New safety rules

[Witton Park]

OK Lecky I haven't done as you asked, but it's relevant because the establishment is miffed because they've gone through a "process" and come up with a piece of work that is getting a rather mixed reception.
It also seems that they are miffed that people who chose not to contribute via the desired email method are voicing opinions now.
I'm just trying to give an example of how people who might be quite willing to contribute and perhaps are in a position to do so with a little experience behind them might be unwilling to do so due to previous experiences.
Bear in mind I've was asked to make a contribution,I didn't just volunteer it and yet I heard nothing in response.

I'd rather see these guidelines scrapped. I don't care how they are written, it is nigh on impossible to write guidance notes that can cover the diverse range of events that are Fell Running. I don't see how they help me as an RO.

[Graham Breeze]

For what its worth I totally agree with AI as an engineer myself ....

Ah!

I knew that one day having a (proper) University Degree and being a Chartered Engineer with two professional institutions would be useful and it appears that being allowed to opine on the Forum on matters pertaining to fell running is it.

Ha ha!

[luxinterior]

Rubbish!!

I've been following this thread with interest and AI makes some very valid points which would be folly to ignore now. He has also made them eloquently and in a non-confrontational way which is to his credit.

As Iain mentions the forum is about two way communications so I hope the committee are taking note - afterall the committee are there to repressent the views and wishes of the membership and should respond accordingly.

But it is too late, there was consultation and it is now passed. Best accept the outcome as it is and thank the committee for giving up their time so we can all carry on racing. If it ever comes up for consultation again then raise all your concerns but I can't see what good it does to keep going on about it now. Next Saturday I will be running langdale with the same kit I have had for years all of which comply with the safety rules and hopefully will keep me safe. All very simple really

[Buhnting]

But it is too late, there was consultation and it is now passed. Best accept the outcome as it is and thank the committee for giving up their time so we can all carry on racing. If it ever comes up for consultation again then raise all your concerns but I can't see what good it does to keep going on about it now. Next Saturday I will be running langdale with the same kit I have had for years all of which comply with the safety rules and hopefully will keep me safe. All very simple really

You are absolutely right! Nothing has changed for the competitor. Graham and the committee have and continue to do a sterling job for us all to keep our sport as close to the nub of what we all love and enjoy under ever increasing pressure from The Suits. See you at Langdale.

[Witton Park]

But what about for the RO?
I'm both and I can see where you last 2 posters are coming from. Your own environment seems unchanged and that will be the same for most athletes in terms of how you approach race day.

[alwaysinjured]

But it is too late, there was consultation and it is now passed. Best accept the outcome as it is and thank the committee for giving up their time so we can all carry on racing. If it ever comes up for consultation again then raise all your concerns but I can't see what good it does to keep going on about it now. Next Saturday I will be running langdale with the same kit I have had for years all of which comply with the safety rules and hopefully will keep me safe. All very simple really

A classic case of I am alright, jack, not my problem, it won't affect me.

But it certainly might.

You assume the organisers are willing to give up their time to operate races under a set of rules that in my opinion will leave them up sh!t creek without a paddle if anything happens.

Don't bank on racing because my opinion is upon discovering how exposed they are, I expect them to cancel in droves.

The problem is not for competitors or the FRA: the organisers are the ones hung out to dry with this - which seems to me a classic case of an ill considered knee jerk overreaction to a disaster, done to impress a formal hearing that "rules are now tighter" the consequences of which has not been properly thought through. Not least what would happen if an exact repeat occurred - it would be hard now for any organiser to defend themselves, because it is hard to see how any race could ever comply. I also worry that professional advice has not been sought to confirm ( or disprove) my fears.

If the FRA does not get legal opinion , I strongly recommend an organiser does as part of their own due diligence to determine their own personal exposure and the extent to which they might be exposed to negligence proceedings.

It is NEVER too late to assess the impact of safety , which ALL companies are obliged to do CONTINUOUSLY - and never too late to assess legal exposure prior to undertakings. It is better to get it right slowly, than wrong quickly.

[Lecky]

OK Lecky I haven't done as you asked, but it's relevant because the establishment is miffed because they've gone through a "process" and come up with a piece of work that is getting a rather mixed reception.
It also seems that they are miffed that people who chose not to contribute via the desired email method are voicing opinions now.
I'm just trying to give an example of how people who might be quite willing to contribute and perhaps are in a position to do so with a little experience behind them might be unwilling to do so due to previous experiences.
Bear in mind I've was asked to make a contribution,I didn't just volunteer it and yet I heard nothing in response.

I'd rather see these guidelines scrapped. I don't care how they are written, it is nigh on impossible to write guidance notes that can cover the diverse range of events that are Fell Running. I don't see how they help me as an RO.

I've just gone back over as much of this thread as I could take and haven't noticed "establishment" people getting miffed about the general comments.

If you chose not to contribute via the email route and then start complaining now, it seems a bit like you may be trying to score points, for whatever reason.

In my view there isn't an "establishment", just a bunch of people who try to do their best. Some people may disagree with them, and I know that you are constantly one of them. But it doesn't mean that you are always right, or that they are always right. Sometimes it is worth agreeing to disagree and leaving it at that.

If emails fall on deaf ears it could be because they don't agree with you, have made that point and feel that they could end up replying to emails for ever on the same subject.

