New safety rules

[MickTor]

Forgive me if I missed this somewhere along the line..
But can't we sign some sort of disclaimer at the start stating that we acknowledge the risks and take full personal responsibility during the race and we are each individually liable? Something to that effect.
Of course the RO will ensure that every precaution has been taken to minimise the risks and we follow the rules or don't race, but should there be any accidents along the way the only way a RO would be liable is if the FRA requirements were not met?

[Witton Park]

Forgive me if I missed this somewhere along the line..
But can't we sign some sort of disclaimer at the start stating that we acknowledge the risks and take full personal responsibility during the race and we are each individually liable? Something to that effect.
Of course the RO will ensure that every precaution has been taken to minimise the risks and we follow the rules or don't race, but should there be any accidents along the way the only way a RO would be liable is if the FRA requirements were not met?

You do at every race.
I understand that this race is held in accordance, and that I have familiarised myself, with both the Rules and Safety Requirements of the FRA. I confirm that I am aware of the Organiser’s information and requirements in connection with this race. I confirm that I have navigational skills appropriate for this race and will carry throughout the race any equipment specified either by the FRA Safety Requirements or by the organiser. I accept the hazards involved in fell running and acknowledge that I am entering and running this race at my own risk. Other than the Organiser’s liability for causing death or personal injury by negligence,
I confirm that I understand that the Organiser accepts no liability to me for any loss or damage of any nature to me or my property arising out of my participation in this race.

But they key point in this is
Other than the Organiser’s liability for causing death or personal injury by negligence
and the concerns have been raised that some clever lawyers may be able to take advantage of the way the documentation is put together and demonstrate that a RO has been negligent because they haven't followed the FRA requirements in full.

I'm not going to go over the concerns raised by AI in particular and others including me, as they are extensively debated on the previous pages.

[MickTor]

You do at every race.
I understand that this race is held in accordance, and that I have familiarised myself, with both the Rules and Safety Requirements of the FRA. I confirm that I am aware of the Organiser’s information and requirements in connection with this race. I confirm that I have navigational skills appropriate for this race and will carry throughout the race any equipment specified either by the FRA Safety Requirements or by the organiser. I accept the hazards involved in fell running and acknowledge that I am entering and running this race at my own risk. Other than the Organiser’s liability for causing death or personal injury by negligence,
I confirm that I understand that the Organiser accepts no liability to me for any loss or damage of any nature to me or my property arising out of my participation in this race.

But they key point in this is
Other than the Organiser’s liability for causing death or personal injury by negligence
and the concerns have been raised that some clever lawyers may be able to take advantage of the way the documentation is put together and demonstrate that a RO has been negligent because they haven't followed the FRA requirements in full.

I'm not going to go over the concerns raised by AI in particular and others including me, as they are extensively debated on the previous pages.

Of course WP, thanks. Easy to get muddled in all this discussion here.

[alwaysinjured]

Let us give the powers that be time and space to consider - I have offered via a committee member to help, but that is up to them.

I too am extremely worried about some of those phrases used of marshalls such as the apparent implication of mandatory first aid knowledge which could give a heap of unintended consequences, such as a potential duty of a race organiser to collect certificated evidence of that ability before allowing them to marshall, the marshalls to go on refresher courses which is obligatory for first aiders in most other contexts, and even marshalls to have a potential liability arise if they fall short in ability in an incident, for committing as acting as marshalls in violation of the rules that they are by implication warranting themselves as capable to first aid etc etc etc

The qualification of marshalls should to my mind only be suggested , " race orgnasiser might like to consider" not in the rules document itself, and a semi legal document would always qualify with words such as "marshalls should ideally" to remove any implication of mandate. In the end it is a case by case risk assessment doing what is " reasonably practicable" with reference to the reasonably expected and advertised skill set demanded of all participants.

We do not want to give claims4u such an open goal mouth. The fewer angles we give for them to attack us the better.

[Khamsin]

We are told the FRA has the services of lawyers advising it on protecting the sport.

This means raceorganisers.

So the one thing the FRA Committee is never going to do is put raceorganisers in jeopardy.
End of debate.

