Quote:
Originally Posted by sol
No.
Again,
No.
It does not say that in the new SR and you will discover that many of the "facts" quoted on here are fiction.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by sol
No.
Again,
No.
It does not say that in the new SR and you will discover that many of the "facts" quoted on here are fiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mondo Cane
vellus non est necesse
Only for some winter races if the organiser specifically asks for this, which they are at liberty to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by sol
Eventually all races will be organised by limited companies....look at road racing.Quote:
Originally Posted by luxinterior
I have emailed a few - and post it here, in the hope it gets a hearing tonight
BACKGROUND
I have looked through the rules, and suggestions and I come to a sorry conclusion. And an important suggestion
Despite all the MUSTS and mandates, the accusations of poor practise and failures of duty, which all help with finger pointing,. The sorry conclusion after all that, I see nothing there that would have or could have improved the chances of Brian or before her Judith.
Now we know in reality, Brian could never have been found in time ( I have a suggestion at the bottom that could have helped him as well) . But even if time had actually mattered, we have to dismiss the notion ( the old rule 13 as amended) that it is really possible to commence a search before the end of any race, or that communications or marshalling are ever perfect enough to have searched before race end. That proves little more than the danger of allowing overzealous rules quoted back by a coroner. In my view we have not heeded the message of excess rules..
It comes down to one simple issue, and it is NOT the obvious one. For sure it centres on making sure that all who start, finish in as far as is practicable:
There was indeed a screw up, but I do not want to get into the specifics of that because in my view that was not the REAL PROBLEM!
THE REAL PROBLEM is that people however reliable always have, and always will screw up on occasion. They will subtract wrongly. Mishear. Forget. Daydream.
They can screw up badly at the very worst time. It would be a shame if they were jailed for it as below.
So the rules have to allow to help protect RO and runners.
The trick is not to point the blame and say who did not do a MUST or shout the rules any louder , but to DESIGN THE SYSTEM SO THAT TWO ERRORS HAVE TO OCCUR, AND TWO PEOPLE HAVE TO MAKE A MISTAKE for a catastrophic outcome.
(That by the way is basic safety design in dangerous engineering.)
I have heard a suggestion in several places that a single person should be informed or in control of factors related to counting, as if that would have helped.
Whilst that is good for pointing blame it is not much use for anything else. That person can screw up. And all real people do. You must design a system to allow for a mistake by one person and still be safe.
*********************************
SO MY SUGGESTION - THE RULES SHOULD REQUIRE
(a) Two or more separate independent systems record how many start (the sum of identities and a separate count)
(b) Two or more separate independent systems record how many finish and retirees(the sum of identities and a separate count)
and finally the new RULE..
TWO NOMINATED PEOPLE BEFORE THE RACE HAVE TO CHECK THAT (a) and (b) actually match, before declaring the "race complete"
It does not matter who they are, so long as they are nominated, they both check and they both agree.
The drafting of that is easy to do. It is the principle that mattews.
Then the system is still tolerant to one person screwing up.
Surely that is so simple we can get it in the rules tonight?
***********************************
A STARK REMINDER – WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU DON’T.
Here is what happens if you do not in an interesting example of a recent negligence claim.
http://www.railpro.co.uk/magazine/?idArticles=1608
A poignant indication that one screw up, in a life of good service can make a jail sentence.
Presided over by lawyers and judges who make mistakes too, but they never do anything quite so responsible that a single mistake can kill - yet it will not stop the court from giving a hapless guy 5 years - expecting him be infallible which they cannot do themselves.
Note the essence of what the author said is the sad way the legal profession thinks – avoiding blame - so that an organisation should make sure it can prove training so the person not the organisation gets hung out to dry for it.
The real safety message is something else completely.
The train company in my view should have been asked why they are so reckless as to allow a system where one oversight can kill, when it is clearly practicable to have for example infra red beams the length of a carriage that stop the carriage from moving away if anyone is breaking the beams.
Routine in engineering design. I designed systems that could have taken out a town, for that reason they were designed with several tiers of safety, so no one screw up should be fatal. So why did they not do it?
