Safety Matters

[alwaysinjured]

[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.

A misrepresentation as always.
Why can't you tell the truth? Pete bland was vociferous in opposition.
Ask scoffer to show you his emails to Andy to see that he is not as happy as you claim.
Brett has dared to state on here he is not happy either. And so on.
You seem to think shouting them down ( or not listening to them, whichever) is the same as them all agreeing.

And - like you graham - they have little or no knowledge or experience of professional safety management, so are not the ones best placed to determine the best way to protect themselves or manage safety. Your "adviser" has been no help on that either. He did not find that precedent I cited earlier - or if he did he failed to make any allowance for it in your precious rules. And regardless of him a couple of ( unconflicted)claims solicitors asked by Ro have said there are problems, at least one pointing at your stupid and impossible clause on " no foreseeable risk of accidents" which is clearly a problem for scoffer.

By the way - does your hubris extend to messing with your gas boiler too? On the grounds you have the RIGHT to make it up as you go along on things you know nothing about? , (sod the responsibility of course) And you have the right to your own opinion on what all those technical words mean as well? Do you believe a committee majority of people who know little or nothing can override proper practice on gas safety too?