New safety rules

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

There is an issue.

---

There are two issues of patience and trust.

Patience for the FRA Fixtures Secretary who is trying to get a Calendar of 500 races out on time despite immense uncertainty following the Belfield Inquest and being asked questions by RO about their one or two races that neither he nor anybody else can answer because the Coroner may turn the fell running world on its head any day.

Trust in the Committee to get things right, because they always have in the past and it is the same people like Jon Broxap or Scoffer who are still running things. They were elected to do a job so let us let them get on with it.

Or they may just not bother standing next time around.

I suppose the third issue is AI distorting the alleged reports of anonymous people who may or may not have been at the Inquest to feed his anti-UKA campaign. And I thought he despised anonymity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khamsin

I suppose the third issue is AI distorting the alleged reports of anonymous people who may or may not have been at the Inquest to feed his anti-UKA campaign. And I thought he despised anonymity.

---

You are making assumptions.

I have read actual transcript and relevant parts of documents and that is what is horrifying me! I have suggested FRA make them available at least to RO as part of their duty of care, so that RO know what they are up against, and they can decide for themselves.

Have you read them? I doubt it.

That same committee rightly perceives that whilst the risk is low, the civil outcome could possibly be so disastrous that they have ( my view rightly) become ltd. The risks faced by RO are inevitably so much greater than that, that nobody, certainly not someone as illinformed as you appear to be , should be playing down their risks

Having rules which are ambiguous helps nobody, particularly when those rules in both legal and ordinary english make some of the races non compliant, since at very least that will jeapourdise the insurance, if not be used as further cannon fodder by expert witness next time. We all hope it will not hapoen, but history is against that, and we owe it to organisers to prevent unnecessary exposure.

Think of the RO please,some of whom are getting advise that they have problems with it all.

Rather than insult me, why not express an opinion on one of the issues raised? Even the last few? Is going through a slippy river bed when there is an adjacent bridge
" unnecessary" so Is that race compliant ( therefore insured ) or not? If the answer is not crystal clear , the words used are not good enough for a document that has legal intent or application. How is it even possible to argue the bad step is not a rock climb as judged by a " reasonable man", so how is langdale compliant?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

I have read actual transcript

---

Of the Inquest proceedings?

I don't believe you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khamsin

Of the Inquest proceedings?

I don't believe you.

---

This is not a game khamsin.

The testimony was given in public. I made it my business to find out,not because of any ghoulish interest in that event, but because I knew that " compliance" could come back to haunt us, from other safety proceedings. I wanted to know how that played out in reality, and my worst fears were realised.

The rules now have to be changed to allow for that reality.

The rules should for example state " it is accepted that marshalling cannot be perfect, and it is likely if not inevitable that count errors will occur, so that consideration should be given to count backup procedures where reasonably possible. It is also accepted that communication systems can be unreliable particularly in high mountain terrain so consideration should be given to sweepers whose function is to relay messages in place of electronic means" or whatever...

So chop of at the knees "expert testimony" that implies that either can be made perfect and presented as failures of duty as was recently the case.

The rules as they are even more dangerous for an RO.Quite apart from the ludicrous notion of having no hazards. Saying specifically check communications, because it fails to follow through on advice. And then what? The rules do not say, other than another tripwire for an RO. Should therefore an RO cancel because of an inevitably dicky radio? Be sure Someone will mention that comms failure now in proceedings if that is in the rules, and if history repeats that someone will be UKA.

With the best will in the world,
There is a 100% chance there will be another inquest.
There is a 100% chance that every line of the rules will be scrutinized for compliance.
there is a 100% chance that all non compliance will be presented as failure of duty.
There is a 100% chance that failures of duty will be considered in deciding negligence.
There is a near 100% chance that coroner statement of caused by or contributed to by negligence and evidence relating will be used to commence civil proceedings
There is a 100% chance that insurers will use non compliance in deciding whether they have to pay.

As wynn says, she does not want to lose her house over a fell race.
That is why we can no longer leave it to chance.
The rules need to reflect how they may be used against an RO in legal context.