So the real moral of that story is people are fallible, so with the law as amoral as it is, we have to design it so a single person cannot cause a catastrophe.
I hope his lawyers appeal, and win a massive claim against mersey ail for there failure of doing what was clearly practicable, causing their driver unnecessary suffering. I doubt they can with the law as screwed up as it is. No doubt they told the world how they “supported” the driver with legal advice but hey failed to do what really mattered.
ONE FINAL ISSUE THAT COULD HAVE HELPED BRIAN AND JUDITH
Thinking laterally common factors between recent deaths
The common factors between Judith and Brian, were:
- Both were at the far point of a course, where race HQ was a very long way away.
- Both either were hypothermic or were worried about onset of hypothermia at the time of deciding to go off route.
- Both had apparently decided to seek a place of greater safety by going off route – so had abandoned the prospect of finishing normally.
- Both came to grief in seeking it where proactive searching would not have helped in either in time, considering the area that would have needed searching off route.
1/ If there had been a “designated place of safety” at the extremes of long courses if a long way from road. So more than a small summit tent for a marshall, the rules demanded at a course extreme where far away from safety, minimum of bigger tent, sleeping bag, thermal gear, heating, hot drinks at a “pinch point” in the course so hard to avoid (eg col between ill bell and high street), col between sail and eel crags, or causey and sail, black sail on wasdale for example
2/ The rules demand that all runners should be advised of that location, and on signs of hypothermia should consider aiming for it if close. ( you cannot put mandates, must leave to the runner) Once there, the rules demand that any such people retiring from there must not come down alone : but in minimum of pairs, perhaps a sweeper
Would one or other have gone there/ headed for there, and when the weather blew over, or after warming up, be escorted down? I think there is a far greater chance of that having a meaningful effect on survival, than discovering a counting anomaly and hoping to find them out on the fell when already incapacitated off route.
So a rule to recommend - which in reality should be in guidance notes...if our rules were constructed properly
RULE
"Should the remotest parts of a course be a long way from places where a runner could normally expect to find safety or assistance, the race organiser should consider establishing a place of safety at a location that is relatively easy to find on the course (such as a col through which most runners pass) comprising (for example) a multi person tent, sleeping bag and clothing for warmth, and emergency hot drinks. When such a place is established, runners should be advised of the location, and that they should consider retiring at that location if in the vicinity and either injured or suffering signs of hypothermia. Runners retiring because of illness or injury should be offered escort where and when practicable from the fell, either by another runner or marshall, and advised not to make that journey alone”
[Some races have the ability to do that on roads where safety is a vehicle, take hardknott pass on duddon, newlands on TWA
It is for those that have no easy option (like kentmere or buttermere) it could be set up with one big rucksack, the key is that it is promoted as a possibility for runners, and that those with hypothermia have the knowledge they can stay warm with the marshall, potentially wait for a storm to blow over, and then come down with them, to avoid coming down alone. I think that would have done more for the chances of brian/Judith , than any amount of searching the fell which in general may be too late to help if they have gone off route to get down, since tracking can rarely make searching possible before the end of a race.
I hope someone considers this tonight, particularly the rule of two.
Not in fell racing. The rules disallow it! permits can only be applied in person.Quote:
Originally Posted by XRunner
Despite FRA being ltd.
People should know that there are lots of things going ' behind the scenes ' with the Fra having received countless ideas/proposals/counter proposals etc, some of them from people posting on this forum which is good news. The response I believe to the request for amendments etc has meant that they will obviously have to take time to look at them all seriously and come up with a final draft that everyone finds suitable. I don't for one minute imagine that everyone will be totally happy with the final draft but I'm sure that the Fra and it's committee have the best interests of everyone at heart, runners and RO alike. Once the latest proposals etc have been looked at and the final draft proposed I understand that there will be meetings in different areas with Race Organisers to discuss and explain.
The fact of the review process is good, although at times it seemed like pushing water uphill to get it to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lefty
Out of curiosity what do you think of my simple amendment?
