New safety rules

[alwaysinjured]

THE CORONERS LETTER
- and why the rules MUST be changed from what is proposed, and why an RO should not sign up until they are, certainly not out of expedience.

The reality of the recent event was as in the narrative verdict: that a tragic accident occurred, and whilst procedures clearly need to make sure that it is known when a runner has not returned, in this case it would have made no difference to the outcome.

But there is a louder message in the points from the coroner:

It is vital for ALL RO to understand the DIRECT connection between our rules, the misguided claims made there, and how hostile witness can use that against any RO in future.

So poor rules , however expedient MUST NOT be passed, however pressing the deadline.
Consider the following points by the coroner. And how they came to be...

Take these three for example...
4. There was no reliable means of communication between the race control and the marshals out on the fells so that each of them were aware of the number of participants in the race, those who had retired, and where they had retired.

5. Thus it was not possible to "monitor" the runners around the course as required by the FRA Safety Requirement number 13. The higher the "risk" to participants in the race, because of terrain, weather conditions, length of the race etc, the higher the need for an effective means of communication, which should be planned into the preparations for the race.

6. When the marshal at checkpoint 3 notified race control of an inaccurate number of runners who passed through checkpoint 3 there was no consideration or investigation as to the reasons for the inaccuracies.


Number 5 is a direct consequence of the "old rule 13" - "race monitoring and rescue procedures"

Specifically these words: WHICH SHOW HOW THE OLD RULES WERE VERY BADLY DRAFTED, and how that can come home to roost...

Here is the rule. That is what we say about ourselves is what we will be judged by...
13 "This means that each individual runner must be checked around the course in such a manner that if he becomes overdue at a control point the fact is known to race control. Since accurate timing of a call-out is often vital (literally sometimes a matter of life and death) it is often quite inadequate to wait until the completion of long races before an alert is raised"

That very bad drafting clearly claims three things.
- First the wrongful claim that it is practical in all circumstances to track from checkpoint to checkpoint, and
- Second that the communications are good enough for race control to know with certainty, and
- Third that it is sensible to call out mountain rescue /commence searches before completion of a race.
Nowhere does it mention the "practicability" of any of the above in that drafting.
Combine that with the ill advised statement in Rule 12 on marshalls
"Strategic checkpoint marshals should be in contact with race control "
"If weather conditions prevent them carrying out the monitoring procedures efficiently, race control must be informed"

Then the ill informed outside fell running are entitled to assume that tracking is always possible, counting is always perfect, and communications can be flawless. Hence the coroners points.

Anyone who has marshalled in bad weather knows it is not that simple.
When runners are mainly wearing weatherproof tops, the course is public so other runners are passing, it is windy so people cannot hear easily, radios and phones are compromised, and even if connection can be established it is very often hard to hear what is said. Compound that with the fact that when runners can miss checkpoints, many can go off route and take hours to arrive back, and even getting back at walking pace after a minor injury can take a very long time.
So counting, monitoring, and tracking are INEVITABLY imperfect.
But that is not what the rules say. So somebody must be to blame. And blame they will.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN HOSTILE WITNESS APPEARS
The above get referenced in testimony under "failures of duty of care" - which in english means they are cited as evidence of negligence. I list just a few curt phrases out of a page of UKA testimony on a section devoted to failure of duty of care.
"monitoring system responsibility of organiser per rule 13" ""communications were inadequate" - and every single discrepancy of counting cited under "failures of duty"

Coroner Item 6 is fascinating.

That particular marshall had an overcount of two, not an undercount - which UKA witness highlighted as "should have been investigated" The overwhelming likelihood from having actually marshalled in bad weather, is a couple came through the checkpoint who were not in the race, did not respond properly when asked - or said something which was not properly heard in the wind: so were ticked off as people passing just in case. What was the marshall supposed to do? Leave them off the list? how would that help? That is the reality of marshalling. Not all checkpoints will agree. It is not a failure of duty. It is a fact of life.

Had the rules noted that counting is imperfect...would that have made the "failures of duty" from an expert witness? so how would it have made the coroners report?

