New safety rules

[Witton Park]

There's a serious side to this that AI has raised and Stolly backed up.

I host FRA Races at Witton Park. Hardly hard core fell terrain for those that know it.

But I've had a brief glimpse through the "2014 Guidelines for Race organisers" (haven't had time yet for the other stuff) and I'm really concerned.

Maybe I missed something in the past? But :-

1. Road Crossings - ensured manned by two helpers.
Define a road crossing. I know cart tracks frequented more often by vehicles than the road crossings on my races. But my races do cross a tarmac farm access road and a park tarmac access road so now I have to find 3 extra marshalls or risk being in breach of these guidelines.

2. The virtues of the sticky label system. The document seems to advocate this as the best system to use. So if I don't use this am I on thin ice?
I've used professional IT results and registration for my races. They've worked well. I've been at races where the sticker system has been overwhelmed and also mistake ridden.
Human error - it happens all the time. Am I as RO ro be everywhere?

3. Kit Requirements - "Large Notices" - define??? a4, a3, HOW MANY!!

4. As has been already said "obstacle free first section". I don't know a race with an obsdtacle free first section, because it involves athletes, and they have a tendancy to lose their head at the start and leg each other up.
Perhaps we set them off Time trial style at 1 minute intervals?

5. Gates - they must be marshalled. That's another 2 marshalls. BUT apparently juniors are ideal for marshalling gates so I can find a 12 year old girl and stick them on their own in a secluded wooded area 30 minutes before race start - yeh right!!

6. I have to kit check my marshalls and make sure they head out with hot flasks of tea, coffee or whatever.

7. I need 9 people at the finishing line. 4 with number recording responsibility and 2 with timekeeping responsibility plus others.

What it basically means is that liitle old me who's arranged National Champs, Area Champs, World Trials, County Champs on Road, Fell and Cross Country, will now have to "conform" to some guideleines for fear of being at risk of litigation because they go far too far in setting out what is required - that's if I want to have my races permitted as fell races.

Who are the FRA to advise me where and how many marshalls I need and how many officials I need at the finish? But if I don't do it????

So perhaps I am best not to do it.

If I have these issues at a relatively benign venue like Witton Park, then how about more traditional fell venues? (and I've only looked at the one attachment so far).

By the way, I have to say this dual recording system.
Using registration forms as a head count and if that doesn't tally with the athletes on the start line, establish why?

Has their ever been a race where the athletes registered has tallied with the athletes that set off? I was RO at he NW Road Relays and I had clubs declaring teams within an hour of the start that never raced!!!
That was pre-entered, pre-registered teams where a team manager came up and filled in a declaration slip on the day to confirm that what they had declared on line would run on the day. Each team was 3 - 4 athletes. Some didn't even start a leg 1 runner!!

Anyone who thinks that registration slips is an accurate way of head-counting the starters - well - not a chance.

I can see race starts being delayed ages if any RO takes the position of using on the line head count compared to athletes registered, cos if they don't tally, they can;t start, and 90%+ of the time they are not going to tally.

[dominion]

What it basically means is that liitle old me who's arranged National Champs, Area Champs, World Trials, County Champs on Road, Fell and Cross Country, will now have to "conform" to some guideleines for fear of being at risk of litigation because they go far too far in setting out what is required - that's if I want to have my races permitted as fell races.

The last time I read the docs, even if the race organizer was considered 'negligent' the UKA insurance was still valid.

[IainR]

Sorry but that's not how I read it. It says that only one person who sent Graham his views posted them on the forum. the others didn't want to air their views on the forum...no mention of AI (unless he was the one person who did)

I don't get this.. it's the FRA forum.. the FRA committee use it to communicate to members.. so why not in return.

Why ignore valid (deem valid as they seem fit) suggestions just because they were only voiced on the forum...

forum A meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged..

That is how the FRA use it.. hence why stickies... it just seems needlessly petty to say.. 'well that was voiced via the wrong medium'..

Obviously if they said they never read it fair enough.. but shit a brick.. Breezey doesn't miss a trick.. and don't be started on Grumpsy..

Was tempted for Penistone tomorrow but unwise.. deffo injured..

[Khamsin]

Why ignore valid (deem valid as they seem fit) suggestions just because they were only voiced on the forum....

Were there any?

Or is this just a fun thread of Graham bashing from thosewho are jealous that they are not on his Christmas card list?

[Witton Park]

Absolutely right Iain. The other great feature of the forum is that when a point is made it can be scrutinised by many and so there is some instant feedback for the decision makers and the grass roots.

[wkb21]

The last time I read the docs, even if the race organizer was considered 'negligent' the UKA insurance was still valid.

UKA Insurance (or any insurance) does not protect you from being found guilty of gross negligence; it provides your defence costs in a court where the jury can still find you guilty. This is small consolation if your guilt is due to the impossibility of complying with over-prescriptive rules and requirements. The extremes of this very important debate are a) FRA’s new and more prescriptive rules and requirements and b) AI’s very wise warning about the difficulties that race organisers now face.

The debate will be resolved by race organisers who now have to decide whether they can face the risks that are inevitable with the new requirements. None of this matters until the next tragedy (which will happen despite all our best efforts). But that doesn’t mean we should stop being very concerned.

[IainR]

Were there any?

Or is this just a fun thread of Graham bashing from thosewho are jealous that they are not on his Christmas card list?

ahh dee dums you upset "I made you look a muppet last week..and if you look I said where they deem fit...

But hey lets snipe from a position of anonymity...

Although I can't see how this is GB bashing. unless GB is the FRA.. its the FRA's stance that the forum is only for one way communication..

[mr brightside]

There is no value in giving anyone grief - the right result is the key.

Amateur is not an offensive word or comment of general capability, it is a proper description of fitness to conduct specific tasks.

