Fair enough. I suppose the upshot is - if you're only going to have a minor injury just take windproofs and keep on moving, but if you're going to have a big injury take proper waterproofs. Simple enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Furness
Printable View
Fair enough. I suppose the upshot is - if you're only going to have a minor injury just take windproofs and keep on moving, but if you're going to have a big injury take proper waterproofs. Simple enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Furness
But what if i turn up at the kit check with Haribo? Do i get DQ'd? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by dominion
Do Haribo do a Kendal Mintcake yan ? If not now there's a gap in the stock in Pete Blands van
Now you're being daft. I take windproof stuff in decent weather and waterproof stuff in poor weather, but I'm well aware that nothing I could fit in my bumbag would be guaranteed to save me in the event of a serious injury anyway. It would mostly buy me a small amount of time to keep me from the elements long enough to be rescued, or drag myself off the hill, nothing more than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimm Trab
I carry a small vac packed foil blanket which will wrap around should I or anyone around me be imobilised. Wind proof or waterproof stuff won't be a long term substitute for that. It''s personal preference but I do think we put far too much emphasis on "that'll do". Risk v Reward ?
It's all about risk v reward.. when I run in the highlands in winter the reward is the views.. so I carry blizzard bags, mitts, synthetic jacket, rucksack, go steady and enjoy as time is fairly irrelevant.. a race.. much less frequent.. I up the risk but get more reward.i.e. quicker time... but you balance it out.. and if shit hits the fan... then you just have to accept your calls... but the key is avoiding injury... so in conditions like this years Peris you slow down..you don't gamble with foot placings... you take less risk as the outcome of an injury is so much bleaker.. but that should be the runners call...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazy
BUT.. I understand the grumps concerns re the minority. But then again such a stance by people like GB on popular magazines like Trail Runner don't help. If we all did more articles on safety in fell running we can help educate. As many of these people come from the running back ground.. the climbers/hillwalkers who step across into fell running do so with a much greater understanding of risk assessment,
and I can supply a nice little line in them if anyone is interested ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazy
Bloody hell, you're still at it. It must be Groundhog Day!
(I'm going back to the 4x4 debate to see if they've finished yet).
Interesting case. I have a copy of the judgment at home. I have friends who are guides who asked me to look at the case for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellwalker
The nub of the case was whether the guide was negligent in failing to use static belays of 2 ice screws. He (Cuthbertson) took the view that because of possible/actual snow/rock fall on the North face of the Tour Ronde he should "hurry things along" by using 1 screw only. A belay failed, they both fell. The client died, the guide survived. Hedley, the client, was survived by his partner who was pregnant with their first child.
Expert evidence was brought before the judge. The experts were Peter Cliff, then leader of the Cairmgorm MRT for Cuthbertson and Allen Fyffe for Hedley. Cliff said 1 screw was fine in the circumstances, Fyffe said it should always be 2 screws when guiding. The court adopted the Fyffe view.
So, the guide was negligent and the guide's insurers stood behind the negligence claim.
Why the detail?
First, everyone needs to be clear that in the event of a(nother) tragedy, our views will only be partly relevant. Outsiders will look over our procedures to see if they are up to the mark or not. If a negligence claim ever comes to court, experts will be briefed for the organiser on the one hand and the claimant on the other. Anyone fancy that job?
Secondly, any case might turn on small margins. As Fellwalker notes above, he and many others thought this was a reasonable judgment call by Cuthbertson, but it wasn't. So said the court.
The helpful thing is that the insurers took the claim.
The prospect of an insurer not taking a claim is the alarming one, because that leaves the RO firmly in the personal liability cart.
This is a difficult area.Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
But consider this for a moment.
You are the organiser of a Long A category fell race in mountain terrain. You give your race, quite rightly, an ER designation. But you chose to do nothing to check on the experience of competitors.
The unthinkable happens and there is a tragedy. Surviving relatives are advised to have a go (legally) at the RO.
One of the questions the Coroner will ask (never mind the barrister for the family in civil proceedings) is, what steps did you take to to check the experience of this particular, and other, competitors? (Because that goes to your credibility as a race organiser.)
Do you want to answer "I didn't have any system at all" or do you want to be able to answer that you did have a system, and then allow your legal/advisory team to argue about its validity/worth in the particular case?
[QUOTE=IainR;443702]At the moment the organiser takes too much responsibilityQUOTE]
But it is a risky job, at least in theory.
