Safety Matters

[wharfeego]

Thanks for reply AI. Clearly the FRA did not handle things in the best possible way last year, we all know that; we also know that some of our exec committee had to spend many unpaid and uncomfortable hours in public and legal settings which they never dreamed they were signing up for. You are not making it any easier for them by constantly bringing up every unguarded or unwise comment from six months ago.

I am not sure how a slight lack of respect, quite possibly in both directions, escalated into the insults and total communication breakdown you have reached now. On the one hand, committee members who are experts at safety in fell races, and on the other hand experts in Corporate Safety and writing Safety Documentation. Both sides had much to contribute to the safety discussion.

It often seems that you simply want heads to roll, because they made a few very public and shocking mistakes last year. Or you want the heads to just fall off by themselves, because you felt insulted. But this is not a business, they are not employees, and I have not in any case heard of any alternatives for the role of Chair (etc), just an offer of help with the safety rules which was somehow made in such a way as to alienate the committee even further.

The running of the FRA can indeed feel a bit like a closed shop, with a seeming lack of accountability both of individual committee members and of the committee as a whole. From what I know, committee members often appear to have a large degree of freedom in their roles rather than being held closely to account. But those who have tried to engage with feedback from the membership or the public have historically found that their every decision is challenged. If there were alternative candidates at the AGM, I can not say who I would vote for, but whatever might happen I am thankful to the current committee for their time and effort through such a challenging period.

Finally, the safety rules:
Many of your criticisms seem to be throwbacks to last summer/autumn. I do not see how you could still think the FRA's safety approach is bound by numerous and excessive rules. There are lots of guidelines and ideas, which an RO can incorporate into their individual race plan or not.

In the safety guidelines, I personally would include something along the lines of

which (first part) I already see as implied in the safety guidelines. This is a world ahead of the "Anni Waltz" approach of flatly denying there is a duty of care away from the start/finish. I wonder what a court would make of that.

Your main outstanding points are then the approach to race planning, and continuous review by a safety officer? As I indicated before, the FRA's system does not seem that dissimilar to me. Maybe some documents need tightening up and some emphasis on the procedural approach added. But the way you talk, it is as if everything should be torn to pieces and a new system written from scratch.

The best post I have read so far on the safety situation, thanks Lissajous.
For me there's far too much extra information (info on top of the already written new rules) being thrown about on this matter.
I feel that it's time to let things calm down and give the FRA Committee a chance, a committee that we should be thanking for all their recent extra work.
I have every confidence in the FRA Committee and am not impressed by some of the criticism that's been aimed at it.
For crissakes we're talking about FELL RUNNING here.

[Stolly]

For crissakes we're talking about FELL RUNNING here.

Ex-fricking-actly. Another big cheer for Lissajous from me.

I'm fed up with all the wordage, talking of hind legs off of donkeys, the sniping, the bigged up resignations and, for lack of a better word, anti-FRA propaganda that is being thrown about. Each and every time someone makes a long(winded) splurge about the FRA they are kind of applying an emotional form of blackmail to get someone from the FRA to respond - the tactic presumably being that if they don't respond they look guilty by implication (whereas if they do it will all turn into an undignified bun fight). Anyway who else has as much time on their hands as AI to even be able to?

I for one am glad that the FRA have restrained themselves as far as they can from responding. If I've learnt anything from this thread (and all of the others) at all, its that actually replying to one of Mike's posts sure as heck isn't going to shorten the 'debate'

[Witton Park]

If you have a look at the most recent "committee post" - yesterday I think, they haven't exactly refrained from responding Stolly.
But if they can post a self-congratulatory item like that, why can't a simple question like why has Pendle Cloughs been removed from the events page be answered.

[alwaysinjured]

The best post I have read so far on the safety situation, thanks Lissajous.
For me there's far too much extra information (info on top of the already written new rules) being thrown about on this matter.
I feel that it's time to let things calm down and give the FRA Committee a chance, a committee that we should be thanking for all their recent extra work.
I have every confidence in the FRA Committee and am not impressed by some of the criticism that's been aimed at it.
For crissakes we're talking about FELL RUNNING here.

And therein lies the problem. A wholesale misunderstanding of what is needed. So the wrong presumption repeated by Wharfe that current rules are the answer. What Lisa J regards as detail is the essence. What she regards as the essence is detail.

And the presumption by Lisa J that they are "fell race safety experts" when Graham identifies the four people at the inquest from the so called "safety" committee, only one of which is an active RO that I can see, and none are either qualified at or experienced in managing hazardous things, so a 1/8 score for "expertness" in those leading our response.

For chrisssakes This is peoples lives. we are talking about someone LEFT FOR DEAD ON THE FELLS HERE after everyone went home, and but for "luck" an RO in serious civil if not criminal trouble for want of bad instruction and advice by FRA on managing safety. and they have not even tackled the basics of why that happened, and what is really needed to fix it from a professional safety understanding standpoint. Our sport is out on a limb and found wanting.

The criticism is all justified. And the lack of action deplorable. And but for the criticism we would have been left with the old version of rules- the changes graham takes credit for now, were done grudgingly, against staunch resistance and rudeness only because we raised them multiple times, and only then done wrongly. The rules are slightly less bad, not good.

