2 points.....
1.
where's the link for the draft on the home page
2.
I can't help but feel Mike Rose may just be spinning like a top in his grave.
2 points.....
1.
where's the link for the draft on the home page
2.
I can't help but feel Mike Rose may just be spinning like a top in his grave.
I see you've put "would" Graham. How does that stack up against the "must" and "should" of the ROs paperwork.Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
Are you saying that in the event of an incident vnfi would be the default position unless the plaintiff can demonstrate some negligence?
If so shouldn't vnfi be highlighted in the FRA Rules and also the FRA Safety Requirements?
Most are agreed that Judith was on a pre-planned escape route so not lost/disorientated, and John Rix apparently deliberately left the race route to seek shelter, so not lost/disorientated.
Others like Ted Pepper, Bob English and it seems Carol Matthews did inadvertently go astray.
The point remains though that many runners fail to see the potential risk of leaving the race route and don't recognise the potential safety of remaining on the route.
Inform another runner is good advice!
Of course informing a runner is good but lets not be too prescriptive about choices people make.. it's a biased sample because we only hear about those who went off the route and didn't make it.. not the many 100's who wisely decide to leave the route to get to safe ground.
Its certainly a valid option and would no doubt have saved many runners over the years.
It's not about being prescriptive, it's about seeding the idea in people's heads, so if they ever end up confused/incoherent/hypothermic, it is much more likely to occur to them.
LJ - it all depends on who's perspective you are coming from but I think we do need to educate better. But my worry is that we are doing it in the wrong way.
Most runners are attached to a club of some sort. They are coached athletically in running fitness and technique. But how many are coached in navigation, mountain craft, dealing with the sort of issues that can be met in a variety of fell races.
I have to say that I don't. I only coach junior fell runners, but they will be running senior fell soon.
It would seem a better policy to try and instigate better coaching in all aspects of fell running at club level, so that then removes some of the prescriptive safety documents that places ROs in a difficult position.
I know.. but 2 things..
1) getting off is still a perfectly valid choice. Yes fatalities occur doing that but we don't know if they would have occured had they stayed high and tried to find the route, many runners are saved by a fast descent. Certainly hill walkers are much more likely to plan routes with 'escape routes' pre-identified. I'm not sure that is so common in running, yet it should be, areas where you can safetly and easily bale out..
2) most don't know where the route is.. look at Jura, bad weather and its runners all over the Island.
There's the added issue of confusion caused by cold so being able to relocate is quite unlikely. In that situation losing height and getting down may well be the best option.
There was a guy in North Wales, Rhinogs race, who was lost, descended to safety.. then tried to get back by going high again, got lost and benighted.. this was October.. it was only by the grace of god that was not a fatality.
I found it incredible that the best idea for him, seemed to be going back high into cloud and rain..
This comes back to this UKA Fell running leadership qualification.. when an ML would be far more ideal...
Agreed.
But the thread is about "safety rules" and the consequences of them - which is not just about runner safety, it is a tradeoff between
- the impact on runner safety
- the likelihood of criminal prosecution
- the likelihood of civil claims
- the possibility of insurance not paying up if they happen
On the last three, which are all subtly different, as are the criteria for them, in all cases I suspect the less prescriptive the better.
Runner "might like to consider" is about as strong as it should get.
In stating "volente non fit inuria" , Graham declined to state a very important issue.
That any assurance the RO gives ("no hazards!!! according to the new rules!!") , a runner is entitled to take as part of determining the risk to which they voluntarily assent.
For that reason alone for example - marked routes are a very bad idea, regardless of how desirable or undesirable that is in changing the character of the sport.
If the route is declared as marked, then the runner is entitled to assume he no longer needs to navigate. Should the marking fail for whatever reason, the RO may be held to blame, and considering visibility can be down to 5m it would be a monumental task out of all proportion to a fell race infrastructure to do that infallibly. The risk to which the runner has assented is clearly less if he is told the route is marked, because in essence the organiser then accepts responsibility for the navigation.
As I hinted earlier: Another piece of legal latin might just rear its ugly head. "res ipse locutor" The fact of someone going off route might just be enough to prove the marking was simply not good enough and not up to the job. "The thing speaks for itself"
In more general terms:
If an RO (or FRA) are seen to advise runners (eg to stay on route ), then that advice has a possibility of rebounding. When the RO starts managing risk for runners, he starts assuming responsibility for it, so it weakens the runners determination of/assent to/ need to manage his/her own risk.
Professional advice is needed, but I am sure it will say, the fewer rules /guidelines/ advice the better if you want runners to assume responsibility for their own risk.
My own view is, we run a relatively safe sport. All sensible easily implemented initiatives are welcome (like collecting race numbers up) is a good second check that everyone finished - but we have to assume responsibility for our decisions, when, where and how to retire from a race, depending on weather, physical condition, experience, knowledge of area and so on, and can only be taken personally, on the circumstances as they appear to be at the time. What is dangerous for me, is probably not for Alan Hinkes or Ueli Steck!
I don't want an organiser hauled over hot coals for my good or bad judgement, and I certainly don't wan't such as a UKA lawyer who understands even less of the sport than UKA throwing darts at the target on an RO's back, using the rule book to make the darts. Hindsight is 20/20 and don't these lawyers just love to use it. The less ammunition you give them the better.
Last edited by alwaysinjured; 14-10-2013 at 10:05 AM.
Absolutely. I certainly wasn't suggesting that any advice like "consider staying on route" should be written into any document, and I definitely wasn't suggesting that a runner who is accidentally off route should try to get back on course regardless of the risk of hypothermia!
Nor was I intending to take the thread off course....
Posting Permissions
