If this is a public domain document then why not publish it here?Originally Posted by wkb21
If this is a public domain document then why not publish it here?
* Organisers are registering fell races in the hundreds for 2014There aren't enough bullet points being used on this thread. That's my problem with it all
* The FRA will produce a Handbook/Calendar for 2014
* The FRA will reply to the Coroner.
* Fell running will continue.
* Everything else is noise.
And 4/5 aint bad.
The evidence is public domain. The document containing it is more questionable, and perhaps has other strings attached, such are our quaint copyright laws, and also contains a few other things such as identity of the specific people preparing it, which should not perhaps be made public, even though public to all who attended the inquest. I would hope the authors of it, would have the courage of their own conviction to make it available themselves, or be persuaded to do so by FRA, since it is also in effect a "position statement" on their attitude to fell running procedures , what they expected to find where in conflict with what they did find, and their view of the significance of such as counting , tracking and other things, and what they regard as potential failure of duty. Important to understand if you are an RO, and they are the source of insurance!
Public also raises issues about the wish not to inflict more emotional stress on those to whom it relates.
WKB21 has already told you , he is somewhat awkward position to do that because of his role in the process, but clearly feels strongly enough to have decided to make that statement here. I am glad of his comment, because until now , such as Khamsin have tried to dismiss as hearsay, what is fact.
Apologies J of A, for putting in the missing subtitles!
It is of course a bit like car insurance.
It is so unlikely you will need it , it is tempting to think it does not matter.
So who cares what the words say anyway?
Till the day you do need insurance, and the insurer uses ANY means to escape paying up. Like an undeclared speeding fine which had no bearing on the incident which may void the policy.
I know someone who got shafted for thousands by hire car insurance reclaim from credit card, when the car was vandalised, and it turned out the fine print failed to cover it. Since then I have read the fine print on such clauses - you would be amazed at what some of them try to get away with!
For most of the RO, most of the time it will not matter a jot.
It is so remote a possibility it is tempting to think it does not matter. Life carries on.
For one lucky RO, and some point in the next few years.
It will matter, just like it did to one recently, who escaped by the skin of his teeth from a set of impossible rules. You are verbally sticking your fingers up at the genuine problem that person will face.
Some of us like to know there is a safety net. If you like trapeze without one, go for it.
Might as well cancel your house insurance too.
Some RO have already said they have a problem with the rules, and rightly so, wynn is one who looks as though her course does not meet the rules. Langdale does not comply since it contains rock climbing on the normal route, but will it continue regardless?
Last edited by alwaysinjured; 29-10-2013 at 03:06 PM.
WFRA proving they're independent: 2014 draft safety doc
FWIW if I was ever thinking of organizing a race, I think I would find Fellhound's revisions of the RO's information a lot more palatable than the FRA version (I'm not sure if everyone understands this was not the FRA working document).
Its a well known fact that imposing too many safety rules when running in the hills can actually prove to be unsafe
how different are they? they looked similar, the only obv. difference was wind v waterproof..
Personally I do think the WFRA and FRA should sing from one sheet.. you have a disaster, its pointed out if it was a WFRA/FRA race this could have been different..
I organize a local race, have to say very minor in the scheme of things and although I don't think we will have any problems I do worry for some of the Lakeland " biggies". when I race these days I'm seeing more of the "Tuff Mudder" brigade and worry they think getting a bit cold and electrocuted qualifys the for something like Langdale.
I ran the Three Peaks last year and did wonder how some of em managed to get an entry to be honest.
This year marshaling in a local race I managed to persuade a big strong lad to retire after only 4 miles in foul weather because he was in obvious distress. On the way back down he admitted all his training was on a running machine and he just fancied a go at a fell race.
Thanks for commenting.
Leaving aside any actual part UKA have in the organisation of fell running, I actually think the association is dangerous in PR message, because it implies that fell races are just road races up in the sky, and runners that cross that boundary come with the same expectation of spoon feeding.
Regardless of like or not like UKA we have to present ourselves as a completely different sport - based on fast mountaineering, mountain orienteering, not uphill road running on rougher ground. That way we will see fewer dropped gel sachets from road runners who think it is someones job to clear up after them: another piece of baggage from road running. I have argued with several over the years, who stare at me blankly, not knowing what they have done. Mountain people do not think like that.
Last edited by alwaysinjured; 29-10-2013 at 03:19 PM.
Much more than that Iain, the FRA one explains what MUST means near the start in case anyone wasn't sure and then proceeds to use it about a hundred times. And quite a few other differences, although sadly still uses the same 'dangerous sections' sentence.
Posting Permissions
