I suggested in post 87 how it could be spelled out, and the risk quantified to a degree. I haven't heard of anyone planning to include that in their rules, but I am sure GB has seen it and will consider whether it is appropriate. I didn't want to post again as this thread just goes round in circles, but if anyone picked up on the concepts of mitigating or quantifying risk, they certainly did so very quietly.
(To which is easily added a comment about kit).Originally Posted by LissaJous
Last edited by LissaJous; 16-04-2014 at 01:14 PM.
That is symptomatic of this entire thread noel.That last post was too long. And you mean fewer idiots, not less.
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!!!
Last edited by alwaysinjured; 16-04-2014 at 06:06 PM.
Yes, sorry - just teasing.
As I said before that argument only works on a theoretical level. Let's consider people driving cars. There are rules that people must adhere to (drive on the left, don't go too fast, etc). But that doesn't mean that the responsibility for safety doesn't sit with the driver.
In fact there are loads of examples similar to this in society where individuals take on responsibility for their actions within a sensible framework designed to protect them and those around them.
Wrong.Is that answer short enough for you?
Prescriptive regulations only work in safety on standardized tasks - beyond that has to be assessment and planning. Where the list of factors to be considered are stated, not the solution mandated. This case fell races , conditions and people are all so different that one size does not fit all.
I also showed above, the issue of "windproof vs waterproof" is a fallacy , which will serve to achieve nothing except to stop the very thing you really need which is: The runner assessing and thinking it through for themselves - whilst being made very aware of how very vulnerable they are.
You are radiating "do this and you will be OK"...and false perception of safety is the most dangerous thing there is. It is why inexperienced idiots enter races in the first place.
I know what works in managing hazardous tasks Noel - I have had a bellyfull of it.. And also what does not.
Last edited by alwaysinjured; 16-04-2014 at 06:34 PM.
Having worked in the field of safety management for several years all I would like to say is that the content and thrust of AI's arguments are correct. I cannot for the life of me understand why people don't get it.
Is that short enough for the nit pickers?
But his perception that the FRA haven't 'got it' is completely mistaken.
Thanks Elf. Perhaps you could convince our safety committee of the same where we have failed:
I suggest you train for the task of persuading committee, by banging your head hard on a brick wall a few hundred times before that, you will need a high pain threshold to even attempt it
You are contradicting yourself. If the issue is not what kit is required, but the runner rather than the RO taking responsibility, why is full windproof body cover a minimum requirement for entering the Anniversary Waltz?
If you are claiming it is only a rule required to avoid disqualification divorced from actual safety considerations, then you're painting the wrong picture.
And that's the problem with your position AI. You criticise the FRA for specifying minimum kit but you have done it too.
But there is a big difference in my opinion between an RO (or spokesman for) specifying minimum kit with knowledge of a specific race, conditions on the day etc. and the FRA specifying minimum kit based on some rather arbitrary criteria based around race length / heigh gain.
Fudge
The FRA Safety Requirements (page 9) say:
1.1 The Competitor must accept primary responsibity for his/her own safety.
My FRA Committee colleagues and I heard what the Coroner said in addressing the Court at the conclusion of the Belfield Inquest. We were listening hard because a runner had died in a fell race on our "watch"- for us it wasn't a matter of Forum debate.
The Coroner had studied in detail the FRA Safety Requirements, line by line. He clearly did not think these diluted the fundamental issue (1.1) and in support of that view he refused to endorse eight (8) additional safety requirements sought by the Belfield family.
The Coroner further publicly indicated his recognition that the FRA was a responsible body which had the best interests of fell runners at its core in the context of the actions it had taken following the comments his colleague had made following the death of Judith Taylor.
As I say, there were others from the FRA Committee present during the Inquest like the Chair, Madeleine Watson, the FRA ex-Secretary Alan Brentnall, and Jon Broxap; all of whom are members of the FRA Safety Committee (and other Committee Members such as Scoffer) which, as I have previously posted, is currently looking at the "safety" documentation and considering new elements such as formal management plans.
If you wish to be consulted on any redrafts you are free to send me a PM.
Regards,
Graham.
Last edited by Graham Breeze; 16-04-2014 at 09:58 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote