Safety Matters

I'm not condoning the not carrying of the waterproof leggings by the way (if its compulsory, its compulsory) but the weather on Saturday was absolutely gorgeous and, while Hester was TWA-ing, I ran from Stair up Causey Pike, along the ridge to Crag Hill, a loop down and then up over Knott Rigg to Newland Hause, up the back of Robinson, along the reverse of the AW to Stair (for a mug of tea and lump of cake) before climbing Cat Bells and hanging around for Hester to finish.

All in a T shirt with just another T shirt and a drink ribena in my bum bag. Not half a bad tan at the end of the day :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CL

Yesterday a Man was DQ from the AW because he decided, based on the conditions that carrying water was of more value to him than taking a pair of bottoms. He was doing the very thing AI keeps ranting on about I.e. taking responsibility for himself. And of course AI would say he was DQ because carrying kit is a requirement of the rules and isn't there for safety. Well why make a rule to carry something just for the sake of it? Doesn't sound right and of course it isn't. Action without reason in an attempt to disguise one's motives which are at all costs to protect ROs.

---

I fail to see why anyone would need to carry water on the AW. Most people will cover the course in under 2.5 hrs and there is a good stream at the bottom of Dalehead, pretty much at the point where you might want a drink. There is no need to carry water on the Teenager either as there are good streams all along the course. On Saturday, whilst it was sunny, it wasn't actually hot on the tops, so there was very little risk of becoming seriously dehydrated. Overhydration is more of a serious health risk in distance running than dehydration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graham Breeze

I thought Keith would be along to recruit English RO to register their races with Scottish Hill Runners although as I understand things SHR races are still being run under a "cut and paste" version of the FRA "prescriptive" model?

I do wonder how, following a future death in an English fell race registered with SHR , the RO would explain to an English Coroner that he had registered his race with a Scottish organisation because he found the safety requirements demanded by the English FRA governing body (and amended in the light of his or a colleague's recommendations) too demanding? Particularly since the police would almost certainly ask the FRA/UKA to critique the race arrangements.

However I need to correct/clarify some assertions about the Belfield Inquest.

* Keith was present at the inquest as an "expert witness". He was not an "interested party" of which there were 3: Mrs Belfield, Mike Robinson and me (for the FRA).

* There were over 20 witnesses called (including Keith) and more witness statements were "read out in court into the record" eg that of the Pathologist. Keith was required to attend for around an hour or so of the 4 days, although he chose to be present for longer.

* His status was the same as that of John Temperton who represented UKA as the other "expert witness", whom he chooses to criticise.

* The assertion of a potential "near miss" or "miscarriage of justice" is his opinion. It is not mine. Access to the "full record" will not support his view.

* The assertions about the "UK Athletics witness and their lawyer" are wrong. The person briefing the UKA/FRA lawyer was me. I sat behind the lawyer in Court and I alone passed notes to him during the hearings (with the support of the FRA Chair who sat by me) and consulted with him before and after each session. The letter submitted to the Coroner on day 4 from the FRA was jointly written by me/the FRA Chair and our lawyer. Nobody else and certainly not UKA.

There are other wrong assertions in Keith's post, but my open question is: "Do people really think a representative of a Scottish fell organisation, which does not operate under English Law and which is independent of UKA, has the best interests of English fell runners and English race organisers at heart?"

---

I have to protest about this.
It is a wholesale misrepresentation.


1/ Keith Burns has not been trying to recruit anyone : that is just another of Breezes straw men arguments. Attack the person and their motives rather than the veracity of what they say. You really do need to go on a course on critical thinking Graham. It is not just your safety/legal knowledge that is inadequate: an argument is true or false, whoever argues it and whatever their motivations.

2/ Keith Burns is not like the UKA witness. Completely different in stature. He acted as spokesman for a committee CONVENED BY THE POLICE- a team of experts gathered to help police determine what if any crimes had been committed.
If anyone knows how the police think in regards to prosecution in these matters, or how close a "near miss" it was, it is Keith, from his participation with police regarding this specific incident.

