New safety rules

[alwaysinjured]

The document that Wynn has copied on here looks much better to me - it appears to accept that mistakes can occur and uses words such as 'so far as reasonably practical'. That goes along way to addressing the concerns I had which centred primarily around some of the stated requirements not being achievable on some occasions. The original version seemed to me to include some instructions that were impossible to obey but for which ROs would be blamed when they couldn't comply regardless. The new version seems to provide a degree of flexibility for ROs who make conscientious and reasonable efforts to do it right. I'm a lot happier because I was genuinely worried that some of our classic and best races might suffer - either by ROs understandably no longer being willing to put themselves forward or by being drastically altered to avoid 'hazards' or checkpoints where there are no communications.
Thanks to all concerned on the committee for their ongoing efforts. I realise this is still a draft but it does look as though some notice is being taken of comments made.

Thank fellhound for that, and I entirely agree with his general treatment of "courses" which is the way modern safety is in essence tackled. But beware the status - this only has status "suggested via the official route" it is not in any sense accepted by anyone - we shall have to wait for the "official reaction"

(it is a long time now since HASWA 74 replaced the prescriptive factory acts (equivalent of "courses MUST or MUST NOT", must be 2 marshalls etc) , with legislation eg 1992 six pack that detailed instead the range of issues that an employer must consider in his management of safety, assessment, highlighting hazards, supervision and so on...)

[Madeleine]

I think it worth clarifying a few points.

There are 2 aspects to changing the FRA Safety Requirements. 1) the underlying substance of whatever you want and 2) the words to describe that to go into the document. There is probably not much point in doing 2) if the sub-group do not accept the need for 1). A lot of what has already been written on this forum has been read, discussed and rejected. Therefore, no amount of re-drafting will make any difference.

We've already said that the timing of this is not good. A draft similar to the current format has been around since July. We are not changing the deadline for Race Organisers to submit their races to the fixtures secretary. If this means that we lose a few * races for 2014, then that will be a shame, but we will continue. This is to be fair to the rest of the Race Organisers and to our members. (* When I say a few, I know of 5, so there will still be a lot left to choose from.)

[Lecky]

You already are liable - and the poor drafting of this document / UKA attitude, makes that considerably worse.

Wording of such documents takes a lot of time and thought - to rewrite the document in a way that makes sense, as a partership for safety (rather than whipping stick for RO and marshalls as it presently is ), would take days.

I personally am reluctant to put such effort in , until and if even simple suggestions to remove some of the more absurd wording are taken on board. Clause 4 still renders current courses non compliant and otherwise does not make proper sense. The statement on weather hazards is ridiculous etc...

It is not just about updating old rules, it is about rewriting them to recognise real world difficulties of RO and marshalls, to prevent "expert witness" testimony that has an alice in wonderland view of what is really possible - at present if you make an inevitable mistake as a marshall , you more or less stand accused of incompetence And failure of duty in a legal proceeding . Is that what you want?

As those of us who have taken professional safety qualifications know: Proper safety policies are written to balance interests. As much to defend the reasonable actions of those in the chain of command, as to accuse them if they fail to act reasonably. This is "do it our way or else" usurping the proper role of an organiser to act responsibly, when " our way" has been so poorly drafted, it is neither clear nor in some cases possible.

The process is inevitably halted a week for the karrimor - for such as wynn to spend their time organising there. It would be wholly unreasonable to ignore her concerns and move it on in the meantime.

Wynn's document has a number of rather sensible alterations / rewordings. I hope she has emailed it to Graham to include in the discussions.

AI, however has decided that he can't be bothered to do this, although he can be bothered to keep writing scaremongering posts on this thread. I think it IS time to "put up or shut up" as someone else said.

[alwaysinjured]

Wynn's document has a number of rather sensible alterations / rewordings. I hope she has emailed it to Graham to include in the discussions.

AI, however has decided that he can't be bothered to do this, although he can be bothered to keep writing scaremongering posts on this thread. I think it IS time to "put up or shut up" as someone else said.

