New safety rules

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shadbolt

You're ignoring the point that Mark G has already made that very often the CP marshals do not know how many runners have entered nor their numbers so they will not have a nice little list on which to tick off numbers as the runners go past.

---

Not ignoring anything. They don't need to know who has entered. The tick list from a marshal can be used at the end of the race to narrow down a search for a runner who hasn't made it to the end. No point looking at the start of a course when a runner has only missed the last check point.
My concern would be where do you draw the line ? Short races ? I'd also agree with others, asking marshals to do anything more than stand there in what is often hostile conditions is difficult and will probably put off some volunteers.
One thing i'd like to see is an insistence on presenting the route in either map form and/or description prior to a race. It gives people the opportunity to get familiar with the surroundings in good weather. It makes people more equipped to deal with potential bad weather on race day. There seems to be a reluctance, in my experience, to reveal a route as if its some big secret by some.
Two issues I can see that might prevent the above is OS map copyright and potential private land (race day only) access.
It's a tough one,but one that needs serious consideration.

Couldn't you just have one person taking times, one person taking numbers (as currently happens). AND one person ticking off numbers against the list of numbers who started.

You're right tho' Dom, that's not going to work at checkpoints, unless they all have radio contact with the race organiser, which isn't always practical. Could the sweeper take a list of numbers who started to each checkpoint? That way each checkpoint would know if someone hadn't come past, and which number they were.

I'll be interested to see how ROs interpret is the best way to do this. I'm hoping over the coming months, some sort of consensus develops.

At Shutlingsloe, Mrs Noel and I are considering counting runners, and ticking off numbers before we all set off. Similar to at Grasmere, but with someone ticking them off on a sheet. Then using that sheet at the end as well. It might seem overkill for such a short race on a nice day, but I don't want to be complacent.

Whilst the current debate is related to the recommendations of the coroner and is very important I would like to return to the question of FRA total waterproof cover for AL, AM and BM races?

I have trawled the internet and this forum thread to identify proposed equipment and sources. It seams that for jacket and leggings it will set you back

£150-200 for non goretex but pertex garments thus more for goretex
less than £150 lesser material garment or sale item.

This may be a financial barrier to some who want to take part and my experience of fell races , so far, is that they are friendly, participative and inclusive. Is there another way to finance meeting the FRA rules ? Share kit if not racing ? hire kit ? RO provide spare/old kit ?

Any ideas ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

Couldn't you just have one person taking times, one person taking numbers (as currently happens). AND one person ticking off numbers against the list of numbers who started.

You're right tho' Dom, that's not going to work at checkpoints, unless they all have radio contact with the race organiser, which isn't always practical. Could the sweeper take a list of numbers who started to each checkpoint? That way each checkpoint would know if someone hadn't come past, and which number they were.

I'll be interested to see how ROs interpret is the best way to do this. I'm hoping over the coming months, some sort of consensus develops.

At Shutlingsloe, Mrs Noel and I are considering counting runners, and ticking off numbers before we all set off. Similar to at Grasmere, but with someone ticking them off on a sheet. Then using that sheet at the end as well. It might seem overkill for such a short race on a nice day, but I don't want to be complacent.

---

Noel - I know Shutlingsloe having been there for the FRA Junior races.
Ultimately these days everything seems to revolve around risk assessment which is why I think there has been a move to try and get the requirements less prescriptive and allow ROs to set up procedures that are OK for their own race.
Your race is a prime example why.
The whole race is conducted in an area that can be seen from the Start / Finish area, so in a risk assessment the risk of a runner going astray would be minimal compared to say Fairfield or Tour of Pendle.
The risk of a runner going down with injury is a more likely hazard and with appropriately placed marshalls you can have every runner in a marshalls eyeline and so it would be easy to identify them, if they do have a problem - that's a similar method we use when we handle cross country races.
Of course like all races, you will have to have a Foul Weather back up plan if the clag is down.
So hopefully the final requirements will allow you some slack and not tie you in to the same set of procedures as an AL.

We used the proposed race number matrix/check list at our 4 race mid-week series in the summer. No CP, so only used at the finish line, which was not close to race HQ. In conjunction with other cross checks; number of entry forms, number of race numbers issued, number of records prepared for the results system, start line head count, number of finishers recorded, it is very effective in identifying overdue runners.

