Originally Posted by sol
No.
Again,
No.
It does not say that in the new SR and you will discover that many of the "facts" quoted on here are fiction.
No.
Again,
No.
It does not say that in the new SR and you will discover that many of the "facts" quoted on here are fiction.
vellus non est necesse
Only for some winter races if the organiser specifically asks for this, which they are at liberty to do.
Eventually all races will be organised by limited companies....look at road racing.
I have emailed a few - and post it here, in the hope it gets a hearing tonight
BACKGROUND
I have looked through the rules, and suggestions and I come to a sorry conclusion. And an important suggestion
Despite all the MUSTS and mandates, the accusations of poor practise and failures of duty, which all help with finger pointing,. The sorry conclusion after all that, I see nothing there that would have or could have improved the chances of Brian or before her Judith.
Now we know in reality, Brian could never have been found in time ( I have a suggestion at the bottom that could have helped him as well) . But even if time had actually mattered, we have to dismiss the notion ( the old rule 13 as amended) that it is really possible to commence a search before the end of any race, or that communications or marshalling are ever perfect enough to have searched before race end. That proves little more than the danger of allowing overzealous rules quoted back by a coroner. In my view we have not heeded the message of excess rules..
It comes down to one simple issue, and it is NOT the obvious one. For sure it centres on making sure that all who start, finish in as far as is practicable:
There was indeed a screw up, but I do not want to get into the specifics of that because in my view that was not the REAL PROBLEM!
THE REAL PROBLEM is that people however reliable always have, and always will screw up on occasion. They will subtract wrongly. Mishear. Forget. Daydream.
They can screw up badly at the very worst time. It would be a shame if they were jailed for it as below.
So the rules have to allow to help protect RO and runners.
The trick is not to point the blame and say who did not do a MUST or shout the rules any louder , but to DESIGN THE SYSTEM SO THAT TWO ERRORS HAVE TO OCCUR, AND TWO PEOPLE HAVE TO MAKE A MISTAKE for a catastrophic outcome.
(That by the way is basic safety design in dangerous engineering.)
I have heard a suggestion in several places that a single person should be informed or in control of factors related to counting, as if that would have helped.
Whilst that is good for pointing blame it is not much use for anything else. That person can screw up. And all real people do. You must design a system to allow for a mistake by one person and still be safe.
*********************************
SO MY SUGGESTION - THE RULES SHOULD REQUIRE
(a) Two or more separate independent systems record how many start (the sum of identities and a separate count)
(b) Two or more separate independent systems record how many finish and retirees(the sum of identities and a separate count)
and finally the new RULE..
TWO NOMINATED PEOPLE BEFORE THE RACE HAVE TO CHECK THAT (a) and (b) actually match, before declaring the "race complete"
It does not matter who they are, so long as they are nominated, they both check and they both agree.
The drafting of that is easy to do. It is the principle that mattews.
Then the system is still tolerant to one person screwing up.
Surely that is so simple we can get it in the rules tonight?
***********************************
A STARK REMINDER – WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU DON’T.
Here is what happens if you do not in an interesting example of a recent negligence claim.
http://www.railpro.co.uk/magazine/?idArticles=1608
A poignant indication that one screw up, in a life of good service can make a jail sentence.
Presided over by lawyers and judges who make mistakes too, but they never do anything quite so responsible that a single mistake can kill - yet it will not stop the court from giving a hapless guy 5 years - expecting him be infallible which they cannot do themselves.
Note the essence of what the author said is the sad way the legal profession thinks – avoiding blame - so that an organisation should make sure it can prove training so the person not the organisation gets hung out to dry for it.
The real safety message is something else completely.
The train company in my view should have been asked why they are so reckless as to allow a system where one oversight can kill, when it is clearly practicable to have for example infra red beams the length of a carriage that stop the carriage from moving away if anyone is breaking the beams.
Routine in engineering design. I designed systems that could have taken out a town, for that reason they were designed with several tiers of safety, so no one screw up should be fatal. So why did they not do it?
So the real moral of that story is people are fallible, so with the law as amoral as it is, we have to design it so a single person cannot cause a catastrophe.
I hope his lawyers appeal, and win a massive claim against mersey ail for there failure of doing what was clearly practicable, causing their driver unnecessary suffering. I doubt they can with the law as screwed up as it is. No doubt they told the world how they “supported” the driver with legal advice but hey failed to do what really mattered.