There is a balance of risk that exists between RO and competitor. It is that balance that needs to be kept, with the responsibility for their own safety largely resting with the runner. That seems to be the view of most people here.
But in order for that to happen, the RO needs to keep him or herself on the right side of the risk line.
There are FRA Safety Requirements. I think it is pretty clear that if a RO complies with those, he or she will be staying on the right side of the risk line. (And will receive the full backing of the UKA insurers if anything does go badly wrong.)
There will be some elements that he or she might take a view on. Who knows how these decisions will affect the risk scales? We won't truly know until the Safety Requirememts are tested in some formal manner.
Clearly certain aspects will be viewed as more important than others; vetting for ER races and kit checking at M and L category races seem to me to fall into that category.
And how do the insurers react when ROs "depart" from the Safety Requirements? I have no idea, because the issue of looking at whether cover is in place or denied in difficult circumstances has never arisen.
Some will think it never will. I hope those people are right.
Perhaps the 2 could be combined. Has any RO thought of having someone in a 4x4 following the race route as a sort of sweeper carrying all the neccessary kit thus saving us having to arse about with a bum bagQuote:
Originally Posted by GeoffB
In the coroners inquiry that I was involved in, the misadventure finding was sealed by the fact that the runner was noticed to be under-prepared kit wise by a fellow competitor. This competitor offered assistance that was declined by the runner who subsequently perished in tragic circumstances. That one fact alone shifted the 'responsibility' from the RO to the individual. But had that thoughtful competitor not intervened????? I still break out in a cold sweat about it. Moral of the story....it's dangerous out there. We have a duty of care to ourselves and to our fellow compeitors that over-rules everything else. That's why carrying kit is not just for yourself. It's for others like poor old AMEX who may suffer catastrophic injury. The military call it 'buddy-buddy' care and it should be ingrained in our competitive philosophy.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS RACE IS HELD IN ACCORDANCE WIH BOTH THE RULES AND SAFETY
REQUIREMENTS OF THE FRA. I CONFIRM THAT I AM AWARE OF THE ORGANISER’S INFORMATION AND
REQUIREMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THIS RACE. I ACCEPT THE HAZARDS INVOLVED IN FELL RUNNING
AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM ENTERING AND RUNNING THIS RACE AT MY OWN RISK. OTHER THAN THE
ORGANISER’S LIABILITY FOR CAUSING DEATH OR PERSONAL INJURY BY NEGLIGENCE, I CONFIRM THAT I
UNDERSTAND THAT THE ORGANISER ACCEPTS NO LIABILITY TO ME FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE OF ANY
NATURE TO MYSELF OR MY PROPERTY ARISING OUT OF MY PARTICIPATION IN THIS RACE.
Morgan W - some really good comments.
These are on the universal entry form. I would suggest that if a race organiser has these on the form and the advertises the race accordingly as ER then the athlete is responsible in most circumstances.
He knows that experience is required and has entered the race. If it's 20 miles with 5000ft with ER I think that is clear to all that you need to have done some AM, AL or BL races.
It should not fall on the RO to check the experience as they have made it clear that experience is required.
With races that ask for "standards" such as the Three Peaks, you could argue they are making a rod for their own back, but if they risk assess that a runner should have (for example) 2 x AM or AL races behind them and the athletes put such details forward at entry, they are covered in my mind.
I would argue that an organisers negligence would be at an identified hazard, where the assessed course of action to mitigate that hazard had not been enacted eg. a road crossing - assessment to be manned by 2 marshalls - someone gets hit and 2 marshalls are not covering that point.
It's complicated - and I think some ROs take a few chances - not fell related, but I was at the Northern Road Relays recently and after the first races (U13s) had gone there was an appeal went out over the tannoy for volunteer marshalls as they were short.
They could well have been in trouble had an accident happened in the U13 Boys or U13 Girls race for proceeding without the appropriate number of marshalls in place.
Very amusing. The Army does just that in basic training and formal testing scenarios, the ambulance (or jack wagon) follows at the rear. That's because there is a duty of care to inexperienced trainees. However, when they are trained grown-ups greater responsibility is given to the individuals and organisers on the ground, with medical back-up on call or at selected points along the route.Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Head
I prefer to do my fell-running on a grown-up basis.
The role of the Coroner, unless I am mistaken, is to investigate the cause of death - not to portion blame. As detailed below by Kent County Council's statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorganW
"The coroner has a duty to investigate the circumstances of sudden, unnatural or uncertified deaths that are reported to him.
