New safety rules

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave_Mole

But I also sense an "old school" who have grown up with, and are used to, both the mountain environment as a whole, the ethos and approach to fell running specifically and who grew up with a sport which whose lack of regulation and rules was one of its attractions.

I think we all agree that fell running is a risky sport and it's a sad reflection on wider society that it's felt there's need for regulation etc, but that's the way it's gone and we'll have to get used to it. It's surprising that we've got away with it for so long, frankly.

This, coupled with the changed expectations of people new to the sport, or coming into it from other areas where there is more regulation, has huge potential to cause problems across the board from the FRA to ROs and, ultimately, to us humble runners who turn up and try to comply with the rules, but just want to get out into the hills and "enjoy" ourselves.

It seems a real shame that some real issues raised here don't really seem to be given the full consideration they perhaps deserve, largely, it seems to me, as an outsider, based on clashes in personality and issues over protocol.

---

Dave, I've selected some of the phrases from your last post to reply to. This has been debated many times over the years. I fully recognise that I am 'old school' in the current climate but of course, 25 years ago, I too was 'new school'. And, surprisingly enough, Elf and Safety was just as pervasive then. And it WAS because fell racing offered a refuge from red tape and control that I and many others found it to be our natural home. There is no reason why it can cannot continue to be so. It just needs the appropriate ethos in the senior minds of the sport. I suspect that has changed over the years rather more than anything else. And, of course, a shift from a mountaineering ethos to an athletic ethos eventually brought us into the UKA fold....which was supported by a positive vote from the FRA membership as a whole. I spoke passionately against the UKA link up at the time but put up and shut up when the vote went so much the other way. C'est la vie. But the sort of issues we see now are exactly what I feared.

I don't accept that argument about changed times and different expectations. But I do accept that most people apparently want something different out of fell racing compared to what I felt when I entered the sport. But then I race mainly in a little bubble down here in south wales when we get excited by a field of 100. 500 charging off into a bleak day in the lakes is something entirely different.

Dave, your post really does (in my view at least) provide a good summary of the balanced view at this interlude ;) in the thread's proceeedings. Your last paragraph on its own encapsulating the ambience shown on here (in my view at least). Maybe there is a different private ambience from those not participating on here? Especially maybe if they feel they have said everything they need to say via email? It is difficult to gauge. Where do we go from here though, before 01/01/2014? A group hug? A petition? A revolution? Nothing at all? What is the most appropriate way forward for the circumstance?

PS. I think in your second line where you say 'latter' you probably mean 'former' ('UKA' rather than 'fell running')? Minor point of clarification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

And it WAS because fell racing offered a refuge from red tape and control that I and many others found it to be our natural home.

---

Are you serious.. BOFRA? why did they split?? As I said many times.. Peoples federation of the North Walean Republic of C'fon.. we'll do this 1000 times.. its what they do.. look how many clubs Eryri have formed or split from.. Menai... Cybi.. WFRA also stepped away.. red tape and arguments since day dot...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OB1

Dave, your post really does (in my view at least) provide a good summary of the balanced view at this interlude ;) in the thread's proceeedings. Your last paragraph on its own encapsulating the ambience shown on here (in my view at least). Maybe there is a different private ambience from those not participating on here? Especially maybe if they feel they have said everything they need to say via email? It is difficult to gauge. Where do we go from here though, before 01/01/2014? A group hug? A petition? A revolution? Nothing at all? What is the most appropriate way forward for the circumstance?

PS. I think in your second line where you say 'latter' you probably mean 'former' ('UKA' rather than 'fell running')? Minor point of clarification.

---

What to do?

It seems to me if FRA are unwilling to engage in a dialogue or action , about the problems noted here, and since those commenting show no signs of even being civil, let alone engaging with it, then the ROs will have to act instead.

Maybe they should anyway.

Their interests whilst similar are not the same as FRA and so the advice they would get on the legal risks they face from the new rules are wholly different from FRA
Perhaps a group would like to get together to take advice on just one part of one rule to test the water, and ask what is the nature and scope of legal risk they face from stating they are running under FRA rules, and in doing so warranting their courses are free from hazard in compulsory sections.

Having got a written legal opinion , Against written terms of reference ( the only opinion you can really trust) I suspect the advice will be that they cannot reasonably make such a declaration, and therefore will be obliged to cancel.

If that is what it takes to kick FRA into reviewing the rules and getting a professional redraft , then it has done its job. If it rules "no problem" it brings the RO professional indemnity that can help if the advice proved wrong

I hope I am wrong. but from my experience as responsible person and director of a dangerous companies health and safety policy, and a decade of involvement with contractual legalese, I doubt if I am.

I am not offering any advise to anyone ,other than advising them to take advise.
It is too dangerous to leave any of this to chance.

