New safety rules

[Witton Park]

Thanks WP you make me smile!!
I could convince someone to run all our race routes with a camcorder and post them on the website as a rolling video - would that work.. then the onus would be on the runner to watch it.. but would we then be liable for eyetests!!!

not camcorder but this really does the job for me Wynn
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8011535...7600142585102/

or you can have my offering which I was quite pleased with
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?...7659095&type=3

[fellgazelle]

It is dangerous to have rules that do not reflect the real world,...

Mountains heed no rules.
Reflect that!

[dominion]

not camcorder but this really does the job for me Wynn
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8011535...7600142585102/

There's a bloke in pic 41 who looks a complete liability!

[shaunaneto]

Blimey, that guy on the right is all over the shop.

[Mud]

I think he was shocked and disorientated because he'd just been passed by some slow bloke.

[FellJunior]

To AlwaysInjured:
You have referred a number of times to the FRA becoming a limited company in order to avoid/reduce its responsibility. The FRA is in fact a company limited by guarantee, a completely different legal entity designed specifically for member organisations such as the FRA. As a committee member of another company limited by guarantee, I would be interested to know how this status can be used to reduce responsibility, as we are about to make a difficult decision on behalf of our members regarding public liability.

[alwaysinjured]

All members of the FRA were given the chance to give comments in July. It was also included in the Executive Committee report at the AGM and there was a chance to discuss at the AGM (both in the formal business and at the end of the AGM in the informal discussion).

I, and a number of other Executive Committee members, have read all of this thread as it has been happening. I have sought legal advice and there are a small number of amendments to make to the FRA Safety Requirements in the light of comments made on this forum, from the advice and from talking to fellrunners and Race Organisers over the last couple of months. We may need to make further changes in the light of the letter from the Coroner. We are still waiting for the letter.

I appreciate that the timing is not great: we need to get the Handbook ready for the beginning of the year.

We are listening, and will give you an update when we have the complete picture.

Thank you very much for the update Madeleine, and good to see that positive steps are being taken.

It would have been helpful to have had such updates without the previous ridiculing/misleading/dismissive responses. It really does not encourage others to take part in such debates.

Another issue recent events inevitably put back on the agenda is the value of linkage to UKA. With friends like that do RO need other enemies? As someone with a one time foot in both camps, having run athletics competitions(at the dangerous end of their spectrum:throwing) the two are chalk and cheese in philosophy, and UKA comments serve only to highlight their clear misunderstanding that there is ever perfect control or communication over events taking place on high mountains in bad weather, and that all such lapses/anomalies/miscounts etc are therefore a failure of duty, rather than the consequence of reasonable practicability. They seem to view fell races as athletics stadiums up in the sky where near full control is actually possible. I still think FRA should release those statements for RO to see what they are up against: not particularly for the detail of one incident, now hopefully over. The tone and tenor are the worrying thing.

Clearly that does not deserve priority over getting the new rules/events calendar updated, but it is a discussion that should take place.

[Wheeze]

Mountains heed no rules.
Reflect that!

The best, most comprehensive, most sensible comment of the ENTIRE thread!!

My faith is restored. Am planning to become an RO again next year. That statement will on a GIGANTIC banner over the start line!!!

[Witton Park]

To AlwaysInjured:
You have referred a number of times to the FRA becoming a limited company in order to avoid/reduce its responsibility. The FRA is in fact a company limited by guarantee, a completely different legal entity designed specifically for member organisations such as the FRA. As a committee member of another company limited by guarantee, I would be interested to know how this status can be used to reduce responsibility, as we are about to make a difficult decision on behalf of our members regarding public liability.

I'm not sure it's completely different FJ - but it is different.

I'm guessing you know the difference and you are posing a question of AI to see if he does?

But it is a way of a charity, or non-profit organisation gaining similar limited liability protection as a business from financial collapse.
Such a collapse may seem unlikely, but it's right and proper that the current committee and any future members are not exposing themselves to unnecessary risk as a result of their voluntary commitment to the sport.
So there should be financial protection, unless some sort of dodgy dealings can be found.

I'm sure that the ROs will receive a similar degree of concern once the process has played out.

[Witton Park]

The best, most comprehensive, most sensible comment of the ENTIRE thread!!

My faith is restored. Am planning to become an RO again next year. That statement will on a GIGANTIC banner over the start line!!!

I disagree Wheeze sorry. It's nothing but a wise-crack that says nothing that we don't know and doesn't help the debate.
If you do indeed think that says it all, then I suppose you'll not be applying for a permit for your races?