Safety Matters

[wharfeego]

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

Tha's gannin too far with this, far too far.

[Henry Porter]

“One who is too insistent on his own views, finds few to agree with him.”

Lao Tzu

[alwaysinjured]

Andrew,

Well thank you for admitting you might be wrong!

As you know I was completely involved with the Belfield tragedy from before his body was even found up to and including the 4-day Inquest 17 months later (and since) and I have never had the slightest doubt about the FRA/UKA Insurance cover and have stated this publicly over and over again.

I and Morgan Williams (a lawyer), when he was FRA Secretary, met with the Insurance Company shortly after Brian died. I/we dealt with UKA and the lawyers being paid in full by the Insurance Co. I know the background to the separate lawyer plus a barrister representing Mike: again all paid for by the Insurance Company.

Some members having read some documents raised some questions which the FRA was obliged to explore, despite its experience of what had actually happened in the real -world case of a death of a runner in a fell race where procedures were not as good as they might have been.

I have now seen the full response from UKA etc. and it confirms what I have maintained all along to anyone prepared to listen to me i.e. no RO registering his race with the FRA need have any concerns whatsoever about the insurance cover he receives via UKA by registering his race with the FRA.

This response will now be issued in detail by the sub-group dealing with this which, as you know, includes Graham Wadsworth to whom I have talked at length in the past about what actually happened following the death of Brian Belfield.

When they were needed the Insurance Company did what we hoped and expected they would; which was just as well because if the FRA, and not the Insurance Company, had had to fund the legal costs for the Inquest the FRA might now be bankrupt.

In some circles it is glibly fashionable to criticise the FRA and its relationship with UKA but, as in other walks of life, sometimes having a big brother standing behind you can be very reassuring.

Regards,

Graham

You cannot resist it can you graham?
"glib" means "shallow and insincere" and the arguments about UKA were certainly sincere, properly argued, never satisfactorily answered. So glib is an insult to those who expressed such reservations. Or is it another word you use without looking it up?

On the substantive point about insurance: it is a pity you cannot follow suit with Andy and admit you may be wrong - since you have a track record on this issue not mentioned in your "summary"

You certainly have NOT been consistent on it:
It is your words about this issue that sparked the panic in the first place by stating unequivocally in black and white in the rules in several places that rule breaking CAN void insurance; it was there in several places until we all objected ultimately removed. Your statement on that in the rules, is the very issue that started the row over rules in the wider context. So whilst that may be history long since passed, you cannot deny your part in creating panic with such as wynn by saying insurance could be invalidated. You said it!

Thankfully now a few of the impossible obligations have been removed from earlier versions non payout of insurance is less likely. But there are still impossible obligations: take the farcical idea that it is ever possible to define a field size at which there is no risk of accidents in crowded areas. That risk exists with any field size. And it is alive and well at Borrowdale and Langdale waiting to bite an RO in the bum.

But on the issue of non payout the jury is still out on whether they would pay up in practice on other than representation cost.

For this incident there was no claim, because time of death gave no civil case , so insurers were never called upon to meet a civil claim of the size at which legal arguments become cost effective for them to argue. Then we might have seen how much they try to find wriggle room.

Like all policies there is both a material fact clause, and a deliberate act clause both of which can void a policy. The policy covers in essence claims arising from failure of duty because of carelessness (negligence – so covered) it does not cover an act intentionally committed or ommitted by an insured knowing or expecting it might or would have an adverse outcome (deliberate act – specifically excluded). So it is potentially for a court to decide – not you or UKA - whether a deliberate breach of a rule which led to a massive claim is indeed a deliberate act in the context of voiding the policy so therefore not covered. And the larger the payout, the more likely insurers will look for ways to avoid paying up.

It is largely immaterial what UKA may say on the subject as the policy holder – or what the insurers themselves may have commented because of an “entire contract” clause in every insurance policy designed to invalidate side agreements or other correspondence or discussion and so to prevent it ever forming a part of a contract.

So the insurance is determined solely by whatever is defined in the standard policy and annexes defining the special risks no more and no less. So unless insurers are willing to issue a note formally adding to those annexes, or formally defining an interpretation of them and lodged with those documents it will not change the scope of the insurance because of “entire contract” clause.


The only effect a separate interpretation statement from UKA may have ,is to subject UKA to a potential tort from an aggrieved party who expected to claim on the basis of what UKA have said about insurance, if they could not then get it from the insurers leaving UKA exposure to pick up the tab for the difference. On the other hand such a person trying to argue when the insurer will not pay, is probably broke at this point, so taking UKA to court over it would be beyond their means. So that is likely to be a chocolate fireguard.

Just because you (personally) have never had an insurance claim rejected on the basis of fine print does not qualify you to state it cannot happen : it can and it does. It is what insurers are obliged to do. I have got the Tshirt to prove it, and so have others on this forum.

You should not give the RO a false sense of security on this.

Whilst It is highly likely insurers would pay out so long as all stupidity is removed from the rules ( a little way to go on that yet, and one of our prime reasons for challenging it all) . You cannot say it is ever certain. Insurers look for wriggle room. It is what they do. So if your "adviser" disagrees with that, and says they will pay "unconditionally", then ask him for a solicitors undertaking that he in particular will foot the bill in perpetuity if he is wrong. I expect him to run a mile PB in the opposite direction before commit! Or he will if he has any sense! Because whilst the risk is small it is real. Just like other safety matters. That is why rules should be designed in a way that there is no question on whether it is possible to comply with them.

