Wording " unnecessary " is useless, and demonstrates that concerns are not being taken seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrump
See critique earlier.
If it is not crystal clear what it means, it has no business in rules.
Printable View
Wording " unnecessary " is useless, and demonstrates that concerns are not being taken seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrump
See critique earlier.
If it is not crystal clear what it means, it has no business in rules.
Coming to which just take some advice please!!- the whole construction of that is asking for trouble.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrump
Please , please , if you seemingly won't take advice - at least hand the job to someone who has an inkling of how to draft such documents. Whilst warranting ANYTHING that attempts to qualify risks is a problem, I have given you workarounds - eg "extreme" or "extraordinary", or if you must reduce it so far "unusual" are INFINITELY preferable to the meaningless ambiguous word " unnecessary"
It needs rewriting, not a substitute of words.
If you must say anything try perhaps..
"Courses should not contain hazards of substantially greater severity than those found on footpaths used by walkers in the area, or on the adjacent terrain.
At least that gives the defence to wynn that catbells and robinson are on a footpath, and the bad step certainly is a rock climb. Neither langdale or AW are compliant, so you CANNOT let them run under rules as they are.
I am still not happy even with that because eg a boulder dislodged on the whernside escarpment is not on a footpath but still can kill. As it is you give an RO nowhere to hide, the changes make their exposure massively more.
We should play up the hazards, not play them down.
The rules should ideally say NOTHING about courses. FRA should approve a race on the basis of the description lining up with the course, and identifying hazards eg " whernsise escarpment can be loose, runners should take care not to dislodge...etc"
A revised 2014 FRA Safety Requirements document (dated 20.10.13) can now be consulted via the link to the FRA Committee page and then Safety, Rules and Equipment.
Note: Some members of the FRA sub-group do NOT view the Forum and will NOT see anything posted here.
So if a member wishes to have their views considered by the FRA sub-group they need to send a focused email to me, with suggestions for change, and it will be ccd to the FRA sub-group for consideration.
reading this now may not have time to comment..... so far can't see much differenceQuote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
Thanks for posting graham. Appreciated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
But nothing of substance seems to have changed.
Wynns race is still non compliant:
There is still what a reasonable man would regard as climbing on her normal route. Unnecessary is still a problem word, that is hard to interpret so hard to know what most of it means.
Why not just state that courses should "not have hazards of substantially greater severity than found on or adjacent to normal walkers routes in the area, or encourage runners to undertake more hazardous ground in order to gain an advantaghe"
It at least allows wynnies race to run! and it outlaws broad stand or similar, which if I have understood what you tried to say, does the job in a way that stops ROs over reaching, but also protects them too.
That risk can be managed explicit, which is where it should really be! The route description for 10peaks (and I presume great lakes, never done it) says "broad stand is dangerous, anyone undertaking broad stand will be disqualified from this and any subsequent running". The basic approach should IMHO be that way - race organiser submits description showing how they intend to manage risk. FRA either approves or not, or recommends tweaks. The description still the organisers.
But the other problems are all still there too. Lots of them.
Take this "Should weather conditions on the hills be of such severity as to endanger competitors, or prevent marshals carrying out proper race monitoring"
It does not make sense. Almost all weather is a hazard that endangers competitors, and bad weather inevitably interferes with the accuracy of marshalling monitoring which can never be perfect anyway.
If either marshalls lose count in bad weather (marshalls lose count even in good weather!) or somebody goes hypothermic in weather such as the relays this weekend, how could we stop our friends (ha!) at UKA stating it that as failure of duty to cancel in weather that clearly endangered?? if the worst happened?
"res ipsa loquitor." The weather was clearly dangerous, somebody got hypothermia!
Better to say "if met office or mountain weather services report serious weather warnings or the RO considers that weather conditions pose an exceptional risk to competitors then RO should consider cancelling, shortening">
It at least gives them somewhere to hide, but they cannot ignore serious weather warnings either..
The words need to be precise, and not demand the impossible. The recent incident changed something important. We now know a hostile view will be taken of everything.
I would rewrite a draft on a "don't blame me basis" - but since even simple things have not been done like "unnecessary" would I be wasting my time?
Can we talk? see if we can clear up some of the issues?
I am fed up of this, I am sure you are too.
.... is not the registration number of a limited company as defined by the Companies Act.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
The difference matters.
I shall continue to take your advice to not take your often contradictory advice.
Surely the FRA knows what it is, they say LTD to £1:00.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrump
I am confused!Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrump
The entry in the Companies House register when 7878976 is searched on http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//w...essCompanyInfo
clearly describes it as a private limited company. So why do you state the above?
Grump - is this all game to you, or do you actually care? or even know?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrump
Fresh from companies house.
Status: Active
Date of Incorporation: 12/12/2011
Country of Origin: United Kingdom
Company Type: PRI/LTD BY GUAR/NSC (Private, limited by guarantee, no share capital)
Status: Active
Date of Incorporation: 12/12/2011
Country of Origin: United Kingdom
Company Type: PRI/LTD BY GUAR/NSC (Private, limited by guarantee, no share capital)
Name & Registered Office:
THE FELL RUNNERS ASSOCIATION LIMITED
<address redacted by me - don't want people spamming the secretary!>
Company No. 07878976
I even quoted the minute of the FRA meeting that decided to create it and (my view rightly) the officers stating the rationale to do so in order to mitigate the risk to themselves.
The only issue I made of that, is to say they clearly perceive a personal risk to themselves, and it is so much greater for the RO, so that risk cannot be swept under the carpet as insignificant for the RO. It is either real for both, or real for neither, my view the former, and therefore all documents assume vital importance in managing that risk.
Is there a Python sketch to reflect this? In the meantine here is the Yorkshiremen sketch...Quote:
Originally Posted by Stolly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=Xe1a1wHxTyo