New safety rules

[alwaysinjured]

I am glad to see at least some of the worst absurdities have now been removed from the rules - you do have to question the mentality that put them there in the first place.

The now rules clearly need reading in some detail, which will take time. It is probably better to feed remaining issues one at a time, rather than all together.

One which jumps out like a sore thumb to me.

In declaring some races "ER" and "NS" - by implication ALL the rest neither require experience , nor navigation skills.

Is that really a safe or sensible message?

Far better in my view to describe the challenges in the race description, than a blanket statement such as that.

Should we not really be saying to new comers "before entering any race/ this race, we expect you to have undertaken training runs on the same or similar terrain, to be aware of the inherent hazards and dangers it poses, if you enter the race, you do so confirming you have knowledge of that actual or type of terrain"

That not just protects the RO a bit, but it is also the kind of sensible advice we should be giving to new would be fell runners!

I am not a lawyer - but the entire defence of "volenti" requires that the person accepts the risks , knowing what they are. For that reason - the drum I have banged repeatedly - using words which imply risks are less than they are, support is greater than it is, or implies you need to know nothing to enter, cannot be good for that defence!

It does not take an intellectual genius to realise that someone with no experience cannot be assumed to know the hazards, and it must be for the organiser to explain them , if they allow "no experience" participants to enter. That imposes a burden on RO which is unreasonable in my view.

You would have assumed a golfer "knew" the risks of being on a golf course, but in a recent golf precedent, the inexperience of the participant injured in that incident featured several times in that ruling, whether relevant or not to race organisers. And - the club - was deemed in part responsible so had to cough up a lot of dosh, for FAILING to warn of the hazards to those not familiar with the course.

Sure this has nominally been passed in front UKA lawyers, but UKA lawyers act for UKA, not FRA, and sure as hell do not act for the ROs! - A recent article by them shows their concern seemed to be focussing on the actions that keep their corporate clients out of the dock, nothing else! ( rightly so of course, their duty is to the client that pays them!)In short, this needs thinking through.


I think that labelling is unwise.

At very least replace ER with SE - which is substantial experience of terrain in that area or of that type elsewhere

And certainly consider my paragraph as above or similar in either the rules generally or advertised race detail "before entering any race/ this race, we expect you to have undertaken training runs on the same or similar terrain, to be aware of the inherent hazards and dangers it poses, if you enter the race, you do so in knowledge of that actual or type of terrain"

ie DO NOT imply NO experience is OK for most races by using a blanket ER or not. In that case I suggest all RO designate their races as NS and ER, just to cover their backs, which makes the designation pointless.

Any Thoughts?

It certainly demonstrates there are serious areas in need for the review for 2015.
As is other woolly wording. The competitor being "aware" of checkpoint procedures for example. That needs putting into proper drafting - the duty of the RO to inform of checkpoint procedures, and the duty of the runner to read them and cooperate.


Indeed - for those on committee who are unaware - the review of safety policy, review of risk assessments and so on , are a fundamental part of safety legislation. So in addition to the 2014 for 2015 review, that should be done regardless, whether or not it results in changes for later years, there should still be a review of saftey rules and procedures in the light of events, incidents, near misses, precedents from other sports, technology improvements and so on, it would be sensible on an annual basis to prove FRA are taking it seriously. It is the way management of safety works: not only doing it but being seen to do it and being seen to keep it under review, updating as and when necessary, and document control that shows it is so.

Will read the rest, when I have time.

[Lecky]

AI, my thoughts are that if you come up with things to feed back to the committee, then you should do that, rather than putting them on the forum.

You keep mentioning how lawyers love to pick on things, so repeatedly pointing out supposed failings on a public forum would just give them ammunition.

[alwaysinjured]

AI, my thoughts are that if you come up with things to feed back to the committee, then you should do that, rather than putting them on the forum.

You keep mentioning how lawyers love to pick on things, so repeatedly pointing out supposed failings on a public forum would just give them ammunition.

Lecky, it is a point I first raised some weeks ago.

I am also genuinely interested in what other think - it needs a discussion, not a one way traffic of information or ideas.

Unlike a couple of those in charge, I do not claim a monopoly on either ideas, good ideas or wisdom, (and I own up to having my share of bad ideas!) it needs the best ideas from all of us, and the bad or impractical ones weeding out - and a good way to do that is public discussion.

The above about "ER" seems so obvious to me? Am I right? or have I missed something?

On "communication to committee" - I wrote 500 words about the problems inherent in bad course description, the what , the why and the what to do about it to get a two word response "don't agree" - still not sure whether the failure to agree was with the what, the why or the what to do? . It will not encourage me to do more that way. Am encouraged the rule was changed anyway.

I also have asked the committee to focus on the things that actually might have made a material effect to the outcome of recent fatalities, and rule problems manifest in coroners comments, which seems to me a more productive conversation than an overhaul of the rules for the sake of it.

I suggested for example that two people signing off on a race (ie someone else to look over the RO shoulder at the numbers), rather than one, so that mental screw ups (substracting, mishearing, not hearing, concentrating on something else) which happen to the best of us do not result in a wrong count being allowed to call "race complete" - and two heads to decide what to do , if the numbers don't actually add up. I suggested places of safety on very remote course locations. I do not see either in the rules.

