New safety rules

[alwaysinjured]

So chucking javelins, hammers and discus around an infield that people are running round isn't a risk sport? I wish it were true because I wouldn't have been getting a bunch of emails from some disgruntled athlete who nearly got hit by a hammer that went over the back of the cage!

Both 'athletics' and 'fell running' have safety issues to address - just not the same ones. "compulsory sections must contain no hazards" pretty much stuffs up every aspect of athletics. Stream crossings in cross country, water jumps in steeple chase races to name but two.

I agree, indeed most of the international athletes And events I have been involved with , are indeed throwers, and it is shameful how athletics, track owners, councils and the rest seem to treat throwers as a second class sport. But the hazards are very different, as is the way of mitigating risk. Most of the problems come from too many people together, where in fellrunning getting isolated is normally a factor in problems. Hammer competitions are generally finished before a track programme even commences to avoid the people concentration.

It is UKA who seem to dislike the principle that fell running is inherently riskier than running around a track, which is part of the attraction, or that competitors are happy with that, and so happy to absolve organisers of responsibility for them, so it is unhelpful to force more responsibilty on organisers than competitors themselves want to see. Nanny state strikes again, is alive and well in UKA. The concepts of getting lost or suffering from disorientation due to hypothermia are hardly common on a track, so there is a very different way of thinking.

An athletics event organiser is made responsible for the saftey of public and participants, and rightly so because many of them are below any age of responsibility so cannot be relied on to manage their own safety , from the moment they arrive at an event to the moment they leave. It is also reasonably practicable to do.

It is a world apart from fell running, when participants in essence have to manage their own safety from the moment they leave the start compound, to when they arrive at the finish, on a course which is inherently hazardous in between.

In contrast A hammer event properly organised when cages are inspected and set up properly poses little more risk than any other event. The main participants at risk are the judges in the outfield, which is why calling sequences are used to ensure no throw takes place until their attention has not only been requested, but also acknowledged by each of them prior to each individual throw. I have run a lot of hammer, discus and shot competitions, and a few javelin in my time! It is up to the event organiser to make sure that nobody involved in any other field or track event is at risk whilst other events takes place, generally by making sure there are none in the case of hammer.

[OB1]

[QUOTE=Khamsin;559200]

"compulsory sections must contain no hazards" has no place in the guidelines as we all accept that there are hazards in fell racing and there won't be race a in the calendar without hazards in compulsory sections.

Those are your words, they are not from the new document.

And it seems to me the same Section 4 message has been in the Handbook for over 20 years.

Khamsin, re-read carefully, are you dead sure the message is the same?

This years (current 2013) Section 4

4 COURSE DESIGN
Courses must not be unnecessarily dangerous and should be designed to prevent any temptation to gain
advantage by negotiating rock climbs or steep unstable slopes, where dislodged stones may fall on those
below. Compulsory sections must not include such hazards or comparable foreseeable dangers. Organisers
of courses which traverse high mountain or moorland terrain should consider having an alternative route
available for use in adverse weather conditions.

The new (2014) Section 4

4 COURSE DESIGN
Compulsory sections MUST NOT include hazards or dangerous sections and all courses MUST be designed so runners are not tempted to gain advantage by negotiating hazards such as rock climbs or steep unstable slopes where dislodged stones may fall on those below.
Organisers of courses which traverse high mountain or moorland terrain should plan an alternative route for use in bad weather.

****
The opening line and the overall message are quite different in meaning if you read them carefully. Now which seems more reasonable? I'd go with 2013 personally, but maybe the FRA lawyers think otherwise.

****
Another professional engineer, offshore this time - strictest H&S regime in he land (ha ha!), so I couldn't help myself coming back on, sorry.

[luxinterior]

A classic case of I am alright, jack, not my problem, it won't affect me.

But it certainly might.

You assume the organisers are willing to give up their time to operate races under a set of rules that in my opinion will leave them up sh!t creek without a paddle if anything happens.

