Cancellation - Was it my fault?

[EddieH]

Firstly I'd like to reiterate that I have no complaint with the decision in the current climate.

I am however sad that such a decision is perceived necessary in the prevailing situation. It is nonsense whoever said that there was no possibility of death in the swollen streams - clearly there was, but there is a possibility of death in a puddle if you trip into it and knock yourself out - It has happened.

Personally I abhorr formalised risk assessments which have everything to do with insurance and self protection in our blame culture, and little to do with real safety. However I have to use them and many people clearly fail to understand them.

We assess level of risk in 2 areas - likelihood of it an accident happening and potential seriousness in such a situation.

Thus any event in a rough forest has a HIGH likelihood of injury, but low potential for that injury to be serious or deadly, so thank God we go ahead.

Much more of a problem is those areas where the potential seriousness of an injury is high. We have this all the time and we still go ahead because we assess the risk of that event occuring as low.

Now how the organisers saw Sunday is their decision and if they believed the likelihood ofn serious injury or death to be unreasonably high then they undoubtedly made the right decision on that basis.

My personal belief is that the danger of being killed or seriously injured by a car in Saturday's race,(and almost all urban events) is low, but higher than that on Sunday. Personally I would assess the danger of orienteering at all on Kinver Edge with massive abrupt cliffs to be a higher risk of death than on Sunday where ther risk of hypothermia was higher than a mere low and the risk of a serious drowning type incident was low. Any winter event in poor weather a remote area of the Highlands or Wales with a tiny number of competitors must in reality be more in risk of serious problems because of the difficulty of a few people being able to locate an unconcious body.

Had the officials on the day been people of a like mind to me it would not have been cancelled (like Graeme's storm damaged forest). I'd have happily rewritten the risk assessment on the morning to explain my decision to go ahead. There is no way I will blame anyone for taking a more cautious view.

It just saddens me that orienteering (which if it were invented today would surely be prohibited for minors at least) might be going to die, not because of the age profile, but because of our blame culture.

And regards my running I was fortunate enough to find a map. I ran entirely of my own bat at my own risk and without putting anything on the organisers.

[soc123]

Probably as a result of "obtaining" a map and running your course you have made yourself uncompetitive for any re-run of the event. We also have a number of SOC helpers who were early runners and are in the same position.

[andypat]

Eddie

Your view is a common one but misses one crucial aspect of risk assessmentc and thats the ability to mitigate the risks. One can mitigate the risks of hypothermia by ensuring people wear correcct clothing. The risk of the streams in question being dangerous in places in the severe weather would be much more difficult to mitigate without a plan for safe crossing points.

When I hear of things like this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19577450 in the news or in the papers it brings home to me how fortunate we are that we have a country that views health and safety as a priority.

Thats not to say there cannot be compromise and my one (edited to add "constructive") criticisim of the event safety course (I attended a pilot so it may have changed) was that there was much concentration on what I (and presumably Eddie) would describe as low level risks eg slipping on mud that sort of thing, and not enough focus on the more signficant risks such as this for my preference.

[Vidalos]

The point Eddie make is a significant one . It's clear that bringing risk assessment more formally into event management can be a risk to the sport but not to do this is also a risk

In our blame culture now, the lengths organisation go to for protection from potential liability often go a lot further, place greater restriction and more costs than many of the individuals undertaking tasks or activities would consider appropriate. They introduce a safety margin to make sure they (the organisation) are protected. E.g. Safety glasses for children playing conkers at school

For orienteering it's difficult because of the wide range of experience and capabilities along with individuals who can just turn up on the day and do which ever course they want.

So for a valid risk assessment that would stand up to scrutiny how do you balance this ?
If we always consider the least capable or able , then as Eddie alludes to it probably would kill off the sport

But, given the progressive nature of courses through the colour code system , should there now be prerequisites for TD4 and especially TD5 courses ?

[greywolf]

I'm not convinced by Eddie's assertion that "if it (orienteering) were invented today (it) would surely be prohibited for minors at least", especially given how parkour, MTB / BMX, snowboarding, skateboarding etc have flourished...

As to having some control over who enters longer TD5 courses, I'm sure it will raise howls of anguish but IMHO it's not such a bad idea - my understanding is that (most/some/all?) Mountain marathons expect you to provide evidence to justify entry on the longer courses. When I returned to orienteering after many years away my first event back was Darnaway in February: I didn't know anyone at the event & was wearing a tshirt, trainers and tracky bottoms, so when i went to register I was prepared for an argument as to why i should be allowed out on the brown course...but I was just waved through without question - in retrospect it might have been better practice for the person manning entries to at least ask whether I knew what i was getting into...

[obody]

Controlling who enters 'longer TD5' courses might be seen as another way of ensuring that only long-term orienteers are welcome in the sport.

A brown course isn't *that* long - how stupid would you feel if you were a fit M21 yet were told you had to run with the M14s? It is only exceptional events (7hr remote mountain marathons, ARs with sea kayaking/climbing etc.) that require proof of competence where there is a clear risk to allowing novices to compete. Is there evidence that people entering 'difficult' courses is presenting an unacceptable hazard?

