Safety Matters

[Fellhound]

...If that was my race I would have said something in following years particularly claggy ones along the lines of:

"Don't think you can follow the leader. Get your compasses out, you will need them. Runners go everywhere in clag on this race, particularly from the end of the crinkles where they just seem to go everywhere instead of turning for Pike of Blisco - You have been warned".


At very least...as the RO you might get to go home earlier next time!

I agree with AI that highlighting the hazards is an important thing for an RO to do but it does raise a dichotomy (as Lecky says) in that it could leave the RO exposed if someone fell foul of a hazard, either physical or navigational, elsewhere on the course, or off it in the latter case.

The key thing is that the RO should highlight what he/she believes are the most significant hazards (and that will depend on a number of factors) but should make it clear that such highlighted hazards are not the ONLY hazards the runner will encounter.

AI has, of course, explained this previously.

I refer you back to the warning given to entrants in the Conestoga Trail Race in America, published in Boff Whalley’s book and previously posted by me on this forum:

“Warning: This is not your standard 10 mile race. The footing is uneven at best and can be dangerous. A fall is probable. An injury is possible. Insect bites, sprained ankles, lacerations and broken bones are some of the possible hazards. There will not be medical teams immediately on hand and our insurance will not cover your medical bills. You are responsible for your own self. Do not enter unless you are willing to risk and assume responsibility for any injuries that you may incur.”

A good starter for any organiser’s warning to runners!

[alwaysinjured]

I agree with AI that highlighting the hazards is an important thing for an RO to do but it does raise a dichotomy (as Lecky says) in that it could leave the RO exposed if someone fell foul of a hazard, either physical or navigational, elsewhere on the course, or off it in the latter case.

The key thing is that the RO should highlight what he/she believes are the most significant hazards (and that will depend on a number of factors) but should make it clear that such highlighted hazards are not the ONLY hazards the runner will encounter.

AI has, of course, explained this previously.

I refer you back to the warning given to entrants in the Conestoga Trail Race in America, published in Boff Whalley’s book and previously posted by me on this forum:

“Warning: This is not your standard 10 mile race. The footing is uneven at best and can be dangerous. A fall is probable. An injury is possible. Insect bites, sprained ankles, lacerations and broken bones are some of the possible hazards. There will not be medical teams immediately on hand and our insurance will not cover your medical bills. You are responsible for your own self. Do not enter unless you are willing to risk and assume responsibility for any injuries that you may incur.”

A good starter for any organiser’s warning to runners!

That just needs fine print Andy. Here the way it is done on the waltz, after mentioning a few issues

"if they have any doubts,[ the competitors should ] train on the route to ensure they are competent to race there. The competitor must accept that these are only a selection of the hazards and not necessarily the most dangerous, because the entirety of fell course is hazardous, and the competitor should not enter without sufficient experience of the same or similar terrain."

Love your description from Boff Whalley too!

Curious terminology citing "broken bones" as a hazard, rather than risk, (although a broken bone is a hazard that could lead - for example - to the risks of exsanguination, shock, necrotic tissue, or dying of hypothermia, waiting for rescue!). Or is that a nitpick like "insect bites" (pun intended). We also trump all of those at the waltz by saying "and there have been fatalities!"

[Ilkley Swimmer]

I've no issue if a RO gives out a few handy route tips before a race. But if he/she says nothing that's fine by me too. I certainly wouldn't take the view that the RO was somehow "liable" if the RO said nothing and I then got lost.
The Langdale Horseshoe is a good example of the wider point being debated. Should the RO warn people about the bad step? Or should runners have a look at the map and work out there is a way of avoiding it completely. I go another way down which is just as quick. I offset the fact that this seems a bit wimpy with a sense of satisfaction that I seem to be one of only a handful of runners who've discovered this easy alternative route. My heart will sink if the day arrives when the RO tells everyone at the start to go that way because it is "safer". To me that simply isn't fell-running as I know it to be.

[alwaysinjured]

I've no issue if a RO gives out a few handy route tips before a race. But if he/she says nothing that's fine by me too. I certainly wouldn't take the view that the RO was somehow "liable" if the RO said nothing and I then got lost.
The Langdale Horseshoe is a good example of the wider point being debated. Should the RO warn people about the bad step? Or should runners have a look at the map and work out there is a way of avoiding it completely. I go another way down which is just as quick. I offset the fact that this seems a bit wimpy with a sense of satisfaction that I seem to be one of only a handful of runners who've discovered this easy alternative route. My heart will sink if the day arrives when the RO tells everyone at the start to go that way because it is "safer". To me that simply isn't fell-running as I know it to be.

