Safety Matters

[Stolly]

Its that the same bloke who had to pull out of a race by wearing inappropriate clothing and almost suffering hypotherma?

Maybe you should take the time to read what Mike says.

Haha. What?

If you mean me pulling out of the Fellsman the year before last, for what its worth my clothing and gear were spot on. In fact I was carrying more clothing than asked for by the race organisers and thats a race reknown for its extremely strict kit rules and kit checks. I also put on all my clothing well in advance of getting cold and, in any event, the main reason I pulled out was due to badly blurred vision. Yes I was mightily cold (even though I was wearing a helly, another running top, my windproof and my waterproof all on top of each other, leggings, thick gloves and a hat ) but I thought that the blurred vision was something to do with early hypothermia. After the event I found out that most of the runners were suffering blurred vision down to the the extremely strong winds that we'd been up against all day. I also pulled out because, at that stage circa 45 miles in, we were at the teaming up stage of the Fellsman and I didn't want to become a liability to any team of four that I joined.

Talk of using a completely wrong example to try and prove a point! Many runners actually made the wrong decision that day and chose to forge on in very bad states and actually jeopordised other runners in the process and contributed I'm sure to the whole event being cut short due to so many hypothermia cases.

It was mightily cold though. It was also 61 miles long and not a FRA race either, most of which are much much shorter in length.

[noel]

There may be some real insights in what AI says. I will read it thoroughly and not comment before I have had time to consider the points fully. The criteria I will be using to assess this long post are:
Is this new, compared with the points Mike has made at length on previous threads?
Does it propose a viable alternative to the current system?

Bear with me. This may take some time...

[alwaysinjured]

There may be some real insights in what AI says. I will read it thoroughly and not comment before I have had time to consider the points fully. The criteria I will be using to assess this long post are:
Is this new, compared with the points Mike has made at length on previous threads?
Does it propose a viable alternative to the current system?

Bear with me. This may take some time...

Not an alternative Noel: proper planning is the only way. The way things are done presently is not a way to safety manage races. The reality is you do what we say to some extent ANYWAY!! What we are saying is that planning has to be formalized and less seat of the pants - written not verbal,not left in peoples heads. It is too laissez faire and that has been found wanting.

Not even new - the approach to planning is established professional practise, as old as the hills - it just needs tailoring to our situation. (by someone who knows what they are doing)

We (that is Andy and I) offered to explain it , then produce trial documents so RO could see what they were letting themselves in for, before deciding on whether to adopt it. Refused.

To see something "new" My suggestion is you click on the link in my first post: and note the comments of the coroner in declaring a race organiser negligent contributing to a death, and note his comment that inadequate planning had been done and inadequate instruction had been given to marshalls. Are you worried? you should be. That (and worse) is what would have happened at Sailbeck if BB had survived a lot longer.

You should also be annoyed at FRA safety committee for failing to point such things out to you as RO. But then, failing to have a safety officer to hunt these things out is all part of our safety problem.

Note also the role of the much heralded FRA adviser (how I hate hindsight wisdom blamers - you only have to read the article on merseyrail to see that mindset) who failed to act on such precedents out in "helping" with our rules, and the clear implications for what FRA needed to do from such as that. Safety advisers have to identify the problems in foresight. They do not have the luxury of blame lawyers to see with clarity and always in hindsight.

I noted your comments previous about how I had "alienated the key people" - the reality is the "key people" you refer are the problem. Note the reality of the attempt at dialogue, in my first post - and the arrogance that prevented any progress. They are the problem, I am just a messenger getting shot- who won't get fobbed off as easily as others.

Also the wholly misleading statements being made by FRA to the coroner: other things you will be unaware. Until they admit there is more to do (as that negligence claim above proves), nothing else can change. But sadly it is all about saving face, not safety. My offers of a presentation (now withdrawn, from the time the chair declare her time "more valuable than mine" ) long predated polarization of positions - reality is the "key people" have no interest in how it should be done: only their presumed right to dictate it. Roll on the elections. Hope somebody stands against them.

Did you notice by the way? Brett has expressed clear objections to doing what he is asked to do by the "rules", as have others. So why are "key people" not taking notice of him even? But we know from the forum censorship, that people like Brett who are salt of the earth get trampled on, as did Andy, as indeed has Pete Bland who clearly is one of the MAIN voices to be listened to, as a previous victim of an incident - which has I suspect scarred him for life. They pretty much ignore his views.

I from personal experience can testify to the fact that when somebody dies on your watch, even if you had no hand in the fault or any possible blame for what took place. You carry the scars of it for life.

Anyway. Enough. Nothing can change until the people do. I am convinced of that. That is what is fundamentally wrong.

[Stagger]

The only point I was making Stolly was don't have a go at Alwaysinjured.
He is battling for the fell runnner and organisor in the safety stakes.
Yes he puts some long posts on but you don't have to read them.

The lads is trying to get common sense and reason in to our sport, he doesn't need kocking.

[Stagger]

Haha. What?



It was mightily cold though. It was also 61 miles long and not a FRA race either, most of which are much much shorter in length.

Isn't the Fellsman Hike a walking event? So now't like what the FRA does, most of which are entered by runners.

[fozzy]

Ok, not commented on this so far. But I have some questions.

As a runner, not an RO, I actually don't have any problem with the "rules" as they're currently written - I have no problem pinning my number to my vest instead of shorts and have no problem carrying waterproofs rather than windproofs (mainly because I only own the former). To my mind those railing against these particular rules on the forum are just being silly and pig-headed for pig-headinesses sake (we've been doing this for x years, so I want to carry on doing it this way etc...)

However, I am concerned that a number of safety professionals (and fell runners) have posted concerns that the "rules" actually inhibit safety issues, but there are a number of things I do not understand.

If I were an RO (and I've been so for XC races), then I would always write an event management plan along the lines AI has suggested and any RO that doesn't do this is going to struggle to actually organise a race. Having seen the documents for the road races that our club organises, I know that this type of plan is mandatory for UKA-sanctioned road races.

My question is therefore, how does an event-management plan conflict with the new FRA rules? This seems to be the bone of contention with AW and some other races.

My question for the FRA-committee bods is what is the harm of investigating the suggestions that AI makes and requiring a formal race-plan? I don't see the issue in at least looking into this - could you enlighten us as to why it seems to be vehemently opposed?

Could and should this issue be introduced as a proposal to be voted on at the AGM this year?

Re: kit issues, AI you state that you'd take this out of the rules and make the runner responsible. Is this not a dangerous suggestion (to my mind at least) - people inherently overestimate (and overstate!) their own abilities (as becomes very evident on this forum sometimes), would removing mandatory or recommended MINIMUM kit requirements not lead to more danger because most (or a lot at least) runners would just not carry kit because they'd assume they'd be fine?

I also don't necessarily agree that fewer novices would take part with an event plan as suggested by AI, rather than with the "rules" in their current format. I do think proper communication of the risks for each race might stop novices taking risks though. Interestingly a debate has just been ongoing from a few people from my club about whether or not to do Ennderdale - one member who has never run a Lakeland fell race (and has limited fell experience) has suggested he might think about it. I've tried to tell him just how hard a race it is, but I don't know whether the message has got through (another member of our club who can, in my opinion, be a bit blasé about having a level of experience and ability has a case to answer when asking leading questions about races such as Ennerdale and Wasdale).

Plenty to think about in any case. I don't think the "closed door" policy to safety as currently seems to be the position of the FRA committee is a good idea though. There needs to be a dialogue about this.

[alwaysinjured]

Re: kit issues, AI you state that you'd take this out of the rules and make the runner responsible. Is this not a dangerous suggestion (to my mind at least) - people inherently overestimate (and overstate!) their own abilities (as becomes very evident on this forum sometimes), would removing mandatory or recommended MINIMUM kit requirements not lead to more danger because most (or a lot at least) runners would just not carry kit because they'd assume they'd be fine?

I also don't necessarily agree that fewer novices would take part with an event plan as suggested by AI, rather than with the "rules" in their current format.

Thanks for taking time on it fozzy.

Just picking up a couple of points

The rules vs plan. With a properly written plan the rules as they are become largely redundant (other than checklist to make sure some things are included) and end up then as a conflicting document. There are problems in the detail of the rules - no time to elaborate on all that again. Take the ludicrous notion that there is any such thing as a part of any fell race let alone a crowded area or race bottleneck that does not pose a risk of accidents. It is important that a retirement procedure is clear and communicated. It is not important whether the RO in person is involved in that, which in some races is impractical and so on...
It is vital to make sure runners have to read only one document to understand ALL their obligations. Not having obligations splattered across rules and RO instructions.