Don't bank on racing because my opinion is upon discovering how exposed they are, I expect them to cancel in droves.

The problem is not for competitors or the FRA: the organisers are the ones hung out to dry with this - which seems to me a classic case of an ill considered knee jerk overreaction to a disaster, done to impress a formal hearing that "rules are now tighter" the consequences of which has not been properly thought through. Not least what would happen if an exact repeat occurred - it would be hard now for any organiser to defend themselves, because it is hard to see how any race could ever comply. I also worry that professional advice has not been sought to confirm ( or disprove) my fears.

If the FRA does not get legal opinion , I strongly recommend an organiser does as part of their own due diligence to determine their own personal exposure and the extent to which they might be exposed to negligence proceedings.

It is NEVER too late to assess the impact of safety , which ALL companies are obliged to do CONTINUOUSLY - and never too late to assess legal exposure prior to undertakings. It is better to get it right slowly, than wrong quickly.

You sound like one of those headmasters who will not allow conkers because of the health and safety risk

At the end of the day it all boils down to risk - this coming Saturday I will hopefully be running Langdale with a few hundred other people. Any of us could trip and get hurt during the compulsory initial section BUT, even if I did get hurt, I am not going to sue anyone. I'm fairly confident no one else running would either. So the risk to the organiser is fairly minimal.

[alwaysinjured]

[QUOTE=OB1;559219]

This years (current 2013) Section 4

4 COURSE DESIGN
Courses must not be unnecessarily dangerous and should be designed to prevent any temptation to gain
advantage by negotiating rock climbs or steep unstable slopes, where dislodged stones may fall on those
below. Compulsory sections must not include such hazards or comparable foreseeable dangers. Organisers
of courses which traverse high mountain or moorland terrain should consider having an alternative route
available for use in adverse weather conditions.

The new (2014) Section 4

4 COURSE DESIGN
Compulsory sections MUST NOT include hazards or dangerous sections and all courses MUST be designed so runners are not tempted to gain advantage by negotiating hazards such as rock climbs or steep unstable slopes where dislodged stones may fall on those below.
Organisers of courses which traverse high mountain or moorland terrain should plan an alternative route for use in bad weather.

****
The opening line and the overall message are quite different in meaning if you read them carefully. Now which seems more reasonable? I'd go with 2013 personally, but maybe the FRA lawyers think otherwise.

****
Another engineer, I couldn't hep myself coming back on, sorry.

What is it about engineers?

I have expressed my doubt that any lawyer has expressed a view that it is practical for a race organiser to comply - they may have been asked to look over it and perhaps commented that it does not pose problems for FRA , but that is beside the point.

One of my gripes about solicitors and why they are useless in a commercial context is they are always happy to propose words that protect their own client that none of the other parties can sign. The document ping pong that arises allows the solicitors to charge way in excess of the value of the task.

If a race organiser asked for his own counsel opinion they would I suspect tell them not to sign, using the normal obscure language they do such as " appears unduly onerous" ( you have to know how to translate!!).

In lay language that clause is errant nonsense, whoever wrote it had no concept of how the word hazard is used in safety legalese context, and therefore had no business writing it.

As alan sugar once remarked about advertising agencies - I have written big books on solicitors - cheque books, and whilst I do not reccomend it to others, I ended up re writing most of the contracts and documents myself and had far fewer problems after that, but then I have had decades of experience with legal and semi legal documents, and this one screams out to me that no qualified person was involved in drafting it, the language, structure and concepts betray that.

[Stolly]

You sound like one of those headmasters who will not allow conkers because of the health and safety risk

At the end of the day it all boils down to risk - this coming Saturday I will hopefully be running Langdale with a few hundred other people. Any of us could trip and get hurt during the compulsory initial section BUT, even if I did get hurt, I am not going to sue anyone. I'm fairly confident no one else running would either. So the risk to the organiser is fairly minimal.

