New safety rules

[IainR]

Limitation cannot help with criminal liability.

The rules need modification not only to avoid reinforcing false expectations of how far it is possible to marshall or control with certainty, but indeed to deliberately squash such expectations, because those expectations are what the ill informed use as a yardstick to measure duty of care, from which stem negligence claims.

I have urged in the background: Because time is of the essence it needs a caucus of four or five RO outside committee because of conflict of interesrs, to represent RO interests in a panel with onhand legal support, to batter out a workable compromise with FRA. Wynn? witton? You need a couple of others, perhaps one more dangerous race RO to represent the spread of races on such a panel.Any takers?

eh? nothing will prevent criminal liability.. well unless RO's become diplomats..

[alwaysinjured]

eh? nothing will prevent criminal liability.. well unless RO's become diplomats..

Except wrong expectation.

[wynn]

Okay I'm officially bored stupid by this thread now

I'd love to be board stupid by this (not have to think about it or do anything other than fill in the forms) - BUT if we don't get this right there will be ramifications in the future... and I for 1 don't want to be in a position where we or our marshals are held to account to a set of rules and guidelines that are impossible to adhere to - with the possibility of prosecution for a failure to follow said rules/guidelines.

[Stolly]

I'd love to be board stupid by this (not have to think about it or do anything other than fill in the forms) - BUT if we don't get this right there will be ramifications in the future... and I for 1 don't want to be in a position where we or our marshals are held to account to a set of rules and guidelines that are impossible to adhere to - with the possibility of prosecution for a failure to follow said rules/guidelines.

But surely ('don't call me shirley' ) everything (in the world/universe?) has been said on it by now?

[TheGrump]

THE 2014 FRA SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR FELL RACES and RULES FOR COMPETITION

4 COURSE DESIGN
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.

7 EVENT INFORMATION
General publicity MUST indicate:
* the nature of the event
* severity
* type of terrain
* suitability, or otherwise, for novices.
Specific information MUST be available for competitors prior to the race day and displayed at the point of registration concerning:
* race rules
* race route
* retirement procedures
* equipment to be carried
* checkpoint closing times.

Your quote is missing the wording as established by Wynn.

[TheGrump]

I have urged in the background: Because time is of the essence it needs a caucus of four or five RO outside committee because of conflict of interesrs, to represent RO interests in a panel with onhand legal support, to batter out a workable compromise with FRA. Wynn? witton? You need a couple of others, perhaps one more dangerous race RO to represent the spread of races on such a panel.Any takers?

Please explain the conflict of interest. The FRA is a member organisation not a limited company, with several major race organisers on its committee.

[Witton Park]

Your quote is missing the wording as established by Wynn.

My quote is from the paperwork I received as an RO a few weeks back, and your word is just a provisional addition yet to be confirmed, not signed up to by any RO as far as I'm aware and doesn't change a great deal to be honest.

[wynn]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8011535...57604637599232
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8011535...57604637599232
Fond memories as this was my first Lakes race.

and where does this fit in?
http://www.petercull.com/p741706182/h565ee30#h565ee30

Thanks WP
That's our disclosure sorted......
Wx

[alwaysinjured]

Please explain the conflict of interest. The FRA is a member organisation not a limited company, with several major race organisers on its committee.

Registered in england 07878976

The legal interests of FRA though similar are separate and different from RO. What is good for one, is not necessarily good for the other, hence separate representation at inquest. Obvious in any legal context?

Just trying to find a rapid way to solve it - eg that panel.

[wynn]

My quote is from the paperwork I received as an RO a few weeks back, and your word is just a provisional addition yet to be confirmed, not signed up to by any RO as far as I'm aware and doesn't change a great deal to be honest.

It's not possible to sign up for a draft addition....