Official Practice

[oldschool]

whilst my original post was a little on the sarcastic side i stand by the general themes within them,

there is nothing in the rules of the sport to to stop people attempting to complete gates multipul times in any one run, therefore in any practice offical or otherwise a competitor can attemp any gates as many times as they desire. the only difference between free practice and offical practice is that you have an allocated start time for your offical practice run. that run can take as long as you like and even if you swim you are entitled to restart your run from the point you swam.

and whilst i would obviously attempt to assist after a run, dedicated saftey cover would be far better equipt to deal with most, if not all, situations arising at the bottom of a course. However i can't see any of the J12/J14 being able to be of much assistance in the rescue someone my size, and in the lower divisions there will be a significant possiblity of several juniors going down together followed by "bigger trucks" shall we say.

just an opinion i've held for a while but as for the little box we have to sign on the cards I'm sure at some point some compensation lawyer will prove it to be a complete waste of time.

[Flyhigh3]

A key part of this safety cover is that two competent paddlers remain at the finish until all the paddlers have completed their runs. If you have completed your run and still in your boat, you are obviously competent.
.

There is a world of difference between completing a run (more or less competently) and being competent in safety and rescue.

[BaldockBabe]

'Compensation claim...'
You have signed a waiver when you enter, and when you register for your bib, which says you are taking part in a Risk related water sport activity. In my opinion it is actually more likely a compensation issue the other way.
Part of the Risk reduction on the organisers part is adequate safety cover. A key part of this safety cover is that two competent paddlers remain at the finish until all the paddlers have completed their runs. If you have completed your run and still in your boat, you are obviously competent. If you do not uphold your role in this action, a role you have signed up to perform, on agreeing to take part in the event, the Canoe slalom event rules, you are creating an even greater risk to the organiser, and in my line of work could be done for negligence or failure to uphold a duty of care.

Clause 2 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 states

"Negligence liability.

1)A person cannot by reference to any contract term or to a notice given to persons generally or to particular persons exclude or restrict his liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence.

(2)In the case of other loss or damage, a person cannot so exclude or restrict his liability for negligence except in so far as the term or notice satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.

(3)Where a contract term or notice purports to exclude or restrict liability for negligence a person’s agreement to or awareness of it is not of itself to be taken as indicating his voluntary acceptance of any risk."

I suspect that the waiver signed by all paddlers is pure "fluff" and would have no standing in court - unless, perhaps, to indicate the paddler had an awareness that they were denying they had. It would not protect the organiser, the slalom committee or the BCU against any claims where there was a foreseeable injury and adequate precautions had not taken place. Whether or not you agree with this culture is irrelevant (I am really against it!), currently this is how the law stands

As for the provision of safety I believe that in Divs P - 2 the paddlers are well aware of the rule and what the motivation behind the rule is. Therefore paddling down to the Darleks, a weir further downstream etc is clearly not in the spirit of the rules and they know this. Whilst the rule exisits it should be enforced and strictly enforced. Other than 'Dysul (and only because of the wall) I can't think of another P-2 venue where paddlers cannot safely remain in sight of the finisher after they have finished their run. Thus perhaps the rule should state that paddlers must remain in sight of the finisher?

Many people have stated that they are not in a fit state to rescue*, or smaller people cannot rescue larger people etc. Rescue does not always have to be hands on. If nothing else paddlers are more than capable of shouting/ pointing instructions at a swimmer e.g eddy to your left to guide a paddler in. Communication in a rescue scenario can be extremely helpful. Even as a lifeguard this was the first thing we were taught to do and it was encourraged on the WWSR course I did.

Stolen from a Whitewater safety note online

"Remember: Self, Team, Casualty

SHOUT - Talk to the casualty. Calm them down, encourage them to help themselves.

REACH - If the casualty can be reached by hand or paddle this should be the approach.

THROW - If the casualty cannot be physically reached, throw lines should be used.

ROW - If the use of a throw line fails it may be possible to paddle to them. The rescuer should not put them selves in undue danger.

