New safety rules

[Luv Shack]

I've registered my three races as per the FRA request to do so and await developments on the rules. My club has a committee meeting tomorrow to consider how we can help our race organisers operate within the proposed safety framework. I will wait and see what comes out of both processes before I make a final decision on whether the events will happen or not.

The fact that races have been registered shouldn't be used to suggest everything is all right or otherwise. It seems more likely to me that the majority of race organisers are prepared to bear with the FRA while they try to sort a difficult problem out.

With regard to this thread at least it has brought a couple of God points to the forefront of my mind which I hadn't really considered before so I think the debate's a positive thing as long as folks don't start taking anything personally.

Jim

Spot on Jim - good to hear some balanced sense & RO contemplation in this increasingly "didactic" (sic) if not obsessive debate, which I've watched quietly (so far) from the side-lines....almost enough said...

Very pleased that our FRA Committee have put so much effort, thought and consultation into the re-framing of the FRA Rules in the aftermath of the more than sad Brian Belfield circumstances...yes, I was there too...

I've also registered next years Kinder Trial with the FRA and will continue to support the FRA in all of it's efforts to help our "sport" continue into the future.....we (most of us love it dearly and do/will miss it immensely, when we can't take part and/or it doesn't happen) should keep true faith with the FRA Comm' because they care immensely for (& cherish) our amazing activities/events in the Wild & Very Special places, that we are lucky enough to know, share & discover.

Andy Howie - also found via http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~temples/hc/

More Than Enough said.....and also know as

[noel]

Spot on Jim - good to hear some balanced sense & RO contemplation in this increasingly "didactic" (sic) if not obsessive debate, which I've watched quietly (so far) from the side-lines....almost enough said...

Very pleased that our FRA Committee have put so much effort, thought and consultation into the re-framing of the FRA Rules in the aftermath of the more than sad Brian Belfield circumstances...yes, I was there too...

I've also registered next years Kinder Trial with the FRA and will continue to support the FRA in all of it's efforts to help our "sport" continue into the future.....we (most of us love it dearly and do/will miss it immensely, when we can't take part and/or it doesn't happen) should keep true faith with the FRA Comm' because they care immensely for (& cherish) our amazing activities/events in the Wild & Very Special places, that we are lucky enough to know, share & discover.

Andy Howie - also found via http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~temples/hc/

More Than Enough said.....and also know as

Well said Jim and Andy. Let's support the committee. I believe they are walking a fine line at the moment. Yes, they need to draft some guidelines that are practical and workable. But they absolutely have to tighten the guidelines to minimise the risks of accidents and deaths. This is quite rightly their main concern.

[scubagary]

I have been following this thread for weeks as well without commenting. Like many, I have got frustrated by some of the points and I could not understand much of earlier antagonism towards AI as his points have been consistently spot on throughout (if not a little long).

What strikes me is nobody has thought of simply writing to the coroner from here and directing them as part of their enquiry to simply read this thread from start to finish. A bit of quality skim reading and a coroners ability to pick out the most pertinent points would give him an idea of the depth of feeling within the fell running community and what the real reality of fell racing is all about.

I would like to think that at some stage every possible good point has been raised about Safety Guidelines and indeed every bad area has been suitably challenged with examples. Of course the FRA will submit a response which I am sure will be sensibly thought through and appropriate. However, that will just be a simple letter which may convey specific points but it does not convey the passion and depth of knowledge of all of you.

If I was a coroner, then part of my research into the background of an incident would be to try to get a feel for it through forums like this as I suspect that whilst long winded in places, this gets to nub of so many issues better than the original enquiry ever did as it is solely contributed to by many people who have been at the sharp end as RO's or competitors throughout their lives.

Only an opinion.............

[alwaysinjured]

Well said Jim and Andy. Let's support the committee. I believe they are walking a fine line at the moment. Yes, they need to draft some guidelines that are practical and workable. But they absolutely have to tighten the guidelines to minimise the risks of accidents and deaths. This is quite rightly their main concern.

Tightening guidelines is not the panacea it sounds.
The corporate world got a whole lot safer when a lot of mandates were summarily binned and replaced with two simple but very profound duties.

Replacing "employer" with "RO" and "employee" with "competitor" they are:
The RO do to "what is reasonably practicable to safeguard runners, officials and others affected by the race"
And the officials and competitors to "comply with safety policy laid down by the RO, and obey all reasonable instructions"

Other legislation expands facets of that duty, to risk assess, supervize and communicate, and guidelines offer alternative ideas to achieve some of those facets, but in the end it is for the RO to determine how to operate "suitable and sufficient" systems to achieve the essential duty with reference to his course, severity, length, time of day and time of year, experience of runner and so on.

