I do think it would be useful if the documents on the FRA website were dated to avoid confusion.
I do think it would be useful if the documents on the FRA website were dated to avoid confusion.
Indeed and thank you Lecky.Originally Posted by Lecky
The fun of the Forum is to allow free rein to the utterances of the ego driven, axes to grind, cabal and long may that continue
But if I may be boring: the 2014 Safety Requirements etc were sent to the FRA lawyers over a month ago, the same people with whom I have spent 6 full days discussing these very issues over the last few weeks.
And the current position? They will apply from 1st January 2014.
But now let's get back to throwing Christians to the lions.
I believe the new Safety Requirements will be prefaced by 2014. I also believe that the revision of the aforesaid is the start of a broader review of FRA documents (but not before 1st January 2014) and these will be dated as revised.
[QUOTE=Graham Breeze;559090]Indeed and thank you Lecky.
But if I may be boring: the 2014 Safety Requirements etc were sent to the FRA lawyers over a month ago, the same people with whom I have spent 6 full days discussing these very issues over the last few weeks.
QUOTE]
Hhmmmm.... you coud have mentioned this some time ago then couldn't you.
With respect the last thing this thread needs is an illinformed and erroneous opinion, and a clear error in defining risk and hazard.
NONE of that legislation applies, which binds employers and employees, or the concept of reasonable practicability which the FRA ( stupidly, or cynically) ommitted.
The rules should include concepts such as ALARP, possible, practical, indeed I have argued they should on this thread. THEY DO NOT, the committee failed to put them in.
And that is my bone of contention.
The only takeaways from those documents are the established definitions of hazard, risk, trip hazard and so on, which In essence carry over into Civil torts, and the duty of care that organizers must exercise to follow established rules and due diligence.
If a race organizer certifies his race is under rules that warrant no hazard in compulsory sections, and someone trips over a cobble and breaks an arm costing a month of work, then ker ching! Lawyer and claimant walk away with damages and costs, since the organiser has failed in his duty and undertaking. It happens every day in the courts in respect of pavements. There was clearly a hazard undeclared.
If someone trips, falls, cracks their head open and dies. It is the CPS, police, UKA and victims family who will look for any rule that was broken and use it as prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of the organiser. Over prescreptive rules could easily lead to civil claims resulting in bankruptcy or manslaughter charges
Unlike the FRA organisers will find it Less practical to hide behind the limitation of companies, so to me it is a cynical move for FRA to pile such impossible obligations on hapless organizer.
It seems to me we have been to the brink, and instead of learning from it, we have actually made matters worse for next time.
As for risk , the risk on the corridor and scafell is clearly possibility of death, and the hazards that can cause that are many and varied so please stop offering opinions in places apparently outside your competence. It is open season for a claims lawyer to argue that the corridor is compulsory on the borrowdale race, and therefore it should be free of hazard. All because of pathetic rule drafting and lack of rigorous definitions and absence of moderating phrases like "reasonably practicable"
There is an entire industry of amoral and immoral legal piranhas wringing their hands with glee at the rule changes and Awaiting the prospect of shafting a race organiser on a no win no fee claim when someone falls. Don't think it cannot happen to us.
That is what I accuse FRA of - failing to ask qualified opinion, so producing a document which is a chocolate fireguard for race organisers, indeed is the fire that will burn them to a crisp. It is a disaster waiting for somewhere to happen and and organiser to become a victim,
Unlike the committee I know enough to know , I don't know enough. The stakes are so high I have to be certain, and I cannot do that without qualified opinion.
So I now suggest all race organisers do take advice ASAP , since The document screams out FRA have not done so, I think they have been hung out to dry.
I hope I am wrong, I am sure I am not.
Last edited by alwaysinjured; 05-10-2013 at 11:40 PM.
And as for these comments... .. .
You are wrong on this. ALARP can be contested where there are no known standards or procedures defining what is ALARP for the activities being carried out. So if the FRA rules had included what you are suggesting a whole raft of standards and procedures for every single activity would have to be produced. How would this make things better for the RO? Just a thought.
Totally unwarranted comment.
I think you are missing the point here. some of the the comments on this thread are , as far as i can see,nothing but constructed.
no digs at the sterling work of the commitee in general.
chill out
Believe me I am certainly that. Hence ha ha.
If you read back you will see that two posters proclaim that they are engineers ("Chartered" in one case) and therefore...
So my post meant "well so am I and so what?"
Any chance we can move on now?
Posting Permissions
