New safety rules

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

Well, as a race organiser, I don't plan to DQ people who run topless. Nor do I plan to throw away all of last year's numbers 78 to 400 (or whatever was left over).

I can see the argument for the latter one, but will take this as guidance not mandatory (in the letter of the law). Having said that, I did get confused on my last C&F relay as to the number of people in the race. So maybe I'll start at a number ending in "1" rather than starting where last year's race left off.

I'm a bit bemused by the number on legs argument. I think it's helpful, especially in races with potentially nasty conditions, to be able to put on and take off extra layers without obscuring your race number. Indeed I'm more likely to put a number on my leggings in the (very few) cold races I do, for that reason.

---

But then if anything did go wrong involving mis-counted runners, you would straight-forwardly be found negligent (and possibly not covered by insurance?). The same could also apply if failing to DQ runners with numbers on leggings, which I agree seems a bit silly when everyone might be wearing a cag. (In your example you only need to replace numbers 1-100).

Quote:

---

I am impressed by how committed to making fell running better the committee must be. To prepare a 14-page draft document and put it on the forums is akin to standing in the stocks with us all holding wet sponges. After my initial points above, I'd like to add that almost all of the 14 pages (and all the bits that are mandatory) seem to make perfect sense, and I appreciate you're working with my best interests at heart.

---

Most of the 14 pages is the old document, but certainly thanks are due to the committee who have worked all year to keep our sport alive, and so we don't all end up having to carry a torch! (One of the more outlandish queries I believe they had to answer).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LissaJous

Most of the 14 pages is the old document, but certainly thanks are due to the committee who have worked all year to keep our sport alive, and so we don't all end up having to carry a torch! (One of the more outlandish queries I believe they had to answer).

---

I did a race in Poland.. and all we had to carry was a mobile phone..

Which I did.. but few others carried anything.. or maybe they had the cheapest lightest one..

I can understand asking for a phone in addition to other items.. but a phone over a jacket seems strange..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LissaJous

But then if anything did go wrong involving mis-counted runners, you would straight-forwardly be found negligent (and possibly not covered by insurance?).

---

Yes, that's the frustrating bit. I bought a job lot of race numbers earlier this year. My races typically get about 50 runners. I don't want to throw away £30 worth of race numbers over something that seems to be a bit of overkill (sorry committee). However, I acknowledge the point and the potential dangers this guidance is attempting to avoid. I will therefore take steps to ensure the number of runners is clear to the various people involved in organising any races I'm in charge of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LissaJous

Most of the 14 pages is the old document, but certainly thanks are due to the committee who have worked all year to keep our sport alive, and so we don't all end up having to carry a torch! (One of the more outlandish queries I believe they had to answer).

---

Whilst I agree thanks are due.. fell running is not under threat..

Fell racing maybe.. at times the two get confused as one.. I'm sounding like Stolly now.. :-) But do think at times fell running and fell racing are needlessly combined.

But then again like the runners running routes on race day.. I can't see what RO\'s can do if its open land.. its poor behaviour and strange.. especially to go near the finishing funnel.

And we are already seeing races held outside of the FRA, and very informal club races.

Its not to say I don't think the FRA do good, the nav courses are a superb initiative, so is the junior set up.

are we seriously saying that if you issue numbers 32 to 132 and have 14 uncollected numbers that you don't know you have 87 runners?
anyone unable to do such simple maths shouldn't be allowed near sharp objects, let alone organise a fell race

in any case, why does it matter how many runners are in the race?
unless you're going to "bulk count" them (which is intrinsically unreliable/dangerous)

you need a list of the numbers in the race and you need to check them off

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

Yes, that's the frustrating bit. I bought a job lot of race numbers earlier this year. My races typically get about 50 runners. I don't want to throw away £30 worth of race numbers over something that seems to be a bit of overkill (sorry committee). However, I acknowledge the point and the potential dangers this guidance is attempting to avoid. I will therefore take steps to ensure the number of runners is clear to the various people involved in organising any races I'm in charge of.

---

With the C&F down-up I think you are lucky that there isn't (yet) a rule specifying that the batons have to all be a regular UKA size and shape, and any sharp pointy bits sawn off. Some of them could be seen to be introducing hazards and dangers to the course, especially if (and it could happen) there were to be a pile up at the start.:wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OB1

With the C&F down-up I think you are lucky that there isn't (yet) a rule specifying that the batons have to all be a regular UKA size and shape, and any sharp pointy bits sawn off. Some of them could be seen to be introducing hazards and dangers to the course, especially if (and it could happen) there were to be a pile up at the start.:wink:

---

Good point - I will lobby the committee to add a list of acceptable seasonal batons.

