Event Safety, BOF Training

[awk]

THow do you risk assess something when part of the attraction is taking the risk? Or is a risk only a risk when it is likely to result in a court case?

Mike has said most of it, but if you look at the sports you have highlighted: the top proponents are there partly because they know what the risks are, and how to reduce (manage) them, including when to take them to gain a competitive edge. The ones who are the dangers are those who don't and can't. I remember watching a fascinating programme about one of the world's top stunt performers. It was pretty much all about how he managed the risks.

[roadrunner]

I think what Mike says is right: the trouble is, there's a difference between what you would do in a work situation (and this is probably where the "risk management professionals" and insurance companies are coming from), and what's appropriate in an adventure sport. In the former, I believe the ethos is to reduce all risks to "as low as reasonably practicable", in other words eliminate them completely unless the impact of doing so is totally disproportionate - whereas in sport you'd accept some risks even though they could be reduced or eliminated. Otherwise tackles would be banned in Rugby etc.

Out of interest, I wonder what the risk assessment for the Venice event would have looked like: deep water everywhere (even on the junior courses), lots of non-CRB checked members of the public around, an area that would be almost impossible to search...

[pete.owens]

But the approach is the same - and all hinges on the words "reasonably practicable". This recognises that risks are inherent in everything we do - we cannot eliminate them entirely, but we should take reasonable measures to remove or mitigate them. what is reasonably practicable depends on the context and the severity of the risk involved.

In most workplaces, where routine tasks are performed day after day in a controlled environment then it is reasonable to go to considerable lengths to mitigate any risks involved, but there are plenty of jobs (north sea diver, firefighter, police pursuit driver, fisherman...) which do inherently involve a considerable degree of danger - however well the risks are managed.

With the example of rugby, it is not practicable to ban tackles and still play the game - but measures can and are taken to mitigate the degree of risk involved. High tackles are prohibited as is up-ending the other player. Absolute respect for the referee is drummed in to players. Younger players are not allowed to certain things that are part of the adult game - matches are cancelled if the pitch is icy and so on. Yes, it is still a relatively dangerous sport - but those risks are managed.

[AndyO]

With risks at work you can prepare a risk matrix by comparing probability with impact for each risk. Only those risks where likelihood x impact are above a threshold really need to be reduced, although there is little point in taking any risk if it can be simply avoided. This is what is being asked in the O risk assessment. To use the rugby analogy, tackles are very much part of the sport, but there are rules that have been devised to try to take away some of the risk of serious injury, so high tackles and "spear" tackles are dealt with very severely by the referee or a "citing" panel if the ref misses it. Rugby players also practice giving and taking tackles, and physical conditioning (and padding) help to reduce the impact on the body.

In orienteering terms, planning guidelines in part are intended to manage risks (location of Start, matching technical standards to learned skill sets), clothing helps (full leg cover to reduce scratches, studs or dobs on O shoes, cags if weather is foul), and a check is carried out for competitors still to finish. None of these "risk management techniques" seem to me unreasonable. I have to say I agree with EddieH's view on whistles though. The CRB checks, as I'm sure you know well enough, apply to those who have "substantial access" to children or vulnerable adults in the sport, not to the wider public.

[Mrs H]

This is where I'm beginning to loose confidence in what I've done. Far from minimising some risks I've gone as far as introducing them to improve the quality of the event.

there have been the famous "dark black" string courses on the British Camp and the following instance on a white course which didn't need to be in there - we just thought the kids would ind it fun - and the thing is....they loved it. Was I wrong?

[PKJ]

As several people have said, it's called risk assessment. The problems seem to come when it's applied mindlessly, or edges towards risk elimination.

My sister and brother-in-law have worked in outdoor education & activities almost all of their working lives (he's looking after US scientists in the Antarctic at the moment). When I've asked about this, her view was that some sort of formalised risk assessment - modified from commercial practices - is pretty much essential in giving credibility. And it came in partly as a result of a tragic accident in the late 1980s (she works in NZ, but I think it applies here aswell). However, as experience as shown, it won't prevent serious accidents.

Many folk get in to sport as a release from the stresses of daily life and escape from bureaucracy and can do without health and safety being rammed down their throat.

Yes, me too!
Safety embedded as part of controller training please, not as an add-on for organisers and planners.

[EddieH]

No you were right. The sport is all about enjoyment. Probably you should have had an official standing by in the incredibly unlikely case that a child accidentally went for a soak.

Orienteering's history shows it to be a very low risk sport (exept for ankle joints in which case it seems rather high). Boxing's history shows it to be very high for brain damage.

