Safety Matters

[OB1]

It is the view of the FRA that its 2014 Safety Requirements are far more RO supportive/ friendly that any other version.

No doubt others will post their disagreement on here. Opinion is free.

Neither agreement nor disagreement, nor an opinion, just a couple of clarifications. Just curious.

When you say "the FRA" do you mean a) the Chair b) the ex-Chair c) the Exec d) the Safety Sub-Committee, e) the Committee, f) the Committee and the RO (as of Sept or Dec 2013), or g) the 7000 members? Or maybe a subset of the above?

When you say "than any other version" do you mean any other version of previous FRA rules/documents or do you mean any other version of Uk or worldwide hill / fell running rules/documents?

Just trying to avoid misinterpreting you.

[Stagger]

[QUOTE=Graham Breeze;579651]

Perhaps people should look at their safety document that has to be signed off a week before the race, available here. /QUOTE]

I have taken an interest in the SHR Race Organisers Pack which still includes:
Race Monitoring and Rescue Procedures

Progress of the race must be monitored in such a way that you are always in a position to make a reasoned judgement as to the need to abandon the race or call out the rescue services.

When the FRA reviewed its Safety Requirements for 2014 it concluded that achieving "must" and "always" was virtually impossible (outside the 3 Peaks Race) and so the 2014 FRA version starts:

(10.2) "Must use reasonably practicable measures to monitor runners in Long/Medium A and Long B races... and then goes on to specifically highlight the use of "critical points" ie recognizing that all CPs are not the same in terms of runner safety.

It is the view of the FRA that its 2014 Safety Requirements are far more RO supportive/ friendly that any other version.

No doubt others will post their disagreement on here. Opinion is free.

But I would point out that the RO for the Ian Hodgson Relay, Borrowdale, Sedbergh Hills, Kentmere, Buttermere Sailbeck and Coledale Horseshoe (up to 2013) etc sit on the FRA Committee. Most of them attended the Brian Belfield Inquest and I know they looked at the 2014 Safety Requirements from the realism of "what if I am defending myself in an Inquest in future" before they agreed them.

Some good points Graham, although dare the RO's on the committee speak out on what they feel, or do they tow the party line in a 3 line whip?

[Big lad]

But I would point out that the RO for the Ian Hodgson Relay, Borrowdale, Sedbergh Hills, Kentmere, Buttermere Sailbeck and Coledale Horseshoe (up to 2013) etc sit on the FRA Committee. Most of them attended the Brian Belfield Inquest and I know they looked at the 2014 Safety Requirements from the realism of "what if I am defending myself in an Inquest in future" before they agreed them. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

But would the FRA stand by other none committe Ro in the same way?

[Witton Park]

[/B]When the FRA reviewed its Safety Requirements for 2014 it concluded that achieving "must" and "always" was virtually impossible (outside the 3 Peaks Race) and so the 2014 FRA version starts:



But I would point out that the RO for .. Kentmere .. sit on the FRA Committee.

Just a couple of snippets that amuse me.

For you OB1 I think it is the FRA, because when the FRA Rules were approved nemine contradicente by the full FRA Committee on 1st September 2013 and were launched with a spectacular flurry by Graham as a job done, end of, it was infact the membership of the FRA that provided the impetus for a review of the review and it was input from the FRA that led Graham to remove many of the "musts" and "always" that has seemed quite important to him.

and is Graham claiming the RO of Kentmere as fully behind him? (even Borrowdale come to that?)

[Witton Park]

[QUOTE=Stagger;579664]

Some good points Graham, although dare the RO's on the committee speak out on what they feel, or do they tow the party line in a 3 line whip?

Some of them are holding back for some reason. Playing the long game I believe. It's getting like Westminster politics though as you allude to Trev with some breaking ranks privately but not where it matters (yet).

[OB1]

Thanks WP.

Graham, the last 4 posts (since yours) are all asking questions along a similar theme (although WP forgot a question mark at the end of his post)
It would be really good if you could take time to answer them individually in turn, as they are all subtly different in thrust. If you were to provide a blanket answer to all 4 I fear it might service none of them adequately, and just add to confusion.

Cheers, Sir.

[Witton Park]

(although WP forgot a question mark at the end of his post)

So shoot me

[noel]

Why not give Al a chance?

Many of us have interspersed AI's hundreds of thousands of words with comments along the lines of "so what do you suggest?". AI's answers have always been along the lines of "What's wrong with the current system is..." and general insults against the people with whom he could have been working to make things better.

I think he's had many chances, but has chosen not to take them.

Sorry AI, I have some sympathy with your message - I think many of us have, but I think your approach has been counterproductive.

[noel]

Some good points Graham, although dare the RO's on the committee speak out on what they feel, or do they tow the party line in a 3 line whip?

The people you are speaking about are all experienced people with personal integrity. The idea that Graham or Madeleine can somehow stop them from expressing their views seems pretty farcical to me.

If these ROs were horrified with the guidelines, they'd probably say it - wouldn't they? They might have some misgivings and differences of opinion, but that's the way of things on committees.

[Wheeze]

For example, How is this to happen at a typical A Long with no road crossings? You have 200 runners, all of whom set off at the same time. A fast runner passes CP1 and 2 fine, but goes off course on the way to CP3. He loses 30 minutes, but carries on. Rather than being in tenth he is now 150th. What systems that we normally use are going to locate him? CP3 has runners coming through from 60' in to 180' in to the race. Marshals are taking numbers the whole time. When can they communicate back to the Race HQ about who has gone through?

As this is basically impossible on a fell race, why do both sets of rules suggest this?

Lecky, its not impossible but it needs a different approach.
If you have not already done so, please check the Steam Bunny Bluff thread on Races. I will be inviting FRA to send an observer to my event to watch how I get on with knowing where runners are at all times.