Far better for the rules to say little, but a specific description is then produced by the RO of hazards and procedures for the race. They can be measured against what they state.Nobody xan say they did not know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FellJunior

I'm not sure either:

"Safety Rules
4 Course Design

1996 - 2013
Courses must not be unnecessarily dangerous and should be designed to prevent any temptation to gain advantage by negotiating rock climbs or steep unstable slopes, where dislodged stones may fall on those below. Compulsory sections must not include such hazards or comparable foreseeable dangers.

Organisers of courses which traverse high mountain or moorland terrain should consider having an alternative route available for use in adverse weather conditions.

2014
Compulsory sections MUST NOT include unnecessary hazards or dangerous sections and all courses MUST be designed so runners are not tempted to gain advantage by negotiating hazards such as rock climbs or steep unstable slopes where dislodged stones may fall on those below.

Organisers of courses which traverse high mountain or moorland terrain should
plan an alternative route for use in bad weather."

---

I am now struggling to see what the current draft rules for 2014 are, since your wording above for 2014 differs from what I posted a fortnight ago in post #552 (I simply cut and paste from the 2 documents on the FRA website, as repeated again below). Are you referring to a potential current re-draft of the current draft? I'm confused. For example the undefined word 'unneccessary' seems to have crept back into the rules in the last fortnight? I am very confused now if we are even debating the same documents :confused:

********

Khamsin, re-read carefully, are you dead sure the message is the same?

This years (current 2013) Section 4

4 COURSE DESIGN
Courses must not be unnecessarily dangerous and should be designed to prevent any temptation to gain
advantage by negotiating rock climbs or steep unstable slopes, where dislodged stones may fall on those
below. Compulsory sections must not include such hazards or comparable foreseeable dangers. Organisers
of courses which traverse high mountain or moorland terrain should consider having an alternative route
available for use in adverse weather conditions.

The new (2014) Section 4

4 COURSE DESIGN
Compulsory sections MUST NOT include hazards or dangerous sections and all courses MUST be designed so runners are not tempted to gain advantage by negotiating hazards such as rock climbs or steep unstable slopes where dislodged stones may fall on those below.
Organisers of courses which traverse high mountain or moorland terrain should plan an alternative route for use in bad weather.

****
The opening line and the overall message are quite different in meaning if you read them carefully. Now which seems more reasonable? I'd go with 2013 personally, but maybe the FRA lawyers think otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OB1

I am now struggling to see what the current draft rules for 2014 are, since your wording above for 2014 differs from what I posted a fortnight ago in post #552 (I simply cut and paste from the 2 documents on the FRA website, as repeated again below). Are you referring to a potential current re-draft of the current draft? I'm confused. For example the undefined word 'unneccessary' seems to have crept back into the rules in the last fortnight? I am very confused now if we are even debating the same documents :confused:

********

Khamsin, re-read carefully, are you dead sure the message is the same?

This years (current 2013) Section 4

4 COURSE DESIGN
Courses must not be unnecessarily dangerous and should be designed to prevent any temptation to gain
advantage by negotiating rock climbs or steep unstable slopes, where dislodged stones may fall on those
below. Compulsory sections must not include such hazards or comparable foreseeable dangers. Organisers
of courses which traverse high mountain or moorland terrain should consider having an alternative route
available for use in adverse weather conditions.

The new (2014) Section 4

4 COURSE DESIGN
Compulsory sections MUST NOT include hazards or dangerous sections and all courses MUST be designed so runners are not tempted to gain advantage by negotiating hazards such as rock climbs or steep unstable slopes where dislodged stones may fall on those below.
Organisers of courses which traverse high mountain or moorland terrain should plan an alternative route for use in bad weather.

****
The opening line and the overall message are quite different in meaning if you read them carefully. Now which seems more reasonable? I'd go with 2013 personally, but maybe the FRA lawyers think otherwise.