What many ARs/MMs even fell races often do mandate is a minimum level of kit, which is where orienteering seems slightly behind. You can head out into poor weather on a remote moor in short sleeved O kit and maybe a whistle and cag which won't help all that much if you have a problem. Mountain rescue types would be having fits.

[ifor]

A cag will make a big difference to the time to get seriously hyperthermic so long as your in a good enough state to put it on in an emergancy. Given the timeframe of a typical event you should get spoted missing quicker then in an AR or MM hence with a proper search procedure insisting people carry one in extreme conditions is an effective way of reduceing the risk of a fatality to a sensible level.

[greywolf]

Controlling who enters 'longer TD5' courses might be seen as another way of ensuring that only long-term orienteers are welcome in the sport. A brown course isn't *that* long.

A "proper" brown course, i.e. TD5 and 57 minutes for a top elite, would probably take a couple of hours at least for an average (i.e. 1000 point) competent orienteer, so could be quite a long day out indeed for a novice, however fit they might be...

And "controlling who enters longer TD5" need not mean requiring formal evidence - as my example suggested it could be as simple as making sure unfamiliar competitors are asked "are you sure you're up for this?". (And tbf, the club involved have greatly improved their procedures for describing courses and managing entries)

[EddieH]

Andypat wrote:

"my one criticisim of the event safety course (I attended a pilot so it may have changed) was that there was much concentration on what I (and presumably Eddie) would describe as low level risks eg slipping on mud that sort of thing, and not enough focus on the more signficant risks such as this for my preference."

How very true. That I think moreorless sums up my abhorrance of these things (and I have to be involved with them in charity work as well). Hours is spent focusing on trivia and stuff that ultimately you can do nothing about, and the really serious matters often get forgotten in the volume.

New Forest stream are pretty predicatable - they rise extremely quickly and fall equally fast as basically the land is sodden but has no big catchment area. Rain volume however is only relatively predictable and only a very short time in advance. On Sunday when I started all the streams were overflowing making it difficult in places to see where the main course ran. My view is that anyone nervous of crossing would have followed the line and found a place they could cross - the more confident crossing in more places. By the time I got to the stream in question it was fine, but clearly had been very wide. In competition I'd have crossed - many wouldn't and would need to divert some distance for a clear place. I riterate I have no criticism of the organisers for their decision.

The weather forecast was for the rain to stop and knowing how fast streams fall after rain, possibly a delay might be considered in a future plan for events in New Forest type terrain. (There again I appreciate that the clock have gone back and all these things need assessing).

[andypat]

I dont know the New Forest at all but recall camping in the Highlands on a bit of grass to the side of a dry stream bed. Bit of a downfall during the night and woken up around 6am to the sound of boulders being rolled along the, now 2ft deep, stream bed. Couldnt have crossed it anywhere and had to sit it out for about 4 hours till the level went down and the boulders settled. Borought hom to me how unpredictable these things can be.

[therescheesedown]

Boring.

[ws_10]

It is a common fallacy to say that safety should always take priority.

If that were true we would never go orienteering or take part in any other adventure sport because all involve encounters with hazards, and the associated risks can be avoided by simply not going. It has been said that the November Classic was cancelled because there was a 'risk of drowning.' This, alone, is not an adequate explanation. Many, if not most, O events involve stream crossings and encounters with rivers, lakes, crags, ravines and the like. The fact is that orienteers constantly make route choice decisions and one of the factors is personal safety. However, what we now have is a creeping view that society should be taking more of these decisions on behalf of individuals. Hence all the risk assessments, and increasing presence of safety notices in event information. This view of safety comes from the factory environment where risk avoidance is the game, but this is totally inappropriate in beyond-the-factory-fence situations where risk taking is a part of the sport, and is likely self-defeating and wrong.

With respect to the cancellation of the November Classic, it is not possible to say whether the decision was good or not without seeing the extent to which the river was impassable. But it is certainly not sufficient to say that the event was cancelled because of 'a risk of drowning.' Such a criterion would lead to the abandonment of numerous events.
-David

[King Penguin]

... but with a crag or lake the extent is finite and you have opportuning to go round in a "reasonable time" (unless someone runs an event with a leg from Graythwaite to Great Tower perhaps). With a swollen river / stream the feature is linear and if there are no bridges the choice is more likely to be chance it or retire. The risks and the competitor's options to mitigate them are entirely different.

[mike g]

... The risks and the competitor's options to mitigate them are entirely different.

Yes, but not in the way that you suggest. With a crag, especially in mist, the main risk is that a competitor might fall down it having not seen it or realised how high it is. With a swollen river a competitor can see what they are facing and make their own choice whether to cross it or not. If they can see it is dangerous but decide to chance it that is their lookout and the organiser can't reasonably be blamed for the consequences.

[greywolf]

With a swollen river a competitor can see what they are facing and make their own choice whether to cross it or not. If they can see it is dangerous but decide to chance it that is their lookout and the organiser can't reasonably be blamed for the consequences.

Sorry, that's bollocks on two accounts: firstly, it's impossible to tell how deep a flooded river is (until it's too late), and secondly, we're not talking about an inconsequential walk in the countryside, but a competition, and for some people a selection race, with all the pressures that entails