Having a second person other than RO just check of the numbers for starters/finishers from two independent systems before declaring race complete..just aimed at the idea that people can and do screw up, so the system must allow for it. In most cases very easy to do, but the longer/more complicated/more retirements/more runners, the more necessary it becomes - and it was a factor in a recent incident (although ultimately had no bearing on it - it might have done is the worry). So two people "signing off" on the race is safer.
Even if two systems are used it is too easy to get total numbers wrong - each participant must be accounted for - for example by removing numbers at the finish and matching them with names on the participant start list - if their number is not there, they have not finished, no matter what the total count(s) seem to say.
I think you're being very unreasonable there.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
Will the FRA still be in existence?Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
Testify.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Porter
What it does say in the new safety rules is that a fleece is an example of equipment that is "best practice".Quote:
Originally Posted by Mondo Cane
So although it's not a requirement to carry a fleece, that fact that it is mentioned in the safety rules means organisers are more likely to impose this requirement.
(Note that I'm not making any judgement as to the merits or otherwise of carrying a fleece in a race.)
I agree, but it isn't the direction the committee appear to be sailing in and i don't hear any shouts of, "prepare to tack!"Quote:
Originally Posted by CL
A few thoughts on AI's latest rule suggestions (post 1325, a bit lengthy for me to quote here ;-) )
I've agreed with a lot of what AI has said but I'm not sure I agree with this latest suggestion.
I think both his suggestions (two systems for recording how many start and finish and a designated place of safety) go too far down the road of requiring a RO to take responsibility for the safety of the runner.
It may be that the legal system means it's not possible for RO to absolve themselves of responsibility for runner safety entirely but I think the requirements placed on RO by the rules should be the absolute bare minimum.
One of the great contradictions of the current draft of the safety rules is that they state that runners are primarily responsible for their own safety and then go on to list a whole host of measures that someone has to take to ensure runner safety.
I agree with your sentiments.Quote:
Originally Posted by luath
For a change I was coming at it from a different angle: asking whether there was any thing that could have made a difference to the last two mortalities, or in similar circumstances if they had survived longer? And those two ideas might have helped.
I read the new rules with dismay. Whilst they allow a lot more blame and finger pointing, and they are very good @rse covering for FRA, I could not and cannot see how they improve safety, whilst giving RO many more problems. The couple of ideas above may at least have a chance with events similar to previous fatalities.
Did you read that train incident link? You can have an exemplary life, yet one five second screw up and you end in jail. We must try to help RO avoid a similar fate. The true moral of the story is become a lawyer where you have no responsibility for life, or anything else other than sending eye watering invoices out on time. Then you can spend your life condemning those who do have responsibility, armed with perfect 20/20 hindsight, just because they are fallible, an inevitable human trait. Not for me. I could not check my morals in at the door, or indulge in anything quite so heinous.
I read the train link story as he deliberately let the train go, even though a passenger that he knew to be drunk was leaning against it.
You cannot know what was in his mind. He screwed up for sure. Did his attention wander? Or get distracted? Did he make a wrong assumption? I have met very few people who would knowingly do something that they knew might kill. After 20 years unblemished in that job, you can only assume he would not either. As I said. People are fallible. Systems must be designed to allow for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by dominion
Simple fact. If a system which can kill relies totally on the attention of a human operator, sooner or later someone will die. It is only a matter of time. It is a disaster waiting for somewhere to happen, and operator and victim for it to happen to. Both are actually victims of a very bad system.
The ones who should have Been in the dock in my view are mersey rail, for failing to put in some simple engineering that could have interlocked it out, so that a human screw up could not have done that. IR beams alomg the train side. Lots of ways of doing it - like other automatic machines. They were obliged to do what is reasonably practicable, and in my view they did not. I notice the lawyer said nothing about safety, only blame, which is what lawyers like to do.
Yet the author of that article seems to think what really matters is keeping his corporate client out of the dock. It is the attitude I dislike. Our new rules seem to be more about blame, than anything to do with improving safety.
Let's just see what the FRA put out.
Once we see it, we can make a judgement.
