DT, go on lad, I sense that there is a special offer on - recruit 7501 get's their money back once this is all over. Offer closes soon. You know you want to.
The offer doesn't pass to your descendants though.:rolleyes:
Printable View
Surely every BG-er has descendants!;)
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-sister-849320
Without wanting to dredge through all 29 pages here, and having already read the fra official document, can someone confirm whether I need taped seams on my waterproof trousers as well as my hooded jacket? (and yes, I do find this bleeding stupid for the long tour of bradwell if it's baking hot - and I can't afford lightweight taped waterproofs or fit my heavyweight ones in my running bag, so see this as a needless penalty on those who don't have 250ish to blow on pointless kit)
Graham,
Thanks for your reply. I was unaware cheap options came with taped seams. Very helpful. I will assume those jackets would do as well, if not for the SLMM.
Dj, I'm not on benefits, I'm a tax payer, underemployed for a good reason and doing something about it. However, if your comment is meant as a passive-aggressive attack on the 'welfare state', implicitly allied with the lies spewed by corporate and government media outlets who claim that the over-entitled end of society is the end being crapped on, not the private school and oxbridge grads who follow daddy's wealth to nearly inevitable high stools from which to crap, then I find it abhorrent. But I'll assume it was just a friendly jibe at my ignorance as to the availability of low-cost taped-seam waterproofs.
P.s. The fra rules are still ridiculously over-prescriptive, create unnecessary issues with access to the sport and are likely to force, in my case, the use of a credit card.
I got a couple of cheap pairs from Aldi for £5, I often carry them as spares for clients. I have also used them and they are pretty good. Not breathable and to be fair I would only use them in an emergency....but that's what they are there for.
SMS-our rescue team had to deal with a really severe case of hypothermia last year, body core temp was unreadable....on the hottest day of the year....? just saying;)
So, Ian, whats better? Making someone carry a cheapo pair of crap trousers that comply with the taped seam reg but, by your own admission are unlikely to get used, or allowing the use of a tried and trusted pair of quality, breathable but untaped trews? Just asking.
thought I'd answered it in the last post, I take them for emergency as stipulated in the rules or out by myself when I need protection that non waterproof pants wouldn't give me. I have some Mountain Hardware breathable waterproofs pants for long/wild or wet races and some pertex pants which I love too but only to keep the wind off.
I was merely making the comment to help SMS that cheap taped pants are available.
Breathable is rubbish for sitting about in the wet you need proper protection. Trawlermen would laugh at you. The last thing you need is Goretex absorbing water and being damp. If I was sitting about in the rain cheap properly waterproof stuff like old style plastic oilskins would be my choice.
So Guy Cottens Bib and Brace is set to become the kit of choice is it :D
As far as I'm aware, most of the wearers of Oilskins still get wet through. They wear them because they are about the only kit that will stand up to the wear and tear requirements.
£120 set of Oilskins that will last 6 momths or £300 Goretex suit when the Goretex suit can be trashed after one trip to sea.
It's a no brainer for them, but if money wasn't an issue, they'd be in the goretex.
I take it you have spent a lot of time sitting in the rain at sea? I have and fully waterproof taped seams, stiff conventional waterproofs would be my choice. Breatheable was cold damp and crap. Personally I'm not sure breathable is any good on the hill unless it is below zero. Having said that I was about 45 before I bought anything other than a cheap 'cag' all the serious climbing and sailing were behind me by then, the goretex saw me from the car to the shops fine though.
Well I'm not Captain Birdseye, but I'm involved in the business and have spent time out at sea in very wet weather.
Probably the gear of choice these days is the Fladen.
and it's not breathable in the slightest.
But it's cheap.
I do agree that breathability is over-rated. But spend 12 hours on a Salmon Farm working in an Oilskin and you'll be knackered and more likely to make a mistake that could see you end up in the water, than if you were wearing an ergonomically designed textile boiler suit.
At the real extreme is something like this.
This is the way the Scandanavians are going, but at £600 a throw I can't see them catching on over here for a while :)
Oilskins don't give you thermal protection in the water. Wet Suits and Dry Suits do.
