New safety rules

[Graham Breeze]

[QUOTE=Richard123;559093]

QUOTE]

Hhmmmm.... you coud have mentioned this some time ago then couldn't you.

Richard,

There were good reasons why I didn't.

But I know of no good reason why nobody bothered to ask what the position was before rushing to pontificate.

Incidentally the FRA Secretary up to July 2013 is a qualified lawyer and was working on the revisions until then. And even later than that he accompanied me to talk with Kennedy Law about, inter alia, the current and revised Safety Requirements.

But in my experience boring facts like these have no effect at all on those who like to sound off on here.

As we may see in the next post?

Graham

[IainR]

You are absolutely right! Nothing has changed for the competitor. Graham and the committee have and continue to do a sterling job for us all to keep our sport as close to the nub of what we all love and enjoy under ever increasing pressure from The Suits. See you at Langdale.

I agree.. and said so earlier.. nothing has changed... we all had to use full waterproofs for many races anyway, which made Craig Jones comments slightly odd.

I do think a few things can improve but as Graham/drafter states these things are subject to change, so defining a HH may be a later addition..

Its the RO's which I think are most affected here.. for those that run lots in proper mountains our kit need not change really. Forget racing.. if you run lots in the mountains you want a lightweight waterproof jacket.. not one that is just fit for passing a test.. I can't believe anyone in North Wales who would run the Peris for example would not own a water proof jacket.. if you have the experience for such a route.. you have the kit..

[IainR]

[QUOTE=Graham Breeze;559107]

But in my experience boring facts like these have no effect at all on those who like to sound off on here.

As we may see in the next post?

Graham

Did I satisfy?

[rocksteady]

Dont you just love this forum ?
fantastic

[QUOTE=Graham Breeze;559107]

Richard,

There were good reasons why I didn't.

But I know of no good reason why nobody bothered to ask what the position was before rushing to pontificate.

Incidentally the FRA Secretary up to July 2013 is a qualified lawyer and was working on the revisions until then. And even later than that he accompanied me to talk with Kennedy Law about, inter alia, the current and revised Safety Requirements.

But in my experience boring facts like these have no effect at all on those who like to sound off on here.

As we may see in the next post?

Graham

[Graham Breeze]

[QUOTE=IainR;559109]

Did I satisfy?

Iain,

You are always good value for the Forum.

The new document is not crystal clear in all respects to avoid being too prescriptive and that is why the Chair is implementing evening Workshops for RO from late November to debate best practise etc.

Graham

[rocksteady]

[QUOTE=rocksteady;559110]Dont you just love this forum ?
fantastic

but on a serious note,
its good to hear that professional advice has been sought.

[Graham Breeze]

[QUOTE=rocksteady;559110]Dont you just love this forum ?
fantastic

Well I do so I try to play my part with enthusiasm and a smile on my face.

[alwaysinjured]

Indeed and thank you 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.

Glad to see you engage graham. this is not personal or show business, just genuine concern by someone who has seen how the law can shaft people in practise when unguarded statements are made.

From FRA perspective, I am sure the lawyers said the rules are fine.

Solicitors answer in respect of the interests of the parties that pay them, which is also why they are next to useless in respect of drafting business contracts because they seem unable to balance other peoples interests, instead making demands that other parties are never able to accept,

in a commercial context It guarantees a ping ping of exchanges that rack up the bills for both parties lawyers.

So Who in this exchange with solicitors represented the race Organisers interests whose duties are clearly made far more onerous?
Did they comment on the practicability of making a course "hazard free" or just express the opinion it would be safer in such a cloud cuckoo land.

I would be fascinated to see the opinion of someone scrutinizing the rules on behalf of an organiser who has to be bound by them. I expect their opinion would be far less rosy.

Would you care to share the opinion of UKA lawyer as it pertained to the recent case? I will bet they used the current rules to try to put a noose ariund the organisers neck, because that in practise is what they do. Now imagine what they would have said , with the ammunition you now give them...

I stand by what I said. Those rules are not written using the language any solicitor would use. So if they read them , they did not refine them: I suspect the primary function of FRA and lawyer interaction was in respect of the recent inquest, not the modified rules, so that sounds like a convenient half truth.

[alwaysinjured]

[QUOTE=Graham Breeze;559111]

Iain,

You are always good value for the Forum.

The new document is not crystal clear in all respects to avoid being too prescriptive and that is why the Chair is implementing evening Workshops for RO from late November to debate best practise etc.

Graham

Not too prescriptive?
Certifying compulsory sections "hazard" free!
ha! how can it be more definitive?

I am disappointed you consider it all a matter of levity graham, With all the thinly disguised insults - that as witton remarked, is why few are willing to engage with you in such a process.

A race organiser has nearly been indicted on manslaughter charges and you have cetainly made it even more difficult for them to stay compliant, and atay within rules. How is that a good thing?

[dominion]

I would never join a club that would accept people like me as a member

Probably just as well you're not a member of FRA then?? You've written nearly 6000 words on this thread alone, but still the 2 lines that stand out for me are,

I am not giving advice, just a personal opinion

I am not giving legal advice, just an unqualified opinion.

If you don't like the rules register your races as "multi-terrain" races through RunBritain. There'll be far less paperwork to deal with.