New safety rules

[alwaysinjured]

Just highlighting that bit. This is an important point that was very easily missed. I think some have read it believing it was the FRA's stance and hence decided there is no issue.

• Thanks for the tip on advanced..yippee!
• But sorry to beat a drum - it would have been obvious it was a fellhound special, if there had been a document change tab, that Fellhound would have amended saying "personal changes".
• The official FRA version and revision number then easily recognised - also which version FH amended...
• That is how companies can get to ask a group to comment/amend independently, somebody take the best of them to another version etc..
• It works honest, and it is so simple to do. Just a table, you edit! - we would even know which version WFRA took as their base.

[Norman Bates]

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.

Exactly DNF and that's why we need a robust set of rules to save these people from themselves.

[alwaysinjured]

Exactly DNF and that's why we need a robust set of rules to save these people from themselves.

That begs a question. Should we allow novices on Long A lakes races, and equally important if they were allowed: can the rules or any organiser "save them from themselves" The answer an emphatic "no" if they have no clue how to navigate in a whiteout in lakeland, and have no idea how to stay safe in mountains in bad weather. So the rules should in that case prevent them from entering, not dump an impossible task on an organiser.

All we can do as the late Brian Hanarahan said of the Falklands Fighter Planes is "counted them out, and counted them in". Tracking, communications ,marshalling, and searching can NEVER be infallible enough to save novices from themselves - it can hopefully determine if someone experienced goes missing due to a mishap. Eventually. And that is the best we can hope to guarantee.

[Mark G]

Is it worth trying to condense this back to what I think are the key issues?

1) As we all know a runner died
2) Rightly the FRA are reviewing their safety procedures as a result
3) This is also being driven by comments made by the coroner who requires a reply from the FRA
4) The FRA produced a draft and circulated it asking for comments
5) In many races the proposed changes made little or no impact - they were achievable
6) In some races they weren't - or at least could not be guaranteed to be
7) AI and others including some ROs and me raised concerns about the possible consequences of ROs signing up to rules which they knew could not be adhered to. ROs who couldn't meet all the requirements had a few choices -abandon the race, try and alter the race, or to put it frankly lie about the ability of their race to conform. For that reason some of us posting on here put the case forward for the rules to accept and reflect the reality that the rules for an ideal world were not achievable on all occasions in the real world. This would hopefully support the organisers of more problematic races and allow them to continue without undue risk to the RO.
8) This by no means applies to all races and all ROs - if someone is satisfied that their race can comply with the original draft then all well and good but we risked losing races and/or putting some ROs at an unacceptably high level of risk.
9) We've all had the opportunity to comment, the committee are looking at it, lets see what they come up with. I'm sure common sense will prevail in the end but I dont think the original draft reflected that and it was more like a document designed to produce the impossible situation where 'something like this must never be allowed to happen again' which may well have been to meet the perceived needs of the coroner/UKA/other interested parties.

The arguments as to why the rules as they stood were unachievable have been done to death on here, so I dont want to repeat them other than to say that common sense and experience shows that things will inevitably go wrong however hard we try not to allow that to happen - lets just have a set of rules and guidelines that reflect that fact.

[Witton Park]

5) In many races the proposed changes made little or no impact...

That is what some are saying Mark, but if we take the paperwork that was issued to ROs for 2014 in the first instance I think it is clear that there probably wasn't a race out there that had operated in this way and so there has got to be some doubt about any RO being able to operate by the book, without slip or deviation.

I actually think that many have signed and routinely returned the forms partly because they haven't seen or been made aware of the issues that we have been debating.

[wynn]

Im through.
Goodbye waltz, now out of the calendar
Just got of the phone to them and FRA attitude stinks
they know my race does not comply, and yours don't either.
but since so many are signing up they couldn't care less
hiding behind a limited company they are OK and we are left hanging

[ydt]

Im through.
Goodbye waltz, now out of the calendar
Just got of the phone to them and FRA attitude stinks
they know my race does not comply, and yours don't either.
but since so many are signing up they couldn't care less
hiding behind a limited company they are OK and we are left hanging

It is sad to see this great sport heading in this direction. If you are forced to give up Wynn, one wonders who will carry on organising races.

[Alf]

Im through.
Goodbye waltz, now out of the calendar
Just got of the phone to them and FRA attitude stinks
they know my race does not comply, and yours don't either.
but since so many are signing up they couldn't care less
hiding behind a limited company they are OK and we are left hanging

No more TWA why doesn't it comply ?

[Quinny]

Im through.
Goodbye waltz, now out of the calendar
Just got of the phone to them and FRA attitude stinks
they know my race does not comply, and yours don't either.
but since so many are signing up they couldn't care less
hiding behind a limited company they are OK and we are left hanging

Terrible news. The TWA is one of my favourite races and in my humble opinion fantastically organised. If this race doesn't comply then I can't see how others will.

[fellgazelle]

That is sad news.

I thought about posting this earlier but couldn't find the right words/context in which to say it.
The first time I did the Anni Waltz there was a kit check and the chap inspecting my kit asked "you not got any water"? or something similar. I replied something along the lines of "oh I'll be OK" and he gave me a look which I can't easily describe. It was a hot day and I had overlooked the fact there is little water on route. By the time I had reached Maiden Moor I was badly dehydrated and gasping for a drink and it took all my self control to stop me from ripping the water bottle out of another runner's hand.
How those words stuck in mind, I've never forgotten that and it makes me think prior to every race and had a much greater effect than any words on bits of paper/websites etc., ever did.
This is the problem I have with prescriptive rules. They impede the necessity to think. In my opinion guidance offered by the FRA should be encouraging runners to think "what skills/kit do I need to keep myself alive if the sh*t hits the fan" and make a judgment rather than "tick.., my kit meets requirements therefore I'm OK".