New safety rules

[Wheeze]

. One thing I thing we are all agreed on is that we'd all like fellrunning to continue as far as possible with it's original ethos, with the emphasis on personal responsibility and the organisers duty of care being kept strictly within what is practical in the framework of an adventurous sport that takes place in (often) wild and difficult places.


Fellrunning has historically had a carefully preserved culture which has served us all well and I wouldn't like to see organisations such as UKA being given an excuse to move in and take a stronger hand in the management of our sport. We may be stuck with affiliation to them (for now) but we are still in a position to say "hands off, we can manage this", as long as we don't end up squabbling amongst ourselves. What's that line about 'divide and conquer'?

So, will all those who voted for stronger affiliation with UKA now reconsider their position?

I was of the view (now reinforced) that this was the wrong decision if we are, indeed, all agreed that fellrunning should continue within its original ethos.

Oh, and yes, I include fell racing within that umbrella.

That being said, if fell racing is better served by an athletic ethos, then we should move even faster to ensure that counting of competitors going out into dangerous terrain and weather is more secure. We should embrace electronic monitoring. We have to decide. I can't imagine how the RO in question feels. Mr Belfield would not have been saved by a dibber/ident but at least a timely search for him would have been mounted.