3/ Unlike the UKA witness, Keith is also immersed in the sport. Heavily Involved in organisation or races, marshalling, and indeed the management of the sport. The UKA witnesses grasp of some of those matters was clearly questionable. Even the chair has said so privately. Yet why did nobody from FRA argue with him?
Whilst I have no doubt UKA witness was an expert in the matters pertaining to the far more heavily regulated and standardised track and field, he is nowhere near on a par with Keith in terms of knowledge and experience and of management of fell racing.

4/ And unlike Graham Breeze, Keith Burns - is an expert at operational safety - that has held high authority and responsibility for determining safe operating procedures of the large teams of people and systems that go to make nuclear industry safe. So too were some of the other participants in the police committee: that is safety practitioners.

5/ So Keith's voice in respect of fell race safety are clearly more expert than either Breeze or UKA. Indeed it still angers me that Breeze having taken the role of safety documentation drafter, had not only failed to do the hard study needed to become passably acquainted with safety practice. He could not even be bothered to look up the words he was using either in safety or legal consequence. Take the word Hazard for example. How much more basic does it get?

6/ I notice Graham in trying to exalt his position cannot even get those words right. He was trying to say he was a properly "interested person" not "interested party" : which we all clearly are. And considering his state of knowledge, he should not have accepted the position in my opinion. The early rule drafts say it all. God forbid he is ever asked to be an expert witness!

But to to the crux of the matter.

1/ It was a "near miss" for the sport and RO. Had BB been determined to have survived a lot longer, there would have been a massively different outcome for the RO , who would almost certainly have been subject to civil and possibly criminal actions and fell running as a sport drawn into that criticism. Only then would we have got to discover whether the insurance would hold up. We have no idea at present.As it was the RO actions or lack of them proved immaterial: BB died to soon for there to be realistic possibility of help..

2/ Had time of death been otherwise, the way that the conduct of those involved was presented by witnesses might have been very material to the outcome.

3/ Now we know that it was Breeze himself instructing the UKA insurers solicitor to give the marshalls a verbal mauling, it is an absolute disgrace. It was somebodies job to give marshalls a hard time. Certainly not FRA. Whose side are you on Graham? Hostile cross examination might have tipped the balance in a verdict, had there not been a "near miss" that let us all heave a sigh of relief.

4/ The coroner did not have his own a priori opinions. Much of what was fired back at FRA has its origin in previously flawed rules and UKA testimony - you should have contested it, not lamely agreed with it Graham, or worse embellish it with ridiculous phrases like "marshalls ensure safety" in your letter to coroner.Go on, publish your first draft of that letter to coroner before we argued for changes. Let everyone have a laugh( or cry)

Many examples of problems originating in UKA testimony. Take nonsense like "analyzing overcounts". Or that overcounts are ipso facto bad practice? How dumb is that.
Analyzing undercounts is worthwhile to tell you who may be missing and whether it was a marshalling anomally or evidence of a runner going AWOL. But overcounts - other than someone came through without numbers, (just like many of them, numbers covered by outer gear) failed to heed requests to identify - or it was hard to hear in the howling wind, as it normally is). Marshalls erred on the side of recording their passing. What are you going to analyze graham? Ask EVERYONE who was in the lakes that day to tell you where and when they were. Or just note the fact, that overcounts are an inevitable fact of marshalling mountain races in bad weather, they happen (just like undercounts) and ergo not bad practice as stated by the inexperienced UKA. More important analyzing overcounts is wasting time, at a time when time might be critical to a stricken runner gone off piste.


I do not share the view of the chair, who called the RO "a fool" in talking to both me and wynn.

He is a victim of failure of FRA instruction on how to plan a race safely - of the fact of FRA sitting on its hands for years when FRA leadership should have been doing something to cure the laxity in official instructions, that allowed such laissez faire organisation and such a thing to slip down a crack. Lax operational procedures.

So don't you dare criticize Keith Burns in this Graham - he at least spoke up for the RO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by No map, no compass

I fail to see why anyone would need to carry water on the AW. Most people will cover the course in under 2.5 hrs and there is a good stream at the bottom of Dalehead, pretty much at the point where you might want a drink. There is no need to carry water on the Teenager either as there are good streams all along the course. On Saturday, whilst it was sunny, it wasn't actually hot on the tops, so there was very little risk of becoming seriously dehydrated. Overhydration is more of a serious health risk in distance running than dehydration.

