Safety Matters

[alwaysinjured]

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.

The devil is in the detail. No contradiction.
Read the terms, that demand the runner decide what kit is needed for safety.
In the weasel words we are having to tread a fine line between trying to comply with rules, whilst at the same time doing what is safe and sensible.

FRA demand the RO specify (with no requirement for the runner to consider at all )- and as I indicated above, specifying only light waterproofs is a wholly inappropriate recommendation as sufficient for very cold conditions - which bad advice from committee is why I entered the thread again.

The coroner in essence echoed UKA misguided recommendations which should have been contested but were not, and then lamely agreed to by FRA , in addition adding a few idiotic undertakings all their own making , such as Marshall's "ensuring the safety of runners" as if they have any such power ( till we argued with that, and got it amended but only slightly) . If you are looking for contradictions look no further than that. Whose responsibility was safety? 1.1 then contradicted several times over.

Notice none of those mentioned as attending the inquest have any safety training at all, nor will they listen to any that have - (and the needed skill is managing the safety of custom operating procedures for significant teams of people - which is an unusual skill - not normal workplace safety - anyone who has actually done it knows written tasking for critical people is a must as part of an event plan)

A lack of common sense some of them, judging by some of what was in many places previously, and is still there in places in the rules.

You find me someone who is willing to state there is no risk of accidents in crowded areas of a rocky fell race, and I will show you a liar, needlessly forced to be so by silly FRA rules. I have fallen in borrowdale start as have many others. I have seen people fall in langdales first mile because of the normal crowding issues, and even later in the Esk pike traverse because it is hard to see when in a crowd or group on a narrow trod. Ask Michael Schumacher about what happens when heads hit unfortunate badly placed rocks even wearing a helmet.

Drawing attention to runners to the risk is the right way to tackle that issue ( and a variety of others), telling them to be careful is the right response. Denying it is crass stupidity. How can an RO now draw attention to problems he is no longer allowed to have, when they exist regardless? Solicitors have drawn attention to that as an issue... But then it doesn't take a legal or safety brain to decide the wording is daft on field size.