Safety Matters

[Derby Tup]

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.

Isn't the whole point of this safety thing to get some proper kit , carry it, and wear it? Folks who've done a bit shouldn't get cold on the hill, unless they're injured. If you're cold, or piss wet through then you've either got the wrong kit, or you're slower than you'd like to think you are

[OB1]

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

Indeed he doesn't, nor does he need knocking either.

[Stagger]

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

Strange then, taking the pi$$ out of your mate on a public forum.

[alwaysinjured]

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?

I wish the secretary would read the constitution.
There is no obligation to notify of an intended resolution - other and notice needed other than the general nature of business.

May is the right not the obligation, but there is no phrase "limited to" which would be needed to restrict members only to the items above.

Under section 19 a poll may be demanded by any member unconditionally. And we reserve that right unconditionally.

This is clear filibustering on the part of a committee worried about what might be proposed.

[fozzy]

Isn't the whole point of this safety thing to get some proper kit , carry it, and wear it? Folks who've done a bit shouldn't get cold on the hill, unless they're injured. If you're cold, or piss wet through then you've either got the wrong kit, or you're slower than you'd like to think you are

Hmm, maybe in an ideal world (although I think there is more to it as well)

However, unfortunately the world we live in is no longer like that. If someone runs a race, gets hurt, or worse, then our blame-obsessed culture insists on finding out who is to blame. "Where there's blame, there's a claim" etc....

This means the FRA needs to protect itself as an entity, ROs need protection (individually and through the FRA) and runners need some protection in the form of being made aware of what the likely hazards they may encounter are.

I do think AI's suggestion of moving to "Event Management Plans" is eminently sensible - which is why Road Races and other major events use them.

On the other hand, as a runner, I don't have any problem with having a number of "rules" that I have to follow to help ensure the sport continues.

[Stolly]

Isn't the whole point of this safety thing to get some proper kit , carry it, and wear it? Folks who've done a bit shouldn't get cold on the hill, unless they're injured. If you're cold, or piss wet through then you've either got the wrong kit, or you're slower than you'd like to think you are

You weren't there DT but its not relevant to this thread either way (you're actually talking bollocks though ).

And if Mike has a new point to make, just making that point all stood out on its own, alone, would ensure that everyone was more likely to read it. Hiding it on the other hand in paragraph 93 of chapter 7 of one of his posts almost guarantees that I for one won't read it.

[fozzy]

AI - you need to clear your inbox - was going to send you a PM

[fellgazelle]

There is another misconception.
"The FRA dictate what you wear and carry, I am happy with that."
And he is wrong in principle - as are the committee.

First because safety is subjective not objective.What are safe conditions for Alan Hinkes, are not safe for me. Far too much kit for one person, may not be nearly enough for another because bodies react differently to conditions. So the FRA cannot say what is the "right equipment"

Second because FRA must not dictate what you carry. If they want safety to be runners responsibility, the runner has to be made responsible, so therefore has to determine what he needs to stay safe, in expectation of no support, and to withdraw unless he has sufficient experience of conditions terrain and distance to decide that. Every time FRA decide things for runners, they also erode the runners responsibility. So minimum kit has to be stated as a rule for competition ,not safety, and kit checks there to prevent cheating - and the runner has to assess conditions on day, and decide.

This is spot on and I'm flagging it up in the hope it doesn't get missed.

[Mark Smith]

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

That's very true. Many that do the Fellsman are walkers. They probably had a wry smile when their rucksacks full of bulky warm gear saw them right on a difficult night whilst the runners, who possibly scorned such weighty gear, came a cropper.

The blurred vision comment is interesting. It didn't prevent the 20:20 hindsight used on this forum to give those lads a kicking who were disqualified when someone they were grouped with drifted off the back without their noticing - not great but could have happened to anyone on such a vile night with such tiredness afoot. Those lads fronted up and were really honest IIRC and got murdered on here by people that should have known better.

The issue around gear is a classic case of a rule being mistake for a principle. "I was carrying the gear set out in the rules…" ignores the principle, which is "take what will keep you safe if the shit hits the fan, and factor in the weather, terrain and duration of the event".

[alwaysinjured]

The issue around gear is a classic case of a rule being mistake for a principle. "I was carrying the gear set out in the rules…" ignores the principle, which is "take what will keep you safe if the shit hits the fan, and factor in the weather, terrain and duration of the event".

Which principle "take what is needed to keep you safe" should be explicit, indeed is already in the waltz entry conditions and should be in FRA rules as well (as stated ad nauseam before they were cast in tablets of stone).
We cannot even get past such obvious common sense errors, let alone some of the other profound errors of principle as contained in the rules as they stand. Those in charge are the problem.