London City Race

[andypat]

I think the big difference at non-urban events is that you are relatively unlikely have a serious accident involving a third party.

I'm not so sure about the third party argument Scott. If it was just that, why are we being allowed to run these events at all? I think the main concern (at least to me if I was organiser) is the risk of a child competitor being run over (which is an obvious risk if you run in traffic) and the possible consequences (death). Anyone who is familiar with risk assessment would tell you that this would fall into the highest category and require some sort of mitigation. I'd be surprised if any insurance company would offer a policy that would be viable for the size of events we have on the basis that at some point in the next 10 or 20 years, a child could get killed and they have to pay out a signficant sum.

[DJM]

I believe that the situation regarding Under 16s has a legal aspect as well as the consequent insurance one and that an official British Orienteering statement to clarify things is due soon.

[Scott]

andypat, I don't disagree with you - when I organised an urban race, my biggest worry was a competitor being involved in a traffic accident.

[Disclaimer: I am not an expert here.] However, if I were an insurance company, it would be the potential injury to a third party that would worry me. After all, a traffic accident involving a competitor is almost certainly going to require some degree of negligence on the part of the competitor as well (don't forget that children can also be negligent - they are held to the standards of a "reasonable and prudent" child of their age), and competitors are not going to get as large a payout if they are partially at fault.

The BOF insurance, however, covers the public liability of both organiser and competitor, and injury to a third party caused by the negligence of a competitor is a much harder thing to mitigate against. So even if the organiser had done everything right and the accident were entirely the competitor's fault, the insurance company could still face a hefty payout to any injured third parties.

[Mrs H]

I wonder what happens in road cycling - do under 16s compete in racing on the public roads? If so how is that done?

I wonder if an under 16 could get personal insurance to run in an event and how much that would be - comparable to winter sports insurance would you think? (not as dangerous I surmise). Then all they would have to do would be to produce their insurance document at the race.

[andypat]

andypat, I don't disagree with you - when I organised an urban race, my biggest worry was a competitor being involved in a traffic accident.

[Disclaimer: I am not an expert here.] However, if I were an insurance company, it would be the potential injury to a third party that would worry me. After all, a traffic accident involving a competitor is almost certainly going to require some degree of negligence on the part of the competitor as well (don't forget that children can also be negligent - they are held to the standards of a "reasonable and prudent" child of their age), and competitors are not going to get as large a payout if they are partially at fault.

The BOF insurance, however, covers the public liability of both organiser and competitor, and injury to a third party caused by the negligence of a competitor is a much harder thing to mitigate against. So even if the organiser had done everything right and the accident were entirely the competitor's fault, the insurance company could still face a hefty payout to any injured third parties.

You make a strong point Scott and I dont disagree with you either. My query as it stands is could the child be held to be negligent, if it was clear from the guidance (BOF club letter) that they shouldnt have been allowed to participate in the first place.

For what its worth, I'd be surprised if further down the line there isnt some sort of compromise with some planning constraints such as crossing point controls on busy roads, use of bridges/underpasses etc allowing some sort pof participation short of the unfettered adult courses but enough to give some sort of competitions to competenet teenagers.

[Slowtochide]

WIth my City of London race hat on then

Frankly I really don't see what all the fuss is about M/W70 classes. I can't see how it makes the slightest difference to the M/W Open competitors. We haven't got a plan for M/W70s one way or the other yet for next year - I'll probably do a straw poll sometime (talk to the customers). Given our numbers the question is not so much about extra effort (minimal) but rather whether on balance separating them out increases or decreases the enjoyment for those concerned

Of far more relevance to the Open classes is that numbers are growing so well at London that we may soon have more entries than start slots in a reasonable timeband (at least for the Men). When that happens we could peel off M35s but we would probably introduce M/W Open Short and fit that in with our Newcomers class. Anyone remember the days of M21A1 and M21A2 courses? We may end up with the same problem with M40+ as well soon.

I'm not sure where to start on the subject of junior courses.
In some ways I welcome the statements on the insurance policy as it has helped clarify thinking in this area for urban races. I would still like an insurance policy that was less restrictive on under 16s but I think that we now have a clearer vision than we did in the past. Despite the late notice we managed this year to provide a M/W12- course that crossed just a couple of access roads and a M/W16- course that just encountered slow-speed traffic roads. Next your we will try and provide the same courses although we will probably need at least one controlled and manned road crossing. Our objective at City of London is to provide junior courses if we reasonably can and in some ways the bigger the event the easier it is to do as the numbers make the effort easier to justify. What you may well find is that junior courses vary considerably in format and distance from year to year in order to be able to put on courses that meets the safety requirements within the area available. However, we are not so spoilt for Assembly areas that can take our numbers that we are likely to make a decision that compromises other courses in order to fit in juniors.

If that sounds negative then I should emphasise that I believe that having courses for juniors is important for two main reasons
1) They are the future. Maybe they don't all follow a nice neat linear route to M/W21 but many who leave come back to the sport later on
2) Many people revisit orienteering when they start to have a family. Providing courses for juniors encourages them as well as their children.

