Safety Matters

[LissaJous]

The committee continue to ignore the need to assess, plan and review as the basis of safety.

AI, how do you see all the work that the committee has put into the new rules as anything other than doing this? Yes I know you meant in terms of incidents rather than discussion, but can't you trust the committee to integrate both?

As you know I also had deep reservations with the early versions of the new rules. Many of these issues (and poor choices of wording) have been revised. It no longer reads as if safety can be achieved by 'rote', a disastrous approach which could have the counter-productive effect of making people think they are safe, instead of thinking about safety. This has been fixed, or if you do not agree, then tell me how it has not been fixed. The wording related to minimum kit, although long-winded and slightly unclear, does ultimately conform to your model: a rule of competition, with extra kit being recommended as the competitor (or RO) deems necessary.

It would help if you could be more precise what you still have a problem with ~ how is your (Anni Waltz) alternative not based on volenti? It seems even more reliant on volenti than the FRA's approach. The FRA defines basic safety requirements and guidelines that could be used to indicate that due diligence and duty of care have been taken. Do you not agree that the impossible demands made in the early documents, which could have led almost every RO to be found negligent, have been sufficiently updated?

I have the impression that the rules from the FRA, SHR and as put together for Anni Waltz are converging towards the same general idea. If I am wrong (aside from the lengthy & repetitious nature of the FRA documents), how so?

Often your procedural suggestions and criticisms of wordings are very good. I hope that GB can at least concede those two points? And I would say many of these have been included in the current rules, such as appropriate use of "must", and the myriad of good practice documents. Your marshal checklists and written plans sound like a compellingly good idea, and is probably followed at least partially by many ROs already. What is needed (might be) to change that "probably" to an "always" and the "partially" to a "thoroughly/systematically". Again, is it very different from the current procedures?

To look at the safety & rules document now online, the biggest issues I can find are:

Must recognise that no system of counting competitors (starting, retiring and finishing) is free from potential failure and so must have a secondary check to get an accurate count

Although this at least recognizes that mistakes are inevitable, it still suggests perfection is achievable. Would this always amount to negligence? It's a tricky question.. I've seen 'independent' counters at the finish line corroborating their results (so undermining the secondary system). This needs to be clearly communicated to marshals.

And the highly pedantic:

No potential competitor has the right to enter any FRA race and a Race Organiser is free to refuse entry on any grounds including doubt that a competitor can safely complete the race.

I would have put "automatic right", otherwise it says (in my mind) that no-one is ever allowed to enter any race.

But then I would take "agenda items may include ..." to mean it would be limited to the listed items.

You should note that the AGM is meant to be a relatively brief formality. Serious items for debate should be taken to a regular committee meeting. And if anyone continues to be unhappy with the committee's running of the FRA, it would be up to such parties to propose other candidates for the key posts and vote for them at the AGM. In reality the volunteer-run FRA is rarely inundated with offers for the committee posts.

Finally, your Grande Raid reference: from finding a handful of details, and this is a case that has run on for years, progressing to a civil court claim after the criminal court found the organisers not guilty of negligence: How is it not irresponsible to stop a race like that at midnight? My feelings would be that the decision needed to be made a couple of hours or so before dusk.

Given I have moved from strongly agreeing with you last summer, to struggling to see what more it is that you now want/propose, you can understand that many others will be even more mystified what you are currently campaigning for.