New safety rules

[fozzy]

" I don't particularly like to see topless runners. "

Why not?

It offends my delicate sensibilities :wink:

Seriously, I don't have a good reason, it's just a personal preference - perhaps it's something buried in my subconscious from the way I was brought up. I don't know. I know that I don't particularly like going round without a top on, and don't like seeing other men (or women if they so choose for that matter) doing the same.

For example, if I go to the beach or lake or whatever to go swimming, I'll always put a t-shirt on when I'm not swimming. Don't know why, just do - helps me stop getting sunburnt as well.

You'll never see me in a nudist colony!

[andy k]

Non-contiguous numbers don't necessarily cause confusion. I've used them loads of times as RO.

This is about organisers responsibility to know how many runners aree out there so they can ensure they are all accounted for.
Rather than defining a rule about how to do this (i.e. numbers starting from one ) I feel it would be more effective to state the requirement, which is that the RO's registration process should ensure that it records how many runners are taking part on the day
Then leave it to the RO as to how they achieve this.

Topless - again this feels like a rule in place of a requirement.
Requirement is that the runner must ensure that their number is clear / visible to race marshals / officials at any point in the race.
Reason - so that if you do go missing then your progress can be tracked as accurately as possible, narrowing any search area.

Perhaps what is missing is some expalination of why these rules and requirements increase the safety of competitors.
If people understand then they will be more likely to comply.

[fozzy]

Specifically mentioned in the new rules that you wouldn't have to show numbers in poor weather, and can shout number, with confirmation by the marshal. The exact procedure would be whatever the RO explains at the start.

I presume that you mean this sentence: "If a cagoule is worn it is for the competitor to identify him/herself to a marshal and NOT leave any checkpoint until the marshal acknowledges their number has been recorded"

See, I read that as the runner would have to show the number to the marshal.

[fozzy]

Non-contiguous numbers don't necessarily cause confusion. I've used them loads of times as RO.

This is about organisers responsibility to know how many runners aree out there so they can ensure they are all accounted for.
Rather than defining a rule about how to do this (i.e. numbers starting from one ) I feel it would be more effective to state the requirement, which is that the RO's registration process should ensure that it records how many runners are taking part on the day
Then leave it to the RO as to how they achieve this.

Topless - again this feels like a rule in place of a requirement.
Requirement is that the runner must ensure that their number is clear / visible to race marshals / officials at any point in the race.
Reason - so that if you do go missing then your progress can be tracked as accurately as possible, narrowing any search area.

Perhaps what is missing is some expalination of why these rules and requirements increase the safety of competitors.
If people understand then they will be more likely to comply.

I agree with your sentiment, but I would say that having non-contiguous numbers increases the possibility of the cause of confusion.

[LissaJous]

I agree with your sentiment, but I would say that having non-contiguous numbers increases the possibility of the cause of confusion.

So it's better to treat ROs like they're in year 4...

[L.F.F.]

So it's better to treat ROs like they're in year 4...

3 out of 10. Quite pleased with that.

[fozzy]

So it's better to treat ROs like they're in year 4...

It's not just ROs though is it? It's marshals in the hills, possibly in bad weather, it's number recorders etc.... and don't think transcription errors, handwriting that's difficult to read etc can't happen even on nice sunny days - I've done both jobs of having to record numbers and also check through the results for road races and XCs - if we have a race where there is no issues straight away, it's unusual. Normally, there's always a few numbers that are hard to read or a transcription error or something.

Having contiguous numbers won't eliminate these errors, but will make them potentially easier to spot and potentially quicker to rectify. That would be my line of thinking anyway.

I don't quite understand why you think it's such a big issue? Maybe you could explain? I can understand the starting at #1, as I've explained, but the having contiguous numbers seems eminently sensible to me.

[IainR]

It's not just ROs though is it? It's marshals in the hills, possibly in bad weather, it's number recorders etc.... and don't think transcription errors, handwriting that's difficult to read etc can't happen even on nice sunny days - I've done both jobs of having to record numbers and also check through the results for road races and XCs - if we have a race where there is no issues straight away, it's unusual. Normally, there's always a few numbers that are hard to read or a transcription error or something.

Having contiguous numbers won't eliminate these errors, but will make them potentially easier to spot and potentially quicker to rectify. That would be my line of thinking anyway.

I don't quite understand why you think it's such a big issue? Maybe you could explain? I can understand the starting at #1, as I've explained, but the having contiguous numbers seems eminently sensible to me.

I do struggle to see how you can have this.. yet want exceptions for personalised numbers..

It seems straight forwards, you have a list of numbers and/or names.. you tick off.. pure head counting is dangerous we all realise that. 1-100 maybe marginally simpler but as long as its a list in numerical order it is simple enough..

[fozzy]

By the way, personally, I think that we should be going down the route of using SI or something similar, as we use at Orienteering events - like they use at the 3P and other races.

Very quick, very reliable, and easy to process the data.

But that's my opinion and we've opened that can of worms on here before. It apparently goes in the face of the freedom of fell racing. Especially when wearing your brand-new, ultra-light, super-waterproof £250 jacket and your £200 headtorch or whatever.

I don't think we want to get into that debate again!

[fozzy]

I do struggle to see how you can have this.. yet want exceptions for personalised numbers..

It seems straight forwards, you have a list of numbers and/or names.. you tick off.. pure head counting is dangerous we all realise that. 1-100 maybe marginally simpler but as long as its a list in numerical order it is simple enough..

Agree with your second sentence.

Re: your first comment, If you read what I wrote - I said that this was purely under certain circumstances/races only (such as ALS, where it is a tradition and also made easier by the fact that it is PEO), and I also said you could associate those "names" with a number that is also on the "number" - these numbers would just be contiguous from the rest of the batch, probably starting at the end of the last numbered number.