Does anyone?Originally Posted by mr brightside
Does anyone?
Clarification... Without reading the entire thread, I had the impression that new rules have been discussed then adopted that demand waterproof rather than just windproof body cover and more rigorous use of race numbers.
Fine if true.
But In clicking on the home page I find these safety rules
http://www.fellrunner.org.uk/pdf/com...quirements.pdf
Still saying windproof under equipment
So question.
Are the new rules adopted now, if so where are they? Or is this still at discussion stage?
Just trying to understand where we are now, and what (other than common sense dictates) I need to take to pass a kit check for the remainder of 2013 on.
Last edited by alwaysinjured; 03-10-2013 at 01:06 AM.
The new 2014 Safety Requirements (version dated 1st September 2013) were approved nemine contradicente by the full FRA Committee on 1st September 2013.
Fine if true.
But In clicking on the home page I find these safety rules
http://www.fellrunner.org.uk/pdf/com...quirements.pdf
Still saying windproof under equipment
So question.
Are the new rules adopted now, if so where are they? Or is this still at discussion stage?
Just trying to understand where we are now, and what (other than common sense dictates) I need to take to pass a kit check for the remainder of 2013 on.
They have been circulated to all other 6 fell running bodies (ie SHR, WFRA, BOFRA, NIMRA,...)- all of whom were invited to comment on earlier drafts-, UKA and they were issued to the Coroner at the Inquest touching the death of Brian Belfield.
It's done.
RO will have to implement them for 2014 to gain FRA Registration (and thereby race insurance).
The FRA Committee is planning workshops from next month to explain those areas that require interpretation, share best practice, etc.
Links on the FRA website are not my territory but, be assured, as the great Robert says: "things have changed".
Last edited by Graham Breeze; 03-10-2013 at 08:22 AM.
before the grump comes along...
Fine if true.
But In clicking on the home page I find these safety rules
http://www.fellrunner.org.uk/pdf/com...quirements.pdf
Still saying windproof under equipment
So question.
Are the new rules adopted now, if so where are they? Or is this still at discussion stage?
Just trying to understand where we are now, and what (other than common sense dictates) I need to take to pass a kit check for the remainder of 2013 on.
There were links earlier in the thread but I they don't work now.
However this one does.
http://www.fellrunner.org.uk/pdf/com...fety_Rules.pdf
looking at the date it's now active and will appear in next hand book.
I still can't get in to my head why people want to take kit that will "just pass" kit check. Not aimed at you AI but a general observation
Beaten to it by Graham.
For when the weather is fairly good and you want to be as light as possible, although in worse weather you definitely need a plan B
Thanks Graham and Ian.
A sticky thread on this site without comments allowed, linking "new rules adopted" and the relevant appendices would be useful.
Ian - You inserted the word "just" into "just pass"
Maybe you are seeing words that are not implied in what people say?
I used the phrase "other than common sense dictates" for example in bad weather I always carry a spare pair of gloves and balaclava in the bottom of a pack. So easy to lose a glove or a hat.
Thanks for posting the document link: I note that document does not self stand It for example refers an appendix on "hypothermia" which is not contained, and the link to it does not work. I assume all the above will be put on the website FRA links ASAP.
A worrying observation:
It is all a bit woolly in legal terms as to what obligations "must" fall on which parties, and what their actions or responses should be, in many places. It would give one of those worms of a claims lawyers a field day in twisting words to blame all and sundry. Not a discussion I want to open, except in as far as some issues impact me.
I wanted to know what the rules now define as "waterproof" in order to check the kit I have. The document is not prescriptive beyond stating "marketed as waterproof"
An observation I have already made, which should ring alarm bells:
The much maligned mistlite 130 are still in category "waterproof" on peteblands site - just click through to mens waterproof lower clothing - , so are therefore "marketed as waterproof" , and therefore apparently meet FRA rules as they are laid down.
See here.
http://www.peteblandsports.co.uk/trolleyed/5/6/121/130/
Precise wording is important, in the event of later problems. The document should probably say "marketed by the manufacturer as waterproof" but that in itself does not cure the problem, since most people rely on the information given on the retailers site (indeed they are the ones consumers have recourse against) and if you cannot trust peteblands who can you? I would urge PB to put them in a different section, if they are no longer applicable.
Last edited by alwaysinjured; 03-10-2013 at 10:43 AM.
http://www.inov-8.com/New/Global/Pro...Shell-210.html
I think it would be best to go off what the manufacturer states.
Quite often a manufacture will claim a standard and the retailer will usually adopt that or be over cautious. In the past I've sold waterproof footwear to Clarks but they were happy to claim water resistant, which made life easier for them.
I think PB perhaps have made an error in the description of this product as the manufacturers don't claim waterproof.
Although perhaps Inov-8 should consider whether or not they claim conformity with FRA Rules as it depends which rules for which races and it also rules are prone to change and review.
I did say it wasn't aimed at you, but I do read into many posts "will this pass"? meaning that there may be some dispute, as if to say what can I choose that will pass that's as light as possible.
I've moved in to 3 layer goretex from my Kamilika as I feel the cold more now? not sure why. I'm happier with that.
I'll PM you in a minute with some observations
Along with race Registration forms,insurance information etc race organisers have now been sent a copy of the " new rules " and the draft has been available for everyone to look at and comment on for some time. My hope is that everyone agrees to comply with the rules rather than seek to get around them in some way. They should certainly help most race organisers enforce the safety aspect and hopefully most competitors will accept them in the spirit in which they have been written i.e. For their own safety.
There is no doubting the motives of the FRA in revising the rules nor the expertise of the people who drafted them.
Fell running though is a safe sport. Whilst 1 fatality is too many, considering the number of events/races held each year, the nature of the terrain, adverse weather etc and the severity of the sport to my knowledge there have only been a handful of fatalities ( I have been unfortunate to have been running in 3 of those races ! )whether the " new rules " may have prevented any of those fatalities is debatable we shall never know but if life and limb can be saved in the future I'm all for it.
Posting Permissions
