New safety rules

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

Not daft, just not ideal. At the moment an RO has to make an impossible decision in the light of the last fatality as to whether conditions are too adverse to run.

It gives a half way house before actually cancelling or amending.

Pairs can get completely lost, but that is not necessarily the only issue - it is whether one can call for assistance in the event of the other having problems either injury or hypothermia. Don't think mountain marathons have had a fatality (may be wrong) and the ability for pairs to aid each other possibly accounts.

On the fell relays I had to deal with a partner who became unable to run on a smashed up ankle, in a very out of the way and certainly invisible place. She would have struggled without me....

---

You seem to be prejudging the outcome of the coroner which isn't out yet and coming to some odd conclusions!

Also your point over the safety rules not protecting RO enough seem to overlook the issue of risk. No amount of rewriting of the rules will change the risks of fell races. Unless race routes are going to change dramatically ie not be in the hills, over rocky ground, where you can get lost then the risks don't go away. No one wants this and therefore RO have to mitigate for the risks as best they can ie ask for relevant experience ensure people carry necessary kit etc. Seems to me that this is all covered well enough by the rules and there is no need to change them further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

On the fell relays I had to deal with a partner who became unable to run on a smashed up ankle, in a very out of the way and certainly invisible place. She would have struggled without me....

---

But, the very fact that she was running with someone may have lead her to take risks (however slight) that she might not have taken running solo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

Don't seem to be able to edit my post two above about the idea of enforced running in pairs or groups in adverse weather , or forcing grouping up to proceed beyond checkpoints, if weather turns adverse
I believe may have made a material difference in all of the fatalities so far.

I wanted to add, that much of the field run in groups so it is hardly much of an imposition, and need only be imposed at race owner discretion as standard practise for Long A as a part way house between "normal running" and "bad weather route/cancel". Most of the problems have occurred when people get isolated.

It should be forced on all of those competing on that route for the first time.
So the "newcomer" factor is no longer such a problem.

---

I'd say you are in danger of going against much of your advise over recent days, which if I'm correct is not to be so prescriptive that you fence an RO in to courses of action that are not relevant to their event and location.
The running in pairs as an example. The Sedbergh Hills race relies much more on navigation skills than say Anniversary Waltz.
Yet if we say something applies to all Lakeland A Cats - well you know where I'm coming from.

I'd rather see an approach where we added more flesh to the terms that we attach to certain races eg ER, NS, LK, PM.

PM - for example tells me very little as I'm not sure I know a race that couldn't claim to be marked in at least part of the route.
For example (and at risk of being lambasted for poor terminology :) )

I'd add FM - Full Marked - Race Routes should only be described as fully marked if the next course marker is visible in clear weather from the previous marking and markings are never more than 100 metres apart.
Partially Marked - Race Routes may be described as partially marked if :-
1. A route along a clear path, track or trod is marked at each junction / route option encountered.
2. A route where there is no clear path, track or trod is Fully Marked to the standard set out previously.

If it doesn't meet either of the above, it shouldn't be advertised as marked or part marked as it could be misleading to some athletes.

LK - it's a bit of a red herring in my opinion. Even running on your own athletics track is an advantage so I'm not sure what real relevance this adds.
We never vet entry to a race (as far as I know) based on a demonstration of local knowledge and rather than attach LK to a race, I think it would be more useful to have a section on the website that explains to athletes the benefits of recceing, particularly with other people who are familiar with the area.

What reccing has done for me has refreshed my navigational skills that I gained as a teenager and my love for maps. I hadn't used those skills for 20 years until I started fell running.

NS - we insist on kit and we do kit checks. But we advise Navigational Skills, but it is advise and again I'm not sure it is policed.
If a route isn't PM or FM then it will require navigational skills. So I see the addition of NS to a race in the calendar another red herring.
I'd rather see a piece on the website where it outlines the importance of navigation skills because I don't think athletes realise. They tend to enter races where 90% of the time they follow the guy in front and all is well, that's until the weather turns, they are detached 25 metres and lose site of the athlete in front.
They then are trusting to luck as they don't have the requisite skills to deal with that.

That is probably typical of the majority of fell runners and it should be a priority to try and resolve. It's amazing the number of athletes at my club and others that say of the upcoming relays "I'm Ok, just don't put me on the Nav leg" or "why do they make me carry a map and compass - I don't know what to do with them".

I know there are navigation courses out there and I doubt they could cope with all that need them, but I would welcome an initiative where representatives from clubs, perhaps the coaches or a Fell Captains, could attend a Nav Awareness Day / Training Day.
They could then go back and set up sessions, recces for their members that encouraged them to start learning.

ER - When I started Fell Running, I started with Rivington Pike. I loved it, so I then went on to other local short races around Darwen Tower, Pendle and Fairsnape.
Then I wanted a challenge - the Three Peaks when it was the World Champs about 6 years ago. They take the ER quite seriously and ask for 2 AL,AM or BL as a way of demonstrating some competence.
So I went out and did some. Anniversary Waltz, Chipping and Sedbergh Hills all met that standard. I also reccied extensively and gained experience in the area.

