I have no idea who Grump is.
Sam, it is possible that the points raised have already been considered, and don't need to be reconsidered. I don't know, as I haven't been involved.
I have no idea who Grump is.
Sam, it is possible that the points raised have already been considered, and don't need to be reconsidered. I don't know, as I haven't been involved.
The document was available in draft form for god knows how long for people to comment on, it will never be ideal in everyone's eyes, talk about winging after the horse has bolted, we managed pretty well on a set of 'inferior ' rules for many years and no doubt the need will arise for revision in the future, in the meantime get on with it.
I do not think it has to be that way.Originally Posted by Wheeze
But without meaning to open old debates, I think what prevents minimal racing on going is association with UKA whose concept of experience and responsibilty of participants, over prescriptive rules, race organiser duties, and nature of terrain and weather risk are so far removed from fell running that we in effect speak in a foreign language to them, which in reality has no more in common than both athletics and fell runnning use legs for transport and first across the line wins.
I think it is possible as other extreme sports seem to do, to define a race as the obligation to time stops and starts , disqualify any who fail to go to places specified with no more than a liquidated liability specified if even that little duty is screwed up, but it would need other insurance than UKA tomdo it. I suspect - do not know that the rule tightening frenzy had Some pressure from Those quarters.
I find it somewhat contradictory that the FRA response to what it perceives as its current risk to being cited as counterparty in actions against an organiser emanating from its rules and supervision are sufficient to demand it to hide behind the veil of limitation, with all that cost and upheaval, yet the rules which in essence are what could lead to that vulnerability are apparently of such little consequence a committee drafts them rather than a professional used to mitigating risk. Go figure. I cannot.
Clearly it needed reviewing after , rather than before the coroner reached a view and numerous lawyers scrutinized it. Do you organise races? If you do, how are you going to eliminate all hazards in compulsory parts of the course? Even if you could affird to smooth tarmac your course to comply and eliminate trip hazards, you would not get planning permission, and it would cease to be a fell course if you did.
I do organise races and have done since 1967 longer than most people. First of all before the Fra and rules even existed and then under several revisions and updating of rules brought in by the Fra. No one has defined hazards and most long standing hazards these days have been looked at and changes made not because the rules said so but because race organisers are generally sensible people and have the interests of the people they organise races for at heart. You previously mentioned the Borrowdale race. The previous start up Bessyboot was a definite hazard, it was changed, there are now no real hazards only natural obstacles to be overcome, the same encountered by any individual walker or runner. A barbed wire fence might well be considered a hazard, a bull in field or a farmer with a shotgun yes but a stony path or a narrow lane come off it they are part of the natural landscape, an obstacle to be encountered and overcome, all part of the challenge of the event.
As an aside, I was in race with a partner in crappy weather at some point recently (or not so). My partner and I both had waterproofs on. My number was on my vest inside my waterproofs.
How did the marshals know which team we were?
My partner had his on his shorts.
Bingo. Neither of us had to take off our bags and faff around at a checkpoint trying to struggle a smock up over a number to show who we were.
And as for trying to shout our number at them, we were both going so hard that we couldn't speak, let alone think enough to remember which number we were.
Yes i know all the arguements for sticking yer number on yer chest, but in the sport we do, sometimes, its more sensible not to.
I take my hat off to organisers, and I agree about bessyboot speaking as a victim of a falling rock.
I suggest you take advice.
You may not have defined " hazard" but , you do not have to. The law certainly has done as endless precedents and compensation payments for victims of "hazards" when the risk came true have proved.
The committee should have said " unusual" or "extraordinary" hazards to protect people like you. They did not, and now you are very exposed. A rabbit hole for example , particularly concealed , is a dangerous Hazard everywhere, yet you are certifying to say there are none on your course. How? If someone then trips and breaks their skull on the wall next, a coroners court may have to debate the meaning and your undertaking that there were no hazards, where somebod found one, which at very least puts you on difficult ground legally. The police will look at breaches of rules to determine whether to press manslaughter charged. UKA if they are true to form will consider it valuable to point out to the coroner And police all of the rules you broke, and never once mention that fell racing is risky.
The FRA will sit on the sidelines pontificating uselessly about its even harsher rules, when the current ones are already impractical.
Are you still comfortable?
This is not over - it has not even started - as a stream of cancelled races for anything less than perfect weather will prove if organisers are to comply with that piece of inadequate drafting too. Safety law demands that the person is taken in to account assesing danger or risk. What is dangerous for you, may not be for me, but even lesser conditions can be lethal for someone else. Nightmare. How the flick are you able to make such a judgement? So I expect to see a lot of races cancelled, and I suspect many for good.
All because of drafting of rules.
We shall see.
I give up asking for the committee to take advice, all I can do now is reinforce what I said.
Take advice before organising under these rules. Ask your solicitor for example what your exposure is if you say there are no hazards on your course, and someone has an accident there.
The FRA are so confident they have high tailed it for cover to a limited company in double quick time,and their exposure As only a counter party is less than yours.
I hope it never happens again. History says you can count on history repeating, all we can change is the outcome.
Last edited by alwaysinjured; 06-10-2013 at 07:55 PM.
The general philosophy behind the following requirements is that the:
COMPETITOR *has primary responsibility for his/her own safety on the fells.
Understood by most fell runners
If they have, then great, but it would still be nice to hear what the outcome of this was here rather than the aforementioned responses that alwaysinjured and Witton Park received.
Absolutely true. But Not sure it will wash if you undertake the course is hazard free as part of your advert for the race. You cannot disclaim negligemce, whatever you get a runner to sign. Saying a course is hazard free if you know it is not is negligent, possibly even criminally so if the worst happens.
The FRA have introduced a big new problem for you.
I hope I am wrong. don't think I am.
Take advice before risk it. Not from the FRA, their interests are not the same as yours.
Last edited by alwaysinjured; 06-10-2013 at 08:36 PM.
Posting Permissions