And you will not let RO hide behind a limited company - asyou felt the need to do, so they unlike you are personally exposed.

[Fudge the Elf]

“One who is too insistent on his own views, finds few to agree with him.”

Lao Tzu

You mean a bit like Churchill then in the thirties when he was virtually alone in warning of the German arms build up

[Graham Breeze]

You mean a bit like Churchill then in the thirties when he was virtually alone in warning of the German arms build up

That's the man:
- Dardanelles
- invasion of Norway
- sinking of the two great battleships he dispatched toSingapore without air cover
- at Yalta allowing Stalin to take over Poland (and much of Eastern Europe), the country Britain allegedly went to war to protect
- supporting Edward V111 to stay as King
- returning Britain to the gold standard in 1925

Enough?

[Stolly]

That's the man:
- Dardanelles
- invasion of Norway
- sinking of the two great battleships he dispatched toSingapore without air cover
- at Yalta allowing Stalin to take over Poland (and much of Eastern Europe), the country Britain allegedly went to war to protect
- supporting Edward V111 to stay as King
- returning Britain to the gold standard in 1925

Enough?

Haha. I was going to say the same

[alwaysinjured]

You mean a bit like Churchill then in the thirties when he was virtually alone in warning of the German arms build up

Churchills "air parity lost" is one of my favourite speeches - the monologue from "When the situation was manageable it was neglected" is so true of almost all human endeavour to wait for the horse to bolt before closing the stable door. Most burglar alarms are sold the week AFTER a burglary...

People concerned with safety in all walks of life are always accused of scare mongering.

One of the worst recent examples went almost unnoticed.
One of the big bank compliance directors was essentially fired (made so uncomfortable he left)not long before the massive bank crash, for warning of the perils of overgearing, undercapitalization, leveraged derivatives , the unaffordable deals given to sub prime applicants and so on: the (non banking qualified) executive telling him he was just scaremongering for effect: stating publicly that the bank had safe trading methods - and that he was off message the profitable practises. He was also the only qualified banker in that case but outvoted. That alas is the way corporate structures work. Lay majorities often outvote specialists then expect them to toe the line. The rest of course is history costing the tax payer billions. My question on all that is how did Mervyn King keep his job when asleep at the wheel of it all?

At a political level now, there is hopeless denial of the scale of the problem caused by excessive public sector pensions, and the consequence of the massive increase in the cost of providing them because the employees have "broken the economics of the deal" by living decades longer, still expecting the same payout at a time when annuity rates have plummeted, and still expecting to retire early.
No government has had the political will to act in slashing those pensions.

As moneyweek point if the cost of those pensions is liquidated into the national debt, the scale of it is way beyond the possibility of austerity measures to prevent it spiralling out of control. Greece a deja vu of the inevitable consequence. Yet the teachers strike regardless -Ostrich syndrome a fact of life, even amongst the supposedly intelligent.

The overstretching of chinese banks, the gradient of increase of US debt, let alone its unprecedented size,and the hopeless state of western economies such as ours , let alone what happens when interest rates twitch up, herald an economic disaster that will make the last one seem like a sniffle of a cold compared to the imminent pneumonia. Warning signs are never heeded.

In another context - We seem to want to wait for the lights to go out before recognise that alternative energy can never fill the void left by fossil fuels, and that nuclear for the present is the only realistic course - fusion rather than fission the only real solution. Governments are always unwilling to act till long after action can be effective.

Lawyers in eternity, have discovered it is far more profitable to trade on the misfortune of people with hindsight wisdom, either blaming or defending that blame, than it ever is to get involved in an ounce of prevention or caution. Disgraceful but true none the less.

So yes, Churchill said it all.

I particularly like his comment on the americans."you can always rely on the US to do the right thing, AFTER they have tried everything else!"

[Fudge the Elf]

That's the man:
- Dardanelles
- invasion of Norway
- sinking of the two great battleships he dispatched toSingapore without air cover
- at Yalta allowing Stalin to take over Poland (and much of Eastern Europe), the country Britain allegedly went to war to protect
- supporting Edward V111 to stay as King
- returning Britain to the gold standard in 1925

Enough?

Hey we can't all be perfect

[LissaJous]

I think I'm finally able to crystalise AI's hundreds of thousands of words into something more tangible.

AI's main point is: Qualified safety experts should be involved in drafting the new guidelines.

Indeed, 11 words are better than 1708, and 1562, and ...

But no 'official' comment, as you will have noticed. I for one don't see the big deal if the FRA quietly approaches a neutral safety-qualified person for advice whether minor or major revisions would be the most suitable step. It will happen sooner or later, but the current committee seems as invested in not doing this as AI is in us following his path.

If we have learned anything from last summer, it is that trying to push this committee is only likely to entrench their position further, but AI's response of hysteria, insults, half-truths and misrepresentations, as if dozens are going to drop dead at every race until we heed his dire warnings, is getting on the nerves so much that I am beginning to wish the moderators would make him vanish. We are talking about something that could perhaps be done a little bit better, not an impending apocalypse.

[Graham Breeze]

Hey we can't all be perfect

Indeed, and that is why I am always so warm-heartedly understanding of and forgiving towards my fellow man (well, with a couple of exceptions).