Unfortunately one of orienteerings greatest features, its variability, is just the thing that makes it all a beaurocratic nightmare. I feel sure that if it were invented today, the "family sport" would not allow children at all.

The tradgedy of trying to get no risk for children is that it produces a lot of scared indoor clones with horrendous risks of ricketts (Yes that's back), obesity with persuant heart disease etc, and I suspect depressive illnesses.

I'd be heartbroken to lose a child, but I'd rather they had a risky happy healthy life outside than what most get nowadays.

All the Risk management gurus on here seem to balance reasonable risk with seriousness of oucome - utterly sensible, but I have NEVER heard an H&S minded person refer in any way to the risk of doing nothing.

[redkite]

looks fun to me

[seabird]

And they are following a handrail feature.

The only questions that would need answering are how deep was the water and were there crocodiles in there.

[ryeland of doom]

"In orienteering terms, planning guidelines in part are intended to manage risks (location of Start, matching technical standards to learned skill sets), clothing helps (full leg cover to reduce scratches, studs or dobs on O shoes, cags if weather is foul), and a check is carried out for competitors still to finish. None of these "risk management techniques" seem to me unreasonable"

These have been a feature of the sport since I started, and are all good control measures. Totally reasonable.

As for the string - congrats, that is fun, I too would have had someone on hand, assuming the water was deepish, but we need far more of this sort of thing. There are youngish people now housebound because of fear of the snow outside, or cannot climb a stile without fear - they never got used to these things when young and when the ground was a lot nearer.

As for the crocodiles - of course there were (as far as the participants were concerned - you would expect nothing less).

[70plus]

The trouble with this whole topic is that while it appears to 'make sense', it is riddled with Unintended Consequences, most of them heavily involving human nature. It has been mentioned above that overall responsibility for event safety should rest with the controller - and IMHO this is certainly true for everything in the competition area. Elsewhere the organiser is at least as responsible.

I recall one case which caused the retirement of a well-respected grade-1 controller. There was snow at JK98 before (I think) day 2, and he had to decide whether to let the event proceed. Some courses were thought to be at risk, so he cancelled. That decision provoked just too much adverse comment for him.

Also on the point of responsibility between start and finish, as a controller I will disregard the recent rule disqualifying runners finishing without a required cagoule: (a) no-one can determine what individuals do during their course, and (b) the rule would need to be applied to every offender, which means supervision at the finish.

I am all in favour of more safety-consciousness, but officious legislation is not an effective way forward, only a route to more protection of backsides. The unintended consequence is a reluctance to volunteer.

[entries-sec]

Arthur reckons he was at JK98 - says it was the one based on Dolgellau. A lot of the people whose courses were cancelled went up Cadair Idris instead ...

Christine

[Red Adder]

Yes Mrs H's photo looks fun but if I was presented that as a white route to be followed at an open entry event I would have very grave misgivings. Leaving aside the need to warn young family groups that a buggie would have difficulties I can see two major problems - slipping on concrete surface with risk of impact to head/limbs/body causing injury in addition in to falling in to water and s;do the unexpected nature of the feature which could cause some young children to become disorientated / loose confidence as this is way beyond the hazards they would normally encounter on a white.

They could be mitigated by forewarning competitors and their guardians, and by ensuring that crossing is both supervised and that an action plan has designed should anyone fall in to the water. Earlier in the thread we had to comment that part of our general risk mitigation approach was to define course standards and apply them - if this route was designed without mitigation then I would consider that they had been broached and it could lead officials potenetially liable in event of an accident.

That said I wouldn't say you can't use such a feature. I have planned an event where we had a 6" deep water splash on the white. It was in open parkland where a lot of adults courses ran very nearby and was also in sight of finish and assembly - and a warning was placed in the on-the-day details and at the start. The children did enjoy it !

[EddieH]

Just in case anyone thinks I am reckless, I once forbad a yellow course from crossing a bridge over a spectacular waterfall despite the fact that any child would have had to make a positive effort to get over the railings. The planner wanted the route and came up with catch netting which was the perfect compromise.

All this done without any beaurocracy.

[madmike]

Arthur reckons he was at JK98 - says it was the one based on Dolgellau. A lot of the people whose courses were cancelled went up Cadair Idris instead ...
Christine

Yes that was the one - we (half a dozen M21s) went up to the lower start and ran the last 2 thirds of our course as the controller had made the correct decision early doors not knowng how dramatically the weather would improve. The M21L ( both A and B in those days) were planned to go most the way up Cadar Idris as I recall.