Then to document those policies, and ensure they communicate / supervize. Even what "communication" of policy means, has to be with reference to the size of the field. In a low risk situation with 20 runners, shouting out the few key points may be plenty enough, but with 500 runners and many more issues something far more formal and written is needed, as is means to ensure all runners find out. And the RO should be left in control of that process. One size does not fit all.

The emphasis is on "managing safety" not eliminating risk by "hazard free sections of courses" (thankfully now removed) or not running in "dangerous weather" sadly still there in the rules, and illustrating a big misunderstanding.

The duty for an RO is "to consider shortening or cancelling the race in extreme weather for the time of year" , not a rule based mandate to do so in "Dangerous weather" which leaves him damned if he does and damned if he does not because all weather is clearly dangerous.

Legislation might expand on one part of the duty for example:
"runners should be identified with a weatherproof physical marking that is not easily lost , but is normally easily read"

It is then for the RO to decide what is reasonably practicable in any particular circumstance.
An indelible written mark on a leg may be very good in one situation, where a waterproof number however attached may not be adequate in others more demanding situations, so legislation should not prescribe.

Guidance should offer alternative ideas, but in the end it is for the RO to enact his duty of care, "by doing what is "reasonably practicable" - the RO to determine with respect to the course, severity, length, time of year, and so on.

A group of us safety trained people would like to draft how this might work out in practise. But it needs a mindset change, away from over 50 "musts" to what is the norm for safety management now, that puts the RO back in control of safety management, and puts the runner back in charge of his safety.

There are three fundamental reasons laying down law does not work - which are also the reasons that factories acts were replaced with HASWA
(i) A rule book would end up far too big to cover the range of situations with "one size fits all" rules.
(ii) Just doing "the rules" may not be enough, or even sensible in some situations and it usurps the RO responsibility to do what is sensible too. The government found it hard to prosecute negligence cases under the old factories acts, because they had effectively become the "directing mind" by telling companies how to do it, even when inappropriate in situations that are hard to foresee.
(iii) In many cases, rules which are sophisticated enough to handle big situations, become a sledgehammer to crack a nut in others. Leaving such as Noel cancelling races for a handful of people on a summers evening. The government discovered under factories acts that too many were ending up not complying because it was too much of a sledgehammer / too expensive in time and resource in relatively safe situations, then because of that non compliance were uninsured when freak accidents happened, as is inevitable.

Spot the uncanny similarity in the above.

It is all deja vu for safety people. Corporates and government passed this way forty years ago, rejected it and decided it all had to be done differently, and the corporate world is now safer for it, because the rules no longer take over from the common sense need to treat each situation on its own merits.

[Fellhound]

It is all deja vu for safety people. Corporates and government passed this way forty years ago, rejected it and decided it all had to be done differently, and the corporate world is now safer for it, because the rules no longer take over from the common sense need to treat each situation on its own merits.

Absolutely right (again ). The FRA is going through this very process as we speak.

Just one small point: In H&S employment legislation there is a duty to carry out written risk assessments but there is no such duty in common law – so ROs don’t need to. Of course they must assess and control the risks but ROs and runners do that all the time. It’s not the same as a written document.

Ironically, a written document is often used against employers because of what it does NOT contain, and there is no written risk assessment that I’ve seen (and I’ve seen hundreds) that covers every possible scenario. Most race risk assessments I’ve seen are woefully lacking in that respect so it is actually better not to produce a written document but just to be able to say what steps you took to make the event safe ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’.

[alwaysinjured]

Absolutely right (again ). The FRA is going through this very process as we speak.

Just one small point: In H&S employment legislation there is a duty to carry out written risk assessments but there is no such duty in common law – so ROs don’t need to. Of course they must assess and control the risks but ROs and runners do that all the time. It’s not the same as a written document.

Ironically, a written document is often used against employers because of what it does NOT contain, and there is no written risk assessment that I’ve seen (and I’ve seen hundreds) that covers every possible scenario. Most race risk assessments I’ve seen are woefully lacking in that respect so it is actually better not to produce a written document but just to be able to say what steps you took to make the event safe ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’.

Documenting in the positive, such as course and hazards, checkpoint procedures, start finish procedures, and describing the means intended to communicate those to the relevant audiences, demonstrate that an RO is acting responsibly. The problems can come out of either failing to mention risks in a document of that title, or from risk assessment logic that actually discounts or underestimates the magnitude of risks which is unnecessary for an RO to do.

The race document would not "per se" be described as a "risk assessment", but by its existence demonstrate that such proper thinking took place. Unlike employee legislation, all race documents should play up the risks , and actively play down the RO ability to eliminate them, just manage them to an extent.

It is generally unwise for an employer to state right out "being here is abnormally dangerous", unless his business is such as building or farming, where it is clearly statistically true, where a fell race organiser not only can but should say that!

[Mike T]

Absolutely right (again ). The FRA is going through this very process as we speak.

