Ah trespass, tis but a fading memory.
Ah trespass, tis but a fading memory.
Mind you the farmers in Scotland can be a volatile bunch - when Harry was a mere pup he inadvertently ran into a field full of sheep at the Arisaig end of Loch Morar. One minute he was running beside me and my daughter on the main cart track and the next he'd run through a 20 metre wide gap in the wall into the field. It just so happened that the (mentally unstable) farmer was sat in his car right beside this gap in the wall (probably to stop his sheep getting out), saw Harry run in and then went stark raving bonkers, ranting and raving at our 'sheep killer' of a dog. This scared poor Harry witless and we had a hell of a time getting him back.... meanwhile the farmer went to get his gun. Long story short it all turned out okay but I'm sure the right to roam in Scotland puts a few farmers way way over the edge, an edge one or two of them are plenty close enough to anywayOriginally Posted by shaunaneto
Well put Stolly I suppose that makes sense. I think I remember running the opposite way to a runner with a dog at Edale so must have been you, although I've been trying to block those last few miles from my memory!That might be a belt and braces rule - for example were the race cancelled because the landowner had withdrawn access permission, the race organiser wouldn't I guess want a bunch of fell runners going round anyway as if they were flaunting things. Land owner permission is required for all races as I understand it but, if the land's open access, individuals can run on it when ever they like. Some race organisers respectfully ask runners not to recce certain stretches of a route pre-race, often where they're trying to keep on the good side of the landowner, but if its open access people can technically run on it if they want. I haven't done the 3 peaks fell race for yonks but probably run the route one way round or the other 5 or 6 times a year and I wouldn't like to feel that I was some way restricted from doing so, due to the rules of a race I don't even run in
I had to drop out of the Edale Skyline the weekend before last because I had nobody to cover for my border collie Harry. I asked if I could race with Harry but, in order to hold the race, the RO had to agree with the land owners (the National Trust?) that no dogs would be involved. He also asked me not to run round such that it might appear I was in the race which again was fair do's so I just ran a reverse half skyline with Harry going the other way and meeting the race coming the other way at Mam Nick. If the race had been cancelled I'm certain I could have run the whole route anyway; its not as if totally unrelated walkers or runners have to abide by such a rule is it?
The new Safety Requirements do not spell out all possibilities but, for example, in 1980 the Ben Nevis race was infamously cancelled at the "last minute" but 9 runners ran the full route anyway.Ha, you said the exact same point as me but miles more concisely Dave
If a similar situation were repeated and a runner were to die it is inevitable that the race organiser would be summoned to the Inquest and cross-examined in great detail on exactly what he said and did and did not say and did not do.
No race organiser should be put in that position and the new FRA Safety Requirement has been written to remind runners to act responsibly.
That was the very incident I had in mind.
An update has appeared on the home page.
What surprises me (though it wouldn't surprise me if I'm alone and outspoken such is the mind-set of most fell runners in Britain) is that the FRA go to all these lengths to ensure competitors' safety as regards kit carrying, yet we in Britain seem far less worried about the prospect of people getting lost in the hills, becoming injured and dying of hypothermia in bad weather because they weren't found in time. We all seem to accept the unmarked nature of most courses and therefore the potential need to navigate, as just part of the sport. Yet when you talk to athletes and organisers of races abroad they'll say 2 things; that it doesn't sound fair to them because it would favour the local athletes, and besides, isn't that more like orienteering? The concept seems very strange to them, as I say, a very 'British' fell running thing.
Bottom line here is it doesn't matter what they think, or indeed what we think, I just ask myself what a judge would say, the kind of judge that would rule an organiser negligent because he allowed a runner to compete carrying only pertex and lightweight bottoms rather than full waterproofs with sealed seams. If an unfortunate runner did have all the right kit in his bumbag but came to grief as a result of getting lost, would the same judge rule it was his own fault because he should have known how to use the map and compass that the organiser so responsibly made him carry? I wouldn't have thought so. Just makes me wonder, that if we're going to kit check every runner like school children before a race (and I don't blame organisers if that's what it takes), should we not then show them the right way to go, rather than send them off into the mist to fend for themselves? Doesn't seem to add up to me.
Decent point TimW about the navigation element. I'm fortunate I can navigate but I suppose marking some of the courses out there is nigh on impossible.
If it takes a top fell runner 4 hours to complete, it would take an age to mark out the route and then take those markings down.
Is there more money in the European races?
Look at the 3 Peaks where we have a £20 ish entry fee and close to a 1000 entries each year now. That gives them a budget to be able to significantly mark and marshall the route in a way most races can't.
I've read the post on the FRA announcement. I'm scratching my head a little though. I fully understand how the comments of the coroner have to be absorbed and considered.
I might be wrong, but I would suggest that the coroner is going to look at the events surrounding the race and tragic accident in question.
That race in particular is not a typical race. It's one of the toughest medium races in the calendar in some of the most challenging terrain in England.
Lessons have to be learned without a doubt, but we wouldn't rewrite the highway code on the basis of what happens over the Cat & Fiddle.
Please don't anyone take this as criticism of anyone or anything. It isn't. It's just an observation.
WP, I read the website post slightly differently in context.
I read it as saying that the opportunity to incorporate the coroners comments will also be used to revise the document to reflect other comments.
To me the website post of 11th September was perhaps misleading in that it implied (in layman's terms if not legalise) that the 1st September update to the safety requirements was 'final for 2014', whereas it really meant to say that is was, in the committee's view, 'final' to present to the September inquest and as a draft for RO advanced registration proceedings for 2014. Different timelines, pressures, considerations etc.
Again, like you just my personal observation.
Posting Permissions