So I am trying....I accept the need to get a book out, and believe the committee had agreed to a review next year.
Can you comment on the decision to review?

[Sam Harrison]

The new rules are much better worded and it's clear our views and opinions have been taken into careful consideration. Thanks to everyone involved!

Lecky, I think Al is justified in bringing up points as he has on a forum, as after all the clue is in the name - "forum". It's a good idea to discuss things like this, which is different to sending comments straight to the Committee. To be honest, I think if they are enough of a point to be brought up on here then lawyers will quite easily pick up on them regardless of whether they're discussed here or not.

I personally think the NS and ER labels are quite useful. When I first started fell running I used to use them to gauge what kind of race it would be. Everyone entering a race has to agree to the Safety Rules anyway, right? So in doing so they are already saying they are aware there may be potential hazards etc etc.

[withaY]

meanwhile out in the 'real' world understanding where your competitors are in real time is an issue being actively pursued

this in the latest Motor sports bulletin.. page 4 tracking competitors on rallies.

http://issuu.com/msauk/docs/msa_news_no43_nov13_web?e=6613824/5605260

[Alan]

NS ER etc have been with us for many years now, and, although there have never been any complaints in the past (not even from AI!!), I did raise the issue of clarifying these initials the other year, which is one of the reasons the secretary wrote the words which have become the introduction to the safety requirements.

If there is such an issue with them, I am more than a little surprised that this wasn't raised at that time, in response to Morgan's forward.

[Witton Park]

Whilst I agree that the NS, ER is cleared up, I'm less concerned with the details and more concerned with the process.
I've also engaged with the process through the official channels and what I would really like to know is what now?
It's clear this is an interim measure that will hopefully see us through 2014.

But it hasn't been explained if the committee discussed a wider review to be completed and ready for 2015 and if they did, what was the outcome of that discussion.

[noel]

AI, my thoughts are that if you come up with things to feed back to the committee, then you should do that, rather than putting them on the forum.

You keep mentioning how lawyers love to pick on things, so repeatedly pointing out supposed failings on a public forum would just give them ammunition.

Don't worry Lecky, lawyers get paid too much money for anyone in the profession to justify actually reading all of AI's posts.

[alwaysinjured]

Don't worry Lecky, lawyers get paid too much money for anyone in the profession to justify actually reading all of AI's posts.

Those of us who have had to take actual responsibility for design of extremely dangerous things, should consider the wonderful advice of a commenter on an article in a recent copy of the "engineer" about our profession, and how it compares with such as solicitors!

"I suggested that our profession, which spends most of its time dealing with problems and turning them into opportunities, should follow our apparent betters.

I proposed that we should only offer our skills when our clients are already in trouble, that

We should ensure that we are guaranteed payment, even when we are un-successful,

That each project we take-on should make work for five other 'sets' of our fellow Engineers for,

That the longer we take, the more deceitful and incompetent we are, the more we will be paid

And finally that as we control the access to any disciplining process, and that such will only be administered and decided by others of our 'ilk',

We will guarantee our continued enjoyment of this disgraceful misuse of power, post, position and professional status for ever: or for at least 500 years, that enjoyed by those who have arranged a similar situation to their benefit and the loss of citizen, corporation and state".

Spot on Mr Blamey = whoever you are!
Echoes most of our thoughts entirely.

The solicitors only want to get involved when it goes wrong.

As someone who has designed for example control systems that had they failed could have taken out an entire town, you tend to look at what is safe in managing your legal responsibility, not finding some other poor schmuck to blame when it fails, always in hindsight, never in foresight.
Take the inadequate view of that merseyrail incident I related : nowhere in the legal case as presented was the issue of how to actually make it safer even considered, certainly within the bounds of practicability, and in many industries demanded. All they consider is who to blame for the inevitable when your only weapon against a fatality is human infallibility. It is inevitable someone dies. Those very lawyers could never guarantee to live up to the responsibility to act infallibly they put on that low paid train operator. Who will , like any RO screw up eventually. They just have to hope the screw up does not result in death.

It has always annoyed me how such as the legal profession dodge any meaningful responsibility, and hide advice behind their own disclaimers, so the advice is rarely worth the paper it is generally not even written on: One of the most stark polarisations you can see, is if you ever take action on such advice, then from a "come on" with caveats, it becomes a hotbed of cold feet, charging you to advise you of the risks rather than charging you to advise on the benefits of such action instead - increasinly so the further you get beyond the point of no return!

I have said several times - as a veteran of having paid out far more to lawyers over the years than average man does - that the only meaningful advice is a written answer to a written question, backed by professional indemnity. It may only be symbolic, may not even have been their doing, but notice that one of the first deletions in the rules is the name of the solicitors who reviewed it at the bottom - Who I suspect will not want their name anywhere close (if they have any sense)

... until something happens that is , and ambiguity makes them a fortune. The more ambiguity, the longer the case will run, and the more so called "experts" they can bring to bear on it. I have nothing at all against any of the solicitors remotely involved in this. It is the modus operandi of the profession I dislike.

[noel]

As a race organiser, I would like to say to any lawyers who may one day read this looking for evidence: I hold you in the highest regard and think you do a smashing job.