New safety rules

[alwaysinjured]

My point exactly Iain. Statistics can be made to say pretty much what you want, especially when they are just made up.

There have been a lot of posts on this thread that are exaggerations or misinterpretations, that, if people took account of them could be quite worrying. This doesn't help get a balanced view.

And I agree with Richard that this thread is long enough.

With respect Lecky - the estimate of fatalities per racing hour is a reasonable low side guesstimate of order. So "made up" is not a proper characterisation. That is the rough order of racing hours per annum, unless you can come up with a better estimate which would take a long time to do, by going back to a statistically significant group of races and actually adding up times for them. And I doubt it would differ substantially not by an order either way.

But the takeaway is that ours whilst it is a "risk sport" in need of runner responsibility and appropriate disclaimers, is nothing like as dangerous as many others, such as horse riding.

A pity that comparison was not reported by the media vultures.

I fail to understand why people regard this as any way worrying, enough to try to challenge the figures. Triathlon figures are of similar order indeed probably a lot worse, 1 fatality per order 100000 hours / 100000 outings primarily related to swimming and starting as reported elsewhere. So we are hardly remarkable.

I recollect reading that a university study had shown that cycling to work reduces average mortality by 40% - the net benefit of exercise way exceeding the risk of it. That 40% clearly refers to a subset of working age.

PS to put these figures into context, an entire lifetime is order 600000-700000 hours including sleep, now we all live longer.. Living itself is fatal eventually

[Mark G]

So you want a race to be run under FRA/UKA Rules and insurance even it can't comply with those rules just because the runners are happy to take part. Presumably in the event of a serious incident, you wouldn't be happy that the RO may be left to face the law of the land on his/her own, and without insurance that now proves to be invalid and personally liable for any claims. That's the context and reality we face.

I've been away or I would have replied to your post sooner - thats my whole point and I think others have posted about it since in a lot more detail but with much the same reasoning. AI came at it from the point of view of not having 'hazards' on the race route and I was trying to make a similar point about race monitoring etc. The new rules as they stand seem to me to set an unattainably high standard for ROs to meet. If they dont meet the standard they will be judged against it regardless because our governing body has set it. I agree that none of us want the RO to experience difficulties if something goes wrong and therefore I think the rules should reflect the reality that the desirable standard can not be achieved on every occasion. My comment about being happy to run round simply reflects the fact that most of us (I think) accept the situation that we are primarily responsible for our own safety and the rules are there as much to protect the RO as they are us. If or when the standard set by the rules cant be met they dont protect the RO, they do the opposite. Most races will probably be fine, some perhaps not.

I'm thinking of somewhere like Esk Hause that features as a checkpoint in quite a few races with different starting points. If marshals aren't in a position to comply with the race monitoring rules because they cant contact Langdale or Borrowdale or Wasdale from there then what happens? Is a classic race shortened or cancelled altogether? I'm just using these as examples - they may all have perfect systems but what then if one of them fails during a race? Or something like the Mountain Trial where marshals might be expected to know if a runner is overdue at a CP when there are three different courses which might all pass through it with people having started at widely staggered times and taken a variety of routes to it?

I accept that the FRA will help and support ROs in achieving the standard - but one of the rules might as well say 'You must not allow anyone to get injured during your race' - you can take precautions to try and avoid that happening but no amount of help or guidance will ever achieve it.

I appreciate that the document is going to be revised at some point and I welcome that. I submitted some comments but as I'm away a lot and dont usually have access to the internet while I am they were a couple of days late. I also accept that I've interpreted them as I read them to mean and that my understanding isn't necessarily the intention of the writers, so things may become clearer.

[OB1]

Wow. 669 posts on this thread. You can jump if you think I'm reading through all that, I've got ladies knocking at my door wanting some action....would anybody care to summarise the above?

A modern fell running rendition of 'War and Peace'... and well worth the read.
But clearly in your predicament perhaps you won't have the stamina.

[IainR]

Ian - I think you are are missing the point: It illustrates how low it is not how high... As you say, allowing for training hours, the numbers pale into insignificance. It is not the racing that gives the danger to cyclists by and large, it is proximity to traffic.