Sweetdreams guys and gals :)
Is that in the James Brown sense?Quote:
Originally Posted by mr brightside
A well known advocate of health and safety.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Porter
Erm, let's go for it being in a Bart Simpson sense...Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Porter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=Qa25LfKW9WI
I don't object to RO giving more information than the minimum if they are doing so as an added bonus, to help people. It's when they do it through fear of being sued that I resent as it replaces incentive with fear. It's this "oooh I better tell them there's a river crossing in case someone drowns and blames it on me," hysteria that irritates me.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr brightside
As far as I'm concerned any race with the term 'Fell' in it's title is enough to imply 'hazardous.' And the more extreme the terrain and weather the greater the risks. Hence the title 'Langdale fell race,' implies all sorts of hazards without having to name every flaming one.
What a dismal business and it is a business. For the first time I'm not sure I can be arsed to renew my membership. I know this is not helpful but, as this is just a discussion forum, I don't care if it is safe or not, in fact that is a big part of what I love about it. Presumably it is possible to write something that covers the arse of the great people who volunteer to put races on for us. If not and the current calendar collapses, something else will emerge. Might even be a good thing, take a bit of pressure off the fells.
you don't care if it's safe or not!! ????Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Porter
Not particularly, I decide what I do and accept the consequences. As it happens I don't think fell running is a very hazardous thing to do. As long as ROs are covered legally I'm not that bothered, if I enter a race I will carry whatever I'm told to carry.
That is the nature of compensation culture, you just can't get away from it. Fell running is very accessible and i think quite a lot of the Tough Mudder set are finding their way accross these days, often ill-prepared and assuming there are safety nets and room for large errors.Quote:
Originally Posted by CL
when are the new rules going to be available - does anyone know???/
any news yet
They are very nearly ready. Will be posted on the main website asap (hopefully next day or so)
I am grateful to Margaret for this clarification. I would also like to emphasise that in SHR's role as independent reviewers of all the evidence, both before and during the inquest, we expressed the view (as 4 competitors/ organisers with over 100 years total experience of competing and race organisation) that the Sailbeck Race was better organised than most we had experience of. As with all races in our experience, there were human errors. NONE of these errors had any bearing on the tragic outcome. This simple point seems to have been lost during this extended debate on issues peripheral to the tragedy. We now face the risk of over-reaction with more prescriptive safety requirements which could lead to unintended consequences which could actually jeopardise safety culture in fell racing. Let us hope that the collective wisdom of the FRA Committee will save us all from such an outcome, even at such a late stage.Quote:
Originally Posted by MargC
Race Organisers have very good reason to be alarmed.
KB
A pretty good summary of all the foregoing 68 pages Keith.
KB - I think that says it all. I was asked to submit something to the inquest which wasn't eventually used (but you may have seen it). Like Wheeze I agree entirely with your comments. I'm now waiting to see what develops.Quote:
Originally Posted by wkb21
Thanks for the input Keith - I find it hard to understand why RO are not more concerned than they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by wkb21
I think part of that is that the reality of what just happened, the implications of it, the documents surrounding it, have not been given sufficient air time, and somewhat swept under the carpet.
The real issues on the significance of what happens in event of fatality,
have been somewhat shrouded behind obsessive prescriptive detail, which has no place in safety documents anyway - such as a lot of paragraphs on the pinning of numbers, which would for the most part be covered in bad weather when it really matters so what was the point in all that detail?
None of it would have actually made a difference in the recent fatalities except make it easier for someone to point the blame, and point fingers at non compliance, and possibly void the insurance in the process (the rules state that!!) which really WOULD be ALARMING for any RO. The cost of defending themselves could bankrupt them if not paid by insurance, let alone the cost of losing so it is high stakes game.
If the Rule Drafter really wanted races with "no hazards in compulsory parts of the route" and only run in weather which is not "dangerous" as was their original rule change as enacted and hotly defended by the same proposers, fell racing is seemingly not for them.
We can only wait with hope to see whether sense has prevailed...glad I did not hold my breath waiting!
Race organisers will have received the latest ( final ) draft tonight along with details of events to be held in various regions to explain/discuss the implications. No doubt everyone will need time to read and digest what has been produced and I eagerly await the usual discussion here on this forum.