Anyway, off topic, yet again :D
The issue is not what is carried, but that it is the runner, not the RO (or FRA) who must choose it on the basis of experience and competence in the conditions present and forecast.
(in expectation of no support and/or what can be a very long wait for assistance if becoming immobile)
If they do not have sufficient experience to stay safe in conditions prevailing or expected on day, they must withdraw before starting.
If the RO or FRA is mandating what is done, then who is in charge and therefore responsible for runners safety?
Not the runner, evidently.
So to say the runner is responsible, then take that responsibility away again is a nonsense.
For that reason any kit specified by an organiser must be stated in the context of disqualification from competition - not safety: leaving the runner to choose what extra is needed to stay safe, and so be responsible for their own safety.
I completely agree with the theory of what you are saying there AI, but in practice this is nonsense.
You will always get people who consider themselves experienced yet prepared to carry inadequate kit. If you need proof - remember that European mountain race a few years where a the weather came in and people died?
P.S. Nice post length. I read all of it. :)
Did you read the rules of that event Noel - even as they are now - it is there on the web in french. They were offering a safety net (and still are): that marshalls will halt runners on safety grounds.. That I think will be the basis of why they lost the "volenti" claim - I am chasing the court documents.
You have to make runners very aware of their own vulnerability. So If you:
(a) force them to train over similar or same distance, terrain and conditions, and if they have not trained in similar or worse conditions do not start. ( an absolute must in rules I would write)
And
(b)state clearly - you are on your own - from start to finish - people die in races like this if they do not carry enough kit -so take more than you think you need - and expect a very long wait for rescue who may not find you for days"
Do you think that is likely to get more or less idiots in such a race?
Do you think people will carry more or less kit, or carry an extra few bits of food?
Do you think it is safer than saying "take this kit, and by the way, we have a decent safety net so, if you don't show up at a check the RO will know quickly, and send out the cavalry (per FRA rules), and the RO won't run the race or shorten the route if the weather gets too dangerous". Who is then responsible for safety?
It is a fact proven in safety management that perception of risk is very material in whether a risk comes true. So we have to play the risk up not down. And if after all that, they enter, then truly "on their own heads be it" You cannot stop people being stupid. You can reduce the chance of being blamed for it.
And that by the way does not alter the sense in having marshalls, checks , monitoring and so on. It is the guarantee of it and ability to rely on it that changes everything both in mindset of competitor and legal exposure for the RO
That last post was too long. And you mean fewer idiots, not less. :)
I suggested in post 87 how it could be spelled out, and the risk quantified to a degree. I haven't heard of anyone planning to include that in their rules, but I am sure GB has seen it and will consider whether it is appropriate. I didn't want to post again as this thread just goes round in circles, but if anyone picked up on the concepts of mitigating or quantifying risk, they certainly did so very quietly.
(To which is easily added a comment about kit).
That is symptomatic of this entire thread noel.
1/ People are trying to make complex issues over simplistic,so throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What I said could not have been said in substantially fewer words without losing context or meaning.
2/ Picking an irrelevant nit hence obscuring the debate. As in this case. Look up a thesaurus - a synonym of "less" is "fewer", but regardless of grammar (grammer or grammur whichever you choose) you knew what I intended so why mention it , rather than the core argument?
This whole issue of specifying windproof vs waterproof is manifestly ridiculous anyway!!
People are so busy laying the law down, I do not think anyone has noticed the fallacy implicit in it.
The fact is waterproof garments are not in essence thermal and even if suitable are not a sufficient answer to hypothermia for safety and survival of a long period in low temperatures. (certainly not cheapy pacamac bottoms for £15) Clearly then additional garments should be considered in any decision on what to carry in bad conditions such as thermal leggings, as is the detail of those conditions and the metabolism of the runner. Some suffer more than others, so there is no one solution. So clearly the runner has to decide anyway regardless of what the rules say. So it is Rules for the sake of rules! An incurable attack of the "musts".
