Originally Posted by IainR
I also think blanket - one size fits all rules and undertakings do not help such as Stating "no hazards" unnecessary or otherwise.
Far better to describe each race as witton says pointing out typical hazards, then nobody can say they did not know.
I'm not sure either:
"Safety Rules
4 Course Design
1996 - 2013
Courses must not be unnecessarily dangerous and should be designed to prevent any temptation to gain advantage by negotiating rock climbs or steep unstable slopes, where dislodged stones may fall on those below. Compulsory sections must not include such hazards or comparable foreseeable dangers.
Organisers of courses which traverse high mountain or moorland terrain should consider having an alternative route available for use in adverse weather conditions.
2014
Compulsory sections MUST NOT include unnecessary hazards or dangerous sections and all courses MUST be designed so runners are not tempted to gain advantage by negotiating hazards such as rock climbs or steep unstable slopes where dislodged stones may fall on those below.
Organisers of courses which traverse high mountain or moorland terrain should
plan an alternative route for use in bad weather."
Steady on Felljunior!
If you, George and one or two others (including the FRA Chair) start introducing facts to this thread it will spoil it for the conspiracists, anti-UKA lobby and barrack room lawyers and we will never reach the magic1000 of the same points over and over and over and over again.
That would indeed make a change for the better.
The sarcasm of people who make no attempt to study the issues, and understand even less about them is certainly not helpful to the debate.
A debate is where there are two sides, preferably both listening to each other. Is this a debate where one person keeps repeating the same thing over and over again?
Several RO including those who have taken advice , and others who prefer not to post here consider there is a serious problem. The lack of debate is a part of that problem. If you consider there is only one issue repeated, you are not reading.
Some people just don't get it.
There is an issue. The FRA Committee have acknowledged it on the FRA Website.
First the documentation was questioned only for it to dribble out that it was draft. I say dribble advisably because it was leaked to me before the FRA website announcement was posted.
Then we have had Madeleine's acknowledgement that the concerns expressed on the forum and perhaps elsewhere are being listened to and will be taken in to account when the final documents come out.
Now I would much rather this be off-forum and done in a manner where RO's consultation day was put together where we could discuss the matters at hand.
Maybe that is still possible?
But for anyone who intimates that this is a scaremongering campaign should just take note of what the Committee have eventually put out.
Last edited by Witton Park; 20-10-2013 at 05:19 AM.
So much fuss has been made on this thread about so called hazards, no race organiser in his right mind is going to put on a deliberately ' hazardous ' event. As Jim points out its not new it's been in the rules ever for ever and a day, only a slight change in the wording. No one has ever seen fit to make a claim on the Fra ( UKA ) race insurance and just how many Fra registered races is that over the years, many hundreds ! As has been pointed out the final draft will be subject to legal scrutiny, it's also been pointed out that members of the committee have taken note of the many points raised here on this forum as well as by those who took the time to air their concerns ( as requested ) when the first draft came out.
The hazardous event last week was langdale. I would have to check the calendar to see what it is this week.
They have not taken note of the comments as evidenced by the barely modified draft containing the same nonsensical expression.
An RO admitted to me this week that all the counting problems that were cited by UKA as failure of duty of care had also happened at their event, because that is the reality of marshalling, not the idealised view that was presented as expert testimony which is used by coroners to determine cobtributory negligence.
Legal advice says the rules are a problem
Those are the realities and RO with sense are getting worried.
How long before the FRA Safety Rules include the line "All Long races and races run in foul weather MUST use electronic tracking of participants" or something similar?
Posting Permissions