They have to find out the medical cause of the death, if it is not known, and to enquire about the cause of it - if it was due to violence or was otherwise unnatural.
In addition the coroner is responsible for determining issues of treasure trove."
This has also been highlighted in the many coroners verdicts and statements into the cause of death of British servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan - They are not supposed to specify that 'insufficient equipment lead to an individuals death only that he was unlawfully killed by unknown Afghan insurgents and died from extensive blood loss - or something similar. Who is to blame is the responsibility of an inquiry / investigation.
To that end a simple question and provide an example as to 'what ALs have you completed in the last 24 months? would suffice - similar to that used on the Welsh 1000 application form.
'...OTHER THAN THE
ORGANISER’S LIABILITY FOR CAUSING DEATH OR PERSONAL INJURY BY NEGLIGENCE, ....'
That's the bit a good lawyer could drive a truck through. How do you define negligence in any given circumstance?
Have you done a Risk Assessment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
What hazards did you identify?
What action was taken to mitigate those hazards?
Was that action reasonable?
If a RO of a 20m/5000ft race Risk Assesses that Experience is Required. They then inform the entrants that Exeprience is required then that demonstrates in my opinion that they have taken reasonable action.
The only reason those words are in the standard entry form is to try and ensure that the disclaimer wording which precedes them will hold water for the protection of the RO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
It is not possible under English law to exclude your liability for causing death or personal injury by negligence.
If a limitation or disclaimer does that, it won't work for the benefit of the person who seeks to rely on it.
The safest way to ensure that the disclaimer language doesn't fall foul of this rule is to expressly say that those liabilities are not excluded.
Causing someone's death or injury by negligence will almost always attract liability; the question of the negligence, if there is an argument, will be determined by the court as in Hedley and Cuthbertson mentioned earlier. Much will revolve around the scope of the ROs duty of care as seen by the court, and the view it forms as to whether this has been broken. That is where evidence and experts come in.
I say "almost" because there are 2 very helpful legal concepts which might help a RO when otherwise he or she might have crossed the line. Contributory negligence (failing to carry the mandatory equipment maybe) and (I won't use the Latin) putting yourself in harm's way. The difference I recall is that in the first, the RO is liable but the liability is then reduced, and this might be by 100%. In the second, liability is never established.
Even if negligent, the insurer should pick up any liability (as with Cuthbertson).
Provided of course that the RO hasn't adversely tipped the scales of risk against themselves by doing something that prompts the insurer to abandon him or her.
Complicated!
"The role of the Coroner, unless I am mistaken, is to investigate the cause of death - not to portion blame. As detailed below by Kent County Council's statement.
"The coroner has a duty to investigate the circumstances of sudden, unnatural or uncertified deaths that are reported to him.
They have to find out the medical cause of the death, if it is not known, and to enquire about the cause of it - if it was due to violence or was otherwise unnatural.
In addition the coroner is responsible for determining issues of treasure trove."
In practice, once the cause of death has been thoroughly investigated, it may be obvious to all that there is someone to blame.
I thought the FRA was in the process of changing it's legal status so that no RO could be - errrh - shafted.
Of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by sore legs
But the coroner will make all sorts of investigations to try and help them distinguish between say, an open verdict and death by misadventure.
In getting to the real cause, all sorts of supporting issues other than just medical ones will be relevant.
And as you have noted, they like to dig around the subject.
Very powerful people, few limits on their authority, and (I think, but could be wrong) no way of appealing their verdict.
I've been to lots of inquests through work (I'm a reporter) at the start of each one the coroner will tell the court the purpose of an inquest is to establish who it was who has died and how they came about their death - they always stress the purpose of the inquest is NOT to find blame.
However, I've been to a couple of inquests, one where a soldier was killed in a friendly fire incident in Afghanistan and one where a chap was crushed under the wheels of a coach during a brass band competition, where the coroner told the court he would write to the parties involved with recommendations based on his findings.
It could be the case that a fell runner dies and following the inquest the coroner writes to the FRA recommending that the rules be changed in some way.
You're right you can't appeal an inquest verdict but you can request a judicial review: http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrig...-decision.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by MorganW
Surely the important point is, that by following the requirements of the race organiser (assuming these are reasonably unambiguous) you protect yourself, the RO and the sport.
Any other course of action is, at the very least, a little selfish and possibly very dangerous.
