dibber or die !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L.F.F.

Blimey:) Are you on commission?

As I said, I'm not an RO, but I imagine it's a lot easier to run a race with a couple of friends on mountain tops than to arrange a dibber system with all that entails. Is that ok? I thought that was a pretty simple statement.

I also said I have no complaints if a RO decides to use the dibber system. No complaints at all.

The unfortunate thing, in my opinion, would be if this system was imposed, a result of regulations. One of the best things about fell running, for me, and I imagine a good few who actually do it, is the simplicity of it.

Some people seem to be inviting regulation.

---

Who suggested imposing it? I suggested the FRA purchase dibber sets to give to RO's.. on a recent thread..

You also mentioned it as an 'aid to safety'.

If you want spilts, accurate timing, absolute garentees that each runner has visited each control (you asked me what the difference beween a dibber and a marshal are, well, lots of races I've done Marshals haven't checked race numbers at each check pont so there's a huge element of trust) then fine and I'm fully supportive... but as an additional safety measure which you posted and L.F.F and I are questioning then no I don't want it.

And wtf does 'do you read the Daily Mail' have to do with anything.

Just fear.. creating fear..

Of course its also a safety aid.. that's why you also have marshalls.. but in rain paper gets wet, obliterates, who passed? who is still out? Dibbers help.. but they don't provide anything we don't already have, they just do it more reliably and easier, so when marshalls fail, dibbers don't. So for me they provide an extra level of security, than simple marshalls do.

have you read guides for race organisers:

"13 RACE MONITORING AND RESCUE PROCEDURE
Progress of the race must be monitored in such a way that the organiser is always in a
position to make a reasoned judgement as to the need to abandon the race or call out
the rescue services. This means that each individual runner must be checked around
the course in such a manner that if he becomes overdue at a control point the fact is
known to race control. Since accurate timing of a call-out is often vital (literally
sometimes a matter of life and death) it is often quite inadequate to wait until the
completion of long races before an alert is raised.
The monitoring system used is the responsibility of the race organiser but advice can
be obtained from the FRA Secretary. "

What you are against, already happens..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

Just fear.. creating fear..

Of course its also a safety aid.. that's why you also have marshalls.. but in rain paper gets wet, obliterates, who passed? who is still out? Dibbers help.. but they don't provide anything we don't already have, they just do it more reliably and easier, so when marshalls fail, dibbers don't. So for me they provide an extra level of security, than simple marshalls do.

have you read guides for race organisers:

"13 RACE MONITORING AND RESCUE PROCEDURE
Progress of the race must be monitored in such a way that the organiser is always in a
position to make a reasoned judgement as to the need to abandon the race or call out
the rescue services. This means that each individual runner must be checked around
the course in such a manner that if he becomes overdue at a control point the fact is
known to race control. Since accurate timing of a call-out is often vital (literally
sometimes a matter of life and death) it is often quite inadequate to wait until the
completion of long races before an alert is raised.
The monitoring system used is the responsibility of the race organiser but advice can
be obtained from the FRA Secretary. "

What you are against, already happens..

---

That goes back to what I said before, though: it's a question of how the monitoring is done. The simpler the better I'd imagine most ROs would say?

and surely there is nothing simpler than inserting a dibber. than marshalls scribbling down numbers in the pouring rain..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

and surely there is nothing simpler than inserting a dibber. than marshalls scribbling down numbers in the pouring rain..

---

I see what you're saying, but that's not the whole picture really, is it? In terms of the infrastructure, costs, complications where dibbers are lost etc.

That's all pretty simple. Losing a dibber is a pain.. but we spend £70-90 every few months on trainers.. in the grand scheme ist cheap..

That's all pretty simple? We've got a different view on what constitutes simple.

In bad weather conditions, I rather have a dibber on a summit than expose a volunteer marshall to getting hypothermic!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L.F.F.

I'm not an RO, but I'd imagine if I was organising a race, setting up a dibber system would feel very different to using marshalls.

You also said 'some level of checking is necessary'. No one's disputed that. It's how the checking's done.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard123

You also mentioned it as an 'aid to safety'.

If you want spilts, accurate timing, absolute garentees that each runner has visited each control (you asked me what the difference beween a dibber and a marshal are, well, lots of races I've done Marshals haven't checked race numbers at each check pont so there's a huge element of trust) then fine and I'm fully supportive... but as an additional safety measure which you posted and L.F.F and I are questioning then no I don't want it.

---

Why is negative to use a system that improves safety in a race? I fail to see your argument against it!

And nobody has mentioned regulations. I believe that IainR and I (and others) said that we believe using SI (or other commercially available viable alternative if you prefer) would aid some (if not most) med/long races and help the RO, and as an added benefit would allow monitoring of where runners were, which would be of a benefit should unfortunate incidents occur on a race, such as someone getting lost...