Perhaps we need a little bit more vetting of the ER.
eg. Anyone entering an FRA Fell race must have completed at least 2 races at a lower category level within the last 2 years, unless that race is a FRA "Short" Race.
L & M races could then have a section on the entry form for runners to detail this.

It may be a little onerous for regular racers to fill that part in, but it would take very little time and adds weight to the advise "ER".

As an RO I'd prefer measures like this which would be sensible and quantifiable. I'd also prefer as an athlete because again it's clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

The lack of mountaineering skills has nothing to do with UKA's involvement in the sport..

Its British Athletics

---

:confused:
type in uka.org.uk and see where you get to!

Thanks to the various views.

It was just a thought - lob a stone in a pond, see what ripples come back. Not intended as mandatory on the organiser to call it, just mandatory on runners to abide if asked.

One more weapon in the armoury of options to be considered at the point an RO is questioning borderline.

One of the fatalities I gather back 1992 time, inexperience was a part of the problem, so forcing newcomers to go in pairs if not done that route may not be much of an imposition: first of the big ones I did (duddon) I stuck to someone like glue...it makes me feel old to say when.


Will leave that there.

The 1991 fatality was recorded as misadventure. I believe that the single most important finding at the inquest that persuaded the coroner to record this verdict was the evidence of a fellow competitor who just also happened to be a MR member. He had noticed that the eventual victim was about to set off into adverse conditions with no compass or map and had offered to share his to ensure safe passage. His offer was declined because the victim wanted to run faster than his steady pace. If she had accepted the offer, would she have survived? Almost certainly yes. That fact alone meant the coroner could not place the blame on the RO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

G.

Perhaps a solution for Lakeland A races is to run them in pairs EXCEPT for those who can prove they are experienced runners over that specific course and only then in better weather. If conditions are poor, then no exceptions: run in groups which must not separate..

So that no “new runners” on any A course are ever left alone, and none are left alone in wintry conditions of low visibility.....
.

---

Strongly disagree with this. The notion for me is all about personal responsibilty - being forced to run in pairs would represent, to me, another further dumbing down of our great sport and an attempt to de-risk it. If people are coming to races unprepeared, from an athletic rather than outdoor and mountaineering background as discussed the the onus should be on educating these new people not lowering the bar to the lowest common demoninator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard123

Strongly disagree with this. The notion for me is all about personal responsibilty - being forced to run in pairs would represent, to me, another further dumbing down of our great sport and an attempt to de-risk it. If people are coming to races unprepeared, from an athletic rather than outdoor and mountaineering background as discussed the the onus should be on educating these new people not lowering the bar to the lowest common demoninator.

---

It was only an idea, not even one that appeals much to me. I like clag races.

But there were two issues not one.

The question of whether to force newcomers race as a group, (which would not affect others, so the lowest common denominator would not apply) and the question as to whether to group all when conditions make hypothermia and /or going off route a lot more likely: used as alternative to cancelling or shortening the race.

Which would you rather if given a choice? Bad weather cancellation , low level route, or the normal route but done as a group?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

He had noticed that the eventual victim was about to set off into adverse conditions with no compass or map

---

Was that already in the rules back then? (One would presume so..)

Some on here seem to think route markers are a bad idea because they are not a 100% guarantee of safety. I get really confused, the only 100% guarantee of safety (which I actually did on the day in question last year rather than racing in Wales) is to stay at home and hope you don't fall off a ladder.

Does a marked route (and thank you to WP for expanding on that) guarantee 100% safety? No, of course not, and as you can see from the other UK mountain running death last year (during a race in Greece).

Would it, on balance, have helped at Buttermere last year? Quite possibly a yes.

Could marking of crucial sections be another bad-weather option for ROs? Fellrunners don't see it that way, apparently.

Even if that meant the only alternative was cancellation? We don't cancel races 'cos we're not in Wales

And I know that others believe flagged routes would encourage the wrong kind of people to race. I don't see why all races have to be alike (marked, unmarked), or why some parties take the prospect of any race being marked as such a threat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LissaJous

Was that already in the rules back then? (One would presume so..)

Some on here seem to think route markers are a bad idea because they are not a 100% guarantee of safety. I get really confused, the only 100% guarantee of safety (which I actually did on the day in question last year rather than racing in Wales) is to stay at home and hope you don't fall off a ladder.

Does a marked route (and thank you to WP for expanding on that) guarantee 100% safety? No, of course not, and as you can see from the other UK mountain running death last year (during a race in Greece).

Would it, on balance, have helped at Buttermere last year? Quite possibly a yes.

Could marking of crucial sections be another bad-weather option for ROs? Fellrunners don't see it that way, apparently.

Even if that meant the only alternative was cancellation? We don't cancel races 'cos we're not in Wales

And I know that others believe flagged routes would encourage the wrong kind of people to race. I don't see why all races have to be alike (marked, unmarked), or why some parties take the prospect of any race being marked as such a threat.

---

You are making a but of an assumption: Not convinced it would have helped at Buttermere because reading from the coroners report, it was considered a probable deliberate off route descent to get down off high ground, just done in an unfortunate place. So routefinding marked or otherwise may have played no part in it.

Not sure what you meant about the other runner...the trackers said he was hours off route at the point he fell, so routefinding may have had some hand in it.