The comments made about issuing of numbers are sensible.

It does seem silly to insist that all races must start with #1 and got to #x. Simply because it is inevitably going to be cheaper for a RO to buy a bulk of, say, numbers from 1-600, and then use them over a number of years.

I do take the point that numbers be should be contiguous though - perhaps the "rules" should be reworded to state this - thus an RO is free to use up numbers say, from 1-50 in year 1, then 50-107 the next year and then 108-128 the next year etc.

Of course, using non-contiguous numbers would cause confusion, and this should be taken into account (i.e. using nos 3, 4, 7, 23 then 50-100 simply because those first four hadn't been used for some reason the year before).

I also cannot see the problem with something like ALS having "personalised" numbers - they can simply have a number associated with them from 501-528 or whatever - but I would class ALS as a special case, as it has become a tradition that should be respected and kept, and if other races wanted to do something similar, then they would need seek guidance from the FRA and explain why it was necessary for their race, and then on agreement it could be done.

With relays, by the way, I would also advocate going to a system of 1A, 1B, 1C etc for each leg runners (I know some relays already do this, but I think all should) - we do it for Golden Acre Relay and having marshalled and recorded results for this, it's much clearer when you know what leg each runner is doing - for example you are not confused by runners wearing the same number, but who are just warming up.

Also a quick point re: topless - I can see the point of this to a certain extent. I don't particularly like to see topless runners. I have no problem in saying that runners should have to wear a vest or t-shirt or similar, and have to wear their number on their chest/front. If I were RO of a race, I wouldn't necessarily DQ someone for a first "offence" but I might have a quiet word and say that I'd prefer it if they followed these rules. I might DQ someone who didn't show their number to a marshal at a CP though - I've done it myself where I've just shouted my number to them, and I know it's poor form - in future, I will be making sure that my number is shown to all recording marshals - it only takes 2 seconds to lift up your jacket to make it visible.

" I don't particularly like to see topless runners. "

Why not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fozzy

T I might DQ someone who didn't show their number to a marshal at a CP though - I've done it myself where I've just shouted my number to them, and I know it's poor form - in future, I will be making sure that my number is shown to all recording marshals - it only takes 2 seconds to lift up your jacket to make it visible.

---

Specifically mentioned in the new rules that you wouldn't have to show numbers in poor weather, and can shout number, with confirmation by the marshal. The exact procedure would be whatever the RO explains at the start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike T

" I don't particularly like to see topless runners. "

Why not?

---

It offends my delicate sensibilities :wink:

Seriously, I don't have a good reason, it's just a personal preference - perhaps it's something buried in my subconscious from the way I was brought up. I don't know. I know that I don't particularly like going round without a top on, and don't like seeing other men (or women if they so choose for that matter) doing the same.

For example, if I go to the beach or lake or whatever to go swimming, I'll always put a t-shirt on when I'm not swimming. Don't know why, just do - helps me stop getting sunburnt as well.

You'll never see me in a nudist colony!

Non-contiguous numbers don't necessarily cause confusion. I've used them loads of times as RO.

This is about organisers responsibility to know how many runners aree out there so they can ensure they are all accounted for.
Rather than defining a rule about how to do this (i.e. numbers starting from one ) I feel it would be more effective to state the requirement, which is that the RO's registration process should ensure that it records how many runners are taking part on the day
Then leave it to the RO as to how they achieve this.

Topless - again this feels like a rule in place of a requirement.
Requirement is that the runner must ensure that their number is clear / visible to race marshals / officials at any point in the race.
Reason - so that if you do go missing then your progress can be tracked as accurately as possible, narrowing any search area.

Perhaps what is missing is some expalination of why these rules and requirements increase the safety of competitors.
If people understand then they will be more likely to comply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LissaJous

Specifically mentioned in the new rules that you wouldn't have to show numbers in poor weather, and can shout number, with confirmation by the marshal. The exact procedure would be whatever the RO explains at the start.

---

I presume that you mean this sentence: "If a cagoule is worn it is for the competitor to identify him/herself to a marshal and NOT leave any checkpoint until the marshal acknowledges their number has been recorded"

See, I read that as the runner would have to show the number to the marshal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andy k

Non-contiguous numbers don't necessarily cause confusion. I've used them loads of times as RO.