And for me thats the reason I have commented on this thread so often - the requests are sometimes ambiguous, so lets make them clear and lets all follow them as a minimum. I dont want to highlight particular races or ROs but to generalise I dont think it would go down well in any enquiry if a RO had to say that he assumed runners would use common sense and carry full waterproofs even though he had displayed the xx years old notice at the start asking for windproofs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brotherton Lad
I agree totally about coroners, I always understood that their role did not extend beyond identification of the deceased, where they died and the medical cause of death - but they frequently go way beyond that.
Its also really good to see recognition of the fact that our 'safety' kit, be it windproof or waterprooof or whatever isn't actually all that good and certainly isn't a magic solution to an incident. I think other things like fitness, navigation skills, sensible and timely decision making etc etc are even more vital.
Also - ROs, where conditions are reasonable and you actually specify wind or waterproof - thank you, I think most of us appreciate being able to make our own decisions on that when you are happy either way. I would be sorry if all this encouraged a total waterproofs requirement. (I nearly said a blanket waterproofs requirement but managed to avoid setting another hare off....)
Bloody eck you lot. At this rate the race organisers will be fleeing in droves.Keep it simple guys.Im sure the likes of selwyn, scoffer , alan greenwood, mr woodhead, roger bell and all the others that do great jobs will just keep it as it is. It works ok for me.
Come on Daz it is a boring forum in the end. What can we talk about; "Which waterproof?" "why do shoes cost so much?" "what is the definition of waterproof?"
Inevitable really; it is a profoundly simple activity which only the participants can understand and can not articulate.
Mind you it was a bit slippy on High Rig earlier this eve and the 101s were showing their limitations. Oh, and as this thread was in my mind and it was raining I even put me bleedin waterproofs int bumbag! (still not worn the buggers mind)
Fear not Daz; Selwyn and Scoffer have never ventured anywhere near the Forum and so will continue to organise their classic lakeland races unburdened by the infinite wisdom displayed here by the armchair race organisers!Quote:
Originally Posted by daz h
Did you beat me on Sunday?Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
Oi you - who's armchair?Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
;)
Not physically, obviously.Quote:
Originally Posted by millipede
Yeah! watch it Breezy or I'll put the fearsome Steam Bunny Stomp back on JUST for you! Oh, how we'd laugh at the torture!!!:wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
Or the wisdom of people who are outdoor professionals... your call...Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
And don't hide behind that 'I've been organising races since 1993 what do I know"..Would you go to a witch Dr who has been practising for 30 years or a qualified MD...
The forum is for debate... don't be so precious... if you can't handle debate don't read the bloody thing!
Thank god for that GrahamQuote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
nice one
Then they ask how did you vet them? What qualifications have you got to vet them..Quote:
Originally Posted by MorganW
In Fell running box ticking is all too common. Look at the leadership in fell running? How can that compare to a 10 day ML to take people out on fell walks in the same terrain? Have a fatality and they'll bring in the experts and rip it to shreds.. either do things properly by the book or not at all. I do worry we see too much of the inbetween, good intentions but could end up making the situation worse and providing false sense of security.
As I said earlier, statements of competence and risk are commonly used by the BMC (Can you do X type questions) - they do not vet experience to allow an adult to use a climbing wall.. if a participant makes a mistake and gets injured and there was no fault of the wall or staff then there is no comeback. The BMC is a professional organisation which has been dealing with a high risk sport with great realism for many years. Maybe the FRA should look to them for guidance. At the moment the FRA seem to look to UKA rather than the BMC/MLTA's for guidance, for me there are times when the BMC/MLTA's would be more appropriate partners to work with. - leadership in the mountains for one...
From someone with over 10,000 posts.. :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by daz h
Maybe someone with all your qualifications and experience should put themselves forward to serve on the FRA committee!Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
Then you can help make all the right decisions.
I was waiting for that nugget... surprised it took so long for someone to grasp...Quote:
Originally Posted by Stagger
However I think debating on the forum is perfectly valid.. certainly talking about subjects like this is more useful than todays shite or someother inane topic.....
Seriously one day I should but at the moment I'm working away all the time, 10 of the last 15 weeks in the US, trying to keep training and running the guiding business.. so for now I'll focus on those 3...
I just think my comments re the BMC are valid..and shouldn't be ignored or mocked just because I'm not a committee member... whose post was more useful.. your jibe or my suggestion that statements of competence are used by one of the biggest and most professionally run outdoor bodies in Britain...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MorganW
If you take Borrowdale, I think, I could enter having completed Kinder Trog and Windgather. Both done on fine clear days and involving zero navigation. Neither give a good representation of being competant to do Borrowdale with clag down and getting cold and lost!