---

Each to their own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by No map, no compass

I fail to see why anyone would need to carry water on the AW. Most people will cover the course in under 2.5 hrs and there is a good stream at the bottom of Dalehead, pretty much at the point where you might want a drink. There is no need to carry water on the Teenager either as there are good streams all along the course. On Saturday, whilst it was sunny, it wasn't actually hot on the tops, so there was very little risk of becoming seriously dehydrated. Overhydration is more of a serious health risk in distance running than dehydration.

---

To be fair many runners turn up to fell races not knowing the availability of water on the route and/or not being willing to drink from streams. Harry my dog got very thirsty on our run in those self same hills on Saturday and I even changed my originally planned route to drop into a valley to get him a drink. It was very dry on the tops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stolly

To be fair many runners turn up to fell races not knowing the availability of water on the route and/or not being willing to drink from streams. Harry my dog got very thirsty on our run in those self same hills on Saturday and I even changed my originally planned route to drop into a valley to get him a drink. It was very dry on the tops.

---

Then one needs to get a larger bumbag/rucksac to accommodate ones water bottle and full waterproofs if that is ones choice. My point is that it is a very dubious argument to make that one feels it is safer to carry water than one of the RO's required kit items.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by No map, no compass

Then one needs to get a larger bumbag/rucksac to accommodate ones water bottle and full waterproofs if that is ones choice. My point is that it is a very dubious argument to make that one feels it is safer to carry water than one of the RO's required kit items.

---

You are quite correct Sir in your bum bag sizing theory.

That was my point, that I managed to comply with the RO instructions on kit and still managed fluid and gels as I determined appropriate for MY safety and well-being.

I've been around the 3 Peaks route and had plentiful supply of water. Set of one day in June about 4 years ago - not a time of year I'm normally up there and nothing until I got to the River Ribble crossing.
Went down at the side of the bridge as I had done on many occasions and the water was swarming with flies - incredible sight.
I was so glad of the ice cream van at Ribblehead and the Hill Inn for a pint of Dent :)

The most common justifications for not carrying kit are:
- Kit will slow me down.
- I never injure myself, so I never have to stop.
- Nobody's telling me what to do.

The most common responses by others to not carrying kit are:
- The competitor is gaining an unfair advantage.
- The competitor is not taking responsibility for himself.
- He should comply with the rules.

In other words, the debate always focuses on the individual.

Rarely if ever is it recognised that every competitor has a duty of care to every other entrant. Thus, you may have to stop, not for yourself, but to assist another injured competitor, and you need to be able to cover up. Similarly, the injured runner should not be reliant on passing runners donating kit, and thereby putting themselves at risk. IDP has pointed out that hypothermia can rapidly set in even in the most benign of conditions. Over the years, there have been several reported examples of this happening at an incident. The last thing MRT need is to have to treat ill prepared runners, who have stopped to help, when they need to concentrate on the injured runner.

There has been a great deal written in past months about the need for competitors to take more personal responsibility so as to avoid charges of RO negligence. In my opinion, aiming for individual responsibility alone achieves little, it is mutual responsibility between competitors that matters. That will require rules and education imho.

So perhaps the RO is the best placed person to act on behalf of competitors, and demand that everyone carries minimum kit in case of the above circumstance occurring. Leaving the decision to competitors, when there is a selfish minority, potentially fails those who do co-operate with the RO and each other. If the RO or governing body subsequently applies sanctions, then that too is acting on behalf of other competitors. I suggest that viewing rules associated with safety in this way removes the 'petty', 'arbitrary', 'inappropriate' basis for arguments regularly used to dismiss them.

At AW the disqualified competitor put other competitors at risk, by not being properly equipped to stop, cover up, and help. Similarly, but for the vigilance of the finish team, running through the finish funnel potentially adds one to the head count, thus giving the illusion that everyone had returned. Sound familiar?

His sin is to fail to demonstrate any responsibility towards his fellow competitors whatsoever.

All we and good FJ, but to get DQd and banned in similar circumstances in an FRA race it seems you have to be unattached.
Disclaimer: it might be that runners not banned for rule breaches in 2013 were also unattached but as the FRA refuses to give details, it is impossible to ascertain anything other than the 2 that did receive bans were unattached.