It seems to me that even FRA and those in power are underplaying their own vulnerability with such intransigence. It seems to me If they change rules as they have, and they know what most of the courses are, and they know or reasonably should have known that the established courses are not compliant, or if they deem themselves not competent to judge whether they are compliant they failed to take advice, to ascertain whether they were compliant,then to allow the races to be listed as compliant, when not, then they may be as guilty as the organisers for allowing a non compliant race to run.

For example - they know that langdale route over the last crinkle inevitably encourages runners to "take advantage negotiating a rock climb " by taking the shortest route over bad step. They also know that people have fallen there. They know it is potentially dangerous, and the difference between scramble and rock climb is semantic not real.

So it seems to me that FRA cannot ask langdale RO to sign up for a rule That says the course must not "encourage runners to take advantage by negotiating a climb" because they know that is a dubious claim. If someone falls and dies, then those words and undertakings will be scrutinised and ALL parties involved in stating compliance or allowing compliance to be stated will be potentially held to account, including FRA officers personally. Limitation may not help them in the case of anything deemed to be criminal negligence.

The correct response it seems to me is to modify the undertakngs so all existing courses are compliant, or help organisers to change the route, if they feel those routes are non compliant. To impose the rules knowing or suspecting races do not comply, but allowing them to proceed, is a risk I would not like to take. The rule may have unintended legal consequence where saying nothing about it in the rules might have been safer for all concerned,

All I am asking is for powers that be to get professional drafting and advice on problems identified from RO perspective.I am happy to be proven wrong.

All I GET for my suggestions is thinly veiled insults and remarks on my status which is not the standard I expect of responsible people on a sensitive subject

I am not offering advice to anyone, I am not scaremongering for effect, just trying to avoid a worse catastrophe, which if it happened could destroy fell running.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave_Mole

It seems a real shame that some real issues raised here don't really seem to be given the full consideration they perhaps deserve, largely, it seems to me, as an outsider, based on clashes in personality and issues over protocol.

---

Dave, your post sums up nicely the response I've been trying to formulate in my head for the past few days!

Quote:

---

All I am asking is for powers that be to get professional drafting and advice on problems identified from RO perspective.I am happy to be proven wrong.

All I GET for my suggestions is thinly veiled insults and remarks on my status which is not the standard I expect of responsible people on a sensitive subject

---

And I sincerely hope you get what you ask for. You've expressed a genuine and worrying concern and received some frankly shocking disdain in response. I think it's now time for a sensible mature response from those in the power, and I look forward to hearing one (though I might add that I'm loosing optimism that we'll get one).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam Harrison

Dave, your post sums up nicely the response I've been trying to formulate in my head for the past few days!



And I sincerely hope you get what you ask for. You've expressed a genuine and worrying concern and received some frankly shocking disdain in response. I think it's now time for a sensible mature response from those in the power, and I look forward to hearing one (though I might add that I'm loosing optimism that we'll get one).

---

Thanks.

Thing is, if a professional drafter knew what was in their heads, they could easily turn it into legalese that say precisely what they mean. The fact that it is not clear even to fell runners who know the routes, proves the wording is too far too loose and ambiguous.

Take that langdale situation.
Are they trying to outlaw bad step? it really is not clear.
I for one do not think they should do that, but it is certainly possible to interpret the rules that way. The race is being run today - it should have been cancelled or rerouted today, if it was believed it is now too dangerous.

If for example they want to allow bad step , but exclude such as broad stand there are a variety of ways to put that in legalese - here is one way to do that - that leaves langdale RO FAR less exposed.

"organisers must not choose routes that encourage runners to take advantage by negotiating rock climbs or dangerous ground EXCEPT where such scrambling, climbs or ground forms part of a normal route undertaken by walkers or is undertaken as part of a recognised footpath"
(the two variants are probably needed , since in some places the foot paths are far from clear across a wider area of scrambling - like prison band - but for all that walkers regularly use it)

That clearly outlaws broad stand, since it is not a recognised path, or used by walkers, but causey pike which is certainly a scramble/climb is still on limits as a walkers route.

Then to mitigate the effect of that, an annexe can be used to make specific exceptions,where problems do exist on paths, using drafting for example:

" All routes contained in Annexe X from time to time amended by the committee are deemed unnacceptable route choices for any race listed under FRA rules "

"Annexe X: Organisers please note: With effect from <date> the following routes are unnacceptable route choices for a race run under FRA rules by reasons including but not limited to objective danger, conflict with other public use, problems with landowner consents, or potential erosion and no existing or new races will be permitted to use them.
The ascent or descent of Jakes Rake on Pavey Ark
The descent (not ascent) of Halls fell on blencathra
The traverse of the base or face of Esk Pike from esk hause to ore gap on the north side. ( a pet one of mine...don't think fellrunners should mess up hillsides)
The ascent of great calva from the skiddaw side. (the bob graham scar)
etc etc (just a few examples - can include what you will..)
The annexe can be reviewed annually, to fine tune the effect of rules, to avoid modifying rules so often.


