Junior Courses at the city of London Race

[Slowtochide]

There are two reasons for this post:
- To explain some changes to the junior courses at this year's CoL race
- To help inform organisers of similar events
I don't think that the subject has been covered elsewhere on the forum, forgive me if it has

BOF has recently clarified the situation relating to Juniors, Risk and Insurance in Urban races. The statement below was included (and somewhat lost) in a newsletter to clubs. However, whilst I might wish that a bigger announcement was made we should bear in mind in any discussions that this is not a BOF decision - it is the terms of cover by our insurers. And before anyone shouts too loud I doubt if anyone else would give us different/better cover.

Anyway, the statement that we have received is as follows
“The National Office has recently received several enquiries regarding urban orienteering, risk management and U16s completing on urban courses.
It is not appropriate for under 16s to be competing on courses that tempt them (or require) them to run across road(s) that contain traffic; roads with traffic management that included low speeds (15mph as on many campus) are acceptable but public roads are not. 16 year olds are considered to be adults in this context and they can then accept responsibility for the crossing of such road – under 16 cannot. This does cause the problem for the M/W16 age class in that they can be split across this legal 16 years of age boundary. Managed crossings of roads can be used to overcome this problem and I can confirm that there is no issue with parks and campus that contain no roads bearing significant traffic.
There are no such issues with 16 and older competitors although once again the risk assessment and management around the crossing or temptation to cross roads that are busy whilst racing are to be taken seriously and must be mitigated as much as possible…”
It is my understanding that a parental waiver has no effect on the risk and insurance situation.

Unfortunately this clashes with this (and previous years) allocation of junior classes at the City of London race so we are having to change things around. With this in mind we have amended the allocation of junior classes to courses in this year’s race as follows:
M/W18. Should enter the relevant Open courses whiuch will cross roads with traffic. Nopesport Urban League points for the Junior class will be calculated on these.
M/W16 & M/W14 are recommended to run the Junior (M/W16-) course (as on our original webpage). This course will now only cross minor roads with slow moving traffic. As a result of the constraints of the area to achieve this course length may be on the short side compared with the ideal. There are no Nopesport Urban League points to be gained on this course – but there will be prizes. 
M/W12 & M/W10 are recommended to run the new Young Junior (M/W12-) course. This course will only very minor roads with slow moving traffic. There are no Nopesport Urban League points to be gained on this course – but there will be prizes. 

We will be changing existing Junior entries to fit this structure and there will probably be a change in start times. If the changes do not meet the entrants wishes they should email entries@cityrace.org and we will adjust accordingly. We will be changing the online entries form as well, but that may take a little time as we are still playing catch up.

Something for other planners/organisers to bear in mind

[Tatty]

Thank you for a good explanation and your clubs efforts to cope with this.

[Bart]

I understand about the under 16's crossing roads but there should be scoring for the urban nopesport leaugue in the M/W16- course. Some of the juniors will be trying to win the leauge and will be dissapointed with not being able to score after traveling down there. Will this mean that M/W16- won't score in other urban races or is there something different about London

[andypat]

This is something BOF need to be a bit clearer on I think. The statement slowtochide is referring to caused a bit of a stir up here in Scotland too. We've done a similar thing to them wrt risk assessment for our forthcoming urban races, but its clear that even a common sense approach such as described by slowtochide still conflicts with the BOF message-

It is not appropriate for under 16s to be competing on courses that tempt them (or require) them to run across road(s) that contain traffic

The BOF risk assessment for urban events appears to offer a different perspective -

Particular Risks for Children

It may be deemed by the Organiser that the risk to children’s Safety (U16) will preclude them from competing, this should be the conclusion if:

1) There are no safe methods to cross busy roads
2) If the course passes them through an isolated area which exposes them to significant personal risk

This seems to suggest that children can be accommodated at the organiser's discretion provided there are no busy road crossings - a much less prescriptive statement. Common sense is good but we still need to know where we stand wrt insurance.

[Roger]

Just back from checking the control sites that I've had to add to make a suitable under-16 course for the Didcot Urban Race on 30 August. Two marshalled road-crossings (at road humps) plus one optional crossing of a quiet cul-de-sac give a reasonable course, which is now available for entry on Fabian 4. I hope that the entry justifies the investment of the marshals' time; we may specify a shorter start window for this course.

Regarding Urban League points for London: I'll do what I've done in other similar situations and award points for U16 following on from those awarded on the M/W18 courses.

For next year it looks as though the sensible option will be to run M/W18 in the Open category (these youngsters are pretty quick!), and allocate the 'Junior' Urban League category to the U16 course. Organisers should allow top-year M/W16s to run the U16 course if they wish even after their 16th birthday, although there would no longer be an insurance-led ban on them running the adult courses.

[DaveR]

I applaud the efforts people are going to to comply with this new "rule" but really want to ask a few fundamental questions about it.