ONE FINAL ISSUE THAT COULD HAVE HELPED BRIAN AND JUDITH
Thinking laterally common factors between recent deaths
The common factors between Judith and Brian, were:
- Both were at the far point of a course, where race HQ was a very long way away.
- Both either were hypothermic or were worried about onset of hypothermia at the time of deciding to go off route.
- Both had apparently decided to seek a place of greater safety by going off route – so had abandoned the prospect of finishing normally.
- Both came to grief in seeking it where proactive searching would not have helped in either in time, considering the area that would have needed searching off route.
1/ If there had been a “designated place of safety” at the extremes of long courses if a long way from road. So more than a small summit tent for a marshall, the rules demanded at a course extreme where far away from safety, minimum of bigger tent, sleeping bag, thermal gear, heating, hot drinks at a “pinch point” in the course so hard to avoid (eg col between ill bell and high street), col between sail and eel crags, or causey and sail, black sail on wasdale for example
2/ The rules demand that all runners should be advised of that location, and on signs of hypothermia should consider aiming for it if close. ( you cannot put mandates, must leave to the runner) Once there, the rules demand that any such people retiring from there must not come down alone : but in minimum of pairs, perhaps a sweeper
Would one or other have gone there/ headed for there, and when the weather blew over, or after warming up, be escorted down? I think there is a far greater chance of that having a meaningful effect on survival, than discovering a counting anomaly and hoping to find them out on the fell when already incapacitated off route.
So a rule to recommend - which in reality should be in guidance notes...if our rules were constructed properly
RULE
"Should the remotest parts of a course be a long way from places where a runner could normally expect to find safety or assistance, the race organiser should consider establishing a place of safety at a location that is relatively easy to find on the course (such as a col through which most runners pass) comprising (for example) a multi person tent, sleeping bag and clothing for warmth, and emergency hot drinks. When such a place is established, runners should be advised of the location, and that they should consider retiring at that location if in the vicinity and either injured or suffering signs of hypothermia. Runners retiring because of illness or injury should be offered escort where and when practicable from the fell, either by another runner or marshall, and advised not to make that journey alone”
[Some races have the ability to do that on roads where safety is a vehicle, take hardknott pass on duddon, newlands on TWA
It is for those that have no easy option (like kentmere or buttermere) it could be set up with one big rucksack, the key is that it is promoted as a possibility for runners, and that those with hypothermia have the knowledge they can stay warm with the marshall, potentially wait for a storm to blow over, and then come down with them, to avoid coming down alone. I think that would have done more for the chances of brian/Judith , than any amount of searching the fell which in general may be too late to help if they have gone off route to get down, since tracking can rarely make searching possible before the end of a race.
I hope someone considers this tonight, particularly the rule of two.
Last edited by alwaysinjured; 07-11-2013 at 06:50 PM.
Not in fell racing. The rules disallow it! permits can only be applied in person.
Despite FRA being ltd.
People should know that there are lots of things going ' behind the scenes ' with the Fra having received countless ideas/proposals/counter proposals etc, some of them from people posting on this forum which is good news. The response I believe to the request for amendments etc has meant that they will obviously have to take time to look at them all seriously and come up with a final draft that everyone finds suitable. I don't for one minute imagine that everyone will be totally happy with the final draft but I'm sure that the Fra and it's committee have the best interests of everyone at heart, runners and RO alike. Once the latest proposals etc have been looked at and the final draft proposed I understand that there will be meetings in different areas with Race Organisers to discuss and explain.
The fact of the review process is good, although at times it seemed like pushing water uphill to get it to happen.
Out of curiosity what do you think of my simple amendment?
Having a second person other than RO just check of the numbers for starters/finishers from two independent systems before declaring race complete..just aimed at the idea that people can and do screw up, so the system must allow for it. In most cases very easy to do, but the longer/more complicated/more retirements/more runners, the more necessary it becomes - and it was a factor in a recent incident (although ultimately had no bearing on it - it might have done is the worry). So two people "signing off" on the race is safer.
Last edited by alwaysinjured; 07-11-2013 at 07:20 PM.
Even if two systems are used it is too easy to get total numbers wrong - each participant must be accounted for - for example by removing numbers at the finish and matching them with names on the participant start list - if their number is not there, they have not finished, no matter what the total count(s) seem to say.
I think you're being very unreasonable there.PS. I'm trying to keep my reasonableness quiet.
Posting Permissions
