New safety rules

[CL]

I agree. I think it could be related to AI's writing style. I don't think he made many friends on a few other threads. Sorry AI.

AI acts as though others have a short memory. He complains about insults and rudeness to his person but only recently he was calling me a twat for expressing - quite rightly considering the state of sport - my view on doping. He also ignored scientific evidence because it wasn't consensus but now objects to Stolly's consensus with an analogy.

He has damaged his reputation by demanding respect from others who don't agree, whilst viciously attacking another who didn't agree with him. It's a shame because I agree with the gist of his argument on here, namely that rules should be clearly defined. I don't necessarily agree with his 'advice' that the FRA should 'get professional advice,' and I don't like his and Witton's desire to point out every flaming hazard on a fell route.

In short I think the FRA should move away from the nannying I see occurring I.e. regulating what kit people should take, and take a condensed set of rules that allow adults to appreciate the implications themselves. If we dumb the sport down to allow for those who don't want to think then the people who do, will be made to suffer.

[Rudolph Hooker]

Absolutely correct, and, as IainR says, it's up to the runners to build proper experience so that we can all be responsible for our own safety. In some ways we can't afford not to, and the fact that many do is the reason why the sport is has such a good record.

However (and unfortunately), Khamasin's point is also valid because, if something does go wrong, and legal people are involved, these outsiders see this responsibility as being solely down to the race organiser. The FRA has tried many times to persuade the powers that be otherwise, but they see a race as a service which is provided for a fee - not a race put on by mates for mates.

It's a dilemma we have to live with, and it's part of the reason for the rules review.

You've a very short memory AI, that's all I can say.

[alwaysinjured]

AI acts as though others have a short memory. He complains about insults and rudeness to his person but only recently he was calling me a twat for expressing - quite rightly considering the state of sport - my view on doping. He also ignored scientific evidence because it wasn't consensus but now objects to Stolly's consensus with an analogy.

He has damaged his reputation by demanding respect from others who don't agree, whilst viciously attacking another who didn't agree with him. It's a shame because I agree with the gist of his argument on here, namely that rules should be clearly defined. I don't necessarily agree with his 'advice' that the FRA should 'get professional advice,' and I don't like his and Witton's desire to point out every flaming hazard on a fell route.

In short I think the FRA should move away from the nannying I see occurring I.e. regulating what kit people should take, and take a condensed set of rules that allow adults to appreciate the implications themselves. If we dumb the sport down to allow for those who don't want to think then the people who do, will be made to suffer.

Wrong thread CL. As I said in a post above, There are very few issues on which I am passionate enough about the issue, and I am sure enough of the veracity of my argument to get involved at all. There is also a major league difference. If you want to defame anyone as a lifelong cheat, which is as nasty as you can be to a sportsman by calling him "epo"Mo (or Paula) you have to back it with very good evidence, not just a hunch or inuendo. You had none and I called you on it. It is not a place for a gentlemanly argument. Gentleman would never make such accusation. It is fascinating to me how you can defame a third party yet have such thin skin. Any other discussion on that, belongs on the other thread.

Back on topic.

These documents have legal standing, and remarks from the coroner prove a wholesale misunderstanding of our sport based on the old inadequate rules, which could have had dire consequences in other similar circumstances to what actually recently took place. That is enough to demonstrate the rules must be competently drafted, by someone with the knowledge and experience to do it, or failing that by taking advice on behalf of RO. It is too dangerous to leave to guesswork..

You have misunderstood our position on hazards, which is to describe what is there (in essence saying it is hazardous), where the current rules that try to say what is not there instead (seeking to downplay them), particularly when the description is either ambiguous or nonsensical. Saying courses like langdale have no "rock climbs or dangerous ground", when the "Normal" route goes down bad step was clearly a problem. It is I understand now amended, although I have yet to study quite how.

Agree on fewer rules or tripwires - in the main go to safety type documentation, losing a lot of themandatory prescription, in place of race specific risk management, with guidelines explaining some alternatives for doing so.

[alwaysinjured]

Absolutely correct, and, as IainR says, it's up to the runners to build proper experience so that we can all be responsible for our own safety. In some ways we can't afford not to, and the fact that many do is the reason why the sport is has such a good record.

However (and unfortunately), Khamasin's point is also valid because, if something does go wrong, and legal people are involved, these outsiders see this responsibility as being solely down to the race organiser. The FRA has tried many times to persuade the powers that be otherwise, but they see a race as a service which is provided for a fee - not a race put on by mates for mates.

It's a dilemma we have to live with, and it's part of the reason for the rules review.

Sorry Rudolf missed that. Agree with much of the essence. There is so much dross on the thread, I missed it.

[Wheeze]

In short I think the FRA should move away from the nannying I see occurring I.e. regulating what kit people should take, and take a condensed set of rules that allow adults to appreciate the implications themselves. If we dumb the sport down to allow for those who don't want to think then the people who do, will be made to suffer.

Completely agree with you CL. Tough call. Who's gonna make it??

[IainR]

Completely agree with you CL. Tough call. Who's gonna make it??

I must admit I was of CL's view from the European scene.. but its different in the UK I think.. smaller mountains so false sense of security, plus no hut system, cable cars etc..

But its a tough call and its a big call. I certainly see the logic but I think it encourages too much risk. But all this kit lists for runners have barely changed, this is really about race organising, marshalls etc... the european scene is much simpler.. but you pay a lot more, so do have chip timing, great support, huts, lifts etc..

Can we take that approach for 50p at Blencathra?

[shaunaneto]

Completely agree with you CL. Tough call. Who's gonna make it??

I suspect it'll be a lawyer and an insurance agent.

[Richard123]

Having read all the comments on this important topic I fail to understand the mentality of those who would criticise alwaysinjured in such an apparently uninformed and sometimes insulting manner. He is clearly trying to put forward a constructive and knowledge based argument in favour of improving the guidance document for race organisers. For this we should all be grateful. Nobody is forced to read this thread although I sincerely hope the people with responsibility for reviewing the safety rules for race organisers will take heed of the valuable advice that has been put forward.

I couldn't agree more. I really don't understand the snidy snipping comments that people keeping making toward AI.

[IainR]

I couldn't agree more. I really don't understand the snidy snipping comments that people keeping making toward AI.

I think the snidy comments are just ignorance. I'd love AI to be wrong, I don't agree 100% but he talks a lot of sense. We can go to no rules but sadly, as the sport no is, all inclusive,open to anyone, I just can't see how it can happen.

People love to say 'I know my loved ones will know it was my own risks'.. but it doesn't work like that. I used to take a 15 year old out running, still did but was warned that even though I knew his parents would never hold me responsible, his teachers could... others could.. we'd be off night running at 3000ft over the Carneddau in winter but it did worry me what the consequences could have been... so multiply that up.. and the risk is genuine.. afterall why did the FRA decide to go Ltd...

[fellgazelle]

the more prescriptive and poorly-worded the published 'requirements' are, the worse the RO's position is.

and I don't like his and Witton's desire to point out every flaming hazard on a fell route.

In short I think the FRA should move away from the nannying I see occurring I.e. regulating what kit people should take, and take a condensed set of rules that allow adults to appreciate the implications themselves. If we dumb the sport down to allow for those who don't want to think then the people who do, will be made to suffer.

Two very good posts that sum up my feelings in a nutshell.
I particularly like the final line of CL's post.

As rules become more prescriptive the more they encourage not thinking and blindly following and in my opinion/experience that could place runners and RO's in greater danger than carefully worded but less prescriptive guidance.