New safety rules

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JJ73

... the future could be all singing and dancing events by professional organisers.

---

I for one hope not. In fact, the concept of personal responsibility should allow a move in entirely the opposite direction. If only it were that simple...

This thread is long and complex, like the issues it debates. One thing I thing we are all agreed on is that we'd all like fellrunning to continue as far as possible with it's original ethos, with the emphasis on personal responsibility and the organisers duty of care being kept strictly within what is practical in the framework of an adventurous sport that takes place in (often) wild and difficult places.

The challenge for all of us in fellrunning is to figure out how we can best do that without being completely irresponsible and without hanging anyone "out to dry". I believe all the 6000+ words expended by 'alwaysinjured' and a number of others have been an honest attempt to achieve that. We are still not there (hence the debate goes on)and it's not simple but that is the problem that the FRA, race organisers, and individual runners have to solve, against the background of a recent tragedy.

We are all surely aiming for the same thing so lets keep sight of that fact and try to get somewhere meaningful without dissolving into different camps.

Fellrunning has historically had a carefully preserved culture which has served us all well and I wouldn't like to see organisations such as UKA being given an excuse to move in and take a stronger hand in the management of our sport. We may be stuck with affiliation to them (for now) but we are still in a position to say "hands off, we can manage this", as long as we don't end up squabbling amongst ourselves. What's that line about 'divide and conquer'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fellhound

. One thing I thing we are all agreed on is that we'd all like fellrunning to continue as far as possible with it's original ethos, with the emphasis on personal responsibility and the organisers duty of care being kept strictly within what is practical in the framework of an adventurous sport that takes place in (often) wild and difficult places.


Fellrunning has historically had a carefully preserved culture which has served us all well and I wouldn't like to see organisations such as UKA being given an excuse to move in and take a stronger hand in the management of our sport. We may be stuck with affiliation to them (for now) but we are still in a position to say "hands off, we can manage this", as long as we don't end up squabbling amongst ourselves. What's that line about 'divide and conquer'?

---

So, will all those who voted for stronger affiliation with UKA now reconsider their position?

I was of the view (now reinforced) that this was the wrong decision if we are, indeed, all agreed that fellrunning should continue within its original ethos.

Oh, and yes, I include fell racing within that umbrella.

That being said, if fell racing is better served by an athletic ethos, then we should move even faster to ensure that counting of competitors going out into dangerous terrain and weather is more secure. We should embrace electronic monitoring. We have to decide. I can't imagine how the RO in question feels. Mr Belfield would not have been saved by a dibber/ident but at least a timely search for him would have been mounted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JJ73

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.

---

If only it were that simple.

As someone who spent a while digging round: here is what seems to be....
(take advice - this is just an unqualified opinion)

I mentioned how a precedent on "rugby" had decided that organiser compliance with rules and duties could impact on your agreement to the principle of "on your own head be it". You are agreeing to the risk only in the context of assuming the organiser meets the rules, and does his bit.

There are other precedents where that came from. For example you would have thought that a golfer would be consenting to the likelihood of being hit by a golf ball whilst on a golf course, as indeed the disclaimers you are obliged to sign as a member of the club may state. ( other than being used as a deliberate target of course!)

It is not that simple.

A recent case held that a golfer could indeed claim against another who struck him with a ball, even having shouted "fore" to warn him, more importantly ( from our perspective) the CLUB (defacto event organiser) had to divvy up part of the damages because they failed to indicate the nature of the hazard of a tee behind and left , on the next tee where the golfer got hit albeit 150 yards away, and 50 yards off to one side.

"on your own head be it" appears only true if the organiser alerts you to the risks you are taking, so you can be deemed to have accepted that risk. Even knowing the "generic risks" of a golf course is not enough , if there are specific reasonably forseeable additional risks, they should be highlighted.

The moral of the story is certainly NOT to play down the risks with ludicrous statements in course compliance of "no hazards" - but my view go the other way completely.
The general rules or guidelines should not give assurances, and certainly not where they are manifestly impossible like guaranteeing communications to work, or procedures to count runners being made to sound foolproof.

The RO should instead of playing down the hazards should actually play them up - actually stating the hazards in a course description. If there is scrambling it should be noted in the description.

So The rules should not define what should be done (or not be done), but rather demand that race organisers specify what they actually do in a number of critical categories, such as a course description, procedures at checkpoints, how they are counting (eg collecting race numbers and so on), and list the duties on runners as part of that, noting that they will use reasonable endeavours to check people through, and define at least one backup for that to make sure, but nothing in life is foolproof. Fools are too ingenious. Mistakes are inevitable.

The race organiser needs to keep an audit prove he has communicated and supervised all critical processes, to prove he acted responsibly

But at the end of all that - no runner can say they "did not know" - they can be assumed to have assented to the risk they are taking, because the risk is defined, provided the organiser does what the organiser says.