---

They were Seemingly quietly changed unnannounced. Presumably the changes referred to by Madeleine.
My opinion the word " unnecessary" was not put there by legal advice, or certainly not in the context of a written opinion obtained for and on behalf of RO, which is what is needed. How for example does langdale comply?

My comments on document change control tables used in any professional process appear to have been ignored

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

Some people just don't get it.
There is an issue. The FRA Committee have acknowledged it on the FRA Website.
First the documentation was questioned only for it to dribble out that it was draft. I say dribble advisably because it was leaked to me before the FRA website announcement was posted.
Then we have had Madeleine's acknowledgement that the concerns expressed on the forum and perhaps elsewhere are being listened to and will be taken in to account when the final documents come out.

Now I would much rather this be off-forum and done in a manner where RO's consultation day was put together where we could discuss the matters at hand.
Maybe that is still possible?

But for anyone who intimates that this is a scaremongering campaign should just take note of what the Committee have eventually put out.

---

Oddly enough it was 'leaked' to me as well, and I'm not even an RO just a plebby member.

As I subsequently said in post #620:
"...To me the website post of 11th September was perhaps misleading in that it implied (in layman's terms if not legalise) that the 1st September update to the safety requirements was 'final for 2014'...."

Now we have folk quoting 2014 wording that appears (to me at least) to differ from the 'current draft' (1st Sept per website homepage news items of 11th September and 9th October).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Madeleine

I, and a number of other Executive Committee members, have read all of this thread as it has been happening. I have sought legal advice and there are a small number of amendments to make to the FRA Safety Requirements in the light of comments made on this forum, from the advice and from talking to fellrunners and Race Organisers over the last couple of months. We may need to make further changes in the light of the letter from the Coroner. We are still waiting for the letter.

---

We have taken into account your views (as I said above). We are planning to send a note to Race Organisers shortly with latest version of the FRA Safety Requirements. We have not done so before as we thought it would be confusing to have lots of different versions. We had hoped that the Coroner's letter would have arrived by now and we could incorporate everything in one go.

Thank you Madeleine and AI for clearing up that point of confusion.

There have been some intelligent, and one or two not so intelligent, points of view on this very serious subject which happens to be an absolute minefield and the discussion could go on for eternity.
My point is about the role of race organisers and their volunteers who I have leapt to the defence of before in my odd rambling on these pages and will now staunchly defend again to the tilt.
These people are the very lifeblood of the fell racing calendar as we know it. Qualified, experienced or not, liability for injury or tragedy cannot lie in any sense or form with an RO or a marshal. We, the runners, the adults, take the risk and we are in charge of our own safety, our own lives, just like we are when crossing a busy road and other daily non-fell running activities that require personal responsibility.
I'm quite experienced I suppose but got lost and disorientated on my own in June on the Kentmere Horseshoe which I have trained and raced many a time. The weather turned nasty and for about half an hour things were a bit panicky but my compass got me back on track and in the end I aborted the intended route and retraced my steps instead. Didn't take much with me, just a windproof top and the said compass which was only in the bag by chance. Lesson learned? Yesterday at Llanberis, my nav skills were dire and it was a proper wake up call. I was completely reliant on my partner for all that business. Was I wrapped up enough? Only just and my 'waterproof' came under some scrutiny before in our team tent before I set off. I fall into the trap of thinking, 'whatever happens out there, it'll be reet', but my passive attitude to all things kit bag is in fact a bloody stupid lack of common sense which I know is shared by one or two others out there. This was solely my responsibility as far as I am concerned
Perhaps we should all, regardless of how experienced or even bravado we think we are, take a look in our kit bag and ask questions on how we could improve our own safety.
RO's by definition, organise races. Adult competitors should organise themselves and be entirely responsible for that. In the light of what's going on, would I be put off by becoming an RO when I hang up my inov8's or even before then? Yes. And plenty like me I suspect. Here endeth fell running as we know it perhaps. As Blencathrafrommykitchen suggests, the future could be all singing and dancing events by professional organisers. This is just my opinion.