What proved particularly useful was to be able to quickly look up the entry form details and be able to provide a profile - male, female, vet, young, club. Knowing the club means other runners from the same club can be asked to make themselves known and provide further information. Far more reassuring than "we're missing someone", hang on while we work out who.

Obviously there are potential difficulties in providing accurate check lists to CP marshals, but I believe these can be overcome by a variety of means and techniques. Similarly, competitors can help by making sure their number has been recorded. The crucial aspect lies in point 6 of the Coroner's letter; discrepancies must be investigated, even if they turn out to be false and the runner is accounted for e.g. at the next CP or the finish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

Noel - I know Shutlingsloe having been there for the FRA Junior races.
Ultimately these days everything seems to revolve around risk assessment which is why I think there has been a move to try and get the requirements less prescriptive and allow ROs to set up procedures that are OK for their own race.
Your race is a prime example why.
The whole race is conducted in an area that can be seen from the Start / Finish area, so in a risk assessment the risk of a runner going astray would be minimal compared to say Fairfield or Tour of Pendle.
The risk of a runner going down with injury is a more likely hazard and with appropriately placed marshalls you can have every runner in a marshalls eyeline and so it would be easy to identify them, if they do have a problem - that's a similar method we use when we handle cross country races.
Of course like all races, you will have to have a Foul Weather back up plan if the clag is down.
So hopefully the final requirements will allow you some slack and not tie you in to the same set of procedures as an AL.

---

Thanks WP. I'll give some more thought to what system we use on the day. You're right - getting lost is a lot less likely than falling and breaking something in the bluebell woods, or slipping while getting back into the river.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

At Shutlingsloe, Mrs Noel and I are considering counting runners, and ticking off numbers before we all set off. Similar to at Grasmere, but with someone ticking them off on a sheet. Then using that sheet at the end as well. It might seem overkill for such a short race on a nice day, but I don't want to be complacent.

---

I'd come up with the idea of getting the field to 'count off' at the start. Starting with 1 everyone shouts out their number in turn until you finish at the last registered runner. If the count stops you note a DNS and radio the checkpoints with a list of DNSs. This sytem wouldn't be possible without race numbers being consecutive from 1, and you'd need to quarantine the start area to stop Jonny-come-latelys sneaking in after having been logged as DNS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shadbolt

You're ignoring the point that Mark G has already made that very often the CP marshals do not know how many runners have entered nor their numbers so they will not have a nice little list on which to tick off numbers as the runners go past.

---

Yes, how do you know when to return to registration if you don't know how many started? You might have a big hike ahead of you requiring you to set off for your post an hour or so before the start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr brightside

Yes, how do you know when to return to registration if you don't know how many started? You might have a big hike ahead of you requiring you to set off for your post an hour or so before the start.

---

and longer sometimes. I'm sure there's worse but I bet the CP3 and CP4 marshalls at Sedbergh Hills are out there for quite some time and I wouldn't know what the communications are like out there, but perhaps unreliable.
I believe there's been cases in that race where athletes have gone astray between those 2 checkpoints and ended up at CP5 on the Calf, missing 4 out.
So CP4 counting would be out, and maybe raise an alert, but by CP5 it could be OK. So a difficult call to say at what point you decide someone is missing.

I know at Duddon when I did it for the first time, my mates who had done the short race were sat in the finish field, enjoying a beer, sat in the sun and getting increasingly worried about me as I hadn't come in. They asked the officials, who were able to confirm that I was still on the move (just about :) ) due to the sportident dibber system being used.
Not sure how much the dibber system costs per race, but I'd be quite happy to pay an extra couple of quid at races like Sedbergh or other AM, AL races if it helps the RO comply with the requirements and also improves their race monitoring.
It's possible to monitor the movements then of every runner on course from the finish area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

Not sure how much the dibber system costs per race, but I'd be quite happy to pay an extra couple of quid at races like Sedbergh or other AM, AL races if it helps the RO comply with the requirements and also improves their race monitoring.
It's possible to monitor the movements then of every runner on course from the finish area.

---

Yes, we were discussing that this would help and should probably be used more often at long and remote races. I agree, it wouldn't put me off doing a long race if it were £3-4 more expensive to have the technology. But I do very few long races...

I'd be interesting to see the costs involved, and also the level of communication from checkpoints that they enable.