New safety rules

[alwaysinjured]

It's once again blatantly obvious that you have never ever in your life organised a fell race. I've been at one today talking to runners and organisers alike who live in the real world of fell running and their thoughts and comments are far removed from the kind of mindset you seem to have.

I wonder whether it is worth answering, since your purpose is to insult rather than consider the merits or otherwise of what are real problems.

Two problems observed in real world marshalling are indeed (first) misrecognised or misheard numbers resulting in duplicate numbers apparently passing the same marshal at different times - And another not passing at all - if you have not seen it you have not done enough of it , and more importantly I recollect formed part of recent evidence and ( b) lost numbers or tags.

Wynn actually tried at one of the first waltzes the carrying of a bangle of tokens, problem is runners were losing them ( both individual and entire bands) rendering it impractical.

Wristbands are indeed practical fell running.

SHRA have on occasion been using hospital style wrist bands which have to be cut off ( avoiding the loss situation) - solving one of the problems - but it does not solve the problem of tring to do what FRA claim to do, which is be able to track and identify who is missing before the end of a race which needs automation to make it easy and fast and practical.

So in order ( a) to have a second check on misreads and ( b) allow FRA to achieve more of a reality to the myth of tracking and (c) to do it without spending a fortune, bar code reading is provable technology that may be worth a test from numbers produced on an ordinary printer.

Good mobile phones can do the read, as can a very cheap device.

The reality is you have operated rules which have been impractical for years - it took this event to highlight it, and even now some of you have heads in the sand.
I keep asking FRA to publish UKA evidence for people to see the reality of what they face. It needs some fresh ideas.

[TheGrump]

I keep asking FRA to publish UKA evidence for people to see the reality of what they face.

I'm surprised you don't know that such formal documents are only available on application to the Coroner. A 'properly interested person' has no authority to release them.
Still, you know best.

[IainR]

It's once again blatantly obvious that you have never ever in your life organised a fell race. I've been at one today talking to runners and organisers alike who live in the real world of fell running and their thoughts and comments are far removed from the kind of mindset you seem to have.

But as AI says its not about runners.. nothing has reallly changed, just clarified for us.

Its pretty obvious, the FRA felt they needed protection, so went ltd.. so clearly they were advised that there is risk from organising races... There's 2 options.. look to protect RO's or just head in sand time..

I don't totally agree with the rules, but i think its been worthwhile.

For me I'd like to see more chip timing at the longer events, but things like codereaders are so simple, so cheap, used 100s of times a weekend in races now... seems an obvious addition.. though you'd need a way to protect the bar code so maybe bracelets are ideal.

[alwaysinjured]

I'm surprised you don't know that such formal documents are only available on application to the Coroner. A 'properly interested person' has no authority to release them.
Still, you know best.

You have no idea what I know.

There is nothing to stop FRA asking - indeed they may be preemptedin that - I really do think it is valuable to show how " rules" and actions have consequences.Despite the coroner quoting one of our ( impractical) rules, it still does not seem to have got through - that we must claim to do no more than we actually do, and must not state the risks are less than they are. My main hope in that is that it will remove the apathy in some who seem to believe none of it matters, or that precision does not matter, or that any rules will do.


Grump - Do you need more help understanding companies?

[Joan of Arc]

[QUOTE=alwaysinjured;562470]You have no idea what I know.

/QUOTE]

Everyone knows what you think you know from secreted pieces of paper. You tell us every hour on the hour.

Fortunately it is infinitesimal compared with the combined knowledge of the 20+ Directors of the FRA and as far as we fell runners are concerned that is what really matters.

[alwaysinjured]

Everyone knows what you think you know from secreted pieces of paper. You tell us every hour on the hour.

Fortunately it is infinitesimal compared with the combined knowledge of the 20+ Directors of the FRA and as far as we fell runners are concerned that is what really matters.

Perhaps it needs fresh eyes to free of the complacency that allowed rules to say
" no hazards " in a fell race! , and claimed that tracking was practised well enough to demand an RO should be able to instigate searches before the end of the race hence as a result finding an inacapacitated runner in a life threatening situation.
A rule that demands an RO achieve something which in as far as I know has NEVER been done successfuly.

Suggest it by allmmeans ( where possible) it does not belong as a MUST

Even now that combined wisdom demands I do something as a retiring runner which is clearly unsafe as a recommendation, let alone a rule.

I don't doubt the knowledge or ability - I do doubt they write, indeed have written safety documents which need extreme care sadly lacking - that inexperience evident on every page - something I can certainly claim to have done, indeed been trained to do.
It disappoints me that thesafety professional fellhound, is not on the rules subcommittee. Why?

Shooting the messenger or insulting/ demeaning them , makes no difference to the message.
Challenging me on the issues would be a nice change.

[Joan of Arc]

Perhaps it needs fresh eyes to free of the complacency that allowed rules to say
" no hazards " in a fell race! , and claimed that tracking was practised well enough to demand an RO should be able to instigate searches before

Everybody on the planet who has seen a draft says it does not say "no hazards" but in fact the complete opposite.

As I'm sure even you know by now so why keep on and on and on?

[alwaysinjured]

Everybody on the planet who has seen a draft says it does not say "no hazards" but in fact the complete opposite.

As I'm sure even you know by now so why keep on and on and on?

The rules as originally approved said "no hazards in compulsory sections" and but for me they probably still would - amongst other nonsense. The now rules say " no rock climbs or dangerous" despite knowing langdale clearly does. So my suggestion is you question a little more, and trust a little less. Reality is the rules should say nothing except oblige an RO to describe the hazards.

There is still a way to go, but for as long as sycophants ignore the problems, those problems will remain unfixed.

When you decide to retire from a remote location because of hypothermia or injury, will you head for safety, or assistance, or will you do what the rules say instead? My suggestion is change the rules to introduce common sense. But asking for such changes is like pushing water uphill - at least in part because such as you are simply not taking a critical enough view of them, and insulting people who do.

[Rob Furness]

Is this still going on?

[mr brightside]

Is this still going on?

It's got some legs this baby, in fact it might be a Guinness World Record for the 'thing with the most legs'. Anyone got Norris McWhirter's number?