Very good!Originally Posted by molehill
Very good!
Should the size and weight of camera be specified in the safety rules?
One post from me, with sincere apologies for the length, far too long for any public forum.
The need for a system to check on runners on long races was introduced after the death of Bob English.
The safety rules will always be in the process of review. Its a learning process.
One year we (a previous sub-committee) rejected Industrial Risk Assessment as inappropriate for fell running rules(possibly over a decade ago) because, with advice from a personal injury lawyer, there would be no benefit to a race organiser, in fact it could create more chance of a successful claim, from any bits missed out.
After a mess from HSE about safe working at height requiring a ladder certification or some other gobbledy goop - my query was would a ladder help me manning a checkpoint on Skiddaw at 3000 feet - never did get an answer. The BMC were more measured in pressure to the HSE, resulting in professional climbers being 'allowed' to just use ropes.
As a follow on, the FRA (me at the time) took part in the Risk, Liability and Outdoor Adventure organised by the BMC.
Prof. David Ball ....change needed from RA to Risk Benefit Assessment...participants who inherently know the risks in decision making..
David Walker - Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents....the importance of self regulation, the risk takers are often the best risk managers...
Richard Doubleday - Perkins Slade Ltd. ....drew on a number of legal cases and discussed the importance of the word 'reasonable' ie did they act 'reasonably', were 'reasonable' steps taken to minimise risk...
The consensus was for users to manage risk in outdoor recreation, there is no single solution as every site is different, and education plays a key role as it is impossible to prevent risk found naturally in the outdoors.
Our safety rules are not perfect, neither am I and I don't suppose we ever will be.
Seriously time to give up on it all, since most of the comments are facetious. And pointing out good practice does not make a blind bit of difference in any of the places it should.Should the size and weight of camera be specified in the safety rules?
FRA may well get there in the end, but only after trying everything else - to avoid being seen to take advice, and by discovering what is wrong the hard way, with the fiasco of embarrassing errors being pointed out all over again as had to be done across the autumn, rather than getting there the easy way by listening.
Does it not concern anyone that the nothing has been done so far that would have helped the marshalls defend themselves against the hostile lines of questioning directed by UKA insurers solicitor trying to pick holes in all they did, so presenting them as morons at another inquest? Only written tasking can defend them from that - or indeed stop things falling down cracks. That lack of concern is probably the refusal of FRA to show RO the evidence, or a review of it.
I would have thought it is an embarrassment for FRA safety committee, that such as Richard Taylor who is clearly a very competent guy instinctively doing a lot of right things, is struggling to do them within this framework. Not so it seems.
So cannot be bothered interacting further with facetious.
Facetious has its place. That place is not here.
Graham - when are you going to apologise to the RO for the fact it was you specifically that said rulebreaking could void insurance, and you thought it was so important for RO to know that, that you mentioned it several times in the rules as adopted "nem con", before being asked (by us) to amend them - that created this entire storm in the first place? That entire fiasco was caused by you - we have still to hear an apology.
Tackle the serious issues not moles please.
Chris,
Thank you (and also again for the quiet wisdom you brought to the FRA Committee over 17 years).
Graham
I agree, let's have this as the moles thread and separate thread for AI.
So why do people catch them?
Thanks Chris.
Committee please note this.
"The consensus was for users to manage risk in outdoor recreation, there is no single solution as every site is different"
Translation.
"Each race needs its own plan taking into account a range of factors that need to be considered
Prescriptive rules do not work."
But then - that has been the mantra of safety practice since 1974 (actually the pressure was building for a long while before that because the proof was clear for a decade - the flesh was put on the bones of how to do all this with seminal documents like the sixpack of 1992 and such as HSG 65: and before anyone says "safety legislation does not apply" perhaps you should read some of the documents because a lot of it is about how to manage safety as a general concept in any sphere of enterprise. eg "manage risk in outdoor recreation"
Which is also what the HSE "event organisers guidelines" say.. a lot of things that need to be considered in planning an event.
We need our own version of that peculiar to fell running, written in a way that templates the plan that needs to be produced, since we really cannot go the path of RO being graded officials who are SQEPped to produce it, the templating needs to be sufficiently robust to act in place of a lot of training : with a SQEP safety officer doing the sample plan review process and updating guidelines accordingly.
Simples. What we have been saying for months.
So we are 50 years out of date and seemingly determined to stay there.
Last edited by alwaysinjured; 04-04-2014 at 11:26 AM.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAzQ7Pn0Bbc
Poor taste in music?
WHAT A SILLY PRICK !!!!
Keep the same cap on or don't wear one at all.......
Chris is quite correct. The members of the subcommittee referred to were Dave Jones, Ross Powell and me.
The subcommittee was established at the December 2004 committee meeting as the result of a communication received through Alan Barlow the FRA UKA representative. Alan had met with UKA and the insurers to discuss the insurance and Permit situation.
The minutes of that meeting state that "Regarding risk assessment, the insurer stated that there is no requirement for HSE-style risk assessment, but that, following an incident, it may be necessary for an organiser to demonstrate that he has provided an adequate duty of care, and that a tick list covering his preparations would assist in this matter. ABa proposed that the FRA looked into recommending something along these lines with effect from January 2006."
The subcommittee duly reported in April 2005 and the report was reviewed at the committee meeting in May. As Chris states it was decided that Risk Assessment was not appropriate but it was accepted that steps should be taken to emphasise to organisers the importance of adherence to the FRA's safety policy. These steps included a statement on the Race Registration form immediately above the organiser's signature "“I have received and read the accompanying Safety Requirements, Rules for Competition and Guidelines for Race Organisers and will organise my event in accordance with the FRA recommendations.”. The Race Organiser Safety Checklist was also introduced - this was identical in content to the Safety Requirements but as a series of tickable paragraphs followed by a signed declaration.
UKA and their insurers subsequently accepted this approach.
As many are aware I strongly support the approach Andy Walmsley is proposing for the management of safety at fell races. It does not include any suggestion of Risk Assessments. As I understand matters it does include a set of rules but much shorter and less prescriptive than the current FRA document. Race organisers would document a race plan appropriate for their event with plenty of guidance being provided about what they should consider including. To me this would be a far better approach than the current FRA approach.
Margaret Chippendale
Last edited by MargC; 04-04-2014 at 12:32 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote