New safety rules

[bigfella]

All races must end at a pub to ensure adequate re-hydration is at hand especially for long races on hot days.

[noel]

"When possible race organisers should arrange for the local MRT, Red Cross or St. John’s

Ambulance to be on standby but, as a minimum, organisers MUST ensure that a qualified First Aider
is present at the finish where there should be an easily distinguishable First Aid Post equipped with,
for example, sleeping bags to keep a runner warm in the event of hypothermia"

race marshalls... should carry first aid and sustenance, as appropriate, depending on such factors as the length, severity and remoteness of the event, to help competitors in an emergency"

I read that as race marshalls should carry first aid if appropriate. Your question was about short fell races. For the majority of these (except obvious exceptions where the marshall is on a high summit etc) I believe it could be reasonably argued that marshalls do not need to have first aid kits.

[Will_B]

So how many short fell races will have marshalls with FA kits? If a race is FRA insured.. a runner has a heart attack.. marshalls with no first aid kits.. would they be covered?

In this scenario a First Aid kit would be of little use. Training would be though.

[Mike T]

In this scenario a First Aid kit would be of little use. Training would be though.

If a runner has a heart attack/cardiac arrest a First Aid kit would be of no use whatsoever - but as has been said, training would be, as would prompt back up from either full equipped paramedics, or the MRT, depending on the setting; - in the latter case, because of the time involved, a successful outcome is rather less likely.

[IainR]

I know.. tbh a first aid kit is pretty redundant anyway.. you can always cobble something together.. necessity the mother of invention..

Not sure Noel... I read it as first aid kit must be required..

[TheGrump]

Not sure Noel... I read it as first aid kit must be required..

but obviously didn't read the preamble:
"(Note. For the avoidance of any doubt: “MUST” is used in an obligatory sense and non-compliance
implies a disciplinary sanction will follow. “Should” is used where the Committee is making a strong
suggestion. It does not just mean “may”.)"

[IainR]

So its in the rules and requirements.. but not a rule... perfectly clear..

[noel]

but obviously didn't read the preamble:
"(Note. For the avoidance of any doubt: “MUST” is used in an obligatory sense and non-compliance
implies a disciplinary sanction will follow. “Should” is used where the Committee is making a strong
suggestion. It does not just mean “may”.)"

Agreed. In this instance it's a "should" "as appropriate". Which to me implies a sliding scale from "probably won't need to" to "definitely should".

I think this approach is sensible and reflects the range of potential for issues arising. It would be reasonable to expect a marshall on top of Scafell to have some kit. But not someone standing next to a low-lying path in the peak district pointing people over a stile.

[IainR]

yeah.. so its just common sense.. seems strange to have that in.. I think the rules should be very concise.. as it is its a hell of a document.. who's going to read it..

[noel]

I think the rules should be very concise.. as it is its a hell of a document.. who's going to read it..

Except from people making minor points on a forum, you mean?

Race organisers briefly (and then in a lot more detail after a tragedy) and then the press, insurers and lawyers.