I am happy to consider my self amateur in places I am not competent to advise. Building fascinates me, and whilst I am happy to tinker, i have to take and follow and take advice on anything of significance. I am not professional or competent builder.

I am a professional and well qualified chartered engineer - I have advised on seriously dangerous projects which had I got it wrong could kill thousands, so I have to ensure that I am competent to do that, or decline to comment or advise where uncertain. I am expected to know my limits, and not blunder in areas outside expertise. I am or was a professional company secretary charged with handling contractual matters, so wherever I had qualms about knowledge or legal interpretation I had to take advice. Ditto safety, whilst qualified on operational safety and a responsible person for corporate safety I have to know the limits of that and so on, or be open to claims of negligence.


After much experience of contractual and safety things, I am certain no professional would create a safety document such as the rules without proper regard to the limitations of practicability, which the document clearly does not contain. The language and presentation of the document screams amateur, and I think a lawyer acting against an organiser could have a field day with it.

I expected to see a more rigorous document aimed at minimising the likelihood of negligence claims, and I see the opposite.

I find it hard to believe professional advice has been taken to determine the respective likelihood of liabillity for FRA and organisers in respect of the final document because it is not written in the kind of language those people use. I cited examples.

If the committee are indeed amateur - ie no professional lawyers or safety people - not an insult - then considering events and the recent use of the previous rules in the context of a tragedy, which could have had criminal not just civil consequence, then that failure to take advice outside the scope of their professional competence would in any other context Be considered negligence on the part of the committee.

That is all I am asking them to do. If there are as I suspect, no professional lawyers or safety people among them, which that document radiates, then they should seek a professional opinion on the likely consequences to organisers in event of a tragedy, and in consequence rewrite it in a more robust way to protect all parties interests.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and claims that well intentioned people lost by failing to pay attention to detail in a litigious world.

I know my own limitations, and declare myself not competent to give said advice, but I know enough to know when such advice should be taken.

Since I neither race nor organise, it is not of much significance to me, but I suspect the organisers if they appreciated how exposed it leaves them would cancel,most of the race calendar until sense prevails.

I have repeated the same things several times so until something changes, little point in adding more.

If another accident happens, that document will become the nails used by amoral lawyers to crucify the organiser. I do not want that to happen, but seemingly I am almost alone in that. If the worst happens it will be everyones lawyers: not just the victims families, but also the insurance company, the police and CPS, and probably UKA too, lining up to take potshots with that document, citing broken rules. The organiser will stand alone. We owe it to the organiset to at least make it a fair contest based on practical rules. Right now they are not. It is a chocolate fireguard.

If you are right with the general cut and thrust of this, then we are also at risk from fraudulent claims. Everyone's doing it these days; a bus driver recently deliberately crashed his bus with a load of claims company employees on board, the idea being they claimed against the bus operator for injuries supposedly caused by driver negligence. Eyewitness reports had me roaring with laughter. Apparently one claims company employee on board was seen to run the length of the aisle and hurl himself head first at the bus windscreen! Such reports alerted the police to the scam, as if it wasn't obvious enough already with all would be claimants working for the same claims company. If we become the target of similar attempts we'll be in a right pickle.

[wycoller]

Sorry to diverge from the race organisers responsibilities but I need to decide whether to buy new over trousers ahead of the full tour of pendle. I am personally very happy with my inov8 mistlites.

These are currently advertised by the manufacturer as meeting the FRA kit requirements and by Pete Bland under their waterproof section. Will they pass a kit check?

[alwaysinjured]

If you are right with the general cut and thrust of this, then we are also at risk from fraudulent claims. Everyone's doing it these days; a bus driver recently deliberately crashed his bus with a load of claims company employees on board, the idea being they claimed against the bus operator for injuries supposedly caused by driver negligence. Eyewitness reports had me roaring with laughter. Apparently one claims company employee on board was seen to run the length of the aisle and hurl himself head first at the bus windscreen! Such reports alerted the police to the scam, as if it wasn't obvious enough already with all would be claimants working for the same claims company. If we become the target of similar attempts we'll be in a right pickle.

Absolutely.

And careless words make that all the more likely.

It seems to me whoever wrote the trite nonsense "no hazards in compulsory sections" was seemingly unaware that the word "hazard" has a specific meaning established in safety legislation and reinforced in common law actions.

Probably the most common hazard over which billions are taken in claims and costs by amoral prats of solicitors and their claimants is a " trip hazard" whose interpretation is established in endless precedents

So to claim there are no "trip hazards" in compulsory sections of fell races demonstrates little except that the author of that section of the document had no business drafting it, since he or she was not competent to do it.

The rules as they are are a group of well intended suggestions, by well meaning people. But they should absolutely not be published unti redrafted by a competent person, not least because the very concepts are wrong in a safety legislative sense. The rules should impose duties to assess, inspect, train , test , inform, workaround and supervize, and provide audit trail to prove they did, with the aim of reducing risks as far as is reasonably practicable, and limit it as such with words such as "reasonable" "practicable" "possible", also accept and state that in practise fell running is risky, all systems and people are fallible and with the best will in the world errors are inevitable. The rules should not as they do impose an unlimited absolute mandate on organisers to eliminate risk, on any part of a course, which is not possible or practical.

I cited the issue of gavin bland falling at the end in the last few metres of winning duddon, turning into the finish, well within taped compulsory section, putting himself out for months. That could so easily have provided almost an indefensible and valid claim against the organiser under that new rule, let alone the scope for fraudulent ones. Not that I suggest he would - most fell runners are not like that - but neither should we invite such an action.

It needs experienced professionals who carry indemnity insurance, not well meaning amateurs to draft this, on the basis of objectives and ideas supplied by the committee and consultation process.