I do not want to drop an RO in it, so no naming of names or races, but I know of one RO relatively horrified at the current proposals, who is also considered one of the best, who admitted that in a recent lakeland race THEIR checkpoint marshalls disagreed too. If the best cannot do it, who can?

Thank heaven for the police witness who injected a sense of reality to all this.
And stated that the problems were not unusual, a fact of life of fell racing, other than needing to improve the start/finish counts - which is the clear takeaway from all this.

All three coroner points therefore, came from inadequate drafting of rules, that implied perfection can be achieved where it cannot, couple that with hostile witness highlighting every discrepancy (this case UKA) and you have a dangerous mixture

SO THE POINT IS RACE ORGANISERS.
You will be measured against what the rules SAY, and the worst interpretation of that, not against the reasonableness of them, or what you hope they mean.
If the rules say it, you will be expected to do it perfectly to the rules, unless the rules give you a let out, and anything less (most of the real world) may be treated as failure of duty.

So the nonsense as it is on course description, the fact that all weather can be dangerous, that marshalls do their best but cannot be guaranteed to be perfect,, they cannot "communicate to control" when they cannot monitor properly, not least because some of the time the communications will not work! Must all be removed for your sake.

Many of the problems were not put there by the present committee, they long predated that.

But they need to be improved the present commitee PDQ to something that can actually be done.

If nothing else read this from current rules:
"ORGANISER * has a “duty of care” to all those participating in the event to ensure that the event
complies with the conditions demanded by the FRA in providing a permit and race insurance for the
event"

So the FRA are telling you that if any of the rules are deemed broken , (or if UKA say you have) and you may not even be INSURED and by implication that could even mean "no defence costs"! You cannot trust any more favourable treatment, than the worst interpretation of the rules as written.

The rules need to clearly state that ALL courses are unconditionally dangerous, and so is ALL weather, NO communications can EVER be perfect, that marshalling is INEVITABLY flawed, that it is unlikely to ever have enough certainty to call out a search before the end of a race and so on. In short, describe the hazards to runners and say "on your head be it..."

Instead the rules mandate with a MUST, things that cannot be assured.
You have been warned...
In this case the late finding of the unfortunate casualty had no bearing on the outcome. In other circumstances it might of done, and with rules as they are the outcome might have been VERY different. As wynn says, she does not want to lose her house (or her liberty!) over a fell race.
So the rules are there to protect an RO, provided what is stated is doable in all circumstances, then they have honoured their obligations.

[Mark G]

AI - although you've said it many times at length I agree and I've tried to make the same points in my own posts on this ever expanding thread. I think in the past we tended to regard the rules as guidelines which we tried to adhere to but which we readily accepted wouldn't be met on all occasions for the reasons you, me and others have listed on here. The mindset was that this was OK as we all knew the reality and as long as nobody deliberately flouted them everyone accepted that ROs and marshals were doing their best in difficult circumstances and that mistakes were inevitable.
The recent case has put this in to context and shown how we will possibly be held to account in future against the letter rather than the spirit of the rules. For that reason I fully support your view that whatever form the rules finally take must reflect the reality of what is achievable. I also feel that the FRA has an opportunity here when they reply to the coroner to make what is achievable absolutely clear.

I feel that there is scope for the FRA to acknowledge that we can improve start and finish counting procedures (its admin and work but no reason why it cant be done) but should re-emphasise the difficulty of monitoring runners around the course. In my view it would be entirely reasonable for the FRA to risk assess the consequences of less than ideal monitoring and state that the risk of a miscount at a CP is high but the risk of a miscount leading to the loss/death of a runner is actually extremely low. Although the consequences are serious the likelihood of those consequences is so low as to make it an acceptable risk and therefore we can justify the fact that in reality monitoring will not always be as good as the coroner (or UKA?) would want.
Would a RO acept a rule that said you must not allow anyone to be injured in your race? No they wouldn't of course, but I suspect they would be happy with one that asks them to take reasonable measures to prevent anyone being injured consistent with the event being a fell race. I think exactly the same issue applies here to the rules.

[Fellhound]

...The recent case has .....shown how we will possibly be held to account in future against the letter rather than the spirit of the rules....

Mark,

Absolutley right and I fully agree.

