Safety Matters

[Stolly]

This thread is so annoying because you just want to ignore it, on the basis that it long ago failed to serve any truly useful purpose, but then someone makes a comment that you just cannot let pass without comment, and you're drawn in all over again!

Now I confess that I have spent a day out on the hill with IDP and, maybe, I am therefore biased, but I find him to be extremely knowledgeable and competent on the fells and, if I'm not mistaken, one of the really good things I think the FRA has done over recent times, is to include some articles and literature written by IDP which will do more to help safety in fellrunning than all of the talk in the world.

As for his integrity, what a ridiculous suggestion to call it into question at this stage and say that because he has joined the committee, he now, obviously, sides with them 100%. I can only think that that sort of suggestion says more about the nature of the person making it than the one it's directed at,

I don't know the circumstances of IDP's appointment to the committee but, yet again, I'd like to see the positive in it by thinking that the rest of the committee realised that, as an experienced runner and experienced outdoor professional (who will be concerned with health & safety on every course he works), IDP would have a lot to add in terms of knowledge and opinion. A cracking appointment, someone with integrity and, if the processes are as flawed and undemocratic as some on here would have us believe, someone who I feel sure would stand up and be counted, if necessary (no pressure Ian!).

As for the rest of it, completely pointless now. Two entrenched positions, mudslinging, name-calling, it gets us nowhere. Until I see some evidence of mass dissent from within the committee, then I trust our unpaid, hard-working volunteer committee to move the process forward, albeit with a few hiccups along the way, and I thank them for their considerable efforts, in their "spare" time, on our behalf.

Well said

[lantern rouge]

I don't know Mike (Always Injured) but I do know Ian and I've run with him. I cannot think of anyone I know (except maybe likes of Bob and Yiannis) that I'd rather be out with. Ian's forgot more about hill-craft than most people on here (me included) have ever known. He's also just the right kind of lively, youthful guy to liven up the commitee. He takes safety very seriously; safety in the outdoors; on moutains, wild places

I am not a safety professional.

I organise a race and as such, have been watching all this with interest.

To the best of my ability, I try to anticipate risks and take reasonable measures to mitigate them. I shall continue to do so, taking on board the guidance of those on the FRA committee and those around me who have useful suggestions to make.

I have kept my trap shut on all this, in part because I have no great weight of authority or expertise, but also I do not to add to an inflamed public row.

Ian, you have my respect and support.

Andrew.... I couldn't out it better myself.

I hope we see an end to all this before long.

[alwaysinjured]

Ian's forgot more about hill-craft than most people on here (me included) have ever known. He's also just the right kind of lively, youthful guy to liven up the commitee. He takes safety very seriously; safety in the outdoors, on mountains, wild places

He is exactly the kind of guy the committee needs.

I wonder why he has yet to go to a meeting yet though - important ones have happened in recent times.

That was the point of the post. It needs people to engage with the issues, not stay silent on them.

But then Andy W was the right kind of guy too from a different perspective

[Fellhound]

I disagree. Whatever they are called, a lot of the points are guidance, they are not "must"s they are "should"s.

There are some "must"s as you would expect. But to say it's 17 pages of absolute rules is not the case.

Noel, they are called Requirements. It's not a matter of how you, or Graham Breeze, or anyone on this forum interprets them. The question you have to ask is "how would an aggressive prosecution lawyer interpret them?"

[Derby Tup]

. . . I wonder why he has yet to go to a meeting yet though - important ones have happened in recent times . . .

Ask him. A short pm is one way of doing it

[Mr1470]

Ask him. A short pm is one way of doing it

I suspect he was told to stay away while they discussed secret stuff

[Stolly]

Noel, they are called Requirements. It's not a matter of how you, or Graham Breeze, or anyone on this forum interprets them. The question you have to ask is "how would an aggressive prosecution lawyer interpret them?"

And all of this is about everybody being able to suitably cover their arses for what is such a very remote possibility? Death in a fell rare is firstly extremely race and, when it does happen, is most likely to be from falling and banging your head and/or getting lost in poor weather and dying from hypothermia. The direct cause in both circumstances just could not be proven against the race organiser in a month of Sundays, regardless of how well the RO organised things. Its all about ensuring everyone gets the appropriate pre-race warnings and agrees to the obvious risks.

