New safety rules

[bigfella]

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.

But they have effectively in that many (if not most) roads in Derbyshire now have a 50mph limit imposed and if you believe the signs it has a lot to do with the number motorbike accidents. If the lemmings choose to kill themselves then fine, just don't impose restrictions on the rest of us.

[bigfella]

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.

But why would you want a marked course (except through farmland possibly) as navigating (or learning the route by reccy) is a large part of the sport. If you fully mark the course as many on the continent are then surely its a different sport. I believe the 3Ps was fully marked one year as it was in some championship or other.

[Witton Park]

But they have effectively in that many (if not most) roads in Derbyshire now have a 50mph limit imposed and if you believe the signs it has a lot to do with the number motorbike accidents. If the lemmings choose to kill themselves then fine, just don't impose restrictions on the rest of us.

Like the A50?

I know what you mean, but I think you know what I mean.

[Witton Park]

But why would you want a marked course (except through farmland possibly) as navigating (or learning the route by reccy) is a large part of the sport. If you fully mark the course as many on the continent are then surely its a different sport. I believe the 3Ps was fully marked one year as it was in some championship or other.

I'm not saying they would want a marked course.

I think Tim does make a good point. I can see the appeal of marked courses and in reality if you go to most races locally to me they are more or less marked in some way all the way, whether that's because of the presence of lots of marshalls, keeping to established tracks and trods.
It's the longer ones where the navigation comes in and it's not that feasible to mark them anyway, unless they have a PPP style budget.

[bigfella]

I'm not saying they would want a marked course.

I think Tim does make a good point. I can see the appeal of marked courses and in reality if you go to most races locally to me they are more or less marked in some way all the way, whether that's because of the presence of lots of marshalls, keeping to established tracks and trods.
It's the longer ones where the navigation comes in and it's not that feasible to mark them anyway, unless they have a PPP style budget.

I am arguing that for many people it is not desirable to have marked routes and that to do so is effectively a different sport. Appreciate what you say about many local fell races though, same here in the peak.

[shaunaneto]

A marked course is no use if your in thick clag and 5 meters of it and heading the wrong way.

[LissaJous]

I don't understand the distrust of marked routes. If after a minute you can't see any flags, then at worst you're lost by a minute, and you know to backtrack until you find some markers again.

[keever]

I don't understand the distrust of marked routes. If after a minute you can't see any flags, then at worst you're lost by a minute, and you know to backtrack until you find some markers again.

Marked routes can't be a replacement for the ability to navigate in a long race.
If you, for whatever reason (injury/exhaustion/deterioration of weather), need to get off the course to somewhere safer/warmer, you HAVE to know which way to go.
I don't distrust a marked route but it's not much use to me if it isn't going in the direction I want to go.

[Sam Harrison]

On a personal level, the fact that courses aren't marked is part of the fun, it's exactly what the sport is about. Fell running is a sport born out mountaineering and a love for the hills, and the ability to navigate is a huge (and very enjoyable) part of that. It's not easy (running on a compass bearing is much more difficult than walking on one!), but none of us pick the sport because it's easy.

On a more serious note, as keever has just said, the ability to navigate competently is an absolute essential regardless of whether the course is marked or not. It's the same argument as to why we don't put up signposts in the hills: Because people will become too reliant on them and find themselves stuck when something goes wrong.

Regarding how easy it is to follow markers in the clag: I think people forget how hard it can actually be. If the clag is thick then you're not going to be able to see more than a few metres, and so there'll inevitably be times when you're running without a visible marker. As LissaJous says, if you don't see a marker for a few minutes then you could turn around to backtrack. But, with all the adrenaline of the race I think it's more likely to be a case of "oh I'll just push on for a little longer, I'm sure I'll see a marker soon". I've done it before when following cairns up routes in the Alps (admittedly when it was pitch black, but then again being in thick clag isn't much difference), it really is all too easy to do. Even if you do decide to backtrack at some point, if you're in featureless terrain that could be easier said than done, and it also doesn't prevent you running off a cliff in the meantime.

On a side note, I welcome the response from the FRA, and I'm pleased to hear that the final rules will be subject to "legal scrutiny".

[alwaysinjured]

Glad to see the new initiative is taking place per the post on main site.

On a different issue:
I really don't want to see marked courses, do not think it is practical, and it would detract from the sport

I do think the dialogue between me and IanD hit on a useful idea, don't know how widely it is considered.

Perhaps a solution for Lakeland A races is to run them in pairs EXCEPT for those who can prove they are experienced runners over that specific course and only then in better weather. If conditions are poor, then no exceptions: run in groups which must not separate..

So that no “new runners” on any A course are ever left alone, and none are left alone in wintry conditions of low visibility.

That one measure possibly would have helped in the case of all of the fatalities I am aware. It is easier to see hypothermia in someone else, than yourself, and clearly a second person can raise the alarm immediately of any occurence. As far as I am aware (correct if wrong) there have been no fatalities in pairs events? In the fellsman you cannot proceed beyond some checkpoints except in groups, and if weather turns nasty during an event (as opposed the start)

Of course the course record/ race winner/ top ten types may have a problem with that , but it is the fell "runners" association rather than fell racers, so mid to back of the packers like yours truly would be happy with it.
And on a reasonable day, the top people can still race. They generally stay together in championship races for the first few checks anyway.