dibber or die !!

[Multiterrainer]

I like having dibbers in a race, it makes results more interesting, although being petty I'd like to use my own instead of having to hire one but that would be more awkward for race organisers so no problem there.

However, there seems to be some confusion around the safety aspect of using dibbers, unless the units are linked to some form of radio equipment then they tell the RO nothing about the progress of competitors. You can "interrogate" the boxes to find out who has been through but that would involve linking it physically to a laptop. The system does give you good confirmation of finishers and where they've been but only after they've finished. In their basic form they are no safer than conventional systems of checkpoint marshalling but much better for post race pub chats and split comparisons.

I'm sure Martin Stone could give much more detail about the system.

Totally agree - a scenario to consider..... a runner falls and is injured/unable to continue within sight of a marshall but off the main race route and out of sight of other runners, as is possible with clag down/conditions like Saturday, the marshall can then make the necessary 'call' as to how to assist the injured runner. If this marshall was replaced by the dibber system then surely you have serious problems/delays in attending to the injured runner?

So to me, from a safety angle, marshalls are still required, although obviously marshall safety also has to be considered.

[Hanneke]

Yes, it would be if it was up to me! We would all use the SI system! Excellent way of tracking runners on the fells and so much safer than having marshalls out for hours in all weathers... Also, it takes a lot of time to get the message of a potentially missing runner back to HQ if a CP marshall will have to do it. I have been CP/summit marshall at long and medium races and it is very difficult to actually track all runners through your CP... they may miss it, you may miss them or not get their number because it is covered with a waterproof. I know most local runners, however, it goes a bit far to know all of them!!!

With the SI dibber system, you will know in reasonable time, if you have live transmission on say one or two of them, where runners have gone missing and you can send out help before the race is over, which could be hours!!!!

It would certainly give me piece of mind, as I feel responsible for both my marshalls and my runners!!!

If Fell Running was invented today, do you think dibbers would automatically be included as the best way of helping the event go better?

[L.F.F.]

How about including a Dibber in the membership/membership renewal package? Would show the FRA to be proactive in simple but effective measures to maximising safety on the fells?

That sort of statment concerns me slightly. First concern is, who are they showing? The second is, is it for the FRA to be maximising our safety? It goes back to the personal responsibility point. We go into it with our eyes open don't we?

[fozzy]

If Fell Running was invented today, do you think dibbers would automatically be included as the best way of helping the event go better?

Yes, some form of electronic monitoring would be I suspect, whether it be SI or GPS or whatever.

Orienteering moved from a "pin-punching" method to SI/Emit some time ago. I've only just started orienteering, but I don't hear anyone bemoaning that the change has done anything but enhance the sport.

[IainR]

That sort of statment concerns me slightly. First concern is, who are they showing? The second is, is it for the FRA to be maximising our safety? It goes back to the personal responsibility point. We go into it with our eyes open don't we?

google fell running safety... you'll get a load of sheets to read..

Re the point about marshalls.. OK you have real time, dibbers, you know a runner went through point X and isn't at point Y.. you know what time he went through point X. The marshall is only any use there if he sees him fall, which in most longs, with long distances between CP's is unlikely.. more likely will be a fellow runner, but if not the dibber system will increase the chances of firstly knowing he's missing and secondly where he last was..

[IainR]

Totally agree - a scenario to consider..... a runner falls and is injured/unable to continue within sight of a marshall but off the main race route and out of sight of other runners, as is possible with clag down/conditions like Saturday, the marshall can then make the necessary 'call' as to how to assist the injured runner. If this marshall was replaced by the dibber system then surely you have serious problems/delays in attending to the injured runner?

So to me, from a safety angle, marshalls are still required, although obviously marshall safety also has to be considered.

How would a runner be off course and out of sight of a runner, yet in sight of a marshall on that route...

You'll still need marshalls, you'll probably have less, and also have observant marshalls not fervantly scribbling down numbers on wet paper..

[L.F.F.]

google fell running safety... you'll get a load of sheets to read..

Re the point about marshalls.. OK you have real time, dibbers, you know a runner went through point X and isn't at point Y.. you know what time he went through point X. The marshall is only any use there if he sees him fall, which in most longs, with long distances between CP's is unlikely.. more likely will be a fellow runner, but if not the dibber system will increase the chances of firstly knowing he's missing and secondly where he last was..

Had a quick look and it seems to confirm the personal responsibility point.

[IainR]

Noone is against personal responsibility.. I've said that time and time again re shortening of races.. I just think we have technology which reduces errors (which do happen), so use it.. don't enforce it. I fail to see how they will, or have, change the ethos of fell running in the slightest. They are just an improved quicker version of the current system.

The Ben race use tags. I registered to get my buff, but didn't start. That night I was phoned as they were about to send out a search party. We had 2 tags, one for the start, one for the summit. The start tag shows you started, the summit tag shows you summitted, you get counted in.. so if I'd not put my tag at the start why were they looking for me?

The system had failed. This was 7 pm on a day of pretty bad weather. Had I been in trouble it probably would have been too late anyway. The SIS system would have shown I hadn't started. They'd also not checked the summit tags. I accet I confused things by registering, but I'd just ran the UTMB and thought I'd get my buff for entering, but not start as I had the commonwealths 100k soon..

[Multiterrainer]

How would a runner be off course and out of sight of a runner, yet in sight of a marshall on that route...

You'll still need marshalls, you'll probably have less, and also have observant marshalls not fervantly scribbling down numbers on wet paper..

Sorry, I didn't specifically mean that route, just those conditions, and said it is 'possible' - guess I'm thinking worse case scenario, and a much smaller field than Saturday's (A Welsh race perhaps ) where it is entirely possible for runners to be spread out and to be coming into checkpoints from various directions - it has been known.

[IainR]

yeah of course.. but if a marshall is at a CP.. 1. they'll be too busy counting people through, I always am, they'll be struggling writing in the rain, 2. runners will also pass that CP so they could see this runner..