I think (hope!) that the Brian Belfield case, and this thread, have brought about a lot of "awakening" right across the sport.

There are things we can and must do but we MUST get the framework right, in a way that doesn't put any of us (FRA, ROs or runners) at increased risk, either legally or otherwise.

[Dave_Mole]

Would a RO acept a rule that said you must not allow anyone to be injured in your race? No they wouldn't of course, but I suspect they would be happy with one that asks them to take reasonable measures to prevent anyone being injured consistent with the event being a fell race. I

neatly summarising about 90 of these 101 pages of posts, there!

[Mike T]

THE CORONERS LETTER
- and why the rules MUST be changed from what is proposed, and why an RO should not sign up until they are, certainly not out of expedience.

The reality of the recent event was as in the narrative verdict: that a tragic accident occurred, and whilst procedures clearly need to make sure that it is known when a runner has not returned, in this case it would have made no difference to the outcome.

But there is a louder message in the points from the coroner:

It is vital for ALL RO to understand the DIRECT connection between our rules, the misguided claims made there, and how hostile witness can use that against any RO in future.

So poor rules , however expedient MUST NOT be passed, however pressing the deadline.
Consider the following points by the coroner. And how they came to be...

Take these three for example...
4. There was no reliable means of communication between the race control and the marshals out on the fells so that each of them were aware of the number of participants in the race, those who had retired, and where they had retired.

5. Thus it was not possible to "monitor" the runners around the course as required by the FRA Safety Requirement number 13. The higher the "risk" to participants in the race, because of terrain, weather conditions, length of the race etc, the higher the need for an effective means of communication, which should be planned into the preparations for the race.

6. When the marshal at checkpoint 3 notified race control of an inaccurate number of runners who passed through checkpoint 3 there was no consideration or investigation as to the reasons for the inaccuracies.


Number 5 is a direct consequence of the "old rule 13" - "race monitoring and rescue procedures"

Specifically these words: WHICH SHOW HOW THE OLD RULES WERE VERY BADLY DRAFTED, and how that can come home to roost...

Here is the rule. That is what we say about ourselves is what we will be judged by...
13 "This means that each individual runner must be checked around the course in such a manner that if he becomes overdue at a control point the fact is known to race control. Since accurate timing of a call-out is often vital (literally sometimes a matter of life and death) it is often quite inadequate to wait until the completion of long races before an alert is raised"

That very bad drafting clearly claims three things.
- First the wrongful claim that it is practical in all circumstances to track from checkpoint to checkpoint, and
- Second that the communications are good enough for race control to know with certainty, and
- Third that it is sensible to call out mountain rescue /commence searches before completion of a race.
Nowhere does it mention the "practicability" of any of the above in that drafting.
Combine that with the ill advised statement in Rule 12 on marshalls
"Strategic checkpoint marshals should be in contact with race control "
"If weather conditions prevent them carrying out the monitoring procedures efficiently, race control must be informed"

Then the ill informed outside fell running are entitled to assume that tracking is always possible, counting is always perfect, and communications can be flawless. Hence the coroners points.

Anyone who has marshalled in bad weather knows it is not that simple.
When runners are mainly wearing weatherproof tops, the course is public so other runners are passing, it is windy so people cannot hear easily, radios and phones are compromised, and even if connection can be established it is very often hard to hear what is said. Compound that with the fact that when runners can miss checkpoints, many can go off route and take hours to arrive back, and even getting back at walking pace after a minor injury can take a very long time.
So counting, monitoring, and tracking are INEVITABLY imperfect.
But that is not what the rules say. So somebody must be to blame. And blame they will.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN HOSTILE WITNESS APPEARS
The above get referenced in testimony under "failures of duty of care" - which in english means they are cited as evidence of negligence. I list just a few curt phrases out of a page of UKA testimony on a section devoted to failure of duty of care.
"monitoring system responsibility of organiser per rule 13" ""communications were inadequate" - and every single discrepancy of counting cited under "failures of duty"

Coroner Item 6 is fascinating.

