Ok, so when there is a 50mph speed limit on a road, I drive at 50mph and fail to take a corner, who's fault is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrump
Printable View
Ok, so when there is a 50mph speed limit on a road, I drive at 50mph and fail to take a corner, who's fault is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrump
Not against them as such, just against the fact that there seems to be a need for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
Exactly.. and whats a forum for if its not to debate things... throw out new ideas.. 'shut up or get out' seems the view.. 'its my ball'....Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfella
Dumb answer fozzy.Quote:
Originally Posted by fozzy
People are entitled to an opinion in free speech and in an organisation if enough are un-happy a democratic vote would be in order.
Mr Robinson who has been requested to give evidence at the Mr Belfield inquest regularly races with no vest but is a ambassador to our sport, with his tireless work in organising and behind the scenes work.
If it goes too rule based I see the Bigfella solution of breakaway groups starting and the end of the old FRA.
If you don't like the rules you could always just not register the race?
Or you could register it with ARC which continues to use a 4 year old 'cut and paste' of FRA rules without the new stuff? http://www.runningclubs.org.uk/ (Click on rules)
And they don't use this metric malarkey!
But the committee do see the need for them, even if you do not. The forthcoming inquest maybe one such reason? I don't know. I am not full position of the facts of why these changes are needed. I suspect neither are you.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfella
A sensible question might be to ask (politely) the people who've drawn up the rules for the reasoning behind the clarifications. This could lead to a sensible debate. Which would be perfectly reasonable.
Sorry, but I get very frustrated by the attitude on this forum sometimes - I can be easily irritable, I know this - it is symptom of the fact that I have depression. But it doesn't make my last post any less valid.Quote:
Originally Posted by So Wood
I am all for free speech and for good, vigorous debate. This is healthy and good. I enjoy good, logical debates.
But, sometimes it comes across on here as though people are just whinging for the sake of whinging. This does annoy me.
Please feel to debate, but if you do so, make sensible points clearly identifying your evidence and line of reasoning. Take emotion out of it. Take "back in the day we all ran on the fells in our pants and nowt else and nobody died" out of it and think about each point in isolation, then pull it all together and think about the big picture.
BTW, I give this advice for all debates. Logic is wonderful when used properly and without being unencumbered by emotion.
I suspect this would open the RO up to all sorts of legal difficulty, and perhaps the runners as well. Maybe. Again I am not sure. I am sure the FRA committee would be willing to point out why this would be foolish and could lead to problems for all fell races?Quote:
Originally Posted by dominion
BTW, the whole thing about using metric measurements was the finest spell of whinging about nothing that has ever been displayed on this forum.
It was sheer stupidity about the change of two numbers from one scale to another.
Quite right, I'm not in full possesion of the facts but I just hate this increasingly litigious (spelling?) society.Quote:
Originally Posted by fozzy
As do I. I can only think it's a bad thing, that in all things (in general) we seem to be following the US model/example.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfella
I blame it on the fact that we keep voting (socially conservative) Libertarians (at least financially) in the form of the Tories into government.
But I digress, unfortunately we do live in an increasing legalistic society which wants to assign blame to everything, and we have to live within that framework for the time being.
Borrowdale - 1st male Ricky Lightfoot, number on shorts!! 1st lady Nicky Spinks number folded!! DQ'ed next yr what nonsense..
Good point Woodzy.......watch what Jebby does though when he gets to the number takers and what he does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodzy
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ALDblJxHnWk&feature=plcp
Sorry, cannot agree with you there. I absolutely hate the metric. I have no idea of comparative value. Why should I be disconnected from something I can understand?? Why not have both......PLEASE!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by fozzy
Quote:
Originally Posted by DazTheSlug
If you watch Ricky's shadow, he also stops, presumably to ensure his race number is recorded accurately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lefty
It would seem those who understand the importance of this cooperate with marshals. Those who don't (want to) understand need rules and sanctions.
So the FRA/Grump/Graham are now saying its OK to have your number anywhere as long as we ensure the markers/marshalls see it.. common sense approach..
Just The Grump; you're making assumptions again Iain.Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
You should get a little piece of paper in your wallet Wheeze. With a list of kms and their equivalent miles distances. Then on the back of the piece of paper, metres and feet. In fact I'll make one and sell it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
I can completely sympathise. We've only been metric since 1971, so I can see this must be tricky for some of us ;)
But teasing aside, I really would benefit from that piece of paper.
Metric for money but not distance. I fell race for fun not to come face to face with irritating compliance with something imposed. I,ll eat my Walshes if the idea to co metric AND ONLY SHOW metric originated from within FRA.
Metrication.....here was an example whereby the majority of the membership and race organisers were against it but the Fra went ahead with it anyway !
If thats true Lefty and i don't doubt you why did it happen?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lefty
I see in the race calendar that both are still used which i am ok with but will this still be the case in a few years time?
Both are quoted on the website Amex although not in the handbook which is where I suspect most people look.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amex
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
Once again Wheeze is the voice of reason.
[QUOTE=fozzy;552743
I blame it on the fact that we keep voting (socially conservative) Libertarians (at least financially) in the form of the Tories into government.
[/QUOTE]
When did that last happen then?