I still think that the real issue here is the Race Organisers liability insurance for that very remote possibility - if extra responsibility is put on race organisers, the insurance will cost less and if less responsibility is put on race organisers it will cost a bit more. The cost a bit more option has to be the way to go.

The risk of death in sport is not unique to fell racing by the way - reading all the myriad of threads on this, you'd be forgiven for thinking that we were all base jumping into shark infested seas!!

Getting out of bed every day and going out the back door is full of peril too

[Deejay]

Ask him. A short pm is one way of doing it

Quite, a pm would have been much better than leaving a remark that apparently questions, (inadvertently I hope), his dedication to doing the committee job

[alwaysinjured]

And all of this is about everybody being able to suitably cover their arses for what is such a very remote possibility? Death in a fell rare is firstly extremely race and, when it does happen, is most likely to be from falling and banging your head and/or getting lost in poor weather and dying from hypothermia. The direct cause in both circumstances just could not be proven against the race organiser in a month of Sundays, regardless of how well the RO organised things. Its all about ensuring everyone gets the appropriate pre-race warnings and agrees to the obvious risks.

I still think that the real issue here is the Race Organisers liability insurance for that very remote possibility - if extra responsibility is put on race organisers, the insurance will cost less and if less responsibility is put on race organisers it will cost a bit more. The cost a bit more option has to be the way to go.

The risk of death in sport is not unique to fell racing by the way - reading all the myriad of threads on this, you'd be forgiven for thinking that we were all base jumping into shark infested seas!!

Getting out of bed every day and going out the back door is full of peril too

Not convinced of the causality implied between extra responsibility and cost of insurance.

What I am sure of is:

The more an RO undertakes to do, the more organisation there is to go wrong , the more targets there are for blamers to shoot at, so the more chance of a claim if something does go wrong. And equally: the bigger the safety net offered, the less care will be taken by those who enter, making adverse consequences more likely, and at the very same time the less an organiser is able to hide behind "on your own head be it" because they have implied it is safer than it is.

It is not just about runners. So far we have not had third party claims but the risk is certainly there, it has happened in other contexts , and sooner or later bad things will happen, in proportion to the scale of event, so constant vigilance is needed there too.

This is not just about whether it happens either. It is about what happens when it does.
The marshalls at Sailbeck were unfairly made to look like fools because of inadequate instruction and planning. We owe it to them, to give them a paddle when sent up the creek.

One of the reasons I am vociferous on all of this people are missing, though I said it before a couple of times. Nobody picked up on it. I , like Pete Bland, and Mike R am a full member of the "somebody died as a result of something I organised" club in a completely different context. Even though no possible blame can attach to me over that matter, it scars you. You are left wondering what else you could have done. You do not wish anyone else to be in that position: certainly not if an ounce of the blame finger can point there way , or to leave them feeling that there was something more they could have done, which is why everything needs doing to prevent even one casualty, for the peace of mind of the next RO in the hot seat, that they could have done no more. And there will be one. The only question is when and where,not whether.

That is why I find the chairs statement to coroner "all reasonably practical things" so abhorrent, because it is so manifestly not true and a political statement not a factual one. This is too serious to play power games, which seems to be the main focus of some. But then neither she nor graham have been there, Pete Bland has but they don't seem listen to him - preferring to question whether he is a full commitee member or not, as if that had any bearing on the matter. He is one of the most important peoples views to take into account, as someone who has got the T shirt.

And I guess that is a fitting place for me to disappear into the ether.

Just spare a thought for the next poor sod , sat in the hot seat. However unlikely it is. That seat is not a nice place to be.

Let us put my thoughts this way. I would certainly not want this executive or UKA on the other end of the rope, if I were climbing something hard.

[noel]

Noel, they are called Requirements. It's not a matter of how you, or Graham Breeze, or anyone on this forum interprets them. The question you have to ask is "how would an aggressive prosecution lawyer interpret them?"

It's a good point. As someone who organises a short fell race for which it's reasonable to consider that some of the 'should's are not required, I would be confident to defend my decisions based on the nature of the race and supported if needed by experts on the matter.

It would depend on what race you organise.

People can get a bit carried away with thinking what might happen if the worst sort of prosecution lawyer were assigned to things. There is a general principle of reasonableness in UK law.

Having said that, I applaud the efforts of those who engaged to move the requirements away from the previous versions that contained too many 'must's in my opinion. As the committee have openly stated, this is a work in progress, and will continue to be.