard to know what is disagreed with, the problem , the objective or the solution. The problem is real, I can quote it by quoting the rules. The problem is still there.
I hope fellhound gets on better than I did.
Sorry about not seeing your views. There are unhelpful posters who make facile and fatuous remarks, which can distance the serious posts, so I miss things. Not convinced about the registration idea. Arguably the basic process of ensuring all runners accounted is more or less THE critical function of an RO, so better to duplicate systems by the RO rather than rely on backup from outside.
Tskk...too many words ...again.
The advantages of following a crocodile shouldn't be underestimated. At least you're with a bunch of others and not on your own :)Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
Until the clag comes down and you're on your own!Quote:
Originally Posted by Stolly
I have even heard of people who become detached on the great lakes ending up down at hardknott when they lose the back of the crocodile in clag....now who was it??? its a problem this memory lark when you are my age! Very bad weather gives me a clue..Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinchy
Just highlighting that bit. This is an important point that was very easily missed. I think some have read it believing it was the FRA's stance and hence decided there is no issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
Thanks for reply & lists are easy to create if you go to the advanced editor.
WFRA document, no particular need for you to read it, some bits are the same as the FRA's, and others much less reliant on the word MUST. The document was only created a few days ago.
Advanced editor - where where where... is that a profile kind of a thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by LissaJous
Next to 'Post Quick Reply' is 'Go Advanced', or else if you generally hit 'Reply to thread' you should already be there.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
Haha I just took a slightly dodgy line is all, along with about 20 others. In fact our line was okay but we'd actually gone off the edge of the race map making navigation really quite difficult. And if in doubt head down :). And I was as safe as houses running back to Langdale via Wrynose and Blea Tarn :)Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
Plus one. I really enjoyed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stolly
Quote:
Originally Posted by LissaJous
- Thanks for the tip on advanced..yippee!
- But sorry to beat a drum - it would have been obvious it was a fellhound special, if there had been a document change tab, that Fellhound would have amended saying "personal changes".
- The official FRA version and revision number then easily recognised - also which version FH amended...
- That is how companies can get to ask a group to comment/amend independently, somebody take the best of them to another version etc..
- It works honest, and it is so simple to do. Just a table, you edit! - we would even know which version WFRA took as their base.
Exactly DNF and that's why we need a robust set of rules to save these people from themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by dnf
That begs a question. Should we allow novices on Long A lakes races, and equally important if they were allowed: can the rules or any organiser "save them from themselves" The answer an emphatic "no" if they have no clue how to navigate in a whiteout in lakeland, and have no idea how to stay safe in mountains in bad weather. So the rules should in that case prevent them from entering, not dump an impossible task on an organiser.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norman Bates
All we can do as the late Brian Hanarahan said of the Falklands Fighter Planes is "counted them out, and counted them in". Tracking, communications ,marshalling, and searching can NEVER be infallible enough to save novices from themselves - it can hopefully determine if someone experienced goes missing due to a mishap. Eventually. And that is the best we can hope to guarantee.
Is it worth trying to condense this back to what I think are the key issues?
1) As we all know a runner died
2) Rightly the FRA are reviewing their safety procedures as a result
3) This is also being driven by comments made by the coroner who requires a reply from the FRA
4) The FRA produced a draft and circulated it asking for comments
5) In many races the proposed changes made little or no impact - they were achievable
6) In some races they weren't - or at least could not be guaranteed to be
7) AI and others including some ROs and me raised concerns about the possible consequences of ROs signing up to rules which they knew could not be adhered to. ROs who couldn't meet all the requirements had a few choices -abandon the race, try and alter the race, or to put it frankly lie about the ability of their race to conform. For that reason some of us posting on here put the case forward for the rules to accept and reflect the reality that the rules for an ideal world were not achievable on all occasions in the real world. This would hopefully support the organisers of more problematic races and allow them to continue without undue risk to the RO.
8) This by no means applies to all races and all ROs - if someone is satisfied that their race can comply with the original draft then all well and good but we risked losing races and/or putting some ROs at an unacceptably high level of risk.