Aren't they all the same :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
Which is also what I did and many others as it was windy as you will well know and you come onto bessy at a bad angle. I agree with the majority of the new rules but numbers on shorts and vestless is just petty. joss, billy & many other top runners did and still do run vestless. also when the weathers bad number on the shorts makes perfect sense to me although im not allowed to use my common sense where health & safety is concerned im I !Quote:
Originally Posted by Lefty
Speaking from my own experience of taking numbers at checkpoints, which I've done a fair bit of since injury meant I'm not racing, then a few numbers on shorts are usually ok to cope with - but if everybody did it, it would be a nightmare! And there can't really be rules that say "the leaders can do with their numbers what they want, as long as they make sure they don't arrive in a big group; stragglers should be fine too..."!Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodzy
If you've got a few hundred runners coming towards you, and need to be able to get all numbers right, even when they come at you thick and fast, then numbers on the chest are by far the easiest to read from a distance.
Britta
Not everyone does do it. as ive said myself I only do it when its hot and I run vestless usually with my no un folded on the front centre of my shorts, or when the weathers bad and im in a jacket or likely to be in it, in this case this must be safer for everyone? scoffer regularly runs vestless "RO" guess he doesn't see it as a problem? also rucksac straps help to hide numbers. I noticed on the pics of borrowdale 3-4 runners near the back end of the field with no number visible this is unacceptable.
I've gradually stopped using the calendar, the figures are meaningless to me. Thank goodness the website still has both on the listings, i don't know who is doing the legwork for it all, i suspect maybe Brett, but thankyou whoever you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
Probably UKA, prompted by some sort of EU directive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
Cheers for the link there Dom.Quote:
Originally Posted by dominion
http://www.metric-conversions.org/le...s-to-miles.htm
Although it's a bit tricky to think about, and you do need to go "so how many miles is that", it's not really all that hard.
When i'm reading the calendar i won't be able to access that site becuase the calendar is not a tablet or a laptop.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
Two more people who've actually marshalled in races on the Turner Landscape thread explaining why the rules about having numbers pinned, unfolded to chests/fronts of vests is much easier to read than folded numbers on shorts.
I see I've opened the can of worms on metric again. It's boring. We are a metric country. Time to stop using archaic measurements. Worst thing we ever did was leave road signs in miles. If they'd been in km, then no-one would use imperial measurements any more at all.
If you want to know why metric is important, then have a look at an OS map or Harvey's Map or any other form of map. Km grid squares with contours in metres. Unless you have a map from before the early 1970s, which might be imperial. In which case, it'll be so out of date it's useless anyway. Time to enter the 20th (never mind 21st) century.
And if you absolutely have to know in imperial units, and you can't do 1km is approximately 2/3 of a mile, then I worry for the future...
Whats the speed limit?
We aren't in a metic country.. we have a unique version of both.. Europe is metric.. Yanks Imperial.. we understand both systems.. well my generation does..
Very very strange decision by the FRA on that but you get the feeling GB does such things just to rile people.. as in reality it doesn't change anything.. its like a new boss changing structures just so they have their handprint on it.... ego driven changes.. does it really make it any worse to have 10km/6.21 miles..
And no.. 1 k is 0.621 of a mile.. not .667 makes a fair difference..
And yes I've marshalled.. yes numbers are often hidden.. normally by a jacket.. better if its on shorts many times TBH.
First Class reply Iain. Fully agree.:thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
Sod kilometres for a game of soldiers. And numbers folded pinned to shorts is absolutely the best if you can't have dibbers. I don't think I've ever pinned a number to my running top and I'm damned if I'm starting now :)
Just wondered if anyone ever goes out with a PLB (Personal Locator Beacon)?
I've had some involvement with them in a marine environment and only found out recently that the UK changed the law last year so that they could be used for land based activities.
They're not cheap, but at about the same price as a Suunto watch, could be a life-saver.
Nope but I wear a suunto. I'm at BNG SE 19000 45500 right now :)
It will always be miles for me ,not bloody kilometres
32.2km/h in residential areas with traffic calmingQuote:
Originally Posted by IainR
48.3km/h in a built-up urban area
64.4km/h or 80.5 km/h in non-urban areas with speed limits or faster urban roads and trunk roads
96.6km/h on single carriageway roads subject to national speed limit regulations
112.7km/h on dual carriageways and motorways subject to national speed limit regulations.
If we went properly metric, these would obviously become 30, 50, 65, 80, 100 and 110km/h. Although I think there may be room for a 130km/h limit on motorways, like in France. I'd have to see whether the reduction in fuel economy would cost more than the boost at being able to travel faster.
Last time I checked, we were part of Europe. If we stopped pussy-footing around and joined the EU properly with the Euro, rather than being pig-headed ignoramuses who fear all outside influences and immigrants, then we might feel like part of Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
Nope, which is why the whinging was just that. Changing how we write the distances doesn't change the races.Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
Fair point, but given that a lot of fell races are inaccurately measured (because it's not always straightforward), then does it matter that much for a rough guess. If you want to be more accurate, use the km measurements, as they are on the maps anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
Yes, so competitors should have to clearly display their numbers, which is what the new rules are designed to do. I can quite clearly see why reading a number on a leg can be difficult given that when you're running the leg is in constant motion. If the number is on the front of the torso, under a jacket, at least all the runner has to do is lift up their jacket to display the number. It won't be moving as much as a small, folded number on a leg....Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
Then you'll be DQ'd from races. Simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stolly
But I do think dibbers are a sensible way forward for a lot of races.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stolly