Just one small point: In H&S employment legislation there is a duty to carry out written risk assessments but there is no such duty in common law – so ROs don’t need to. Of course they must assess and control the risks but ROs and runners do that all the time. It’s not the same as a written document.

Ironically, a written document is often used against employers because of what it does NOT contain, and there is no written risk assessment that I’ve seen (and I’ve seen hundreds) that covers every possible scenario. Most race risk assessments I’ve seen are woefully lacking in that respect so it is actually better not to produce a written document but just to be able to say what steps you took to make the event safe ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’.

Medical/surgical consent forms have gone from the vague/general to the highly specific in the last couple of decades. They used to just contain the name of the procedure and of the doctor taking consent - ( not necessarily the one doing the procedure), the name of the patient, and the date. It was assumed all had been discussed - what was going to be done and the possible complications. Now, who is going to do what is written down, and complications that are discussed are listed - the common: infection/bruising/bleeding/DVT/a scar; the rare but serious: death/paraglegia for example; and those specific to the patient: an abdominal scar in a swim wear model for example. I am surprised that H+S documents have gone the other way. If asked in court why more was not included surely the answer "because it would be torn apart by any decent lawyer" would go down very badly.

[alwaysinjured]

Medical/surgical consent forms have gone from the vague/general to the highly specific in the last couple of decades. They used to just contain the name of the procedure and of the doctor taking consent - ( not necessarily the one doing the procedure), the name of the patient, and the date. It was assumed all had been discussed - what was going to be done and the possible complications. Now, who is going to do what is written down, and complications that are discussed are listed - the common: infection/bruising/bleeding/DVT/a scar; the rare but serious: death/paraglegia for example; and those specific to the patient: an abdominal scar in a swim wear model for example. I am surprised that H+S documents have gone the other way. If asked in court why more was not included surely the answer "because it would be torn apart by any decent lawyer" would go down very badly.

Too explain a little further, in niche areas with well understood risks there are tight and detailed regulations (take for example scaffolding on the corporate scene)

Also in activities with well defined hazards and risks, I think it is better to produce a written risk assessment - which indeed in my past businesses I have always done, not yet coming to grief (touch wood) and those businesses have on occasion done very hazardous things, with the potential to kill thousands at a time rather than just one or two.

Clearly many surgical procedures have well known risks, so specific assessments/ warnings are useful. You could not on the other hand easily write a set of rules or a risk assessment for "surgery" generally - only a document on how to create a specific one instead, the type of issues to cover, and the need to do that.


So this is where we need the dialogue to get it "right"- I think there are comparatively few and forseeable types of hazard on a fell race, so a written risk assessment is certainly possible.

However, big however, in the RO case, that is not the most useful form for a document, and it would overlap with others that are essential.

It needs the combination of the course description/hazards - the instructions to runners highlighting such as weather risks/safety equipment/ start/finish/checkpoint/retirement procedures, the need to obey marshalls etc, the instructions to marshalls on the same checkpoint procedures - is a far better means of presentation.

Guidance for organisers explains how to create that document - with templates.

One document with pullout sections/instructions/warnings for the various parties, is better than several overlapping but similar eg an assessment AND instructions. We need to avoid a big paperchase.

Rules then only need to explain the few essential duties, that demand that the organiser do such things as create such document, that runners read and understand, and obey instructions, and sanctions for those who do not, makes the overarching safety rules a small document indeed. The rest is in the race document, tailored to whether it is a 20 man up and down on a summers day on one extreme, to a winter AL visiting very remote places with 500 entrants at the other extreme which may , or may not have road crossings. One set of rules just will not work.

I also think that simple race "categorization" per se is unwise, rather than "specific" race description. Declaring some races "NS" implies no navigation skills for the rest of the races, and that could be very misleading and have unfortunate consequences. Better the race document explains what the issues actually are, than a black and white demarcation. Otherwise RO , I suggest you all put ER and NS, just to cover your backs.

[Fellhound]

If asked in court why more was not included surely the answer "because it would be torn apart by any decent lawyer" would go down very badly.

But that wouldn't be the answer. The answer would be, "because the document is intended to provide a top-level framework only. Decisions and actions specific to the myriad different possible scenarios are left to the employer/race organiser. Additional guidance is provided to help them make such decisions"

[sol]

WTF.... you think RO'S/marshals get paid..... as a RO if anything happens at our races it's not the FRA that ends up having to deal with the police it's the RO and the thing we will be judged against is the rules...
example: in the rules it says..... "must not allow equipment that restricts hearing" "Must carry full body waterproof with taped seams and a hood, hat, gloves, whistle, map. compass, food and a fleece"
Does this mean we have to tell runners they have to carry but cannot wear a hat or hood as these are not allowed?????

Apologies if this is off topic, I'm just a runner and I don't speak Latin...but will I really have to carry a fleece to race next year?