New safety rules

[alwaysinjured]

There have been some intelligent, and one or two not so intelligent, points of view on this very serious subject which happens to be an absolute minefield and the discussion could go on for eternity.
My point is about the role of race organisers and their volunteers who I have leapt to the defence of before in my odd rambling on these pages and will now staunchly defend again to the tilt.
These people are the very lifeblood of the fell racing calendar as we know it. Qualified, experienced or not, liability for injury or tragedy cannot lie in any sense or form with an RO or a marshal. We, the runners, the adults, take the risk and we are in charge of our own safety, our own lives, just like we are when crossing a busy road and other daily non-fell running activities that require personal responsibility.
I'm quite experienced I suppose but got lost and disorientated on my own in June on the Kentmere Horseshoe which I have trained and raced many a time. The weather turned nasty and for about half an hour things were a bit panicky but my compass got me back on track and in the end I aborted the intended route and retraced my steps instead. Didn't take much with me, just a windproof top and the said compass which was only in the bag by chance. Lesson learned? Yesterday at Llanberis, my nav skills were dire and it was a proper wake up call. I was completely reliant on my partner for all that business. Was I wrapped up enough? Only just and my 'waterproof' came under some scrutiny before in our team tent before I set off. I fall into the trap of thinking, 'whatever happens out there, it'll be reet', but my passive attitude to all things kit bag is in fact a bloody stupid lack of common sense which I know is shared by one or two others out there. This was solely my responsibility as far as I am concerned
Perhaps we should all, regardless of how experienced or even bravado we think we are, take a look in our kit bag and ask questions on how we could improve our own safety.
RO's by definition, organise races. Adult competitors should organise themselves and be entirely responsible for that. In the light of what's going on, would I be put off by becoming an RO when I hang up my inov8's or even before then? Yes. And plenty like me I suspect. Here endeth fell running as we know it perhaps. As Blencathrafrommykitchen suggests, the future could be all singing and dancing events by professional organisers. This is just my opinion.

If only it were that simple.

As someone who spent a while digging round: here is what seems to be....
(take advice - this is just an unqualified opinion)

I mentioned how a precedent on "rugby" had decided that organiser compliance with rules and duties could impact on your agreement to the principle of "on your own head be it". You are agreeing to the risk only in the context of assuming the organiser meets the rules, and does his bit.

There are other precedents where that came from. For example you would have thought that a golfer would be consenting to the likelihood of being hit by a golf ball whilst on a golf course, as indeed the disclaimers you are obliged to sign as a member of the club may state. ( other than being used as a deliberate target of course!)

It is not that simple.

A recent case held that a golfer could indeed claim against another who struck him with a ball, even having shouted "fore" to warn him, more importantly ( from our perspective) the CLUB (defacto event organiser) had to divvy up part of the damages because they failed to indicate the nature of the hazard of a tee behind and left , on the next tee where the golfer got hit albeit 150 yards away, and 50 yards off to one side.

"on your own head be it" appears only true if the organiser alerts you to the risks you are taking, so you can be deemed to have accepted that risk. Even knowing the "generic risks" of a golf course is not enough , if there are specific reasonably forseeable additional risks, they should be highlighted.

The moral of the story is certainly NOT to play down the risks with ludicrous statements in course compliance of "no hazards" - but my view go the other way completely.
The general rules or guidelines should not give assurances, and certainly not where they are manifestly impossible like guaranteeing communications to work, or procedures to count runners being made to sound foolproof.

The RO should instead of playing down the hazards should actually play them up - actually stating the hazards in a course description. If there is scrambling it should be noted in the description.

So The rules should not define what should be done (or not be done), but rather demand that race organisers specify what they actually do in a number of critical categories, such as a course description, procedures at checkpoints, how they are counting (eg collecting race numbers and so on), and list the duties on runners as part of that, noting that they will use reasonable endeavours to check people through, and define at least one backup for that to make sure, but nothing in life is foolproof. Fools are too ingenious. Mistakes are inevitable.

The race organiser needs to keep an audit prove he has communicated and supervised all critical processes, to prove he acted responsibly

But at the end of all that - no runner can say they "did not know" - they can be assumed to have assented to the risk they are taking, because the risk is defined, provided the organiser does what the organiser says.

If I were an RO the rules/guidelines would scare the life out of me, as they are or tweaked.
Guidelines may well be intended to help, but in safety legal context breach of guidelines is treated as evidence of breaches of the underlying statute, and are cannon fodder for hostile counsel.

So general guidelines should be eliminated in favour perhaps of an organiser just saying what they do, then doing what they say. If FRA disapprove of the schedule , or it does not tick the important boxes above, then FRA do not have to grant a permit!


This is forrest gump legal speaking...RO take advice!