9) We've all had the opportunity to comment, the committee are looking at it, lets see what they come up with. I'm sure common sense will prevail in the end but I dont think the original draft reflected that and it was more like a document designed to produce the impossible situation where 'something like this must never be allowed to happen again' which may well have been to meet the perceived needs of the coroner/UKA/other interested parties.
The arguments as to why the rules as they stood were unachievable have been done to death on here, so I dont want to repeat them other than to say that common sense and experience shows that things will inevitably go wrong however hard we try not to allow that to happen - lets just have a set of rules and guidelines that reflect that fact.
That is what some are saying Mark, but if we take the paperwork that was issued to ROs for 2014 in the first instance I think it is clear that there probably wasn't a race out there that had operated in this way and so there has got to be some doubt about any RO being able to operate by the book, without slip or deviation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark G
I actually think that many have signed and routinely returned the forms partly because they haven't seen or been made aware of the issues that we have been debating.
Im through.
Goodbye waltz, now out of the calendar
Just got of the phone to them and FRA attitude stinks
they know my race does not comply, and yours don't either.
but since so many are signing up they couldn't care less
hiding behind a limited company they are OK and we are left hanging
It is sad to see this great sport heading in this direction. If you are forced to give up Wynn, one wonders who will carry on organising races.Quote:
Originally Posted by wynn
No more TWA http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/t...gebit/sad2.gif why doesn't it comply ?Quote:
Originally Posted by wynn
Terrible news. The TWA is one of my favourite races and in my humble opinion fantastically organised. If this race doesn't comply then I can't see how others will.Quote:
Originally Posted by wynn
That is sad news.
I thought about posting this earlier but couldn't find the right words/context in which to say it.
The first time I did the Anni Waltz there was a kit check and the chap inspecting my kit asked "you not got any water"? or something similar. I replied something along the lines of "oh I'll be OK" and he gave me a look which I can't easily describe. It was a hot day and I had overlooked the fact there is little water on route. By the time I had reached Maiden Moor I was badly dehydrated and gasping for a drink and it took all my self control to stop me from ripping the water bottle out of another runner's hand.
How those words stuck in mind, I've never forgotten that and it makes me think prior to every race and had a much greater effect than any words on bits of paper/websites etc., ever did.
This is the problem I have with prescriptive rules. They impede the necessity to think. In my opinion guidance offered by the FRA should be encouraging runners to think "what skills/kit do I need to keep myself alive if the sh*t hits the fan" and make a judgment rather than "tick.., my kit meets requirements therefore I'm OK".
Yes, like this one..Quote:
Originally Posted by LissaJous
Replace "counterproductive" with "compromising safety" and this sums up my feelings exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
Very sad , but I am not surprised.Quote:
Originally Posted by wynn
The committee seem to be wholly incapable of playing even basic "what if" games, and combine it with a pathogenic need to lay down the law, in places where it is far better to say nothing other than "fell racing is dangerous"
The old rules betrayed a lack of foresight, with the claim we can monitor and track perfectly, knowing we cant in reality, with the inevitable outcome of that claim now surfacing in a coroners letter and hostile expert witness. The present rules are just as bad, if not worse in (even more) places. They also interfere in places they should not, like just consecutive number rules already give Wynn a technical breach before she even starts. What is the obsession with numbering anyway? Most fatalities happen in bad weather when people are wearing weatherproofs, so nobody can see the numbers anyway.
Race organisers (and marshalls) are now explicitly responsible for the safety of runners, particularly retiring runners who have been given woeful advice to go back by the shortest route, rather than find safety first. It is hard to know what the stuff on marshalls even means with its conditional statements , other than making marshalls "responsible" for something. No doubt UKA will tell them in due course, just how "responsible they are" when they cite "failures of duty" regarding things which are facts of life.
So why did she cancel? Don't know all the exact reasons, but this is why I would have done in her place.
Take the woeful foresight in drafting of the present rules - some which apply to wynn:
We have had people get hypothermic and get lost. So far we have had no catastrophic injuries, but that is just a ticking clock. We will. The only question is who is the lucky RO who gets pilloried for this nonsense on courses and weather.
