101 uses for a mobile!

[daz h]

It is designed to stimulate conversation and make people think about the reasons behind the rules and, perhaps, discuss issues that they would not normally consider.

well id have thought its obvious it protects both

[XRunner]

well id have thought its obvious it protects both

A mobile phone may protect neither.

Consider the case of an inexperienced runner who relies on a phone to summon help when difficulties occur rather than withdraw from the event because it is beyond their ability.

If the worst situation occurs and the mobile phone doesn't work, then the next-of-kin may take the organisers to court for criminal negligence because they failed to check that a mobile phone worked over the entire area of the event.

[AndyJ]

A mobile phone may protect neither.

Consider the case of an inexperienced runner who relies on a phone to summon help when difficulties occur rather than withdraw from the event because it is beyond their ability.

If the worst situation occurs and the mobile phone doesn't work, then the next-of-kin may take the organisers to court for criminal negligence because they failed to check that a mobile phone worked over the entire area of the event.

By vetting entries an organizer can minimize the chance that an inexperienced runner takes part. This occurs with the skyline race.

[jmacewan]

XRunner, that case was in New Zealand, the verdict was overturned some time later as far as I can remember.

I'm in Scotland, there has been a fairly recent case involving a mountain guide and client where the outcome was basically that as a voluntary participant in certain activities you accept the risk. I would be very surprised if a race organiser ended up in court unless they were very and recognisably negligient(open to debate I know!).

I suspect in England, Wales etc. things may not be so clear cut but not that far from the Scottish position.

[Chris]

7. If the worst happens, phone your lawyer. Don't forget to photograph the hazardous fell as evidence of negligence on the part of the organiser.

[molehill]

I do find this the biggest load of 'a**e' I have read on here.

It must have many an old fell runner turning in his grave at the thought this is the direction the sport may go in the future.

Thank god I am not a serious racer, but a fell runner happy with my own company on the hills, and responsible for my own actions.

[Mud]

This is even funnier than the Fell Ponies.

I suspect that if it had been raised as a theoretical proposed new requirement, rather than being put straight into practice on an actual race, it would have been laughed off the forum.

[The Master]

This is even funnier than the Fell Ponies.

I suspect that if it had been raised as a theoretical proposed new requirement, rather than being put straight into practice on an actual race, it would have been laughed off the forum.

Oi! Wot you laughing at?

[dominion]

This is even funnier than the Fell Ponies.

I suspect that if it had been raised as a theoretical proposed new requirement, rather than being put straight into practice on an actual race, it would have been laughed off the forum.

You mean like the way that the forum laughed off the theoretical proposal that the FRA should remain under UKA?

[Mud]

You mean like the way that the forum laughed off the theoretical proposal that the FRA should remain under UKA?

Well it's an interesting comparison.

On the FRA/UKA issue there were a load of people of the sheep tendency, saying "the committee know best, they put lots of work in and we should respect their judgement".

Here it's the same with race organisers?

Doing huge amounts of much-appreciated work doesn't stop you being wrong (and certainly doesn't mean that people can't suggest you might be wrong...)