New safety rules

[alwaysinjured]

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.

Contrary to popular opinion, I have little time to involve in this subject,beyond what seems to be reasonable minimum to get some issues addressed

I assume what I said from an FRA statement - the rationale apparently clear at the time.

"As outlined in the Summer edition of The Fellrunner, the committee of the
Association believes that it is unreasonable, unfair and unnecessary for each member
of the committee, all of whom are volunteers, to be wholly responsible for all the
debts and liabilities of the Association, by virtue of the legal principle of joint and
several liability.
The move to incorporate is to primarily address this risk, to protect the assets of the
Association within a shell of limited liability, to be clear that members themselves
have no liability to the body beyond a nominal £1.00 each and to allow the
Association to enter into contracts and other relationships in its own right, something
it currently has to do, having no separate legal status, via individual members of its
committee"

Limiting liability to £1 each. RO have no such limitation.
I have not, and have no intention of finding out how good that legal protection is beyond what was stated
. I assume they took advice.

[Witton Park]

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 got such such updates without the previous ridiculing/misleading 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.

Just to add a little here as well. UKA is steeped and heavily biased towards Track and Field. T&F has structure in terms of coaching (which we have) and officials (which we haven't).
Not only do they expect officials to go through qualifications, they expect them to continue to renew to validate their qualification.
This year for example has seen a big problem with the long throws at T&F fixtures because the appropriate grade 2 officials to run the long throws events were in short supply and their H&S Modules were in the main out of date (EA had not set up any courses)
So there was a huge problem in the sport nationwide with clubs trying to get their appropriate officials on to a H&S course.

How does that relate to us on the Fells?

Well I'm not sure they see us as athletics tracks in the Sky but it's a nice image We do have people like Sara Rowell linked in to UKA at a high level so I'm sure we have quite a reasonable voice there.
BUT
with the connection now, I am sure that there will be a growing pressure to follow the mainstream way of having a proper officials structure for the fells such as we have for Cross Country and Road.

In fact I would go farther - I think there would be a need for the FRA to instigate some kind of officials and/or ROs structure regardless of any tie up with UKA.
It's the way the world is going.

[wynn]

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.

Madeleine,

I have thought about your response overnight, and discussed it with others.

It is clear the communication to race organisers has not been working at all well. The new rules could have massive consequences for me and all other organisers, so it is simply not good enough to leave them to chance discovery on a website, or the ability to be at an AGM.

Once you have the coroners letter and have considered changes you think need to be made, can you PLEASE AGREE TO MAILSHOT ALL of the organisers with the rules as already amended ( you say because of legal advice/ forum suggestions: what stops you doing that now?) then HIGHLIGHTING all proposed NEW changes arising from coroner suggestions to allow RO to take advice and feedback whether those changes can be made in practice. BEFORE COMMITING TO THEM.

Until we know what we are letting ourselves in for, we cannot possibly register our races for the next year, and even if we did, I can't see how you can accept that registration because some of our races are no longer compliant with the rules as they are.

Wynn

[wynn]

Mountains heed no rules.
Reflect that!

True - but litigation solicitors are a bit more down to earth

[alwaysinjured]

Just to add a little here as well. UKA is steeped and heavily biased towards Track and Field. T&F has structure in terms of coaching (which we have) and officials (which we haven't).
Not only do they expect officials to go through qualifications, they expect them to continue to renew to validate their qualification.
This year for example has seen a big problem with the long throws at T&F fixtures because the appropriate grade 2 officials to run the long throws events were in short supply and their H&S Modules were in the main out of date (EA had not set up any courses)
So there was a huge problem in the sport nationwide with clubs trying to get their appropriate officials on to a H&S course.

How does that relate to us on the Fells?

Well I'm not sure they see us as athletics tracks in the Sky but it's a nice image We do have people like Sara Rowell linked in to UKA at a high level so I'm sure we have quite a reasonable voice there.
BUT
with the connection now, I am sure that there will be a growing pressure to follow the mainstream way of having a proper officials structure for the fells such as we have for Cross Country and Road.