The rules - or rather, that the race instructions,were it done properly - should only demand a runner DOES decide proactively what equipment he needs to stay safe, and if he does not have sufficient experience of prevailing conditions to be certain of what to take, he/she must withdraw. By specifying kit you are actively taking responsibility for it, and interfering in the runners need to think it through.
"what can I get away with" is the wrong mindset for safety, it should be "what do I need if the worst happens"
Back to the fundamental decision. Either you regard runners as responsible people in which case you have to MAKE them responsible for their own safety, not the RO, just demanding sufficient experience of them. Or you decide they are irresponsible people in which case you have to make decisions for them,and the RO has to carry the can for all the decisions he makes on their behalf( and FRA for all the decisions it imposes on all if them as the directing mind) You cannot have it all ways.
Who is responsible for safety? I say it should be given back to the runner!!!
Yes, sorry - just teasing. :)
As I said before that argument only works on a theoretical level. Let's consider people driving cars. There are rules that people must adhere to (drive on the left, don't go too fast, etc). But that doesn't mean that the responsibility for safety doesn't sit with the driver.
In fact there are loads of examples similar to this in society where individuals take on responsibility for their actions within a sensible framework designed to protect them and those around them.
Wrong.:) Is that answer short enough for you?
Prescriptive regulations only work in safety on standardized tasks - beyond that has to be assessment and planning. Where the list of factors to be considered are stated, not the solution mandated. This case fell races , conditions and people are all so different that one size does not fit all.
I also showed above, the issue of "windproof vs waterproof" is a fallacy , which will serve to achieve nothing except to stop the very thing you really need which is: The runner assessing and thinking it through for themselves - whilst being made very aware of how very vulnerable they are.
You are radiating "do this and you will be OK"...and false perception of safety is the most dangerous thing there is. It is why inexperienced idiots enter races in the first place.
I know what works in managing hazardous tasks Noel - I have had a bellyfull of it.. And also what does not.
Having worked in the field of safety management for several years all I would like to say is that the content and thrust of AI's arguments are correct. I cannot for the life of me understand why people don't get it.
Is that short enough for the nit pickers?
Thanks Elf. Perhaps you could convince our safety committee of the same where we have failed:
I suggest you train for the task of persuading committee, by banging your head hard on a brick wall a few hundred times before that, you will need a high pain threshold to even attempt it:).
You are contradicting yourself. If the issue is not what kit is required, but the runner rather than the RO taking responsibility, why is full windproof body cover a minimum requirement for entering the Anniversary Waltz?
If you are claiming it is only a rule required to avoid disqualification divorced from actual safety considerations, then you're painting the wrong picture.
And that's the problem with your position AI. You criticise the FRA for specifying minimum kit but you have done it too.
But there is a big difference in my opinion between an RO (or spokesman for) specifying minimum kit with knowledge of a specific race, conditions on the day etc. and the FRA specifying minimum kit based on some rather arbitrary criteria based around race length / heigh gain.
Fudge
The FRA Safety Requirements (page 9) say:
1.1 The Competitor must accept primary responsibity for his/her own safety.
My FRA Committee colleagues and I heard what the Coroner said in addressing the Court at the conclusion of the Belfield Inquest. We were listening hard because a runner had died in a fell race on our "watch"- for us it wasn't a matter of Forum debate.
The Coroner had studied in detail the FRA Safety Requirements, line by line. He clearly did not think these diluted the fundamental issue (1.1) and in support of that view he refused to endorse eight (8) additional safety requirements sought by the Belfield family.
The Coroner further publicly indicated his recognition that the FRA was a responsible body which had the best interests of fell runners at its core in the context of the actions it had taken following the comments his colleague had made following the death of Judith Taylor.
As I say, there were others from the FRA Committee present during the Inquest like the Chair, Madeleine Watson, the FRA ex-Secretary Alan Brentnall, and Jon Broxap; all of whom are members of the FRA Safety Committee (and other Committee Members such as Scoffer) which, as I have previously posted, is currently looking at the "safety" documentation and considering new elements such as formal management plans.
If you wish to be consulted on any redrafts you are free to send me a PM.
Regards,
Graham.
