New safety rules

[MarkL]

I've got to say it all looks eminently sensible to me. It looks like there isn't much change for me as a participant - the biggest burden is on the RO. All the rules expect me to do is turn up and do what it's been expected that I should do for the last however many years. If that is the case than it doesn't matter to me if they have to express that in 2 million rules. What they are trying to do is write rules that stop smart are numpties from turning up with the sleeves of their cagoules cut off because "it doesn't mention sleeves in the rules."

I like the tone it is written in. It comes down to "Use your common sense. If you can't do that, follow these rules."

[Bob]

Hence why SI is the more reliable option.

I've known the SI dibber boxes fail on occasion - we were doing the Malham Trailquest and one failed to beep at me. I noted the number then as luck would have it the one at the very next checkpoint also failed to beep and log my arrival time.

[noel]

I thought it was less.. a Bavarian told me it was 5-6 this weekend..

Be careful what you believe from Bavarians. Also, they can't descend proper hills like us Brits.

[mr brightside]

From what I can see, these are simply the current "rules" updated and clarified to provide sensible cover for ROs and runners alike. They aren't designed to impinge on anyone's personal freedom on the fells as far as I can see.

Then you haven't read them properly or never read the last revision. There are new bits, many of them, most of them placing responsibility on the organiser. If you're talking as a runner you're living the life o' riley, if you're talking as an organiser you may want to reassess the amount of risk you are at or may be putting yourself in. I can't see that organisers have an increased amount of 'cover' either, quite the opposite, with existing rules elaborated and new ones added how can anybody simultaneously experience more 'cover' with an increase in responsibility?

[IainR]

I don't see that much difference.. guidance and the waterproofs sort of clarified.. but all in all, despite the amount of comments its generated.. not that much has changed has it?

Admittedly I'm not an RO so looking from a selfish runners perspective..

[Witton Park]

I do appreciate the work and expertise etc of the committee and anyone looking at what they have proposed will find little to contest.
However when breaches of rules or safety guidelines occur, the only reason to amend the rules or safety guidelines is if they were inappropriate or confusing in the first place.
I would say they were fine.
But (a minority of) athletes disregarded them and (a minority of) ROs felt they could turn a blind eye to them, or perhaps were ignorant of them.
Will these changes stop that?
I doubt it.
Which is why I would have favoured more enforcement of the existing rules against athletes and ROs that breached them.
And before people jump on that, I would suggest enforcement in the first instance should be by way of education eg if an RO is found to have some shortcomings, insist they work as a co RO elsewhere or put on some training courses for ROs.

[Woodzy]

At the recent Snowdon race the rules stated to pin your number to the front of your vest no numbers on shorts and no folded numbers, so begrudgingly in the very hot weather that's what I did, only to find many ran vest less with numbers on shorts and folded! I suspect no one was DQ'd. rules will always be broken by an minority if not enforced fact.

[Lefty]

I would suggest that most race organisers only have Fra accreditation for the insurance. No need to have a race in the calendar to swell the numbers these days. Some of the new ' rules ' may dissuade organisers from having Fra accreditation and seek alternative insurance arrangements. As a race organiser for more than 45 years and someone who has stood at the end of a finish funnel probably more times than anyone else live some of this seems like tinkering for the sake of it

[MarkL]

At the recent Snowdon race the rules stated to pin your number to the front of your vest no numbers on shorts and no folded numbers, so begrudgingly in the very hot weather that's what I did, only to find many ran vest less with numbers on shorts and folded! I suspect no one was DQ'd. rules will always be broken by an minority if not enforced fact.

Yep, the rule was stressed very clearly. I was originally planning to go bare chested but then begrudgingly wore my vest after reading the rules. Aren't I good? But I suppose it's exactly that sort of thing which turns us all into chancers at kit checks etc.

[RichK]

Forget using the Park Run system of barcodes. It's a nightmare. The readers don't work if there's too much light, you sometimes have to read the barcode 20 or more times before it beeps.

Plus one of our local runs lost their entire set of results one week. I don't know how or why, but foolproof it aint.

I'd be very worried if technology was enforced on races. No matter what the cost we'd lost a lot of races, especially the small local ones.