Safety Matters

[Wheeze]

So, Ian, whats better? Making someone carry a cheapo pair of crap trousers that comply with the taped seam reg but, by your own admission are unlikely to get used, or allowing the use of a tried and trusted pair of quality, breathable but untaped trews? Just asking.

[IanDarkpeak]

So, Ian, whats better? Making someone carry a cheapo pair of crap trousers that comply with the taped seam reg but, by your own admission are unlikely to get used, or allowing the use of a tried and trusted pair of quality, breathable but untaped trews? Just asking.

thought I'd answered it in the last post, I take them for emergency as stipulated in the rules or out by myself when I need protection that non waterproof pants wouldn't give me. I have some Mountain Hardware breathable waterproofs pants for long/wild or wet races and some pertex pants which I love too but only to keep the wind off.

I was merely making the comment to help SMS that cheap taped pants are available.

[Henry Porter]

Breathable is rubbish for sitting about in the wet you need proper protection. Trawlermen would laugh at you. The last thing you need is Goretex absorbing water and being damp. If I was sitting about in the rain cheap properly waterproof stuff like old style plastic oilskins would be my choice.

[Witton Park]

Breathable is rubbish for sitting about in the wet you need proper protection. Trawlermen would laugh at you. The last thing you need is Goretex absorbing water and being damp. If I was sitting about in the rain cheap properly waterproof stuff like old style plastic oilskins would be my choice.

So Guy Cottens Bib and Brace is set to become the kit of choice is it

As far as I'm aware, most of the wearers of Oilskins still get wet through. They wear them because they are about the only kit that will stand up to the wear and tear requirements.
£120 set of Oilskins that will last 6 momths or £300 Goretex suit when the Goretex suit can be trashed after one trip to sea.
It's a no brainer for them, but if money wasn't an issue, they'd be in the goretex.

[Henry Porter]

I take it you have spent a lot of time sitting in the rain at sea? I have and fully waterproof taped seams, stiff conventional waterproofs would be my choice. Breatheable was cold damp and crap. Personally I'm not sure breathable is any good on the hill unless it is below zero. Having said that I was about 45 before I bought anything other than a cheap 'cag' all the serious climbing and sailing were behind me by then, the goretex saw me from the car to the shops fine though.

[Witton Park]

I take it you have spent a lot of time sitting in the rain at sea? I have and fully waterproof taped seams, stiff conventional waterproofs would be my choice. Breatheable was cold damp and crap. Personally I'm not sure breathable is any good on the hill unless it is below zero.

Well I'm not Captain Birdseye, but I'm involved in the business and have spent time out at sea in very wet weather.
Probably the gear of choice these days is the Fladen.
and it's not breathable in the slightest.
But it's cheap.

I do agree that breathability is over-rated. But spend 12 hours on a Salmon Farm working in an Oilskin and you'll be knackered and more likely to make a mistake that could see you end up in the water, than if you were wearing an ergonomically designed textile boiler suit.

At the real extreme is something like this.
This is the way the Scandanavians are going, but at £600 a throw I can't see them catching on over here for a while

Oilskins don't give you thermal protection in the water. Wet Suits and Dry Suits do.

Anyway, off topic, yet again

[alwaysinjured]

The issue is not what is carried, but that it is the runner, not the RO (or FRA) who must choose it on the basis of experience and competence in the conditions present and forecast.
(in expectation of no support and/or what can be a very long wait for assistance if becoming immobile)

If they do not have sufficient experience to stay safe in conditions prevailing or expected on day, they must withdraw before starting.

If the RO or FRA is mandating what is done, then who is in charge and therefore responsible for runners safety?
Not the runner, evidently.

So to say the runner is responsible, then take that responsibility away again is a nonsense.

For that reason any kit specified by an organiser must be stated in the context of disqualification from competition - not safety: leaving the runner to choose what extra is needed to stay safe, and so be responsible for their own safety.

[noel]

I completely agree with the theory of what you are saying there AI, but in practice this is nonsense.

You will always get people who consider themselves experienced yet prepared to carry inadequate kit. If you need proof - remember that European mountain race a few years where a the weather came in and people died?

P.S. Nice post length. I read all of it.

[alwaysinjured]

I completely agree with the theory of what you are saying there AI, but in practice this is nonsense.

You will always get people who consider themselves experienced yet prepared to carry inadequate kit. If you need proof - remember that European mountain race a few years where a the weather came in and people died?

P.S. Nice post length. I read all of it.

Did you read the rules of that event Noel - even as they are now - it is there on the web in french. They were offering a safety net (and still are): that marshalls will halt runners on safety grounds.. That I think will be the basis of why they lost the "volenti" claim - I am chasing the court documents.

You have to make runners very aware of their own vulnerability. So If you:
(a) force them to train over similar or same distance, terrain and conditions, and if they have not trained in similar or worse conditions do not start. ( an absolute must in rules I would write)
And
(b)state clearly - you are on your own - from start to finish - people die in races like this if they do not carry enough kit -so take more than you think you need - and expect a very long wait for rescue who may not find you for days"

Do you think that is likely to get more or less idiots in such a race?
Do you think people will carry more or less kit, or carry an extra few bits of food?
Do you think it is safer than saying "take this kit, and by the way, we have a decent safety net so, if you don't show up at a check the RO will know quickly, and send out the cavalry (per FRA rules), and the RO won't run the race or shorten the route if the weather gets too dangerous". Who is then responsible for safety?

It is a fact proven in safety management that perception of risk is very material in whether a risk comes true. So we have to play the risk up not down. And if after all that, they enter, then truly "on their own heads be it" You cannot stop people being stupid. You can reduce the chance of being blamed for it.

And that by the way does not alter the sense in having marshalls, checks , monitoring and so on. It is the guarantee of it and ability to rely on it that changes everything both in mindset of competitor and legal exposure for the RO

[noel]

That last post was too long. And you mean fewer idiots, not less.