In fact I would go farther - I think there would be a need for the FRA to instigate some kind of officials and/or ROs structure regardless of any tie up with UKA.
It's the way the world is going.

Interesting
The changing culture is part of the reason I left that world behind.

It gets crazy.
One world class competition I witnessed had discus marshalls spotting from the sidelines, not running until after the discuss had landed, and they were making errors of easily 5m on the length of throws on a competition "won" by a difference of only 20cm in recorded throws. The entire competition was nonsense. That is what happens when the "blazer brigade" throw down their mandates on "how it must be done" with zero experience of having done it, just the authority, and no doubt a level 4/5 that gives them the right to dictate. Safety b*ll*x was destroying the underlying sport. "Reasonable voices" are not always heeded.

There is only one way to spot a discuss properly, and that is to be within a couple of m when it lands.
It can be made safe with practicable rules revised by those who actually do it, not those who drive a desk.

I could not be doing with such nonsense, and thankfully that particular example did not proliferate.
Such decisions (of less profound, but no less irritating) were becoming common place. Take a high level discus competition relegated to a field of ploughed field quality outside a main stadium because it was "safer"

Dobbins law applies to many of these edicts "everything is easy for him that does not have to do it"

I cannot help but feel that the "claims culture" as promoted by your helpful advisor colleague, is the problem rather than a symptom of it, and having created the problem they present themselves as the solution. It is not quite such a passive "the way it is going"in their case. It is "the way they are driving it" that is the problem. That and conditional fee agreements.

re "athletics stadium in the sky" as an analogy - suggest you find out what UKA presented recently , you may be in for a shock.. No one particular issue, just the tone of it , and a lot of details that hint they have not actually tried it - like an apparent failure to accept there not only can be , but generally will be other runners out on the very same route on the same day, going to exactly the same summits, many of them wearing goretex, which can give problems for counting in bad weather. Mountain tops are a public, not private or controlled place.

[Fellhound]

Mountains heed no rules.
Reflect that!

Indeed, but WE are not mountains. We DO need to heed rules, we DO need to take account of legal processes and we DO need to take responsibility for our actions. It may be sad it may be a bit of a pain but it's true, and we ignore it at our peril.

[Wheeze]

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?

I'm sure fellgazelle can handle himself without needing me to defend him...but wisecrack it ain't. It drags everyone back out of their navel and perhaps reminds us of why we do this and what we should be focussing on.

Will I apply for a permit? Sure. Will I stand (and be videoed) on the start line and tell them all "This is dangerous. You may die. You are totally responsible for yourself. You and your relatives have no come back on me if you do injure/kill yourself. If you do not like this, then do not race"? Well, after all these shenanigans, yes, I might very well do just that!

[alwaysinjured]

I'm sure fellgazelle can handle himself without needing me to defend him...but wisecrack it ain't. It drags everyone back out of their navel and perhaps reminds us of why we do this and what we should be focussing on.

Will I apply for a permit? Sure. Will I stand (and be videoed) on the start line and tell them all "This is dangerous. You may die. You are totally responsible for yourself. You and your relatives have no come back on me if you do injure/kill yourself. If you do not like this, then do not race"? Well, after all these shenanigans, yes, I might very well do just that!

To make that video, you really need to go back to your avatar as the sergeant major from aint half hot mum!
A labrador doggy, is far too friendly to make fell runners jump or take notice - those that are capable of taking notice that is. There are definitely some borderline cases that run fell races!

[Wheeze]

Dogs have teeth ya know!

[luath]

Once you have the coroners letter and have considered changes you think need to be made, can you PLEASE AGREE TO MAILSHOT ALL of the organisers with the rules as already amended ( you say because of legal advice/ forum suggestions: what stops you doing that now?) then HIGHLIGHTING all proposed NEW changes arising from coroner suggestions to allow RO to take advice and feedback whether those changes can be made in practice. BEFORE COMMITING TO THEM.
Wynn

Agreed Wynn. But I'd go further - these proposed changes affect everyone involved in fell running, not just race organisers. The FRA committee should be directly contacting the whole membership before implementing any changes.