That particular marshall had an overcount of two, not an undercount - which UKA witness highlighted as "should have been investigated" The overwhelming likelihood from having actually marshalled in bad weather, is a couple came through the checkpoint who were not in the race, did not respond properly when asked - or said something which was not properly heard in the wind: so were ticked off as people passing just in case. What was the marshall supposed to do? Leave them off the list? how would that help? That is the reality of marshalling. Not all checkpoints will agree. It is not a failure of duty. It is a fact of life.

Had the rules noted that counting is imperfect...would that have made the "failures of duty" from an expert witness? so how would it have made the coroners report?

I do not want to drop an RO in it, so no naming of names or races, but I know of one RO relatively horrified at the current proposals, who is also considered one of the best, who admitted that in a recent lakeland race THEIR checkpoint marshalls disagreed too. If the best cannot do it, who can?

Thank heaven for the police witness who injected a sense of reality to all this.
And stated that the problems were not unusual, a fact of life of fell racing, other than needing to improve the start/finish counts - which is the clear takeaway from all this.

All three coroner points therefore, came from inadequate drafting of rules, that implied perfection can be achieved where it cannot, couple that with hostile witness highlighting every discrepancy (this case UKA) and you have a dangerous mixture

SO THE POINT IS RACE ORGANISERS.
You will be measured against what the rules SAY, and the worst interpretation of that, not against the reasonableness of them, or what you hope they mean.
If the rules say it, you will be expected to do it perfectly to the rules, unless the rules give you a let out, and anything less (most of the real world) may be treated as failure of duty.

So the nonsense as it is on course description, the fact that all weather can be dangerous, that marshalls do their best but cannot be guaranteed to be perfect,, they cannot "communicate to control" when they cannot monitor properly, not least because some of the time the communications will not work! Must all be removed for your sake.

Many of the problems were not put there by the present committee, they long predated that.

But they need to be improved the present commitee PDQ to something that can actually be done.

If nothing else read this from current rules:
"ORGANISER * has a “duty of care” to all those participating in the event to ensure that the event
complies with the conditions demanded by the FRA in providing a permit and race insurance for the
event"

So the FRA are telling you that if any of the rules are deemed broken , (or if UKA say you have) and you may not even be INSURED and by implication that could even mean "no defence costs"! You cannot trust any more favourable treatment, than the worst interpretation of the rules as written.

The rules need to clearly state that ALL courses are unconditionally dangerous, and so is ALL weather, NO communications can EVER be perfect, that marshalling is INEVITABLY flawed, that it is unlikely to ever have enough certainty to call out a search before the end of a race and so on. In short, describe the hazards to runners and say "on your head be it..."

Instead the rules mandate with a MUST, things that cannot be assured.
You have been warned...
In this case the late finding of the unfortunate casualty had no bearing on the outcome. In other circumstances it might of done, and with rules as they are the outcome might have been VERY different. As wynn says, she does not want to lose her house (or her liberty!) over a fell race.
So the rules are there to protect an RO, provided what is stated is doable in all circumstances, then they have honoured their obligations.

Worth reading!

[alwaysinjured]

Mark,

Absolutley right and I fully agree.

I think (hope!) that the Brian Belfield case, and this thread, have brought about a lot of "awakening" right across the sport.

There are things we can and must do but we MUST get the framework right, in a way that doesn't put any of us (FRA, ROs or runners) at increased risk, either legally or otherwise.

Thanks.

I have been highlighting the plight of the RO in all this. But it is not just them who are met with ludicrous imperatives.

Take the imperative "must report directly and rapidly to race control if retiring between checkpoints" - is actually dangerous - the FRA are giving a mandate that could land them in trouble.
If someone is injured and or hypothermic, their first duty is to get down of the tops into more clement weather, and to the closest place of safety/ and or they believe they are likely to receive assistance (in their own opinion, nothing to do with FRA) Only after being out of danger, should they report to race control.

For example going back across the tops to the start from before halfway (shortest routewhich marshalls may well have already left) is exposing them to more vile weather and can be a mighty long way from the control to the start.

What it should say perhaps is something like.