The terrain over which we race is inherently dangerous, just waiting for the first person to crack their skulls falling off bad step, slipping on the steps down dalehead in ice and breaking their backs in the fall, or dislodging a rock that kills someone coming down the scree descent from scafell pike on borrowdale, I have started a rock slide/ boulder roll there, no doubt have numerous others over the years. It is just how it is in lakeland. And that is what we love about it. Man against terrain. Just going proverbial *rse over tit on many steep and slippy descents on many of the fell races could break your neck if you were unlucky..
Wynn's race is early season, and there is quite often hidden ice, it has been almost permafrost under the surface on catbells before now. Are they telling her to cancel?
So when the inevitable happens, for example when a runner goes headlong down catbells scramble when icy in early season, so (unlucklily) breaking their necks in the process. the smart ars*s from UKA will be saying in court that wynn should have known that ice was a "severe weather condition", it was "unncessarily dangerous" to send runners that way down what is clearly a scramble or "rock climb". You can just hear them saying it: Read UKA testimony to understand their mindset. And if they do not, some lawyer on behalf of family might do the same thing. Outsiders like UKA know nothing about fell racing except what we tell them in our rules and documents and the worst interpretation of that is used to judge.
As we know, the coroner (and all outsiders) will just refer to what we say about ourselves in the rules, and can take the worst of ambiguous interpretations there.
If history repeats UKA will twist that knife, FRA will say little other than how their newer even "tougher" (even more stupid) rules with even more "musts" were "well recieved" by who? by themselves and UKA (presumably), and maybe there will not be a police witness to inject an air of reality this time.
I suspect if people want wynn to organise races, they will have to just say it how it is instead.
All weather and coruses are dangerous. Her course is no more dangerous, than anything walkers routinely do. So as regard the hazards, on your own head be it. Leave her to do (as she always does) the best she can in terms of numbering and marshalling, and accept that she has done all that is "reasonably practicable", but probably one of her marshalls wont agree with others either, since that is a fact of life. And some will not be able to communicate even after testing. Nobodies fault. It is just how it is in lakeland in bad weather.
I have already said that if you must say anything about courses (other than highlight specific hazards - clearly the best approach by far, and the method safety documents would use) then issue a directive that the courses should be "Not substantially more hazardous than routes commonly used by walkers in the area" or similar. Might not help with borrowdale scree, but at least wynns course and langdale are then OK.
And when it is icy just warn people! It is icy!
Right now in addition to ridiculous course and weather directives, she is responsible for the safety of retiring runners who are now obliged to do something stupid and even potentially fatal now, and MUST apparently send search parties out before the end of the race. Mountain rescue will love her, when they go after twenty runners who were not even lost, just slow to return having decided to bail and walk in.
Who want to be an RO with this committee's mindset?
Please. Please. Get somebody used to drafting safety documents, and with a sense of legal jeapoardy, and a mind that plays "what if" games to draft the rules, and then get a lawyer on behalf of an RO , not FRA or UKA to inspect them for risks to the RO. Endless expedient fudging of "marshall" clauses to the point they become meaningless and ambiguous is not the answer. Simple clear directives please - that just give the RO an obligation to consider factors and to come up with a reasonably practicable method, not a mandate to do. That is how safety legislation works.
Until then maybe reregistering the race under scottish rules might bypass some of the sillier directives, and allow the waltz to happen again.
Very profound statement, I'm sure - but there again you just have to talk. You don't have to actually deal with this issue. No, that's being done by volunteers on your behalf. It's difficult and stressful enough without idiots like you putting unnecessary, inflammatory statements on the web. Totally out of order.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
I have been following this thread with interest. AI's postings have resurrected fears which I have harboured for several years now. I have been disappointed by some of the negative comments by some of the other posters who seem to be arrogant and ignorant. Ostriches and sand come to mind.
I was planner for the Mountain Trial for a period 10 years ago or so, followed by a spell as "course vetter". I remember the difficulties in trying to comply with the then FRA safety requirements in avoiding unnecessary dangers and hazards. I can't remember the exact wording in those days, pretty similar if not the same as in 2013, but I could see it was an impossible task without compromising the ethos of the race. A fell running lawyer advised that members of the committee would be jointly and severally liable which essentially meant a claimant could cherry pick any or all of the members to sue if the "organiser" was proved negligent. He painted a frightening scenario wherein a claim amounted to millions.