Lecky - had you been reading detail you would know, that
(a) the document wynn suggested was drafted by fellhound, and has been submitted by him, carrying my support for how for example , courses are treated.In the background I am speaking to others too.

(b) I have stated I submitted one similar issue for consideration, explaing why it is important to do. Whether it proves worthwhile to do more remains to be seen.

(c) People who are qualified to judge , confirm what I say is anything but scaremongering. Have you even considered the jeapoardy faced by wynn if someone dies on a route section judged non compliant because of poor wording , so UKA and / or insurers cut her loose? The cost of protracted defence could destroy her, let alone a successful claim.The emotional trauma is probably worse.

[Fellhound]

The document that Wynn has copied on here looks much better to me - it appears to accept that mistakes can occur and uses words such as 'so far as reasonably practical'. That goes along way to addressing the concerns I had which centred primarily around some of the stated requirements not being achievable on some occasions. The original version seemed to me to include some instructions that were impossible to obey but for which ROs would be blamed when they couldn't comply regardless. The new version seems to provide a degree of flexibility for ROs who make conscientious and reasonable efforts to do it right. I'm a lot happier because I was genuinely worried that some of our classic and best races might suffer - either by ROs understandably no longer being willing to put themselves forward or by being drastically altered to avoid 'hazards' or checkpoints where there are no communications.
Thanks to all concerned on the committee for their ongoing efforts. I realise this is still a draft but it does look as though some notice is being taken of comments made.

And the cantankerous side of me can live with the recommendation not to run round a cancelled race route for the sake of the sport. The instruction that we must not really raised my hackles and would have had me setting off immediately. Now I've been asked politely I'll go off and run somewhere else instead quite happily.

Mark, thanks, it's nice to get some positive feedback on the suggestions. I hope at least some of the document gets a favourable response from the "official channels". Obviously, I think it's an improvement and addresses many of the points Alwaysinjured has been (rightly, I think) banging on about on here for some time now. If a redraft, more friendly to race organisers, is eventually adopted all ROs (whether interested in this or not) will have a lot to thank AI for!

[Lecky]

(c) People who are qualified to judge , confirm what I say is anything but scaremongering. Have you even considered the jeapoardy faced by wynn if someone dies on a route section judged non compliant because of poor wording , so UKA and / or insurers cut her loose? The cost of protracted defence could destroy her, let alone a successful claim.The emotional trauma is probably worse.

Which "people"? What are their names and qualifications to judge? Or yours, for that matter?

Still haven't seen your re-written proposal.

[alwaysinjured]

Which "people"? What are their names and qualifications to judge? Or yours, for that matter?

Still haven't seen your re-written proposal.

That might become apparent in due course, I am not at liberty to divulge a number of the people I am speaking to. My identity is not nor has ever been a secret, if it is, it is very badly kept, since almost everyone knows! Mike Bate. shhh. don't tell anyone else, now the whole world knows as well. Few have met me in recent times, the clue is in my user name.

You know that the concerns are not scaremongering, from some willing to post here.
As a fellow safety qualified/ experienced person fellhound shares a lot of my concerns, and such as Witton Park mentioned informal legal advice that confirms the documents as they stand are a problem.

When the documents as they are make it non obvious whether wynns race complies, so you have to ask what they meant (rather than what they said) - it says it all.

I have done what I committed to fellhound has sent a complete draft which has some of the worse problems tackled , and in sections such as 4 I agree with his apporach. I have referred one issue per official channels, not even the courtesy of an acknowledgement.

Madeleines sweeping statement says it all: that most of the concerns expressed on the thread, will be ignored in the rules, so what precisely is the point of spending time drafting an entire document
"mark 2" Needs to be structured differently , because what is there at present is a mish mash of different objectives, purposes, and audiences, which serves none of the purposes well.

That is not the present committees fault, the origin is way wayolder than that, but it clearly has to be sorted, now we have it confirmed it will be used by hostile expert witness.