1) What status does it actually have?
It is not in the Rules as far as I can see.
U16 crossing trafficked roads is mentioned in the Risk Assessment as something that should be considered for all competitors, with particular care taken for juniors, but is not excluded.
The only statement we have is a slightly strangely worded item in a newsletter that is emailed to a subset of the membership. This may be advice but is certainly not a rule that must be followed.

The proper procedure for dealing with this, or any other risk, is by way of the risk assessment form - this is a process that is already in place.

2) What are its implications?
If we follow the draconian wording from the newsletter then we cannot allow U16s to cross any road with traffic except in very restricted areas, or with marshalling at every conceivable crossing. This will effectively kill off most urban orienteering for U16s. As if that wasn't bad enough, it will hugely restrict clubs with significant junior memberships from putting on small urban events as these events would be unavailable to U16s. This will turn urban orienteering from a fast growing branch of the sport to a niche activity.

3) Where has this come from?
It is so far from current practice that I find it astonishing that it should be thought necessary (if indeed it is).

It also seems quite bizarre that as a parent I could, if I thought it apropriate, send a 7 year old into the forest on her own, but not send her 15 year old sister round a quiet suburban neighbourhood.

[Scott]

The decision has come through Events Committee - see the minutes here - although as I understand it it originated with the insurers.

It could certainly have been better publicised - hopefully there will be something in the next Focus - although to be fair, all club secretaries should get the clubs newsletter, and then it's up to them to circulate the information to the relevant people.

Looking at the recent Board minutes, it seems as if insurance requirements are also going to lead to compulsory training courses for "those volunteers holding responsibility at every level of activity or event e.g. coach, controller, organiser etc". It'll be interesting to see what form that takes.

Those same Board minutes also include a topic headed "Web development: Members forum"...

[DaveK]

I suppose (?) that we have to accept nowadays that everything we do is subject not only to risk, but also insurance?

[mike g]

It also seems quite bizarre that as a parent I could, if I thought it apropriate, send a 7 year old into the forest on her own, but not send her 15 year old sister round a quiet suburban neighbourhood.

The insurance is for third party liability, not competitor injury, so the insurance judgement must be that a 15 year old doing an urban race is more likely than an adult to cause a traffic accident, not necessarily be the victim of one. From that point of view it makes sense that parental consent makes no difference.

However, it seems questionable whether 12 to 15 year olds running round the streets are really any more of a danger to the public than, say, elderly competitors with deteriorating agility and eyesight, or elites racing flat out.

[graeme]

The insurance is for third party liability,

Mike,

It used to be, but I think that's changed now so that the organiser is covered against being sued by a competitor...

http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/d ... e_faqs.pdf

Who does it cover?
British Orienteering and all its members, participants, organisers and helpers: associations, clubs and individuals, including claims made against us personally, and claims made by other participants, in connection with orienteering activities.

...but you'd have to ask a real lawyer to be sure

[Scott]

the organiser is covered against being sued by a competitor

Yes, that is also my understanding, and I believe it is why the insurers are now requiring BOF to introduce a formal system of training for "responsible" volunteers (organisers, controllers, coaches etc).

[roadrunner]

The BOF risk assessment for urban events appears to offer a different perspective -

Particular Risks for Children

It may be deemed by the Organiser that the risk to children’s Safety (U16) will preclude them from competing, this should be the conclusion if:

1) There are no safe methods to cross busy roads
2) If the course passes them through an isolated area which exposes them to significant personal risk

Surely both of these could apply equally to "normal" orienteering events, since these often have road crossings, and I would have thought had more "isolated areas" than a typical urban event. Do the same rules apply there as well?

[andypat]

I suppose the point is that you can man or otherwise mitigate a road crossing in the middle of a cross country event using two controls etc, but you cant realistically do this for 50 or 60 road crossings in an urban event.

[Homer]

Regarding Urban League points for London: I'll do what I've done in other similar situations and award points for U16 following on from those awarded on the M/W18 courses.

For next year it looks as though the sensible option will be to run M/W18 in the Open category (these youngsters are pretty quick!), and allocate the 'Junior' Urban League category to the U16 course. Organisers should allow top-year M/W16s to run the U16 course if they wish even after their 16th birthday, although there would no longer be an insurance-led ban on them running the adult courses.

Thanks Roger. That sounds like a pragmatic approach to keep the youngsters (inc Bart) happy for this year.
It will be interesting to see what happens next year. I agree that making the junior league M/W16- seems the obvious thing to do. However, I wonder how many urban events are going to offer courses for U16's. I'm currently involved with Controlling an Urban event in the autumn and we are agonising over whether it will be possible to accept entries from U16's for any course.
The Nopesport cartel will have to give the issue careful consideration before allocating Urban League status for next year.

[Mrs H]

Trying to think of a practical solution to this. A lot of urban races I've been to have had assemblies in a park or pedestrianised setting. I wonder if it would be possible for a majority of them to offer a park/sprint/micro option for the -16s. Perhaps incorporating some of it into the end of the adult courses to fox us after a long hard race.

The micro O at the end of the Birmingham University prologue was mind-bending