The point is: Motorcyling is far more dangerous, and horse riding even more dangerous than that.
I read that a horse owner can expect a serious incident or accident every 500 hours, with a dozen fatalities every year, and a lot more paraplegics where they came from.

No I didn't.. you quoted stats which were incomparable, regardless of your point.

I'm not sure what the point was.. sort of stopped reading this thread too much.

[noel]

AI, you've contributed 55 posts to this thread so far. Given that your average post is about 300 words, have you considered a career in writing? I won't cheapen this already cheap comment further by giving an opinion on whether you would be better suited to fiction or non-fiction.

But keep it up. There are some gems hidden in there. The one on statistics was quite enlightening.

[alwaysinjured]

No I didn't.. you quoted stats which were incomparable, regardless of your point.

I'm not sure what the point was.. sort of stopped reading this thread too much.

Read it again - in context this time - I was not comparing sport in the instance you cite, but the relative risk of travelling to competing, i used bike as a means of travel.

To compare sport risk - your point in choosing racing - a better comparison is triathlon stats as above which is probably more risky than fellrunning.

[alwaysinjured]

AI, you've contributed 55 posts to this thread so far. Given that your average post is about 300 words, have you considered a career in writing? I won't cheapen this already cheap comment further by giving an opinion on whether you would be better suited to fiction or non-fiction.

But keep it up. There are some gems hidden in there. The one on statistics was quite enlightening.

To my mind these are important issues. Would not waste time just as a discussion.

And yes, I do sell written information over the web. Started before most even knew what an ebook was, long before kindle.

[OB1]

And yes, I do sell written information over the web.

Great stuff - your contribution to this thread in indeed priceless, yes, seriously. I hope you have it copyrighted. I did sense some of the words on the FRA homepage might have been 'borrowed'. You might have a case for plagiarism?

[TimW]

Was that already in the rules back then? (One would presume so..)

Some on here seem to think route markers are a bad idea because they are not a 100% guarantee of safety. I get really confused, the only 100% guarantee of safety (which I actually did on the day in question last year rather than racing in Wales) is to stay at home and hope you don't fall off a ladder.

Does a marked route (and thank you to WP for expanding on that) guarantee 100% safety? No, of course not, and as you can see from the other UK mountain running death last year (during a race in Greece).

Would it, on balance, have helped at Buttermere last year? Quite possibly a yes.

Could marking of crucial sections be another bad-weather option for ROs? Fellrunners don't see it that way, apparently.

Even if that meant the only alternative was cancellation? We don't cancel races 'cos we're not in Wales

And I know that others believe flagged routes would encourage the wrong kind of people to race. I don't see why all races have to be alike (marked, unmarked), or why some parties take the prospect of any race being marked as such a threat.

I can now see both sides to the argument of marking routes for safety reasons. I totally agree it's no cast iron guarantee no one gets lost; yes, markers can blow away, be wilfully moved, be put in the wrong place by well meaning volunteers (!) or simply not seen in very thick mist. Now on the face of it having most of a course marked makes it a lot safer than not being marked at all, but then I hear the point about attracting the "wrong type of people" loud and clear, for such runners are far less likely to be able to navigate their way back to safety on the off chance they do go off course, than would seasoned fell runners with the appropriate mountain skills to have been able to navigate the course anyway, had there not been any markers. That's a tough one, let me think about that some more!