And in any event , having looked in my crystal ball, I wager whatever you like that one or more rules will form part of the coroners concerns, which demonstrates the point. These documents cannot be fudged. They are not innoccuous. They must be free from ambiguity (and more importantly - not be impossible to do)

Having drafted so many legal agreements and safety documents in my time, I know how slow it is and long it takes, to ensure clarity, and removal of ambiguity or hidden meanings. I am reluctant to invest a painful week that way, which I know will be wasted per Madeleine's comment. So fellhounds manful attempt to "get some of the worst bits out" in the present form approach is more likely to happen, but even then low chance judging by Madeleines comment.

It is so much quicker to make a pigs breakfast, that nobody knows what it means till they ask! It is also an unexploded bomb, for the next unfortunate RO: a disaster looking for somewhere to happen, and an RO for it to happen to...

[alwaysinjured]

I think it worth clarifying a few points.

There are 2 aspects to changing the FRA Safety Requirements. 1) the underlying substance of whatever you want and 2) the words to describe that to go into the document. There is probably not much point in doing 2) if the sub-group do not accept the need for 1). A lot of what has already been written on this forum has been read, discussed and rejected. Therefore, no amount of re-drafting will make any difference.

We've already said that the timing of this is not good. A draft similar to the current format has been around since July. We are not changing the deadline for Race Organisers to submit their races to the fixtures secretary. If this means that we lose a few * races for 2014, then that will be a shame, but we will continue. This is to be fair to the rest of the Race Organisers and to our members. (* When I say a few, I know of 5, so there will still be a lot left to choose from.)

Madeleine. That is an unhelpful statement. How is anyone supposed to know what are "acceptable" areas to consider changes from those that are not? You have failed to respond to a single concern on the forum, so those suggesting changes are blind to what might be changed and might not be.

I have also tried to commence off forum dialogue a couple of times, but not even an acknowledgement so far, so communication should be done how?

I would rather the following was off forum but heh!

Your first statement is wrong. The first objective of any wording is that it has to have clear meaning. Until anyone knows what it means, you cannot judge whether it means what you want it to say.

It is patently absurd, that still have to ask for an unequivocal response to whether you are trying to say that langdale and anniversary waltz are outlawed (which is how it reads)

So are they or not?

I also think that in a number of recent exchanges all of you have failed to consider "conflict of interests". FRA is now a separate entity, that by law needs separate legal advice and representation so a recent memo from the secretary is seemingly B/S

Even if the lawyers from UKA wanted to express an opinion for and behalf of FRA, they are probably barred by professional misconduct from advising FRA now it is Ltd, because of that conflict of interests to a separate entity which clearly have interactions, unless the advice comes from a separate person, with a properly implemented chinese wall as in a larger law firm. They are advising UKA whose interests are not the same as FRA and certainly not the same as an RO.

So to hint that UKA lawyers are somehow looking after RO interests " we have checked with UKA lawyers" when their evidence tried to make one sound incompetent, is somewhat far fetched.

You need to understand the first rule of taking advice.
(painful experience here....I have books on lawyers - cheque books!)

Which is the only advice worth anything is a written opinion based on written terms of reference.

THIS IS HOW YOU TAKE ADVICE...
eg
"Dear Lawyer,
Please advise on behalf of Race organiser.
( ie any lawyer except UKA, or any advising FRA)

1/ Please confirm whether a non compliant course (eg includes rockclimbing) when the compliance demands no climbing, may possibly invalidate the insurance per clause X which says "any deliberate act" etc etc if a competitor dies on said rock climbing.

2/ Please indicate what civil and or criminal repurcussions such an event might have, if the course is non compliant.

£/ Please confirm whether you consider that is still true, even if said climbing is of relatively easy grade and on a walkers route?

4/ Do you consider section 4 as written does outlaw rockclimbing as an obvious hazard if a valid (albeit longer or even much longer route) is available for runners. ie does the word "unnecessary" have legal effect in this case

Lots more where they came from..

