Safety Matters

[alwaysinjured]

I'm now moving to stop Noel posting on this thread as he causes AI to post.

Join the ban Noel campaign now!

You caused me to post! so we can we ban you too?

[Stolly]

Bugger. Ban me too!

[noel]

We should all ban us all from this thread.

[Fellhound]

AI, there’s no need to attempt to explain or persuade. The arrogant, the intransigent and the blithe will continue in their benightedness no matter how many words you expend. In fact, some, as we have seen, will just see it as an opportunity to take the p…

A better alternative exists and a new way is being offered to those who can see the light (hallelujah brother!).

Those who have thought about this and really understand the issues can take up the offer of fewer rules, less interference and greater flexibility by registering and insuring their races independently or with 'another body'.

Those who want to continue jumping through FRA-imposed hoops are welcome to continue.

Oh, 'eck. Now I've gone and spoiled all the fun...

[Lecky]

I have produced the framework, offered to present it. Even sent it to a few elsewhere. I have discussed many of the core parts on these threads several times. If you were not reading, more fool you.

Next step is a couple of RO involved to produce sample plans, since my approach is not to impose anything it is to create in conjunction with RO. Different mindset.

But it is not an alternative to FRA documents like for like. A different structure all together.

I am a race organiser.

You say you have a different structure, let's hear precisely what it is and how you would communicate it's requirements to race organisers.

Otherwise, all we have is you complaining about the FRA Committee and their documents, without any proof you can do better.

[alwaysinjured]

I am a race organiser.

You say you have a different structure, let's hear precisely what it is and how you would communicate it's requirements to race organisers.

Otherwise, all we have is you complaining about the FRA Committee and their documents, without any proof you can do better.

See PM.

[LissaJous]

Don't forget the real enemy...
http://www.peakskyrace.co.uk/

[Richard Head]

I'd rather be out on the fells than reading tiresome posts on this thread

I know you yarkshire lads get up to some strange things with sheep, where's that finger been to end up that colour?

[Derby Tup]

Don't forget the real enemy...
http://www.peakskyrace.co.uk/

Are you in? I don't recognise anyone on the entry list, but then when everyone has six aliases at least on here it's never easy to keep track

[Lecky]

AI has responded to my request for his version of the rules. Except that he has responded privately, so clearly doesn't want any of you to see what he has written.

Also, they are nothing like complete and would probably run to at least as long as the FRA documents, and that is before any of the (unwritten) templates are filled in.

A simple race would have a plan of 10 pages, he reckons Three Peaks would be around 100 pages.

All of this is to make it clear that the Runners are taking responsibility for themselves.

Personally, I think that the FRA rules could be better, by being shorter; more clearly set out and allowing more flexibility for the Race Organiser.

If you believe that the FRA's rules are putting off RO, then AI's reams of paperwork would put me off.