"before commencing any race , the competitor should study the route and consider the potential escape routes and places of safety to aim for, should they get into difficulty. Should they retire, and once having gained safety, they should contact the RO as soon as is reasonably practicable to indicate they are safe and well. Unless injury or illness preclude it, and provided it does not put them in further danger, and in any event if they have not already in formed the RO, they must as soon as reasonably possible return to Race HQ to formally withdraw from the race."

Whatever. It is potentially dangerous to ask them to return to RaceHQ by the most direct route. In stating must return to race HQ by direct route, FRA are actually lessening the competitors responsibility for his or her own safety with an illadvised imperative that could put them in more danger, for which the FRA are responsible, since they are the ones that demanded it.


Somebody had an attack of the "Musts"...and it needs to be replaced with an attack of "considers" and "reasonablys"

[Norman Bates]

Worth reading!

Not in my opinion, it's just a load of the same old regularly repeated rubbish.

[Richard123]

Not in my opinion, it's just a load of the same old regularly repeated rubbish.

Really? You think what AI has been posting is "regularly repeated rubbish"? I feel sorry for you.

[Norman Bates]

Really? You think what AI has been posting is "regularly repeated rubbish"? I feel sorry for you.

Yes Richard you read it correctly, not just my opinion though I'm just relaying the general feeling of most fr I know. Wait and see, time will tell, I predict that those many words will prove irrelevant, mark my words.

[alwaysinjured]

AI - although you've said it many times at length I agree and I've tried to make the same points in my own posts on this ever expanding thread. I think in the past we tended to regard the rules as guidelines which we tried to adhere to but which we readily accepted wouldn't be met on all occasions for the reasons you, me and others have listed on here. The mindset was that this was OK as we all knew the reality and as long as nobody deliberately flouted them everyone accepted that ROs and marshals were doing their best in difficult circumstances and that mistakes were inevitable.
The recent case has put this in to context and shown how we will possibly be held to account in future against the letter rather than the spirit of the rules. For that reason I fully support your view that whatever form the rules finally take must reflect the reality of what is achievable. I also feel that the FRA has an opportunity here when they reply to the coroner to make what is achievable absolutely clear.

I feel that there is scope for the FRA to acknowledge that we can improve start and finish counting procedures (its admin and work but no reason why it cant be done) but should re-emphasise the difficulty of monitoring runners around the course. In my view it would be entirely reasonable for the FRA to risk assess the consequences of less than ideal monitoring and state that the risk of a miscount at a CP is high but the risk of a miscount leading to the loss/death of a runner is actually extremely low. Although the consequences are serious the likelihood of those consequences is so low as to make it an acceptable risk and therefore we can justify the fact that in reality monitoring will not always be as good as the coroner (or UKA?) would want.
Would a RO acept a rule that said you must not allow anyone to be injured in your race? No they wouldn't of course, but I suspect they would be happy with one that asks them to take reasonable measures to prevent anyone being injured consistent with the event being a fell race. I think exactly the same issue applies here to the rules.

Well put.
Indeed the coroner is the first issue.

FRA must not capitulate to a presumption of perfect tracking, marshalling or communication - because none of them are realistic - but instead highlight the difficulties of doing so in their response to coroner, stating that

(for example)

"FRA and RO will strive for continual improvement in marshalling , monitoring and communication procedures, but no guarantees can be made, since all of the processes are inherently and inevitably fallible, so all we can promise is that all reasonably practicable measures will be considered.

Indeed because such processes are fallible, where possible there will be duplicate processes to confirm numbers of starters and finishers in order to reduce the likelihood any error giving rise to an unaccounted competitor in future, which is clearly an area in which we need to focus attention in hindsight of the tragedy..

There are only very limited situations in which it is possible to initiate a search prior to completion of a race, but we will urge RO to consider where and when this might be possible and appropriate.

Fell racing is a diverse sport with varied types of course and terrain so it is not appropriate to be prescriptive in guidance to organisers, since what works well in one situation may not be appropriate, if not counterproductive in others.

The reality is that fell racing whilst dangerous has a good safety record, but by the nature of the terrain, the emphasis must be on the competitor to assume self reliance which is the essence of the sport, and therefore the organiser has an essential role in alerting the competitors to the various hazards posed by a course and the weather, and to highlight the range of skills needed by the competitors."

Or whatever...