Originally Posted by
fellgazelle
???
I find your reply difficult to understand and am surprised by your seemingly over-reaction to my posts. I can only assume that you misunderstand me.
When I posted this it was in direct response to this line which I quoted in the original post from AI.
“It is dangerous to have rules that do not reflect the real world”
I believed that AI was trying to explain the necessity to accurately describe the situation and circumstances to which a specific set of rules apply.
In response to this “Mountains heed no rules” was chosen as a succinct way of saying: variables such as climate, terrain and the ability, physiology, state of fitness of runners competing in such a complex and diverse environment is beyond the control of anyone.
In my experience the mountain/fell environment has a habit of chucking up extreme situations (take the Borrowdale OMM for example) that a risk assessment team, sat around a table in a remote location, at different time might deem as highly unlikely to occur or not even consider.
“Reflect that!” did not mean “BOOM!!” Or “in your face AI” or any other such derogatory remark. It was a direct challenge to whoever composes the said rules to accurately reflect/describe a practically infinite set of variables in a simple, concise rule, devised to function as planned, in all situations.
In my reply to WP regarding my original post I did say “I chose my words carefully” and I meant it, as I have done here also. I don’t just skim read, pick up some keyword and fire-off at a tangent.
I’m not advocating some kind of anarchic free-for all and well understand that guidance is required. My opinions are aimed purely at rules regarding safety, nothing else. My understanding of the application of safety guidance/regulations etc., (which is considerable but limited to the field of industrial machinery) is that prescriptive guidance can be applied to very specific situations in tightly controlled environments. As the environment and variables become less controlled and less specific then the guidance needs to offer greater flexibility in order to avoid the subject to be protected being compromised in all extremes of situation. I also understand that words such as “must” have a very precise meaning legally and offer no flexibility in the context of which they are applied.
I believe AI has tried hard to make these points (albeit in a very roundabout way)and I believe he is technically right. Many others have also made similar comments and I have no intention of further repeating them.
In a nutshell my opinion is that the safety guidance should offer two things:
Enough flexibility for RO’s to choose appropriate rules/guidance for their event, course and it’s specific environment etc.
Enough flexibility for competitors to make a judgement of their situation and take appropriate action to ensure their own safety during the event.
I’m not judging the FRA’s work/output, telling/advising anyone how to do anything or teaching granny to suck eggs, nor do I intend to patronise or be rude to anyone. I’m just stating my opinions. If you understood me correctly first time then I apologise for this lengthy reply. If you think my posts add nothing to the debate then disregard them.
