Under 16s and urban road crossings

[Mrs H]

Was anyone else under the impression that it was not allowed to have under 16s crossing proper roads in Urban races? Well it is allowed provided the crossings are marshalled and timed out. If you want to find out more then read my next column in CompassSport.

[DaveR]

OK, up on to my hobbyhorse again, my club mates would expect nothing less

I got into this whole mess a couple of years ago, had lots of correspondence with various official people without ever getting a clear answer on anything. Eventually I produced the club policy which completely follows the guidelines but gives us enough discression to put on reasonable urban events our 16s.

Marshalled and or timed out road crossing would also work.

There have been various bits of guidance issued by BOF about the safety of Under 16s in Urban Orienteering. These seem to have focused almost exclusively on the dangers of road crossings. The exact concern is unclear, although it seems to relate to insurance issues. The most likely “danger” that is causing concern is the risk of an U16 causing a crash in which the insurance has to pay out. I have had extensive correspondence with various people, including the BOF Chair and BOF CEO, on the subject and this has still failed to clear up the issue completely.
The latest BOF guidance is that:
"Participants under 16 should not be competing on courses that tempt, or require them to run across roads that contain significant traffic. Roads with traffic management that induce low speeds (15mph as on many campuses) are acceptable but busy public roads are not."
So my conclusions are that for under 16s "busy public roads" and roads with "significant" traffic are definitely BAD, roads with "traffic management" are GOOD and there is a large range in the middle that we can decide for ourselves (with the aid of a suitable risk assessment form) what is appropriate. This is much less restricting than a complete ban on U16s crossing public roads which is what the original guidance seemed to suggest. Clearly the planner and organiser of any race need to take safety considerations (including road safety) into account, particularly for junior competitors. Formally this is covered by completion of the Risk Assessment Form.

[AndyO]

That seems a fair enough approach to me, DaveR

The Risk Assessment is the proper place for that to be addressed, and the Organiser (and Controller if appointed) are those with the responsibility to make the call. The risk does have to be assessed, however, and will presumably take into account numbers and speed of vehicles, visibility of traffic to runners and of runners to traffic, age and experience of runners, possible road and weather conditions, and will have mitigating factors such as "caution, runners" signs displayed, notices at registration etc.

[Mrs H]

The insurers said

The insurance policy pretty much supports and follows the BOF Rules and
Regulations, so provided that it is not in breach of those Rules for
competitors under 16 to cross a road during a competition we would be
happy for you to proceed.

ie - it is NOT a requirement of the insurers that under 16s cannot cross roads without traffic management in place.

Mike H said

Yes, under 16 can be on a course that has a road where there is a marshal and a time out pair of controls.

It is not and as far as I can tell never has been a requirement that under 16s cannot cross roads with significant traffic on provided suitable safety procedure is in place. BUT i will say the guide lines are worded in an extremely ambiguous and possibly misleading way and it is understandable if anyone thought otherwise.

[superstartradesman]

It's unfortunate that the BOF guidance quoted by DaveR specifically mentions 15mph speed limits. In many urban residential areas (in Scotland at least), we now have permanent 20mph limits introduced (and temporary 20mph limits outside schools).

It would be helpful to know if a road subject to a legally enforced 20mph speed limit was unambiguously considered to be safe for under 16s to cross alone in an urban orienteering race.

[pete.owens]

As has been pointed out above it is a matter to be determined on an individual basis during the risk assesment process - not simplistically applying some supposed rule of the form "Speed limit = x mph therefore the road is OK; speed limit = x+1 mph therefore U16s cannot cross."

This is how the guidelines are actually worded:

In practice this will mean that courses for M/W16 and below will not be able to cross roads with significant traffic. Roads with traffic management that induce low speeds (15mph as on many campuses) are acceptable but busy public roads are not.

Yes, 15mph is mentionned in brackets to give an example of the sort of road that should be OK to use in a competition. This is contrasted with a busy public road that would be unsuitable. The vast majority of urban streets fall between those extremes. Typically, they will be quiet residential streets with very little traffic but no formal traffic management and a the default urban 30mph limit. However, there is a world of a difference between a quiet back street where the local children might set up an informal football match and one with lines of parked cars on either side that is used as a rat-run.

Deciding whether it is suitable to take a course across any particular road has to be judged on its individual merits. Just as you would asses whether to route a course across stream in a forest.

[Glucosamine]

Planning the Huntingdon urban event next month, based on the previous set of urban guidelines, my attention has been drawn to this thread. I note the earlier quotes from the guidelines, but note also that further down the guidelines say:

"For safety reasons discussed earlier in this document, courses 6 and 7 must not cross public roads with any significant traffic." (my emphasis)

For me, and recognising that other clubs seem to be taking a different approach "any significant traffic" is rather different from "with significant traffic". In particular, it seems to rule out through roads with access to carparks where distracted Saturday shopping drivers are likely to be present in some numbers. Perhaps the next revision of the guidelines could make it clearer what is being left to local risk assessment and what is regarded as unacceptable (and hence risking insurance non-compliance)?

Our current solution is to use a VERY small (but hopefully interesting) area of parkland on a separate map for self-contained courses for those few juniors who may come. I hope I have not wasted my time mapping that area ...