[alwaysinjured]

just a bunch of people who try to do their best..

I don't doubt that, indeed opened my contribution to this thread by stating respect for those willing to do it.

For all that, there are areas in which committee opinions are not enough, they should defer to professional advice - and the far reaching legal consequences of rules which may become evidence of negligence in legal proceedings ( and have already been so ) is one of those areas.

And if they do not, organisers would be very wise to do so, I think they are in for a shock.

[Lecky]

The links below provide some interesting reading about definitions of hazard and risk.

For a fellrunner, a cobbled section does not constitute a hazard that is an unreasonable risk (neither does the Corridor Route or the descent to it from Scafell Pike). The overall risk of falling on the cobbled section of Borrowdale is low, even though the possibility of injury may be high. If someone falls and breaks their leg on that section, then they can more easily be transported to safety. If someone falls high up the risk is higher. These rules place an onus on the competitors to have the right kit and to display their safety equipment (number) is such a way as it can be read, and on race organisers to monitor competitors progress. All good.

Fellrunners accept a large element of risk in our sports, as do sports people in almost all other sports. (A professional rugby player is likely to be injured 25% of the time.) Fellrunners HAVE to take on that they play a big part in reducing risks. Most do this as a matter of course, some do not.

I have read all the document and find little to disagree with, when read with common sense and after reading some of the information on the HSE website. It is possible that one or two phrases may have been better written, but that is the case with any document.


http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarpglance.htm

http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/principles.htm

http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/principlespoints.htm

http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarp1.htm

[Lecky]

There's a serious side to this that AI has raised and Stolly backed up.

I host FRA Races at Witton Park. Hardly hard core fell terrain for those that know it.

But I've had a brief glimpse through the "2014 Guidelines for Race organisers" (haven't had time yet for the other stuff) and I'm really concerned.

Maybe I missed something in the past? But :-

1. Road Crossings - ensured manned by two helpers.
Define a road crossing. I know cart tracks frequented more often by vehicles than the road crossings on my races. But my races do cross a tarmac farm access road and a park tarmac access road so now I have to find 3 extra marshalls or risk being in breach of these guidelines.

2. The virtues of the sticky label system. The document seems to advocate this as the best system to use. So if I don't use this am I on thin ice?
I've used professional IT results and registration for my races. They've worked well. I've been at races where the sticker system has been overwhelmed and also mistake ridden.
Human error - it happens all the time. Am I as RO ro be everywhere?

3. Kit Requirements - "Large Notices" - define??? a4, a3, HOW MANY!!

4. As has been already said "obstacle free first section". I don't know a race with an obsdtacle free first section, because it involves athletes, and they have a tendancy to lose their head at the start and leg each other up.
Perhaps we set them off Time trial style at 1 minute intervals?

5. Gates - they must be marshalled. That's another 2 marshalls. BUT apparently juniors are ideal for marshalling gates so I can find a 12 year old girl and stick them on their own in a secluded wooded area 30 minutes before race start - yeh right!!

6. I have to kit check my marshalls and make sure they head out with hot flasks of tea, coffee or whatever.

7. I need 9 people at the finishing line. 4 with number recording responsibility and 2 with timekeeping responsibility plus others.

What it basically means is that liitle old me who's arranged National Champs, Area Champs, World Trials, County Champs on Road, Fell and Cross Country, will now have to "conform" to some guideleines for fear of being at risk of litigation because they go far too far in setting out what is required - that's if I want to have my races permitted as fell races.

Who are the FRA to advise me where and how many marshalls I need and how many officials I need at the finish? But if I don't do it????

So perhaps I am best not to do it.

If I have these issues at a relatively benign venue like Witton Park, then how about more traditional fell venues? (and I've only looked at the one attachment so far).

By the way, I have to say this dual recording system.
Using registration forms as a head count and if that doesn't tally with the athletes on the start line, establish why?

Has their ever been a race where the athletes registered has tallied with the athletes that set off? I was RO at he NW Road Relays and I had clubs declaring teams within an hour of the start that never raced!!!
That was pre-entered, pre-registered teams where a team manager came up and filled in a declaration slip on the day to confirm that what they had declared on line would run on the day. Each team was 3 - 4 athletes. Some didn't even start a leg 1 runner!!

Anyone who thinks that registration slips is an accurate way of head-counting the starters - well - not a chance.

I can see race starts being delayed ages if any RO takes the position of using on the line head count compared to athletes registered, cos if they don't tally, they can;t start, and 90%+ of the time they are not going to tally.

This is smacks of scaremongering.

For example, if you decided to put a 12 year old girl in a secluded wood at a gate on her own and something happened, I doubt that anyone would accept your argument that the FRA told you to. However, if the same 12 year old were on the second gate from the start, in view of the officials and spectators, then she may well have a good time!

Competitors do not really count as obstacles.

Signs for kit requirements - at a World Trial in Witton Park - one A4 would do perhaps?

Who are the FRA to advise you? They are a bunch of fellrunners who have organised races for years. You don't have to take their advise, so long as you can justify your risk assessment on your alternative way of doing things.

Your marshalls probably don't need flasks of tea in Witton Park, unless they are going to be out in the rain for a long time. Those guidelines probably apply to fell races where marshalls are out on hills.

You miscounted the number of people at the Finish, even the guidelines say 7!