[dominion]

May I ask what document we're all reading as the one I've found doesn't mention a mandatory requirement for marshalls to carry first aid kit.


Also, the home page of the website is a bit misleading. One article says the document is the current draft, another says it has been approved and will be included in the 2014 handbook.

[Richard123]

We are told the FRA has the services of lawyers advising it on protecting the sport.

This means raceorganisers.

So the one thing the FRA Committee is never going to do is put raceorganisers in jeopardy.
End of debate.

Really? Have you actually read this thread before spouting such bollox?

[alwaysinjured]

May I ask what document we're all reading as the one I've found doesn't mention a mandatory requirement for marshalls to carry first aid kit.


Also, the home page of the website is a bit misleading. One article says the document is the current draft, another says it has been approved and will be included in the 2014 handbook.

Here...but the document control issues eg 13_ designation, lack of changelog/ statement of applicability in the document are also a problem.

http://www.fellrunner.org.uk/pdf/com...fety_Rules.pdf

Time to let the committee consider.

I was actually trying to divert the thread onto positive issues, such as whilst we are less safe than just walking or riding down a road (I am surprised that others were surprised by that) so we are a risk sport.

For all that we are probably safer , certainly comparable with triathlon, and a lot safer than horse riding or motor biking by a couple of orders of magnitude. Notwithstanding how horrendous incidents are when they happen, our record is good.

(sh)It happens, and will always happen, that's life.

Another misleading statistic. An entire lifetime is only 700000 hours

If as I guestimated, there are only 100,000 hours of life spent racing done by all concerned in a year, and that has built from (say) 50,000 over the last ten years, then there have been 750,000 hours of racing done in the last decade

We would have expected at least one fatality in that decade simply because life itself is guaranteed to be fatal, given enough time and place to happen! Our record is not much worse than that.

Lies. Damn Lies. Statistics.

[MargC]

We are told the FRA has the services of lawyers advising it on protecting the sport.

This means raceorganisers.

So the one thing the FRA Committee is never going to do is put raceorganisers in jeopardy.
End of debate.

I'm certain that the FRA Committee would never knowingly/intentionally put race organisers in jeopardy. However, it's not quite as simple as that!

There are several "stakeholders" whose interests have to be taken into account whenever the "FRA Safety Requirements" and "Rules for Competition" are revised. These include the FRA, UKA(who delegate governing body status for fell/mountain running to the FRA and provide/pay for insurance for fell races), race organisers and competitors. Whilst the interests/requirements of each of these are interrelated they are by no means identical. This was clearly demonstated at the recent inquest by the fact that the race organiser and the FRA/UKA had separate legal representation with the questioning by the two lawyers reflecting their respective interests.

I am pleased to see the statement that the final version of the "FRA Safety Requirements" "will be subjected to legal scrutiny to ensure that the new Safety Requirements protect runners, Race Organisers and the FRA".

In arriving at the final version, I would hope that relevant comments from this thread will also be considered by our Committee together with the Coroner's views and any requirements from UKA/their insurers.

[Witton Park]

I'm certain that the FRA Committee would never knowingly/intentionally put race organisers in jeopardy. However, it's not quite as simple as that!

There are several "stakeholders" whose interests have to be taken into account whenever the "FRA Safety Requirements" and "Rules for Competition" are revised. These include the FRA, UKA(who delegate governing body status for fell/mountain running to the FRA and provide/pay for insurance for fell races), race organisers and competitors. Whilst the interests/requirements of each of these are interrelated they are by no means identical. This was clearly demonstated at the recent inquest by the fact that the race organiser and the FRA/UKA had separate legal representation with the questioning by the two lawyers reflecting their respective interests.

I am pleased to see the statement that the final version of the "FRA Safety Requirements" "will be subjected to legal scrutiny to ensure that the new Safety Requirements protect runners, Race Organisers and the FRA".

In arriving at the final version, I would hope that relevant comments from this thread will also be considered by our Committee together with the Coroner's views and any requirements from UKA/their insurers.

Well said MargC