A professional drafter can make the document express what you want it to say without ambiguity, or the worry of unintended legal scope. That is what professional document drafters do: the extend or reduce the scope by careful choice of words, specific exceptions and inclusions, and qualifying words and to define words such as "compulsory" where used, whose meaning is far from clear. As it is, it is hard to know what the rules mean or are intended to mean, even for someone who has been fellrunning for 20 years. If it is not clear to organisers or competitors, it has manifestly failed as a set of rules.

And that IS legally dangerous.

A lot of people have expressed that "consultation window is over" - "it should be left to the next rule update".
Which is nonsense for two reasons. (1) the ambiguity is now, and the time bomb is ticking for when bad drafting might explode in an RO face. It is not a case of changing them, it is a case of being clear on what they mean, and ensuring they say what they actually mean (2) if any races run before the end of the year, are made non compliant under these rules in effect deemed by new rules as too risky, it is incumbent on powers that be to act on that danger now, not post jan 14, because in all obligations under safety related legislation you are obliged to act on information as fast as is reasonably possible. Leaving it indefinitely leaves you exposed legally to claims of negligence.

All I can do is bat away until the message gets through (I hope)

All I am after is an acknowledgement that these concerns are being actively addressed, that advise is being sought, and I will then await the result with interest and the shiny new set of better defined rules ( not necessarily different rules)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam Harrison

Dave, your post sums up nicely the response I've been trying to formulate in my head for the past few days!



And I sincerely hope you get what you ask for. You've expressed a genuine and worrying concern and received some frankly shocking disdain in response. I think it's now time for a sensible mature response from those in the power, and I look forward to hearing one (though I might add that I'm loosing optimism that we'll get one).

---

Sam, without trying defend a named person (but we all know who I mean), you have to try to see past an acerbic style and salute a committee member who is at least engaging enough to put views up here for us all to take pot shots at. I agree, the style does not help but, if you feel that strongly about it I would suggest a letter to the committee or an attendance at the AGM because they will always listen to such formal approaches. The situation is very much damned if you do and damned if you don't. My own views are clear but, knowing they are a minority, I'm happy enough trotting them around on here without doing anything more formal...although I am considering it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

Sam, without trying defend a named person (but we all know who I mean), you have to try to see past an acerbic style and salute a committee member who is at least engaging enough to put views up here for us all to take pot shots at. I agree, the style does not help but, if you feel that strongly about it I would suggest a letter to the committee or an attendance at the AGM because they will always listen to such formal approaches. The situation is very much damned if you do and damned if you don't. My own views are clear but, knowing they are a minority, I'm happy enough trotting them around on here without doing anything more formal...although I am considering it!

---

Wheeze, spooky or what. Funnily enough I dropped my letter in the letterbox on this mornings run, probably right when you were posting. I tried to keep it civil, short, and to the point, it was certainly on a single page of A4. Right, back to work, and hoping for an early Xmas present from the committee.

Come on folks, get your letters in and get back to work or get back out running!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

Sam, without trying defend a named person (but we all know who I mean), you have to try to see past an acerbic style and salute a committee member who is at least engaging enough to put views up here for us all to take pot shots at. I agree, the style does not help but, if you feel that strongly about it I would suggest a letter to the committee or an attendance at the AGM because they will always listen to such formal approaches. The situation is very much damned if you do and damned if you don't. My own views are clear but, knowing they are a minority, I'm happy enough trotting them around on here without doing anything more formal...although I am considering it!

---

That is the problem wheeze.
I don't mind a little acerbic or sarcastic banter mixed in with cogent views or arguments, whether or not they support my own. People can call me what they want without offending me, provided it does not halt progress. But I have not seen any pertinent views expressed from that quarter on the matter in hand, to take a pot shot at or otherwise: without the insulting acerbic precursor, the rest of the recent messages are actually void of anything else!

Interaction or conversation is what produces results: with a one way letter you cannot be sure whether what they understood of what you said was what you wanted to communicate, and all ideas need refining by bouncing ideas back and forth. Impossible on a letter exchange in a period of less than months. and difficult in the narrow confines of a general meeting.

The other problem with "formal" communication is you place an obligation to act, and a paper trail, which in and of itself can leave the other party exposed, if something was expressed, not acted on and the worst comes to the worst, some smartarse claims lawyer might view that failure as negligence, and that is not what I want. I don't want anyone in fellrunning, organisers marshalls or FRA to be any more exposed than the minimum possible. Which is why I want the rules tightened up , loose wording removed, and made less ambiguous.

So "formal" is not good because formal can be remembered if ever push comes to shove.

A lot of work done by safety agencies is done off the record unrecorded on an informal basis, to avoid later legal repercussions, unless they are forced by inaction or severity to make it formal - they would rather not use a gun to the head.

It makes for kind of macabre reading but I find following Grough kind of puts into perspective how dangerous the hills can be but, at the same time, just how few of the mountain rescue callouts, disasters and fatalities are actually to do with fell races or fell runners