I've had a quick read and the new document looks pretty good to me, as I expected. I'll have a closer look soon.
Well done to all those that worked on it, it is much appreciated, especially as I am RO for my first ever race next year.
I assume that this http://www.fellrunner.org.uk/pdf/com..._Equipment.pdf is the latest draft.
Does/will the FRA Committee look to audit RO against its new procedures? Spots checks on compliance etc like road races which are granted permits have?
For those who are not race organisers and may not see the letter sent out to RO here it is for your information
Dear Race organiser,
Welcome to all new race organisers for 2014.
I very pleased that you have responded so positively this year despite the uncertainty over the rules as the FRA committee recognises that in many ways the ROs are the FRA for, without us, there would be no races which are at the heart of, although not everything, that is fell running.
1. Registration and Handbook.
The handbook that is going to print has a record number of almost 460 races registered by the 300 of us who organise races through the FRA plus just over a hundred more registered with other bodies or not registered. It looks as though it will be another great year on the fells in 2014 and I, for one, am looking forward to returning to old favourite races and trying out some new ones.
2. 2014 FRA safety requirements for fell races and rules for competition.
I promised that I would write to you once the FRA rules and safety guidance had been agreed.
The Committee met on 7 Nov. to finalise the new document with the decision being necessarily delayed so that we could consider the Coroner’s letter following the inquest into the death of Brian Belfield at the Buttermere Sailbeck race in 2012. (The coroner’s letter is on the website.)
A big thank you to all of you who inputted into the consultation process. We have been able to take many suggestions on board.
Having adopted the revised rules for 2014 they become mandatory in relation to all races organised under the aegis of the FRA.
3. Events for race organisers.
I have previously written about the events for ROs being organised for ROs and members in:
Greater Manchester and Cheshire – 25 November
and
S Lakes and N Lancashire – 4 December
If you are a new RO and would like to attend one of these events please let me know and I will send you the invitation letter. If you have not responded to the earlier letter and now want to attend please also let me know. (I have yet to cross reference the changes across the two mailing lists!)
I am in the process of agreeing a number of other events for ROs and members.
These will be open to all ROs but I am presuming that most of you will want to attend the one most local to you.
They will be held as follows with all meetings being held at the dates shown in January; starting at 7 and being scheduled to last for two hours:
- Location to be agreed in W Yorkshire – 6th
- Location to be agreed in S Yorkshire and also covering Derbyshire – 8th
- Venue in Todmorden – 13th
- Telford Golf and Country Club, Great Hay Drive, Sutton Heights, TF7 4DT. This is the venue for the 2014 FRA Dinner and is 10 mins from J4 and J5 of the M54. - 15th
- Location to be agreed in N Lakes – 20th
- Newcastle/Morpeth Scout HQ on Waldridge Road, Chester le Street. DH2 3AA – 29th
I will be writing out again in a couple of weeks with further details but if you would like to attend I would be obliged if you could let me know which event you are likely to be attending.
Can I remind you that I am looking for examples of RO good practice documents to post on the website. 2 examples attached of a matrix, as mentioned in the new rules and also an example of a Marshal’s document are attached.
Best wishes,
I'm almost reluctant to say this but if you follow the instruction given on the home page to find the new Safety Requirements you will be disappointed (as of now). The version under FRA - Organisers is still the old version. To find the new version you must follow FRA - Committee (this version has the year 2014 on it).
I feel as though I'm carping after all that has gone before but on a matter as important as this it's of the utmost importance that there is no room for doubt as to which version is current.
I'd like to place on record my appreciation of the work done and being done by all those involved, but as always it's about continuous improvement.
In order not to make this a long post, I welcome the work that has gone in to the new Safety Requirements. There are clearly some improvements in the wording within the document.
However, there is an RO's Race Pack of paperwork that includes several other documents that we have to sign up to and I've been probably more concerned about some of the matters in the Guidelines document.
Some part of the Guidelines document echo parts of the Safety requirements, so it's impossible to review one without the other.
What isn't clear from the letter is whether the committee have anything in place to review the pack fully for 2015 and if so, how will that review be handled.