DQ the cheats

[Trimm Trab]

He did say minor breaks, and he is actually correct. If you can move, you get off the hill unless help has reached you or you're 100% that help are on the way and know how long they will take. If you can't move then obviously there's not much you can do but hope for the best as it sounds was the situation for the guy with the serious knee injury. MRT do a very good job and are always appreciated, but in an ideal world I would sooner be rescued from the tamest environment I could drag myself to rather than rely on them reaching me in time.

Windproof kit is actually excellent. I have a featherlite marathon jacket and the great thing about it is that it keeps you warm even when soaking wet (providing you're moving) and because it's much more breathable than a waterproof jacket I can run in it much more comfortably and tend to don it much sooner than I would a full waterproof. I wouldn't expect to use it in poor weather, nor in a race calling for a waterproof, but neither would I dismiss it completely.

Fair enough. I suppose the upshot is - if you're only going to have a minor injury just take windproofs and keep on moving, but if you're going to have a big injury take proper waterproofs. Simple enough.

[Fellwalker]

Just need to agree how many jelly babies now.... :w00t:

But what if i turn up at the kit check with Haribo? Do i get DQ'd?

[Hazy]

Do Haribo do a Kendal Mintcake yan ? If not now there's a gap in the stock in Pete Blands van

[Rob Furness]

Fair enough. I suppose the upshot is - if you're only going to have a minor injury just take windproofs and keep on moving, but if you're going to have a big injury take proper waterproofs. Simple enough.

Now you're being daft. I take windproof stuff in decent weather and waterproof stuff in poor weather, but I'm well aware that nothing I could fit in my bumbag would be guaranteed to save me in the event of a serious injury anyway. It would mostly buy me a small amount of time to keep me from the elements long enough to be rescued, or drag myself off the hill, nothing more than that.

[Hazy]

I carry a small vac packed foil blanket which will wrap around should I or anyone around me be imobilised. Wind proof or waterproof stuff won't be a long term substitute for that. It''s personal preference but I do think we put far too much emphasis on "that'll do". Risk v Reward ?

[IainR]

I carry a small vac packed foil blanket which will wrap around should I or anyone around me be imobilised. Wind proof or waterproof stuff won't be a long term substitute for that. It''s personal preference but I do think we put far too much emphasis on "that'll do". Risk v Reward ?

It's all about risk v reward.. when I run in the highlands in winter the reward is the views.. so I carry blizzard bags, mitts, synthetic jacket, rucksack, go steady and enjoy as time is fairly irrelevant.. a race.. much less frequent.. I up the risk but get more reward.i.e. quicker time... but you balance it out.. and if shit hits the fan... then you just have to accept your calls... but the key is avoiding injury... so in conditions like this years Peris you slow down..you don't gamble with foot placings... you take less risk as the outcome of an injury is so much bleaker.. but that should be the runners call...

BUT.. I understand the grumps concerns re the minority. But then again such a stance by people like GB on popular magazines like Trail Runner don't help. If we all did more articles on safety in fell running we can help educate. As many of these people come from the running back ground.. the climbers/hillwalkers who step across into fell running do so with a much greater understanding of risk assessment,

[Witton Park]

I carry a small vac packed foil blanket which will wrap around should I or anyone around me be imobilised. Wind proof or waterproof stuff won't be a long term substitute for that. It''s personal preference but I do think we put far too much emphasis on "that'll do". Risk v Reward ?

and I can supply a nice little line in them if anyone is interested

[GeoffB]

Bloody hell, you're still at it. It must be Groundhog Day!

(I'm going back to the 4x4 debate to see if they've finished yet).

[MorganW]

The ending up in court bit could well happen. Back in the late 90's a mountaineering guide was taken to court by the wife of a client who had died when the guide and him were climbing in the Alps. The guide had made a decision that may have led to the clients death but the decision was made to avoid and even greater potential threat in the form of rockfall. Myself and many experienced mountaineers i spoke to felt the guides decision was correct but in court the prosecution expert stated that it was the wrong decision, the judge found in favour of the prosecution and the guide was found to be negligent.

So a case could be brought by a relative of a runner who has died in a race even though the runner themselves was experienced and accepted the risks (and not a novice who hadn't bothered to learn read the rules) and the RO could end up in court trying to defend their definition of windproof/waterproof. Obviously, we all hope that this scenario never happens but it shows that while it may be as Mark G said might just be semantics and everyone contributing to this debate is pretty much in agreement, it only takes a differing opinion in the right context for there to be serious consequences.

Interesting case. I have a copy of the judgment at home. I have friends who are guides who asked me to look at the case for them.

The nub of the case was whether the guide was negligent in failing to use static belays of 2 ice screws. He (Cuthbertson) took the view that because of possible/actual snow/rock fall on the North face of the Tour Ronde he should "hurry things along" by using 1 screw only. A belay failed, they both fell. The client died, the guide survived. Hedley, the client, was survived by his partner who was pregnant with their first child.

Expert evidence was brought before the judge. The experts were Peter Cliff, then leader of the Cairmgorm MRT for Cuthbertson and Allen Fyffe for Hedley. Cliff said 1 screw was fine in the circumstances, Fyffe said it should always be 2 screws when guiding. The court adopted the Fyffe view.

So, the guide was negligent and the guide's insurers stood behind the negligence claim.

Why the detail?

First, everyone needs to be clear that in the event of a(nother) tragedy, our views will only be partly relevant. Outsiders will look over our procedures to see if they are up to the mark or not. If a negligence claim ever comes to court, experts will be briefed for the organiser on the one hand and the claimant on the other. Anyone fancy that job?

Secondly, any case might turn on small margins. As Fellwalker notes above, he and many others thought this was a reasonable judgment call by Cuthbertson, but it wasn't. So said the court.

The helpful thing is that the insurers took the claim.

The prospect of an insurer not taking a claim is the alarming one, because that leaves the RO firmly in the personal liability cart.

[MorganW]

I think vetting is actually opening up organisers for liability should an accident happen to a runner they have vetted competent...

This is a difficult area.

But consider this for a moment.

You are the organiser of a Long A category fell race in mountain terrain. You give your race, quite rightly, an ER designation. But you chose to do nothing to check on the experience of competitors.

The unthinkable happens and there is a tragedy. Surviving relatives are advised to have a go (legally) at the RO.

One of the questions the Coroner will ask (never mind the barrister for the family in civil proceedings) is, what steps did you take to to check the experience of this particular, and other, competitors? (Because that goes to your credibility as a race organiser.)

Do you want to answer "I didn't have any system at all" or do you want to be able to answer that you did have a system, and then allow your legal/advisory team to argue about its validity/worth in the particular case?