New safety rules

[Witton Park]

Well written WP, but it's 129 words.

125 now, thanks for the heads up

[Dynamo Dan]

FRA issued a draft safety document.
It raised the profile of said document to make certain people (including some current ROs)examine it more closely.
Areas of concern have been raised about some of the terminology in the ROs documentation that is sent out for permitting purposes.
The FRA have addressed some of those concerns, are still looking at some other matters and will probably come up with a temporary solution for 2014 which will be reviewed more extensively for the 2015 calendar.

The debate has probably gone on longer than it should due to a few people claiming there are no issues to address, when even the FRA acknowledge that there are and perhaps the tone of the interventions of one or two current committee members didn't help either.

Thanks - I can't help thinking there are better ways to consult with ROs than the forum though!

[alwaysinjured]

Can anyone sum the useful posts in this thread in 125 words or less? Trying to make sense of it at the moment is like searching for gold nuggets in a public privy...

A recent inquest highlighted that the old rules were not fit for purpose - not least because they create a wrong perception of what is possible for an RO leaving them exposed legally. A knee jerk reaction rule change made that much worse, highlighting lack of experience of safety / legal drafting matters by those making changes , so prescribing mandates in a way last seen in safety documentation decades ago. Few RO seem to be taking it seriously, and some unhelpful committee remarks made it much worse. Changes have been made, but the problem is structural not just formulaic.

The devil is in the detail. When rules and evidence are thousands of words it is unreasonable to expect to summarize, understand ,Analyze or contribute in 125 words. The unwillingness of some to delve deeper IS Partly the problem.

Read the rules, then ask "what if..."

[philgreen1968]

after wading through that lot i guess i better change my pre race briefing from " you see that hill over there, run up it and come back here, first one back is the winner".. so much for rules on the back of a postage stamp.

[Dynamo Dan]

A recent inquest highlighted that the old rules were not fit for purpose - not least because they create a wrong perception of what is possible for an RO leaving them exposed legally. A knee jerk reaction rule change made that much worse, highlighting lack of experience of safety / legal drafting matters by those making changes , so prescribing mandates in a way last seen in safety documentation decades ago. Few RO seem to be taking it seriously, and some unhelpful committee remarks made it much worse. Changes have been made, but the problem is structural not just formulaic.

The devil is in the detail. When rules and evidence are thousands of words it is unreasonable to expect to summarize, understand ,Analyze or contribute in 125 words. The unwillingness of some to delve deeper IS Partly the problem.

Read the rules, then ask "what if..."

A pithy explanation is never impossible.

[Witton Park]

If anyone thinks this is long-winded, you want to try permitting a race and see the amount of paperwork you get
Permit Application - 2 Pages
FRA Safety Requirements - 18 pages
Guidelines for Race Organisers - 6 Pages
Access and Environmental Guidelines - 2 Pages
FRA Organiser Safety Check List - 8 Pages

36 Pages in total.
At least 1/4 of this can be cut away if repetition is avoided, regardless of any rewording or redrafting.
I would also argue that the Guidelines document is unnecessary and the Safety Check List can be replaced by something that is more effective.

[alwaysinjured]

A pithy explanation is never impossible.

Trite cliches as above are part of what is clogging the thread. Double negatives are never pithy and is an example of lack of precision that besets the rules. Even The discussion of 125 words has served to distance relevant posts
So please Read the rules and comment on them or otherwise leave, it is not a subject for the 125 word mindset.
The major objective now is to avoid compounding problem rules with problem undertakings to the coroner.

I welcome more views provided they contribute...who would like to bet the next post will not be useful, and talk about length not content....?

[shaunaneto]

36 Pages in total.

Still 86 pages shorter than this epic.

[shaunaneto]

Apologies for the trite post.

And this one, obviously.

[Alf]

Apologies for the trite post.

And this one, obviously.

At least it wasn't a cliche