Regardless of whether or not they're safer, I do think there's a place for marked courses. I realise I may be going a bit off thread in the process but here goes anyway. Back in the early to mid 2000s I'd have many a lively debate with Tim Davies (who at the time was blazing a trail on the World and European Mountain Running scene)about whether or not our races should be marked. He'd say they should, as they are abroad, and being a traditionalist fell runner, I'd say they shouldn't as it was all part of the sport. Even though I'm not a good navigator I'd accept it, and would spend whole weekends recce'ing Championship courses (when I had the time, as a single man!)and I was justly rewarded for my efforts, my route knowledge being almost if not as important as my fitness in achieving the results I did in the English Championships. Now I don't know if it's because (as a family man) I now don't have the time, that I've actually come round to Tim's way of thinking! Don't get me wrong I'm still a traditionalist and I don't see as I have any right to tell die hard Lakeland fell runners in the Billy Bland mould, that races like Ennerdale (for example) should be marked; I think the tradition of these races should be preserved if that's what their people want; but I do think that not marking any of the races on our calendar is preventing us from 'moving with the times' as it were, in what is a rapidly growing international sport. Sky running, Vertical kilometre races, ultra distance trail races, they may have been around 10 years ago but you didn't hear about them much in the British press, yet now our top runners are venturing to these races and 'fell running abroad' no longer seems confined to races like the World Trophy as was the case all those years ago. Like it or not races abroad are (at least I think?) all marked, hence why the 3 Peaks had to be marked when it hosted the WMRA Long Distance race in 2008. Someone said this would spell a different sport, but what is "our sport"? Interestingly, American trail runner Nick Clark (who was born in Britain and thus shows an interest in fell running) described it as a kind of "mountain running/orienteering hybrid; I personally can't see why those who are so good at navigating don't do more orienteering (I mean if you're a good road runner you run roads, right? You wouldn't campaign for longer stretches of tarmac in fell races)and I now feel (which 10 years ago I didn't) mountain running is a global sport and we in this country are in danger of living in our own 'little bubble' if we don't start looking at what's happening on the world scene. I think the reasons for marking courses become obvious the greater the distance it is competitors may be travelling just to get there; no one is going to travel abroad just to recce a race (are they?!) whereas in your own back yard you can do. Which is another reason why I don't think anyone should be forced, I think every organiser should be free to choose whether or not they want to go down this route and if traditional fell running values are what they want, then that's great too.

Someone also mentioned the budget for races not making it feasible to mark long races. Well again, they seem to manage it abroad (even in ultra races) and how much does tape cost anyway? And I'd be happy to help out if it was a major event close to where I live. Here's another potentially contentious point; now I'm not saying organisers do a bad job of the races they put on (far from it) but heck there are far too many races around nowadays! If we as a sport put even more effort into organising fewer races then marking courses would be more feasible. The traditionalist in me hates to see the size and quality of fields in established races suffer because there are so many other (newer) races to choose from on the same day. From now on no one should be allowed to put on any new races (seriously, we have enough already!), and why for example we need a Great Lakes race when there was already a fantastic 6 race Lakeland Classic series of long races in the same area, is beyond me. The LCT, in my view is one of the best things ever to have happened to our sport (our sport as in fell running, not global mountain running)I must add

[Witton Park]

This is really my last contribution on this thread (I hope )


15 RACE MARSHALS
Race marshals should:
 be experienced fell walkers or runners who are dressed and equipped to withstand severe weather conditions over a prolonged period.
 carry first aid and sustenance, as appropriate, depending on such factors as the length, severity and remoteness of the event, to help competitors in an emergency.

which is supported by

Dependent on:
 the length and severity of the race
 the remoteness and altitude
 the available communications
 what other forms of shelter exist

we then have

It is essential that marshals receive the same “briefing”

and on another document we have

younger helpers are very useful as gate marshals and often love the responsibility

There's a contradiction in the experience required for marshalls and then the inference that younger helpers could be useful as marshalls. Yes I know there's certain qualifying criteria it seems odd.

If I was asking anyone to carry a first aid kit, then I think it should be a qualified first aider so should such a direction be made?
If ROs are asked to provide some marshalls with a kit, then the danger is that the next step is to ask that those marshalls are trained first aiders.

I don't think I have ever given marshalls the same briefing. Some marshalls are gate marshalls, some are on road crossings, some are to guide runners at a key junction.
They are usually all given common instructions on Mountain Rescue contact should there be an incident, relaying info on retired runners..

But is it essential they are given the same briefing?

Just a few examples on one topic, that of marshalling where I feel there are things that need to be addressed.