Safety Matters

[Graham Breeze]

I think check points in races aren't there primarily for safety and, with that in mind, shouldn't really have too much safety responsibility thrust upon them.

Stolly,

Good. A point well made.

When I was giving evidence to the Belfield Inquest and explaining the purpose of the different CP marshals in the Sailbeck race the Coroner interjected with "So some of the marshals are there just to stop cheating then?" (Although at the outset the Coroner suggested that he did not know much about fell running in fact he was a hill walker and by the end of the 4 days it was clear how much he did understand about the sport and particularly the culture of fell running).

When the FRA rewrote the Safety Requirements for 2014 it eradicated the phrase "Progress of the race must be monitored in such a way that the organiser is always in a position to make reasoned judgement as to the need to abandon the race ..." because we had concluded that "must" and "always" meant compliance by a RO was almost impossible. It was one of the two phrases in the “old” requirements that I believe put RO in a position of extreme vulnerability, as almost unachievable. (Incidentally SHR still retain it but they are allegedly reviewing their documentation).

This is why the 2014 FRA Safety Requirements in 10.2 say:

"Must use reasonably practicable measures to monitor runners in Long/Medium A and Long B races by identifying the number and location of marshals critical to runner safety..." (my emphasis).

In my view this relieved the RO of the "must” and "always" and allowed him the discretion I am sure we all believe he/she should be allowed.

The full significance of the change has not been recognised by a number of RO with whom the 2014 Safety Requirements changes have since been discussed (and I take my share of blame for the lack of emphasis in the Calendar that might have highlighted the importance of the change ) but this was one of the changes the FRA made for 2014 which the members of the Safety Sub-Committee (and then the FRA Committee) believed made the 2014 document far more protective of RO than any earlier document.

The final version of the 2014 Safety Requirements had, after all, been re-drafted in the light of the 4-day Belfield Inquest attended by Madeleine, as Chair, and Jon Broxap, Alan Brentnall and myself: all four being members of the Safety Sub-Committee.

The changes the FRA made to better protect RO from 2014 were important, the most significant changes for 20 years, and the 8 RO Workshops were organised to explain to RO why from 2014 they were in a much better place.

Of course, if RO choose to register with another body from 2014 that is their decision; but it will be tragic if any RO for an English fell race has to attend an English Coroner's Court having left the English governing body family for the wrong reasons.

Regards,

Graham