Pennine Bridleway Relay

Moth, Just shut the flippin' gates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moth

The landowner/farmer should take responsibility for the livestock, not the event. And why should the landowner have the right to make the use of the land conditional? It is a public right of way, bylaw.

---

See my post above

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fozzy

I think I am right in saying that rights of way only apply to individuals - not to organised events. Permission still has to be sought from the landowner for events.

If I'm wrong, doubtless someone will be along shortly to correct me.

---

Fozzy is bang on here. This was done to death in another thread a couple of months back. An individual running is a different issue to an 'event'. Whatever anyone says, shutting a gate would have stopped the ban. Keep bleating on about it all you like, the ban is in place and gates left open is the stated cause.

Anyone willing to hold their hand up and admit to leaving a gate open on the day?

I personally think that any race organiser who expects every single runner to shut gates probably hasn't had much experience of fell races. Most races I can think of (with gates) have marshals on them to ensure that they are shut and so that stock cannot pass through with the runners (which is just as important).

If there are too many gates for them all to be marshalled, maybe the event wasn't suitable for the course - because, as sure as eggs is eggs, sooner or later one of the runners would leave a gate open.

I'm not condoning it - merely being honest about what we all know goes on in races, and suggesting marshalling as the only method which is guaranteed to work.

I think a sit down talk with UU by the organisers/reps of other clubs to get the full info and which legs/gates were involved and a plan provided to stop the problem happening again would be a way forward. Sometimes there are other contributing issues that are under the surface and getting these out in the open as well can help. What about bringing in UU as sponsors and call it the UU PBR, get them some publicity and on our side?

I also think that competing clubs should help Rossendale out with marshalling a large event like this. Maybe clubs who enter 3 or more teams should provide a couple of marshalls each ?

This is a marvellous event put on by Rossendale and much loved by runners and it would be a shame to lose it without any further actions being taken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yorkshire Thug

I personally think that any race organiser who expects every single runner to shut gates probably hasn't had much experience of fell races. Most races I can think of (with gates) have marshals on them to ensure that they are shut and so that stock cannot pass through with the runners (which is just as important).

If there are too many gates for them all to be marshalled, maybe the event wasn't suitable for the course - because, as sure as eggs is eggs, sooner or later one of the runners would leave a gate open.

I'm not condoning it - merely being honest about what we all know goes on in races, and suggesting marshalling as the only method which is guaranteed to work.

---

Obviously marshalling every gate isnt feasable on this event. How about spot checks with unidentified marshalls keeping an eye on problem areas and instant disqualification for any offending teams

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Head

Obviously marshalling every gate isnt feasable on this event.

---

In which case, it was equally obvious that, sooner or later, there'd be problems with gates being left open.

Runners who are racing against other teams will not always close gates because that's not the priority in any keenly contested race. We all know this. That's why race organisers have to marshal gates.

Perhaps this relay should be conducted in the same manner as a car ralley, where the event becomes a time trial with the closing of gates and conforming to all other countryside rules is part of the competition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yorkshire Thug

In which case, it was equally obvious that, sooner or later, there'd be problems with gates being left open.

Runners who are racing against other teams will not always close gates because that's not the priority in any keenly contested race. We all know this. That's why race organisers have to marshal gates.

Perhaps this relay should be conducted in the same manner as a car ralley, where the event becomes a time trial with the closing of gates and conforming to all other countryside rules is part of the competition.

---

With so much wisdom how could this tragedy happen?

I agree with Alf that the way forward would be to sit down with UU, if possible.

Hopefully they hadn't already made their minds up before the race and weren't just looking for evidence to justfy a decision they had already made.

Presumably no livestock were lost and the chances of that happening are very low as sheep keep their distance from humans (especially running humans). It would be interesting to know whether there have been any actual (rather than theoretical) problems arising from the event and how they could be avoided if the event were allowed to continue.

I have heard UU have stopped triathletes training in several ressies. Maybe there is a general movement within UU to discourage any kind of sports on their land, which would be a shame.

On leg 2 I recall a really bolshy farmer, aggressively driving his tractor down to the ressie amongst on-coming runners, shouting folk to close the gate. I closed the gate, but felt bad about it because there were other runners only just behind me. Possibly this farmer is the source of the complaint, backed up by a conventient photographer.