Phew, I think that will do for now...

[DaveR]

I've asked various questions and still don't know.

Have you tried asking anybody who might actually know the answer? Emailing the Chair of Events Committee would probably be a good place to start.

No I've just ranted here on Nopesport in the hope that it might do some good .

Apart from ranting here I've also emailed BOF Chair (twice), CEO (twice), talked to organisers of several different urban races, searched the BOF site for the insurance details and organised 3 urban races myself.

Still, a new contact point is always good.

[RJ]

Of far more relevance to the Open classes is that numbers are growing so well at London that we may soon have more entries than start slots in a reasonable timeband (at least for the Men). When that happens we could peel off M35s but we would probably introduce M/W Open Short and fit that in with our Newcomers class. Anyone remember the days of M21A1 and M21A2 courses? We may end up with the same problem with M40+ as well soon.

That is the best news the sport has had for sooooooooo long! IMO that is where you should aim all your efforts.... foster, nurture, encourage, pamper, whatever, that group. Yes the 16- group are important, but not nearly as critical as the 21-40 group, after all they will get there in due course. Put the emphasis back into the M/W21 age classes, back where it was in the eighties. Lets have the front end of the demographic wagging the sport rather than the tail

However, we are not so spoilt for Assembly areas that can take our numbers that we are likely to make a decision that compromises other courses in order to fit in juniors.

Great..... but that is London. The other cities don't necessarily fit that model. Don't compromise your series by insisting on having to cater for the smaller numbers on the fringes. Let them run what is on offer (old super ultra vets!) or wait till they are old enough to meet the insurance demands (16-)

Urban racing can make a REAL difference to the demographic. The popularity of 10k and half marathon road races has probably contributed to the 'thinking' that Urban-O is just an extension of that.

[Scott]

No I've just ranted here on Nopesport in the hope that it might do some good .

Well, for many people that does seem to be the standard approach

Have you had any reply from the the BOF Chair or CEO? If so it would be interesting to know what they've said.

[Slowtochide]

Various people have alluded to the fact orienteering puts on unnecessary courses especially when compared to road running which doesn't at all. There is an element of truth in that and orienteering has certainly been guilty of sliding too far into providing multiple courses with minimal differences but there are some flaws that I can see with this argument.

The first that almost by definition road running does offer a range of distances - 5k, 10k, 1/2 Marathon - you just go to the events you want. Maybe orienteering just isn't that big.
The second is that just looking at road running is a very blinkered selection. Cross country running certainly has variable length courses. Women run shorter courses than men and if you go to a Surrey League race (Men or Women) you will see graded length courses for various categories of juniors, all on the same day. In January my CC club will end up hosting 8 different races of different lengths on the same day for the Men's and Women's Surrey League. CC also has special Vets Only events etc. And other sports certainly make adjustments. After all most golf courses feature different tees for men and women (and championship?) plus many golf matches reviolve around their handcapping system. Rugby has special rules for different ages of juniors. It also has veterans leagues, which is just another way of making the competition easier within a given time band.
And finally the point is that that unlike road running orienteering features a large amount of skill as well as fitness. And that fact magnifies the gap between best and worst, making the need to match courses and competitors all the greater.

By all means work to cut out extraneous courses and keep things as simple as possible but be careful of false analogies as well

[EddieH]

Slowtochide you do talk utter sense throughout How about putting yourself up for BOF elections

[Slowtochide]

Eddie

You're only saying that because you want someone to represent M55s

[awk]

Slowtochide - good points, especially about the different lengths at cross-country races. The point you made about the different distances being available in road running was one that had occurred to me, but that is still pretty much one distance (or a very simple choice) at any one event, and I for one would love to see just that - more variety of distance of events available in orienteering - not more choice of courses at one event (diluting the competition side of things) but more competitions with fewer courses but greater variety of distances (one of the reasons I find urban races so attractive). But maybe that's pie in the sky thinking.

The point about technique is equally fair - but I'd suggest that that the fine divisions in difference between distances of courses at some events isn't about that, but about perceptions that have been built up over years, that are now being challenged by competitions like urban races.

[Slowtochide]

Awk
Absolutely agree about too many courses on occasion with minimal differences in distance and/or technicality. We are now getting different distance events of course with the advent of MIddle and Sprint Distance races, which is good. But of course some people do still measure value for money purely in terms of kilometers in the forest Just for them SLOW is putting on a long distance multi-loop race on Longmoor later this year (plus plug) - another variation on distance

[DaveR]

Have you had any reply from the the BOF Chair or CEO? If so it would be interesting to know what they've said.

I don't want to quote private correspondence directly, but got the impression that the guidance could be interpreted more sensibly than the hard line in the original newsletter article (i.e. U16s should not cross busy or fast roads rather than should not cross any roads). However I didn't get a definitive statement despite some fairly direct questions.