Safety Matters

[alwaysinjured]

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

That is symptomatic of this entire thread noel.

1/ People are trying to make complex issues over simplistic,so throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What I said could not have been said in substantially fewer words without losing context or meaning.

2/ Picking an irrelevant nit hence obscuring the debate. As in this case. Look up a thesaurus - a synonym of "less" is "fewer", but regardless of grammar (grammer or grammur whichever you choose) you knew what I intended so why mention it , rather than the core argument?

This whole issue of specifying windproof vs waterproof is manifestly ridiculous anyway!!
People are so busy laying the law down, I do not think anyone has noticed the fallacy implicit in it.

The fact is waterproof garments are not in essence thermal and even if suitable are not a sufficient answer to hypothermia for safety and survival of a long period in low temperatures. (certainly not cheapy pacamac bottoms for £15) Clearly then additional garments should be considered in any decision on what to carry in bad conditions such as thermal leggings, as is the detail of those conditions and the metabolism of the runner. Some suffer more than others, so there is no one solution. So clearly the runner has to decide anyway regardless of what the rules say. So it is Rules for the sake of rules! An incurable attack of the "musts".

The rules - or rather, that the race instructions,were it done properly - should only demand a runner DOES decide proactively what equipment he needs to stay safe, and if he does not have sufficient experience of prevailing conditions to be certain of what to take, he/she must withdraw. By specifying kit you are actively taking responsibility for it, and interfering in the runners need to think it through.

"what can I get away with" is the wrong mindset for safety, it should be "what do I need if the worst happens"



Back to the fundamental decision. Either you regard runners as responsible people in which case you have to MAKE them responsible for their own safety, not the RO, just demanding sufficient experience of them. Or you decide they are irresponsible people in which case you have to make decisions for them,and the RO has to carry the can for all the decisions he makes on their behalf( and FRA for all the decisions it imposes on all if them as the directing mind) You cannot have it all ways.

Who is responsible for safety? I say it should be given back to the runner!!!