Thanks for posting it!Originally Posted by Lefty
Thanks for posting it!
Last time i checked I was sat in an office on a computer pretending to work.You already are liable
So no, I'm not already liable. However, when it comes to the next race I'm due to marshal at in 2014. If the new rules indicate my liability. Then I wont marshal.
I should have made that absolutely clear as to avoid people making assumptions.
I note from the letter footer that it'll be posted to the website which is clearly in the interests of transparency. There also appears to be a newer draft of the safety requirements than the one currently available on the website (I accessed the web one via the committee page and the link on the LHS). I guess the website will catch up in the next day or two.
Bugger, I need to clarify something else now.
I AM NOT LITERALLY SAT ON A COMPUTER. I am sat on a chair in front of it.
The pretending to work bit was spot on, tea break next.
it sounds as though we are wasting our time suggesting anything
"We do not expect to have to make significant changes as a result of the Coroner’s report and, in any case, will not be looking to reverse any of the proposed changes from the current guidance, although, as stated above we will continue to make changes where these aid clarity and we think improve the organisation of fell races.
The changes currently proposed are those the committee feels are required in the interest of fell running and have been scrutinised by the lawyer acting for UKA; crucial if we are to maintain the confidence of UKA and the insurers in future."
advice that gives them confidence they will never have to pay out that is
it is not the same as protecting me!
I AM ON THE WAY TO THE OMM
please leave it until I get back
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Seconded.
It sounds like a cart in front of a horse!
The right decisions for fellrunning and to protect ROs of more dangerous races like Wynn are the important issue.
(rather than moorland strolls on a hot summers eve, where the nearest road is barely a mile, there are no rocks, and it is hard to avoid other people out, rather than find them!)
UKA should have no opinion in this, except in as far as some are fell runners.
The opinion that is needed is for the RO. Not to appease UKA
If UKA don't like those decisions, or do not feel they can fit into their framework, we should tell them to take a hike, not pander to them, and find other insurance instead.. SHRA and WFRA do not seem to have had problems doing that.
We're certainly wasting our time filling 93 pages of forum posts on this. If anyone has an opinion, they should send it to the FRA.
I don't feel qualified to comment on the FRA's position, which seems reasonably sensible to me. So I won't be sending my views.
Out of interest. Always Injured, have you sent you suggestions? Or is this debate continuing to inform your opinion? [and I'm not being sarcastic here, I'm genuinely interested]
Without meaning to aggravate a bad situation, it is clear what some of my suggestions are.
Like the nonsense of suggesting "unnecessary hazards" or demanding race organisers act on "weather that endangers" when (almost) all weather is dangerous.
It is equally clear that
(i) None of those points has been taken seriously, and:
(ii) IMHO No competent safety professional was involved in the redraft (or if they were, they were ignored), and:
(iii) It is blindingly obvious that the document is designed to defend the FRA - which is how UKA want it, and leaves an RO wide open.
So what is the point precisely, of my saying more through "official channels" when my position is manifestly clear? If members of committee are not reading here, then more fool them. This is the year 2013 and they should be reading here!
In the background I am nudging a few, who perhaps FRA will take more seriously than me, but judging by the new and ridiculous clause 4 , amended by someone who does not apparently take seriously the need for legal precision, I doubt it somehow.
The biggest thing FRA could do for RO is to present the evidence document of UKA to them all - to show how every discrepancy however inevitable will be presented as failures of duty ( ie incompetence/ negligence)
Perhaps that would kick them into acting on this and taking an interest in what some of the words actually mean, instead of blindly walking the plank, and assuming the "Big man knows what is best for them".
I actually have sympathy for FRA committee that their should have been a far more serious interest in the rule changes than was shown by apparently only 20 responses - part of that perhaps is whether they mailshotted all concerned. I can say for a fact that Wynn did not know at the time alterations were invited, and she is clearly affected by all this. I also see the changes made as an unwise premature knee jerk reaction, where waiting would have been far better.
But sadly now they have mailshotted, they are ruling out the structural changes needed, and clearly stating they may only tweak...if at all.
This document is a chocolate fireguard for RO, and few seem to care.
I do not organise races, but marshall sometimes. So whilst I can see gaping holes in legalese, and traps deliberately laid for unwary. I am not the right one to take account of all race organisers problems: but the ones I can see that have been ignored by this document are bad enough.
Why does nobody care that the rules are defined in such a way that wynns race is no longer compliant? Beats me. Surely that is the first thing you do with a set of rules: how will this affect current races?
Last edited by alwaysinjured; 23-10-2013 at 12:13 PM.
I have been sent this, sounds better to me, partic rule 4
what do others think?
talk after the OMM
http://www.anniversarywaltz.co.uk/newrules.pdf
Wxx
Posting Permissions