The "kit" thing - check out how I tackle that in the entry conditions of the waltz - you are treading a fine line The RO can (and in some cases) should specify minimum kit. But it is vital to say it is not warranted as sufficient for safety. And the runner has to choose on the basis of prevailing conditions, and experience of those conditions and terrain what to take, and to withdraw unless they can state they have experience to do that in prevailing conditions safely in expectation of a long period before rescue can be alerted.

The "novices" issue. The entry conditions (again see the waltz) are designed to make it clear there is no safety net which will deter novices from entering. The rules imply there is a safety net at some level, and therefore the RO is culpable if failing to provide what is stated. And the defence of "on your own head be it" is qualified by "full knowledge of the risks" clearly affected by anything the RO undertakes to do (or FRA undertake in rules on his behalf) affects his perception of the risk. Notice the grand raid incident where the defence of "volenti" failed, admittedly in france, but in worryingly similar situations. Also for that reasons. No novices should ever be allowed in any race UNLESS they have trained over same or similar terrain in similar conditions.

All I can say is they consistently refused any presentation from me (and andy W) - and now I decline to give one with the present hierarchy as it stands, after that shameful statement to the coroner,and the even more shameful statement to me about the "value of my time".


Enough. I was exercising my right of reply to the chairs "ostrich" syndrome statement in fellrunner. having been refused the right to get articles on safety in fellrunner myself.

[Stolly]

Isn't the Fellsman Hike a walking event? So now't like what the FRA does, most of which are entered by runners.

Haha. Yeah, right. The winner last year managed an average 'walking speed' of 5.8 miles per hour over the whole 61 miles, dozen or so peaks and 11,000 feet . Mere humans like me aim for an average speed of 3.8 mph. But yep there are walkers too, which all adds to the mix and makes for a superb (and superbly organised) event.

The point I'm making about Mike, who I know, like and have run with (and in flipping grim conditions too), is that he keeps making the same points over and over and over and over and over and over and over. And yes, his posts are far too long winded as well

[alwaysinjured]

Haha. Yeah, right. The winner last year managed an average 'walking speed' of 5.8 miles per hour over the whole 61 miles, dozen or so peaks and 11,000 feet . Mere humans like me aim for an average speed of 3.8 mph. But yep there are walkers too, which all adds to the mix and makes for a superb (and superbly organised) event.

The point I'm making about Mike, who I know, like and have run with (and in flipping grim conditions too), is that he keeps making the same points over and over and over and over and over and over and over. And yes, his posts are far too long winded as well

I should not have to make the same points over.
They should be heeded the first time. On average it seems to take about 30 times for these people to take any notice and act. On the rare occasions they do.

But read carefully stolly.

That is one of the first times I have mentioned that RO negligence case in order to prove a point - bravo to Richard Taylor for finding it.
That when push comes to shove, coroners will say in citing death contributed by negligence that our planning and marshal instruction are hopelessly inadequate. (which they are as seen by any safety professional)
But for a time of death, that (and worse) would almost certainly have been said at Sailbeck too.

But then our so called safety commitee don't seem to review incident safety as they should, or they would have related that incident not me - and the lessons they learned from it as then promoted in fellrunner.

[MargC]

Could and should this issue be introduced as a proposal to be voted on at the AGM this year?

With regard to the above and the following statement in the FRA General Secretary's "Advance Notice of the AGM" in the Spring Fellrunner:-
"Resolutions to be put to the meeting must be notified to the General Secretary by no later than Wednesday 30 April 2014 to allow these to be considered by the Executive Committee at its meeting on 11 May 2014 "

Please will the FRA Chair or General Secretary clarify whether a resolution would be acceptable on an issue such as this.

Article 16 of the FRA Articles of Association states the following:-
"The business to be transacted at the annual general meeting may include some of all of the following:
(a) consideration and approval of the Chairman's report for the previous year;
(b) consideration and approval of the General Secretary's report for the previous year;
(c) consideration and adoption of the Accounts for the previous year and any report of the auditor;
(d) the election of officers;
(e) the election of an Executive Committee;
(f) the appointment of an auditor;
(g) such other business as may be specified in the notice convening the meeting or received by the General Secretary in accordance with the terms of the notice; and
(h) any proposed amendment to the Articles."

It appears from the above that the only type of acceptable resolution is for a proposed amendment to the Articles themselves. In the past under the old Constitution (pre-incorporation) motions could be put forward on other matters including proposed changes to the Rules for Competition.

What is the situation now? What type of matter can be raised and voted on under item (g) of the above list?