This is about organisers responsibility to know how many runners aree out there so they can ensure they are all accounted for.
Rather than defining a rule about how to do this (i.e. numbers starting from one ) I feel it would be more effective to state the requirement, which is that the RO's registration process should ensure that it records how many runners are taking part on the day
Then leave it to the RO as to how they achieve this.

Topless - again this feels like a rule in place of a requirement.
Requirement is that the runner must ensure that their number is clear / visible to race marshals / officials at any point in the race.
Reason - so that if you do go missing then your progress can be tracked as accurately as possible, narrowing any search area.

Perhaps what is missing is some expalination of why these rules and requirements increase the safety of competitors.
If people understand then they will be more likely to comply.

---

I agree with your sentiment, but I would say that having non-contiguous numbers increases the possibility of the cause of confusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fozzy

I agree with your sentiment, but I would say that having non-contiguous numbers increases the possibility of the cause of confusion.

---

So it's better to treat ROs like they're in year 4...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LissaJous

So it's better to treat ROs like they're in year 4...

---

3 out of 10. Quite pleased with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LissaJous

So it's better to treat ROs like they're in year 4...

---

It's not just ROs though is it? It's marshals in the hills, possibly in bad weather, it's number recorders etc.... and don't think transcription errors, handwriting that's difficult to read etc can't happen even on nice sunny days - I've done both jobs of having to record numbers and also check through the results for road races and XCs - if we have a race where there is no issues straight away, it's unusual. Normally, there's always a few numbers that are hard to read or a transcription error or something.

Having contiguous numbers won't eliminate these errors, but will make them potentially easier to spot and potentially quicker to rectify. That would be my line of thinking anyway.

I don't quite understand why you think it's such a big issue? Maybe you could explain? I can understand the starting at #1, as I've explained, but the having contiguous numbers seems eminently sensible to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fozzy

It's not just ROs though is it? It's marshals in the hills, possibly in bad weather, it's number recorders etc.... and don't think transcription errors, handwriting that's difficult to read etc can't happen even on nice sunny days - I've done both jobs of having to record numbers and also check through the results for road races and XCs - if we have a race where there is no issues straight away, it's unusual. Normally, there's always a few numbers that are hard to read or a transcription error or something.

Having contiguous numbers won't eliminate these errors, but will make them potentially easier to spot and potentially quicker to rectify. That would be my line of thinking anyway.

I don't quite understand why you think it's such a big issue? Maybe you could explain? I can understand the starting at #1, as I've explained, but the having contiguous numbers seems eminently sensible to me.

---

I do struggle to see how you can have this.. yet want exceptions for personalised numbers..

It seems straight forwards, you have a list of numbers and/or names.. you tick off.. pure head counting is dangerous we all realise that. 1-100 maybe marginally simpler but as long as its a list in numerical order it is simple enough..

By the way, personally, I think that we should be going down the route of using SI or something similar, as we use at Orienteering events - like they use at the 3P and other races.

Very quick, very reliable, and easy to process the data.

But that's my opinion and we've opened that can of worms on here before. It apparently goes in the face of the freedom of fell racing. Especially when wearing your brand-new, ultra-light, super-waterproof £250 jacket and your £200 headtorch or whatever.

I don't think we want to get into that debate again! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

I do struggle to see how you can have this.. yet want exceptions for personalised numbers..

It seems straight forwards, you have a list of numbers and/or names.. you tick off.. pure head counting is dangerous we all realise that. 1-100 maybe marginally simpler but as long as its a list in numerical order it is simple enough..

---

Agree with your second sentence.

Re: your first comment, If you read what I wrote - I said that this was purely under certain circumstances/races only (such as ALS, where it is a tradition and also made easier by the fact that it is PEO), and I also said you could associate those "names" with a number that is also on the "number" - these numbers would just be contiguous from the rest of the batch, probably starting at the end of the last numbered number.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fozzy

By the way, personally, I think that we should be going down the route of using SI or something similar, as we use at Orienteering events - like they use at the 3P and other races.

Very quick, very reliable, and easy to process the data.

But that's my opinion and we've opened that can of worms on here before. It apparently goes in the face of the freedom of fell racing. Especially when wearing your brand-new, ultra-light, super-waterproof £250 jacket and your £200 headtorch or whatever.

I don't think we want to get into that debate again! :D

---

Totally agree.. this has been suggested many times.. I mentioned FRA sportident kits in each area.. especially for AL's its just such an advantage on so many levels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazTheSlug

you need a list of the numbers in the race and you need to check them off

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

It seems straight forwards, you have a list of numbers and/or names.. you tick off.. pure head counting is dangerous we all realise that. 1-100 maybe marginally simpler but as long as its a list in numerical order it is simple enough..