There are two easy routes not one. The wainwright route - left just before the step , and the gulley going right after the top but some way before the step, which then swings south to the foot of the step. Since the "wainwright" route has been in the books for the last 50 years or so, the revelation is not going to change anything, although I fail to understand why more dont use it when the step is backed up!. A lot of people think the step is fun and would prefer it to the other routes - indeed I went under the chockstone once. (not the guy who went headfirst down it than ran away with an egg sized bump... he may prefer a different way!)

For all that because few races include serious scrambling or climbing , the RO should mention that one of the natural ways descent paths lead does go down what to all intents is descent of a rock climb, so that following runners may lead them there. Runners should therefore familiarise themselves with that area to decide which routes are safe for their level of expertise in the prevailing conditions. One result of that is that people who hate rock descents will stay away.

Nobody can say they were not warned.
Getting novices to reccie that area will result in fewer casualies on the day. And the RO defence of "volenti" (on your own head be it) requires runner knowledge of the risk being taken. So saying something definitely helps the RO - it is not all about the runner - the words are there to protect the RO too..

[Lecky]

So, what potential navigational errors were highlighted on the AW?

The current FRA documents say (my italics):

Anyone who competes in FRA races must be aware that FRA races are organised on the premise that competitors have the necessary skills to cope with the navigational problems which may occur, whatever the weather. In many FRA races, designated with the NS abbreviation, navigational skills are essential and competitors must find their own way round the course. Visibility can be poor at any time of the year and following the runner in front is not a substitute for the sound exercise of the competitor’s own skills and judgement.

The acquisition of these skills is the responsibility of the competitor. To assist members of the FRA in acquiring or honing these skills, the FRA delivers bi-annual Navigation Skills Courses, details of which are available via both the FRA website and The Fellrunner magazine. The FRA also advises on available external courses.

As well as navigating round the route, an important factor for runners to remember is that if injured, or in distress, they may need to get themselves off the fell safely and quickly, without the assistance of others and without putting themselves in greater jeopardy and so escape route planning is an
important aspect of the sport.

This is pretty clear that navigating the course is the competitors responsibility, so not necessary for the RO to indicate any places where someone might make an error.

[Stagger]

Lecky 3/4 of a field can't navigate.

Just take Ireland this year, Devils Beeftub Scotland couple of years ago (Less than 3 mile) Great Lakes 2 years ago. Its happening in a champs almost every year.

That would mean in less than clear conditions only a 1/4 of the field could navigate a course using a map and compass.

So what do we do with a competitor who cannot navigate?

[Mike T]

" There are two easy routes not one. The wainwright route - left just before the step , and the gulley going right after the top but some way before the step, which then swings south to the foot of the step. Since the "wainwright" route has been in the books for the last 50 years or so, the revelation is not going to change anything, although I fail to understand why more dont use it when the step is backed up!. A lot of people think the step is fun and would prefer it to the other routes - indeed I went under the chockstone once. (not the guy who went headfirst down it than ran away with an egg sized bump... he may prefer a different way!)"


Wainwright shows and discusses both routes on pages 16/17 of the Crinkle Crags chapter.

[Witton Park]

So, there is a pack of documentation doing the rounds of SHR and WFRA.

Why not publish it and put a link on here so the rest of us can view and comment?

Lecky - let's roll back to last September when the FRA via GB issued the new Safety Requirements as a finished article.
How quickly did they have to launch a further review?
Since then, they've had rushed reviews of the Safety Checklist and we have highlighter pens all over the Guidelines.

So just be patient please, allow for proper process.

The new "pack" is not the solution, it's what ROs and Competitors do with it that matters. But I do think it is better and it has been received well so far, but is out now on a second wider consultation which may find issues.
If you want an early look, get on the WFRA or SHR committees

[Lecky]

Lecky 3/4 of a field can't navigate.

Just take Ireland this year, Devils Beeftub Scotland couple of years ago (Less than 3 mile) Great Lakes 2 years ago. Its happening in a champs almost every year.

That would mean in less than clear conditions only a 1/4 of the field could navigate a course using a map and compass.

So what do we do with a competitor who cannot navigate?

Every single one of them signed to say that they were experienced enough to navigate in the conditions they were running in. They might have been lying, but, to my mind that means that they have taken the risk of failing to navigate correctly on themselves. If the RO has to point out every site where they MIGHT get lost, then, as someone has said, you may as well tape the whole route and fellrunning would die.

The great thing is that when fellrunners get lost virtually every time they are competent enough to find their way off the hill by themselves. And yes, I can think of the few occasions when that has not been the case.

[Lecky]

Lecky 3/4 of a field can't navigate.

So what do we do with a competitor who cannot navigate?

You didn't mention the AW and the best route off Dale Head