You forgot to mention ex-Committee member MargC as one who sat through the inquest as well.
The inquest and it's outcome should not lead safety policy on the fells. An incident as tragic as it was, that happened at arguably the toughest AM in England, in foul conditions.
Several people with lots of experience including but not exclusive to Graham and his colleagues attended the inquest and that there are differing opinions as to the necessary response should be noted.
The FRA response has lead to the SHR and WFRA not accepting the FRA policy review in full to the extent that they are working on either old or amended documentation for 2014 and will most likely have further divergence in 2015.
How's that for the FRA who claimed to the inquest that the review was conducted with full consultation of the other UK bodies that oversee fell running? I'd like to know a few details on exactly how WFRA and SHR were consulted.
Or were they just told?
Aye, I must say I've been thinking that for a while too (whilst admitting to not necessarily reading 100% of AI's posts, though most, up to a point).
I work in Hazardous Industry, and for 25+ years I have taken mandatory PPE (personal protective equipment) requirements without complaint - whether by employer, client, main contractor, or my own company. I accept that certain (specified) mandatory PPE is required all the time for certain 'at risk tasks' or in certain 'potentially at risk environments', even if in reality (actual likelihood) only a proportion of the time in those tasks / environments the risks are low, on the basis that at other times (however small) the risks could be much higher (so its like an insurance in the face of dynamic risks). I could start to quote lots of analogies, but I cant be arsed, partially for fear of breaking.... ahem, Noel's 'word quota'.
The devil is in the detail. No contradiction.
Read the terms, that demand the runner decide what kit is needed for safety.
In the weasel words we are having to tread a fine line between trying to comply with rules, whilst at the same time doing what is safe and sensible.
FRA demand the RO specify (with no requirement for the runner to consider at all )- and as I indicated above, specifying only light waterproofs is a wholly inappropriate recommendation as sufficient for very cold conditions - which bad advice from committee is why I entered the thread again.
The coroner in essence echoed UKA misguided recommendations which should have been contested but were not, and then lamely agreed to by FRA , in addition adding a few idiotic undertakings all their own making , such as Marshall's "ensuring the safety of runners" as if they have any such power ( till we argued with that, and got it amended but only slightly) . If you are looking for contradictions look no further than that. Whose responsibility was safety? 1.1 then contradicted several times over.
Notice none of those mentioned as attending the inquest have any safety training at all, nor will they listen to any that have - (and the needed skill is managing the safety of custom operating procedures for significant teams of people - which is an unusual skill - not normal workplace safety - anyone who has actually done it knows written tasking for critical people is a must as part of an event plan)
A lack of common sense some of them, judging by some of what was in many places previously, and is still there in places in the rules.
You find me someone who is willing to state there is no risk of accidents in crowded areas of a rocky fell race, and I will show you a liar, needlessly forced to be so by silly FRA rules. I have fallen in borrowdale start as have many others. I have seen people fall in langdales first mile because of the normal crowding issues, and even later in the Esk pike traverse because it is hard to see when in a crowd or group on a narrow trod. Ask Michael Schumacher about what happens when heads hit unfortunate badly placed rocks even wearing a helmet.
Drawing attention to runners to the risk is the right way to tackle that issue ( and a variety of others), telling them to be careful is the right response. Denying it is crass stupidity. How can an RO now draw attention to problems he is no longer allowed to have, when they exist regardless? Solicitors have drawn attention to that as an issue... But then it doesn't take a legal or safety brain to decide the wording is daft on field size.
I note that you don't say mandatory by the HSE.
The FRA in the role of Fell Running are something akin to the HSE. The RO is equivalent to a business or organisation.
What the FRA have done (with kit as an example) is to say that all races of a certain spec must mandate the carrying of this kit adn must have some sort of scrutiny of that kit, in some instances with the number of inspections also mandated.
Contrast that with the HSE who would adopt a stance of "You the RO must assess what kit is appropriate for your event and then decide how you want to handle that in terms of mandating it, recommending it, kit checking....."
I long since gave up on conciliatory. Tried that. With people like this it does not work.
I will return to my self imposed exile. But not until having noted the following..
- I reentered the thread because of the prescriptive false premise restated, that £15 leggings mandated are an answer to issues of what to carry regarding hypothermia.At best it gives a false sense of security. "do this and you will be OK" What is needed is sufficient runner experience, education and forced proactive decisions on what to carry based on prevailing conditions and expectation of no support.
- For us it is not a matter of forum debate either. It is far more real to us than you. Wynns race is one of the very few that travels over the same ground as the sailbeck incident at the very same time of year. So she has every right to be worried, and unlike you she carries the can and is not allowed to hide behind a limited company. You unwisely told her her insurance would be voided if she broke rules that were impossible to comply with. Then treated her like a delinquent for worrying about it. The rest all flowed from there.
- What you need is to ask someone with sufficient experience and qualification how they would manage the process of safety, not restrict them to tweaking documents already established. Since there are many facets to that, (not just documentation even) it needs a presentation to all decision makers on all aspects of that. It needs that competent person to lead, not tinker with it from the sidelines - the authority of a competent person is mandated in the corporate world because it is critical to success.
- What it needs is wide dissemination, not hiding behind closed doors allowing the bits "you like" to trickle out, the rest kept buried or un-minuted. Forums at least do that. They keep a minute of what was said.Dissemination is why it needs wide presentation and debate. We have offered from long before bad blood, to do such a presentation, me and Andy but you have never taken us up on the matter.
- Even the very issue of the need to have reviews, was fought tooth and nail, us on the side of keeping under review in perpetuity, the chair doing everything she could to frustrate it - "no rule changes till 2016".
How can you consider formal management plans? You don't know anything about them in a safety context. Let someone used to drafting them, explain what , how , what they need to contain, and how they fit into the overall scheme of things, and do the baseline drafting of them.
It has all been said before. No doubt will be disregarded as always.
And with that , back into the ether. ( all can heave a collective sigh of relief).
It is looking increasingly as though my latest knee problems are terminal for fell running, so I will probably slip quietly away all together.
Unless the spectre of £15 leggings is held up as a cornerstone of FRA safety policy/ anti hypothermia again that is...I might just comment again.. it needs well informed and experienced runners to decide for themselves on the basis of conditions.
Let them be responsible for their own safety.
Oh no you won't.
Let me come back you in AI style.
[into character]
Fact: you say safety should be up to competitors, yet AW has minimum kit requirements
Fact: you can't even get consensus among those qualified as safety experts
Fact: you have not released a set of draft guidelines despite on numerous occasions saying you could and having written over 100,000 words on the subject.
Therefore your arguments are totally flawed and need redrafting by me.
[out of character]
Can you see why people might not be engaging with you?
Noel I have long since given up expecting other than the nitpicking above.
eg It is not me that wrote SHR rules. (or even SHR - they adopted them at a time when they thought FRA knew best and they wanted to be consistent, now they know that is not true, they are left scratching their heads as well) but until they have a new set of rules,
AW entry conditions, have to do something to protect Wynn, whilst not actually countermanding rules as they are at present. In short a diplomatic fudge trying to sidestep a few landmines on the way. And in the end, it is not the minimum kit that is the problem. It is the context of it that causes a problem.
etc
As for holistic disagreements, you will not find a competent safety advisor who will disagree with most of what I have said on a myriad of issues. Take the issue about wide disseminatio to tellrunners what to do urgently (and what not to do)if they find another fallen runner immobile unconscious.
Marshalls even if trained, are highly unlikely to get there in time to help - you have only minutes, if they stop breathing.
Yet FRA have not heeded that, fellrunner magazine refused safety articles from me because of not wanting to be seen as "partisan" (by the way I would get an A&E doctor involved in drafting that because unlike FRA I know the need to involve experts even though I am a trained first aider, ABC and all that..).
So if a fatality or paralysis happens because that common sense safety suggestion was not heeded by those in power (like most of the rest of what I have said). I will blame current FRA executive, and make sure everyone knows who had the power to make that happen, but failed to use it.
So nitpick away Noel...