---

Ditto. For the finish line, the head count is a secondary check as it can go wrong for all sorts of reasons (including multiple runners arriving at the same time). What is vital is to have a list of who has a race number and to reliably account for them all at the finish line (and try to stop anyone ducking out of the funnel before being recorded).

In bad weather especially, CPs are always going to be less reliable for race numbers, but hopefully accurate for head count. They aid where to look if someone is missing. But how long do the marshals wait for someone who may have gone down to the valley (accidentally or on purpose), or who may have missed the CP, or any number of other things?

But I guess then you arrive at the committee reasoning: the head count must be known and accurate, so that the CPs are aware when their job is done, or are able to radio in that x runners are seriously overdue. Race control can then decide whether the runners are really missing, or have turned up at the next CP, or if it was CP1 maybe they turned back.. etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fozzy

I don't quite understand why you think it's such a big issue? Maybe you could explain?

---

Because this is a learning-by-rote solution that won't 'solve' the underlying problem anyway. What is needed is a deep awareness of the potential for mistakes at all stages from issuing number to checking them off at the end, and what to do if different head-counts are returned for diifferent CPs (which will happen almost every time).

If we were going to be really pedantic we should add EAN-8 style check digits to all the numbers, so numbering would go 17, 24, 31, 48, 55, 62, 79, 86, 93, 109, 116, and so on. Removing the last digit gives you the 'normal' number series, and (almost) no single-digit error or swapping gives another valid number.

And as I said initially, the bit I think is really important is to do with bad-weather cancellation/alternative courses.

issue every runner with a barcode instead of a number (like Park Run) which is scanned at every CP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

issue every runner with a barcode instead of a number (like Park Run) which is scanned at every CP.

---

Not a bad solution.

Which is effectively what SI is. Only more reliable, and proven to work in the vast majority of weathers. It costs slightly more than the barcode system, but also provides more info.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

issue every runner with a barcode instead of a number (like Park Run) which is scanned at every CP.

---

By Jove, Witton that's brilliant.

Your bar code could be issued with your FRA membership so any sanctions imposed can be followed through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stagger

By Jove, Witton that's brilliant.

Your bar code could be issued with your FRA membership so any sanctions imposed can be followed through.

---

How about an FRA microchip implanted in your body à la Jason Bourne while you're at it? :rolleyes:

You should all try helping out at Parkrun just to see how well it really works ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss July

How about an FRA microchip implanted in your body à la Jason Bourne while you're at it? :rolleyes:

---

Great answer.

Bar code tattooed on forehead.

The new proposals are problematic, as they have some very real negative consequences for the sport. I often run topless, for the simple fact that I get too hot and this puts me at risk of dehydration: can anyone give a valid reason why I 'must' wear a top, as this will decrease my personal safety? I have taken part in races where organisers have insisted on the carrying of full waterproofs on blazing summer's days, yet not provided one drop of water, or even insisted that any was carried- this is not a proper duty of care to the competitor, it's dumb adherence to rules rather than intelligent, dynamic risk assessment
Similarly, many runners have pointed out that numbers worn on shorts are actually more likely to be seen by marshals than ones covered by a top in poor weather; I now fold numbers and put them on my shorts after having lost more than one from a top, torn off by strong winds. Let's engage brain before casting these rules in stone- Pertex and water on hot days and full waterproofs when actually needed. Numbers to be clearly visible . Runners to be treated as intelligent adults...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stagger

Great answer.

Bar code tattooed on forehead.

---

Got to say Park Run has been superb... we can all learn... maybe this IS the future.. FRA barcodes.. !!

It looks to be getting very difficult to put a race on unless you have resources and manpower. First aider present, MR on standby, lots of paperwork on display, no random numbers etc, first aid post equipped to deal with hypothermia. I think i've been to a few little events which might end up ditched due to them not being able to meet the new regulations.

Are we going to see vigilantes shopping folk for not wearing a vest, or running with your number on your shorts?

I was worried about which direction we were heading in when metric came into force, now i think i know.

The 'number pinned to vest' rule might be a good opportunity for the PB van (or any other entrepreneurial kit supplier) to introduce a range of 'crop tops' for the men (as well as ladies), that the likes of peateater, luvshack, and countless others can feel comfortable wearing without risking their personal safety (dehydration etc). As well as proving a compromise by providing a top quartile garment to pin a number to, the 'new FRA approved crop top' design could be sensitive to the likes of Fozzy not getting an eyeful of male nipple. Job sorted.

