New safety rules

[TheGrump]

Away from the kit side of this issue I still have concerns about the effectiveness/ability of race monitoring procedures to comply with the rules in the real world. I accept that the requirements are desirable, and that they will be achievable on many occasions. I can not accept that they will be achievable every time. But the rules expect this - they dont say 'except when....' or 'it is recognised that on occasion despite the best efforts of the organiser...' As I understand it they say and mean this MUST be achieved.
I hesitate to mention particular races because I dont want to give the impression (and I certainly dont mean to) that I am criticising the ROs - quite the opposite. Neither am I criticising the committee - I am trying to constructively debate some developing rules that I believe could cause us some problems in the future because they haven't been met because they can not be met. To me it seems obvious - we can probably all think of races we have done where marshalls and CPs are out of touch with the race start. They dont know how many started or how many retired before reaching them and they cant tell control how many have passed though their CP until they get back to the valley or to somewhere with radio or mobile phone coverage. Thats not because of any carelessness or lack of effort by the RO, its just an unavoidable fact. I'm not saying all races are like this but some are and as fellrunners and as the FRA I feel that we should be prepared to accept and acknowledge that within the structure of the rules that we will be judged by in future.

Do you really think that the FRA Committee believe that issuing a document is all that is required, and that they are not working on methods of giving practical workable support to RO based on that document?

I have counted and over 1/3rd of the FRA Committee are active RO for little races like Sedbergh Hills, Borrowdale, Sailbeck, Coledale, Kinder Trial + a stack of Rossendale/Junior/Keighley & Craven races.[/INDENT]

It occurs to me that they, and the rest of the FRA Committee, in contrast with the anonymous "experts" on here, may actually know what they are doing and why.

Just a thought.

[Mark G]

Do you really think that the FRA Committee believe that issuing a document is all that is required, and that they are not working on methods of giving practical workable support to RO based on that document?

I'm sure they are and I'm sure that in many if not most cases it will be achievable but I strongly suspect there will still be occasions where it wont, in spite of the best efforts of all concerned. Its what happens then that worries me - not that I might not be monitored round a race but that the race might not exist because as it stands the RO would have to accept from the outset that his/her race didn't comply - and as runners we would probably all be totally happy competing in it regardless of that.

[TheGrump]

I'm sure they are and I'm sure that in many if not most cases it will be achievable but I strongly suspect there will still be occasions where it wont, in spite of the best efforts of all concerned. Its what happens then that worries me - not that I might not be monitored round a race but that the race might not exist because as it stands the RO would have to accept from the outset that his/her race didn't comply - and as runners we would probably all be totally happy competing in it regardless of that.

So you want a race to be run under FRA/UKA Rules and insurance even it can't comply with those rules just because the runners are happy to take part. Presumably in the event of a serious incident, you wouldn't be happy that the RO may be left to face the law of the land on his/her own, and without insurance that now proves to be invalid and personally liable for any claims. That's the context and reality we face.

[IainR]

Do you really think that the FRA Committee believe that issuing a document is all that is required, and that they are not working on methods of giving practical workable support to RO based on that document?

I nearly fell off my chair laughing then Grumps.. you using Khamsins quote insulting people sniping from anonymity....

Brilliant..

Lets all just link to our power of 10 profiles? what else? I'm quite clearly who I am, ML, international runner. Contrary to belief it is in fact Ok, no further healthy, for people to hold different views.. even from the anonymous Grumps..

That was a classic by you there.. I'm off for a lunch with a smile on my face thanks!

[bigfella]

I suspect the next piece of advice will be that all RO's should become limited companies to restrict their liabilities in the same way the FRA and several running clubs have done.

[mr brightside]

The link to the new rules on the homepage is broken.

[mr brightside]

I suspect the next piece of advice will be that all RO's should become limited companies to restrict their liabilities in the same way the FRA and several running clubs have done.

I suspect races will simply be abandoned. It would be the only way to restrict liabilities in "the context and reality we face".

[IainR]

I suspect races will simply be abandoned. It would be the only way to restrict liabilities in "the context and reality we face".

Fell running is safe.. http://www.ratracemanvsmountain.com/ Supposedly the Grump is RO... Breezey's idea.. remove liability risk by making 1 mill per race..

[mr brightside]

Fell running is safe.. http://www.ratracemanvsmountain.com/ Supposedly the Grump is RO... Breezey's idea.. remove liability risk by making 1 mill per race..

I don't follow you Iain???

[IainR]

I don't follow you Iain???

Fully commercial races.. that was 150 per runner.. late entry price.. and supposedly they never had permission from landowners so its now threatening actual fell races in the area..