Hahahahahaha

(Its nothing to do with fell runners accepting the risk; its whether their spouse feels the same way when their fell running other half ends up breaking his/her neck backward somersaulting off of Bad Step)

[OB1]

In all seriousness, AI what's wrong with you?
Re-read my post carefully.
It effectively supports the central thrust of yourand WP's and others' message.
But what is wrong with me also being an engineer - don't you believe me, do I need to PM you my certificates or something?
#
I feel like phoning CL and asking him to create a diversionary tactic on another thread.

[luxinterior]

Hahahahahaha

(Its nothing to do with fell runners accepting the risk; its whether their spouse feels the same way when their fell running other half ends up breaking his/her neck backward somersaulting off of Bad Step)

But the bad step isn't one of the compulsory sections that Always is worried about. It is optional - when I did Langdale couple of years ago I somehow missed it, no idea how. i'm looking forward to actually going down it on Saturday. If I do now do a back somersault and break my neck it will be down to karma and I will get my wife to sue you and Always!!! (that is a joke but I have no idea how to put those funny faces into a post)

[shaunaneto]

Right, I'm settling in for the next post.

Coffee in hand, biscuits at the ready.

[Stolly]

But the bad step isn't one of the compulsory sections that Always is worried about. It is optional - when I did Langdale couple of years ago I somehow missed it, no idea how. i'm looking forward to actually going down it on Saturday. If I do now do a back somersault and break my neck it will be down to karma and I will get my wife to sue you and Always!!! (that is a joke but I have no idea how to put those funny faces into a post)

Its okay I have no axe to grind on this but I think that the route of the Langdale Horseshoe naturally points you at Bad Step with most runners going that way. I take your point that its not compulsory but if I was a race organiser I'd be reminding runners pointedly of that before the off - its shown as 'the route' on race maps for example. And the most obvious alternative to Bad Step (the little trod to the left) is itself a bit exposed and not exactly hazard free.

Last time I ran Langdale, in an ironic twist of fate, it was my bum bag (chocka with compulsory safety kit) that inadvertently caught on the rock behind me and flicked me off Bad Step - I did do a backward somesault and ended up kicking Bad Step and busting my left little toe - I didn't kick Bad Step in a Basil Faulty tree thrashing rage after I hasten to add but as part of my actual back flip. Other than the toe smarting and feeling generally bashed and bruised I was able to carry on.... but that could have ended up much worse.

Anyway its all about the potential for non-fell running dependents that might consider suing race organisers and nothing at all to do with the runners themselves who wholly accept the risk - something that I know the FRA are absolutely conscious of

[alwaysinjured]

You sound like one of those headmasters who will not allow conkers because of the health and safety risk

At the end of the day it all boils down to risk - this coming Saturday I will hopefully be running Langdale with a few hundred other people. Any of us could trip and get hurt during the compulsory initial section BUT, even if I did get hurt, I am not going to sue anyone. I'm fairly confident no one else running would either. So the risk to the organiser is fairly minimal.

Absolutely wrong. I have fought constant battles over the years to use practicable interpretations of safety, and if you read HSE press releases you will see that they too are scathing about many public employee over zealous interpretations too.

Does not alter one iota that nobody can or should certify anything hazard free, and the stakes are way beyond claims: get it wrong and a race organiser could easily end on a manslaughter charge, as one very recently nearly did. These documents are not innocuous since they are used to test negligence claims. My gripe is FRA have made it almost impossible For an RO to defend themselves now, with some of the crass drafting of rules about weather and hazards.

I like to think no current fell runner would ever sue an organiser. An agrieved family might, or such a runner may feel obliged if he loses his income for several months, and bailliffs come knocking. The lawyers they would employ are ammoral. They would consider only how to win, "fair or reasonable" does not come into it. only legal interpretation, so lets not give them an open goal. A successful claim would sound the death knell for fell running as it is.

Stop thinking about you, and consider race organisers.