I think there's an easy answer to the vest issue from one of our national heroes.
Attachment 7114
Maybe PB could have a word with the Ron Hill lot, after all Vintage is in as well!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OB1

The 'number pinned to vest' rule might be a good opportunity for the PB van (or any other entrepreneurial kit supplier) to introduce a range of 'crop tops' for the men .

---

Come on....

There's no chance a proper Lancastrian bloke would wear a crop top.... Yorkshire.. maybe.. Attachment 7115

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr brightside

It looks to be getting very difficult to put a race on unless you have resources and manpower. First aider present, MR on standby, lots of paperwork on display, no random numbers etc, first aid post equipped to deal with hypothermia. I think i've been to a few little events which might end up ditched due to them not being able to meet the new regulations.

Are we going to see vigilantes shopping folk for not wearing a vest, or running with your number on your shorts?

I was worried about which direction we were heading in when metric came into force, now i think i know.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peateater

The new proposals are problematic, as they have some very real negative consequences for the sport. I often run topless, for the simple fact that I get too hot and this puts me at risk of dehydration: can anyone give a valid reason why I 'must' wear a top, as this will decrease my personal safety? I have taken part in races where organisers have insisted on the carrying of full waterproofs on blazing summer's days, yet not provided one drop of water, or even insisted that any was carried- this is not a proper duty of care to the competitor, it's dumb adherence to rules rather than intelligent, dynamic risk assessment
Similarly, many runners have pointed out that numbers worn on shorts are actually more likely to be seen by marshals than ones covered by a top in poor weather; I now fold numbers and put them on my shorts after having lost more than one from a top, torn off by strong winds. Let's engage brain before casting these rules in stone- Pertex and water on hot days and full waterproofs when actually needed. Numbers to be clearly visible . Runners to be treated as intelligent adults...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stagger

Great answer.

Bar code tattooed on forehead.

---

Yawn. More "fell running were better back i'nt days when we could do whatever the hell we liked" answers. I think some of you would object to any 'rules' or guidance being introduced, what ever they said.

From what I can see, these are simply the current "rules" updated and clarified to provide sensible cover for ROs and runners alike. They aren't designed to impinge on anyone's personal freedom on the fells as far as I can see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OB1

The 'number pinned to vest' rule might be a good opportunity for the PB van (or any other entrepreneurial kit supplier) to introduce a range of 'crop tops' for the men (as well as ladies), that the likes of peateater, luvshack, and countless others can feel comfortable wearing without risking their personal safety (dehydration etc). As well as proving a compromise by providing a top quartile garment to pin a number to, the 'new FRA approved crop top' design could be sensitive to the likes of Fozzy not getting an eyeful of male nipple. Job sorted.

---

Ha! Yep, that'd be fine. I'll be first in line to buy one. As long as it's figure-hugging lycra of course and I can buy matching shorts or running knickers, a la female elite road/track runners :D

Or a triathlon style number belt?

We've been guilty of using left over numbers from other races and once issued the same number to 2 runners. We don't do it now for that very reason, we get free numbers in a 'sponsorship' deal, for which we are grateful for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

issue every runner with a barcode instead of a number (like Park Run) which is scanned at every CP.

---

Nice idea, but when the bar code reader stops working (as it often does at my local parkrun) it take a helluva long time to write down that 8 digit number. Not so bad at the end of a parkrun, but would be a right pain at ne of the checkpoints in an AL.

One thing to remember though, is that these changes are a DRAFT for comments. How many have actually sent their comments to the FRA instead of/as well as airing them on here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stumpy

Nice idea, but when the bar code reader stops working (as it often does at my local parkrun) it take a helluva long time to write down that 8 digit number. Not so bad at the end of a parkrun, but would be a right pain at ne of the checkpoints in an AL.

One thing to remember though, is that these changes are a DRAFT for comments. How many have actually sent their comments to the FRA instead of/as well as airing them on here?

---

Hence why SI is the more reliable option.

I will be sending my comments to email address when I get chance to write the email.

The less rules the better. If we can have a smart way to improve safety without impinging on the simplicity and comparative freedom of fell racing, then that gets my vote. Not done a park run but am familiar with the idea. Does it work? Can you scan the code with barcode reader in a mobile phone? And then send the data to race hq?? If so it would be neat way of tracking runners on a long race. Then perhaps we would allow topless runners with felt tip numbers on the back of hands for v short races. Nice and simpe!