The dual standards implicit in posts such as yours are a problem too,. As I said to Lisa J , if you took your car to a garage and they bungled it making basic errors, you certainly would not allow the same people to do your car again without supervision of someone more competent, if you allowed them to touch it again that is. I cannot think Wharfeego would "thank them" for their efforts. He would be annoyed they accepted a job they were not qualified to do.

The majority can agree the rules are right. But if I have a medical problem, I want one doctor to decide what is needed not the majority view of lay people. That is why safety law in the corporate sphere demands a "competent safety person" with authority to act. Our safety committee have turned down all offers for such help

[luxinterior]

And therein lies the problem. A wholesale misunderstanding of what is needed. So the wrong presumption repeated by Wharfe that current rules are the answer. What Lisa J regards as detail is the essence. What she regards as the essence is detail.

And the presumption by Lisa J that they are "fell race safety experts" when Graham identifies the four people at the inquest from the so called "safety" committee, only one of which is an active RO that I can see, and none are either qualified at or experienced in managing hazardous things, so a 1/8 score for "expertness" in those leading our response.

For chrisssakes This is peoples lives. we are talking about someone LEFT FOR DEAD ON THE FELLS HERE after everyone went home, and but for "luck" an RO in serious civil if not criminal trouble for want of bad instruction and advice by FRA on managing safety. and they have not even tackled the basics of why that happened, and what is really needed to fix it from a professional safety understanding standpoint. Our sport is out on a limb and found wanting.

The criticism is all justified. And the lack of action deplorable. And but for the criticism we would have been left with the old version of rules- the changes graham takes credit for now, were done grudgingly, against staunch resistance and rudeness only because we raised them multiple times, and only then done wrongly. The rules are slightly less bad, not good.

The dual standards implicit in posts such as yours are a problem too,. As I said to Lisa J , if you took your car to a garage and they bungled it making basic errors, you certainly would not allow the same people to do your car again without supervision of someone more competent, if you allowed them to touch it again that is. I cannot think Wharfeego would "thank them" for their efforts. He would be annoyed they accepted a job they were not qualified to do.

The majority can agree the rules are right. But if I have a medical problem, I want one doctor to decide what is needed not the majority view of lay people. That is why safety law in the corporate sphere demands a "competent safety person" with authority to act. Our safety committee have turned down all offers for such help

Don't you think you should just let it go and move on? Things are what they are, its time to move on.

[Stolly]

Haha, I suspect that there's a reasonable chance that when I do pop my clogs I might well be left for dead on the fells Mike. I can't think of a better place to go either. I can't talk for anyone else here but I run in the hills for the sense of freedom and adventure and trying to turn fell running into a health and safety water tight ship will gradually erode the sport into a vacuous and sterile version of its former self. Yes sensible efforts to get the basics right are great but all this worrying about runners being too stupid to look after themselves and placing added responsibilty on race organisers (whether as suggested by you and/or the FRA) will kill the sport.

On the day of the Edale Skyline I couldn't race because I had Harry with me. We were there supporting Hester though who was racing, so me and Haz ran the route on our own anti-clockwise to co-incide with the race. From the marshalls we visited, I could be wrong but I sort of got the impression that they weren't particularly enjoying themselves and, both times that me and Harry met the race sweepers coming the other way, I was interrogated almost in a panicky way to see whether I was involved with the race (even though I was running the wrong way, with a border collie and wearing a Leeds Rhino's top and without of course a race number pinned to my chest).

[Wheeze]

Haha, I suspect that there's a reasonable chance that when I do pop my clogs I might well be left for dead on the fells Mike. I can't think of a better place to go either. I can't talk for anyone else here but I run in the hills for the sense of freedom and adventure and trying to turn fell running into a health and safety water tight ship will gradually erode the sport into a vacuous and sterile version of its former self. Yes sensible efforts to get the basics right are great but all this worrying about runners being too stupid to look after themselves and placing added responsibilty on race organisers (whether as suggested by you and/or the FRA) will kill the sport.

I completely, 100%, totally and utterly agree with both this statement and the sentiments behind it.

It is precisely why I am doing what I am doing with my race.

My wonderful, wise and clever wife has asked my on a couple of occasions 'why are you doing this?' and I have struggled to put it into words. Now, when she asks again (which she will...as she worries for my sanity!), I shall print that out and give it to her.

Thanks Stolly!

[luxinterior]

Yes sensible efforts to get the basics right are great but all this worrying about runners being too stupid to look after themselves and placing added responsibilty on race organisers (whether as suggested by you and/or the FRA) will kill the sport.

This is the problem with safety experts they want to get rid of all feasible risk at the expense of the actual activity.

I see this where I work where the safety experts focus totally on the risks and do not look at the activity more pragmatically. This either puts people off doing things are just costs more to undertake.

[L.F.F.]

all this worrying about runners being too stupid to look after themselves and placing added responsibilty on race organisers (whether as suggested by you and/or the FRA) will kill the sport.

I thought this was what AI was arguing against? ie, arguing for more responsibility to be placed on the runner, less on the RO.

[Stolly]

I thought this was what AI was arguing against? ie, arguing for more responsibility to be placed on the runner, less on the RO.

I honestly have no idea