Not "take a squiz at these rules, are they OK for RO" - UKA lawyer says "sure" meaning (a) they are no problem for his client UKA since they are several steps removed, and (b) knowing no record exists of the conversation, it really does not matter anyway, so he could say anything.

etc etc etc


I will only trust advice if it is in a letter backed by professional indemnity.

[luxinterior]

Madeleine. That is an unhelpful statement. How is anyone supposed to know what are "acceptable" areas to consider changes from those that are not? You have failed to respond to a single concern on the forum, so those suggesting changes are blind to what might be changed and might not be.

I have also tried to commence off forum dialogue a couple of times, but not even an acknowledgement so far, so communication should be done how?

I would rather the following was off forum but heh!

Your first statement is wrong. The first objective of any wording is that it has to have clear meaning. Until anyone knows what it means, you cannot judge whether it means what you want it to say.

It is patently absurd, that still have to ask for an unequivocal response to whether you are trying to say that langdale and anniversary waltz are outlawed (which is how it reads)

So are they or not?

I also think that in a number of recent exchanges all of you have failed to consider "conflict of interests". FRA is now a separate entity, that by law needs separate legal advice and representation so a recent memo from the secretary is seemingly B/S

Even if the lawyers from UKA wanted to express an opinion for and behalf of FRA, they are probably barred by professional misconduct from advising FRA now it is Ltd, because of that conflict of interests to a separate entity which clearly have interactions, unless the advice comes from a separate person, with a properly implemented chinese wall as in a larger law firm. They are advising UKA whose interests are not the same as FRA and certainly not the same as an RO.

So to hint that UKA lawyers are somehow looking after RO interests " we have checked with UKA lawyers" when their evidence tried to make one sound incompetent, is somewhat far fetched.

You need to understand the first rule of taking advice.
(painful experience here....I have books on lawyers - cheque books!)

Which is the only advice worth anything is a written opinion based on written terms of reference.

THIS IS HOW YOU TAKE ADVICE...
eg
"Dear Lawyer,
Please advise on behalf of Race organiser.
( ie any lawyer except UKA, or any advising FRA)

1/ Please confirm whether a non compliant course (eg includes rockclimbing) when the compliance demands no climbing, may possibly invalidate the insurance per clause X which says "any deliberate act" etc etc if a competitor dies on said rock climbing.

2/ Please indicate what civil and or criminal repurcussions such an event might have, if the course is non compliant.

£/ Please confirm whether you consider that is still true, even if said climbing is of relatively easy grade and on a walkers route?

4/ Do you consider section 4 as written does outlaw rockclimbing as an obvious hazard if a valid (albeit longer or even much longer route) is available for runners. ie does the word "unnecessary" have legal effect in this case

Lots more where they came from..

Not "take a squiz at these rules, are they OK for RO" - UKA lawyer says "sure" meaning (a) they are no problem for his client UKA since they are several steps removed, and (b) knowing no record exists of the conversation, it really does not matter anyway, so he could say anything.

etc etc etc


I will only trust advice if it is in a letter backed by professional indemnity.

AI there is an email address and deadline on the main page of the website. That would be the place to comment and I'm sure your comments will be acknowledged and considered. Mine were the first time round of the consultation.

If I was you I would put my views across in an email.

Cheers

[Mark G]

Mark, thanks, it's nice to get some positive feedback on the suggestions. I hope at least some of the document gets a favourable response from the "official channels". Obviously, I think it's an improvement and addresses many of the points Alwaysinjured has been (rightly, I think) banging on about on here for some time now. If a redraft, more friendly to race organisers, is eventually adopted all ROs (whether interested in this or not) will have a lot to thank AI for!

Cheers Fellhound
I dont think any of this is 'scaremongering' as has been suggested by some - if I understand Madeleines post correctly we have 'lost' 5 races. Hopefully this just means lost as in 'wont be in the calender' but still going ahead, but I can understand ROs concerns and anything which accepts the reality that they are liable to make mistakes even with their best endeavours is welcome. .