But we would have been covered by the UKA insurance? Ive just checked and the latest insurance letter, as printed in the calendar, is different now but then it left some doubt. I recall it specifically mentioned road races; as if they carried some special risk. To my mind fell racing was, still is, inevitably more riskier than track and field or even road and I was left wondering if the insurers appreciated that. Did they actually know what a fell race was? In particular the Mountain Trial which is more akin to orienteering.
So if the worst happened and the insurers found some excuse not to pay up, potentially the family home would have been at risk. That was a risk I could not take and I decided to call it a day.
I do hope the FRA committee take these issues seriously.
Mick Garratt
The coroners letter demonstrates that we will be judged by what we say about ourselves, and the lack of "what if" games that led to those rules being accepted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph Hooker
I played the what if "somebody falls down dalehead or catbells in icy condition" to highlight the problem with present rules, and the breach of them implied if that happens.
It is such an obvious thing, at least to such as wynn, why has it not be considered as what if
And whilst I sympathise with all volunteers, what is done has to be right and protect Wynn in the process.
Your criticism of those statements is what?
The phrase "idiot" seems contradictory with your own wish to remove "inflammatory" comment - nor hardly justified by the ruthless logic in what I posted.
"Mountains heed no rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by fellgazelle
Reflect that!"
So you now realise your input was useless?
ThanksQuote:
Originally Posted by Fhithich
That is exactly how wynn feels.
Not sure the insurance wording is helpful now either.
- the insurance as it is allows insurers to wriggle if lack of compliance is deemed a deliberate acts of ommission/commission . eg knowing a course does not comply.
- and if that were in any doubt the FRA rules as they are state that insurance is given on the basis of compliance with rules.
So in principle all an insurer needs to do is demonstrate non compliance. Scary.
At very least RO should take advice on how big that risk is.
I agree. Always Injured does have some very good points, and I'm sure that these are being listened to. but using words such as pathogenic is spoiling what is a very useful argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph Hooker
It isn't easy creating guidelines which will satisfy all requirements in matters such as this, and I know that there is a lot of hard work going on in the background, so please contribute constructively and try to avoid winding people up. (Difficult on a forum, I know!)
I have to deal with the issue as I have applied for a 2014 permit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph Hooker
Wynn has dealt with the issue by washing her hands of it - most reluctantly it seems.
It is unlike me, but I am trying to keep a lid on this and deal with this more off forum than on forum, but I do sense that this is a huge moment for the sport and the FRA.
Most runners will not sense or appreciate this - as an athlete I just turn up at the races bring my kit and have been fortunate to complete the races I've been at and make my way home happily afterwards.
It makes very little difference to us whether it is the FRA Race at Pendle, the BOFRA race at Malham, or the random Turkey Trot at Hurst Green that my mate runs.
We just come and run and have a bit of a social before and after.
Most ROs have a gradual build up to the event and then a hugely stressful day trying to make sure all goes well.
When I do it, it seems the whole day is non-stop, often from before 7:00am in the morning until 5:00pm in the afternoon.
I often drag myself home, knackered, cold, wet, hungry but for some reason I want to do it again.
Most ROs do it purely for the love of the sport. It's voluntary. Not only do they not make anything, they are usually out of pocket.
I wouldn't dramatise and suggest this is the end of the sport, or the end of the FRA.
But those that fail to register the significance of this moment may look back in a few years time and realise how important these matters are.
We are at a hugely significant moment in the sport of fell running and the direction that the FRA takes as our NGB will greatly influence how many of it's members (and therefore ROs) it takes with them.
So in fact you disagree with the old anonymous coward.... Because AI isn't all talk.. he's made some great points. OK in a long statements but he's talked a lot of sense and been sniped at by many with unnecessary contributions which have added nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
As Wynn has demonstrated there are real consequences to the new rules. I do see why they have been brought in but the debate has been healthy. Too accuse someone who disagrees as 'winding people up' is unhealthy in the extreme.