If I were an RO the rules/guidelines would scare the life out of me, as they are or tweaked.
Guidelines may well be intended to help, but in safety legal context breach of guidelines is treated as evidence of breaches of the underlying statute, and are cannon fodder for hostile counsel.

So general guidelines should be eliminated in favour perhaps of an organiser just saying what they do, then doing what they say. If FRA disapprove of the schedule , or it does not tick the important boxes above, then FRA do not have to grant a permit!


This is forrest gump legal speaking...RO take advice!

Wynn
Thank you for your comments as a RO, which reinforce my concerns as if people like yourself are concerned about the ability of their races to meet the rules in the real world none of us would blame you for not going ahead with them. I sincerely hope it doesn't come to that but unless the final draft allows some degree of flexibility to reflect reality I fear that it might. Or it might alter the races beyond recognition and turn them in to athletics tracks on the hills as has been quoted somewhere in the last 87 pages. Please dont give up - we value your races and others like them because they aren't athletics tracks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

The RO should instead of playing down the hazards should actually play them up - actually stating the hazards in a course description. If there is scrambling it should be noted in the description.

So The rules should not define what should be done (or not be done), but rather demand that race organisers specify what they actually do in a number of critical categories, such as a course description, procedures at checkpoints, how they are counting (eg collecting race numbers and so on), and list the duties on runners as part of that, noting that they will use reasonable endeavours to check people through, and define at least one backup for that to make sure, but nothing in life is foolproof.

---

Presumably you mean as required by section 7 Event Information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

How long before the FRA Safety Rules include the line "All Long races and races run in foul weather MUST use electronic tracking of participants" or something similar?

---

Exactly as long as one day before I surrender my life membership.

" - - would not have been saved by a dibber/ident but at least a timely search for him would have been mounted."

There is a potentially distressing speculation in the above statement which anyone who attended the inquest will be anxious to correct. This is that any error in race management was a contributory factor in the tragic outcome. The four full days of evidence, including the post mortem, make it quite clear that such a speculation is unwarranted, nor is it made in the Coroner's narrative verdict. The inquest must not be re-run in public.
It's a great pity that this very clear conclusion has been obscured by other deliberations that would be better dealt with quite separately from the very sad tragedy that prompted them.

FRA should now focus on making the safety requirements achievable in practice without hanging a race organiser. It's time that ROs were involved in this process, but outside this open forum, which has usefully provided all the clear pointers needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

We should embrace electronic monitoring. We have to decide.

---

I have helped on the results for many orienteering events, using electronics. Quite often we have to work out who has gone home without reporting back. Although I think electronics MAY help, they aren't the entire solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wkb21

" - - would not have been saved by a dibber/ident but at least a timely search for him would have been mounted."

There is a potentially distressing speculation in the above statement which anyone who attended the inquest will be anxious to correct. This is that any error in race management was a contributory factor in the tragic outcome. The four full days of evidence, including the post mortem, make it quite clear that such a speculation is unwarranted, nor is it made in the Coroner's narrative verdict. The inquest must not be re-run in public.
It's a great pity that this very clear conclusion has been obscured by other deliberations that would be better dealt with quite separately from the very sad tragedy that prompted them.

FRA should now focus on making the safety requirements achievable in practice without hanging a race organiser. It's time that ROs were involved in this process, but outside this open forum, which has usefully provided all the clear pointers needed.

---

Well, lets stop trying to fix what obviously aint broke then shall we.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheGrump

Presumably you mean as required by section 7 Event Information.

---

THE 2014 FRA SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR FELL RACES and RULES FOR COMPETITION

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.

7 EVENT INFORMATION
General publicity MUST indicate:
* the nature of the event
* severity
* type of terrain
* suitability, or otherwise, for novices.
Specific information MUST be available for competitors prior to the race day and displayed at the point of registration concerning:
* race rules
* race route
* retirement procedures
* equipment to be carried
* checkpoint closing times.

Now Mr Grumpikins, you mention Section 7 and so I'm sure you're also familiar with section 4.

If Wynn fullfills section 7, she will be explaining the diagonal cut across as you start to ascend Robinson, where I've seen runners go up at differing points but ultimately they all end up having to climb the crags as seen in this link http://www.flickr.com/photos/8011535...57600142585102

go back a few picks and you also see some runners taking a line up across some loose rocks and yes I have seen some dislodged in the times I have done the race - but fortunately without incident.

Then we have the drop off Catbells.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8011535...57600142585102
Have you tried shimmy ing off there, particularly with the herds of walkers coming the other way who tend to hog the easiest lines.

So when the RO sets out the requirements under section 7, the concern is that they are actually contradicting some of the things that are set out not just in other sections of this document, but elsewhere in the other published documents.

So we all accept that AW is a fantastic race, in some of the most wonderful countryside we have and I don't think that any of us deem the terrain as anything we can't handle.
So why can we not chop away some of the prescriptive directions and allow an RO to just fullfill section 7 and apply the safety arrangements to their event that they know, through their local knowledge and experience, are the best measures to put in place.