Will the FRA still be in existence?Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
Will the FRA still be in existence?
Testify.
What it does say in the new safety rules is that a fleece is an example of equipment that is "best practice".
So although it's not a requirement to carry a fleece, that fact that it is mentioned in the safety rules means organisers are more likely to impose this requirement.
(Note that I'm not making any judgement as to the merits or otherwise of carrying a fleece in a race.)
I agree, but it isn't the direction the committee appear to be sailing in and i don't hear any shouts of, "prepare to tack!"
A few thoughts on AI's latest rule suggestions (post 1325, a bit lengthy for me to quote here ;-) )
I've agreed with a lot of what AI has said but I'm not sure I agree with this latest suggestion.
I think both his suggestions (two systems for recording how many start and finish and a designated place of safety) go too far down the road of requiring a RO to take responsibility for the safety of the runner.
It may be that the legal system means it's not possible for RO to absolve themselves of responsibility for runner safety entirely but I think the requirements placed on RO by the rules should be the absolute bare minimum.
One of the great contradictions of the current draft of the safety rules is that they state that runners are primarily responsible for their own safety and then go on to list a whole host of measures that someone has to take to ensure runner safety.
I agree with your sentiments.
For a change I was coming at it from a different angle: asking whether there was any thing that could have made a difference to the last two mortalities, or in similar circumstances if they had survived longer? And those two ideas might have helped.
I read the new rules with dismay. Whilst they allow a lot more blame and finger pointing, and they are very good @rse covering for FRA, I could not and cannot see how they improve safety, whilst giving RO many more problems. The couple of ideas above may at least have a chance with events similar to previous fatalities.
Did you read that train incident link? You can have an exemplary life, yet one five second screw up and you end in jail. We must try to help RO avoid a similar fate. The true moral of the story is become a lawyer where you have no responsibility for life, or anything else other than sending eye watering invoices out on time. Then you can spend your life condemning those who do have responsibility, armed with perfect 20/20 hindsight, just because they are fallible, an inevitable human trait. Not for me. I could not check my morals in at the door, or indulge in anything quite so heinous.
Last edited by alwaysinjured; 07-11-2013 at 10:51 PM.
I read the train link story as he deliberately let the train go, even though a passenger that he knew to be drunk was leaning against it.
You cannot know what was in his mind. He screwed up for sure. Did his attention wander? Or get distracted? Did he make a wrong assumption? I have met very few people who would knowingly do something that they knew might kill. After 20 years unblemished in that job, you can only assume he would not either. As I said. People are fallible. Systems must be designed to allow for it.
Simple fact. If a system which can kill relies totally on the attention of a human operator, sooner or later someone will die. It is only a matter of time. It is a disaster waiting for somewhere to happen, and operator and victim for it to happen to. Both are actually victims of a very bad system.
The ones who should have Been in the dock in my view are mersey rail, for failing to put in some simple engineering that could have interlocked it out, so that a human screw up could not have done that. IR beams alomg the train side. Lots of ways of doing it - like other automatic machines. They were obliged to do what is reasonably practicable, and in my view they did not. I notice the lawyer said nothing about safety, only blame, which is what lawyers like to do.
Yet the author of that article seems to think what really matters is keeping his corporate client out of the dock. It is the attitude I dislike. Our new rules seem to be more about blame, than anything to do with improving safety.
Last edited by alwaysinjured; 07-11-2013 at 11:37 PM.
Let's just see what the FRA put out.
Once we see it, we can make a judgement.
Sweetdreams guys and gals
Is that in the James Brown sense?
Posting Permissions