GO - If all else fails swim to the victim, providing the rescuer is not put in unacceptable danger (Dope on a rope only if necessary!) Only do this as a last resort."

Though I do agree with the question why do we send the paddlers down in the order that we do?

Dedicated safety cover would be fantastic but as someone who has organised events from Div 4 to Pan Celtic level I can honesty say that we would either a) have to pay for the cover, b) rely on the goodwill of some amazing people to travel to the event to provide cover (like Pas and his gang at the HPP event); or c) get more volunteers at events. Unfortuantely the people on this board seem to be the ones that are endlessly putting into the sport but there are 100s out there that take take take and never put anything back in. If they did just a few hours each weekend they are at issues such as this could easily be dealt with. But hey, that is a whole other topic...

M

* P.S I have seen paddlers at the end of the run not being in a fit state to rescue. Easy solution - I volunteered to stay on the river on their behalf. It only takes me an extra minute of two before I can get off the water, no big deal. Perhaps this is related to the original post topic which just asks people to show more curteosy to others...

[HaRVey]

Fantastic a 'Law extract'

OK...

So i'm am not a Lawyer, nor solicitor, or barristor, or judge, I am an A-Level/GCSE Teacher of Physics/Science. SO...I think this qualifies me to say, I am of average/just above average intelligence but with no knowledge of the content, nor predispositions of law...

Statement 1 - Does this not translate into normal speak as; if you are at the finish and don't rescue someone you are will be found guilty if that person dies or is injured? The organiser of the race may also come under fire, but he will be insured by the BCU Events insurance.

Statement 2 - Does this not translate as; The organiser has admonished responsibility as he has made a reasonable request for two paddlers (more in some cases), to reduce the risk beyond reasonable doubt. I.e. his risk assessment shows that at the finish line, two paddlers will be able to rescue one person, (equipment is irrelevant), and where this seems more of a challenge 3 or 4 paddlers asked to stay on, as this many is deemed a suitable number to rescue a person at the finish.

As covered in the WWSR comment, anyone, can assist in some form or another. The final level of assistance for TANK Like, or otherwise, individuals may depend on the paddlers size and stature, but does not depend on their age. Organisers will often add additional rescue to the event, when it is perceived necessary, i.e. div 3 ladies/c1w 2/3, etc.

Statement 3: The use of notices/announcements/rules by the organiser to say there is a dangerous weir, or a wave with spikes, or a possibility of simply falling in and hurting oneself on the rocks/underwater objects, does not mean the paddler accepts this risk; even if they have verbal, written or documented evidence that the paddler has acknowledged this information of the risk being there, and the necessary precautions required to avoid the risk.

This sounds like American Law?? and not the British interpretation. This removes any common sense on the part of the individual, and leaves guilt of negligence on anyone/organisation, regardless of their use of signs/or anything else.

Serious question: The A50 is a concrete road surface this has a lower coefficient of friction than Tarmac. Stopping distances are approximately 35% longer in the dry, 50% longer in the wet/ice.
Using statement 3: Why are the local government/borough not sued every time there is a crash. It is common knowledge that the surface is bad for stopping. It therefore directly leads to increased number of crashes and in turn an increased number of severe injuries and deaths.
Why is this not the case for pot holes? OR Trees beside the road, or Telegraph poles? or tight bends in the road, or not having cats eyes? Why is every car company not sued when the owners fail to wear a seat belt, or the airbags have been turned off? or the air bags have been turned on and they squash the child in the front seat?
It seems that if the interpretation of the law is as you suggest it would be, every one would be sued all the time. But this is not the case in the UK.
Or am i mistaken? :S

[John Sturgess]

Just a few thoughts on this from a legal standpoint:

1) You can only be sued for negligence; to rebut that all you have to show is that you did what a reasonable person would do

2) Look at the House of Lords judgement in Tomlinson vs Christleton District Council and Cheshire County Council: held that it was not the Council's job to protect idiots from the consequences of their idiocy (i.e. ignored warning notices)

3) Final judgement in the Lyme Bay case: possession of qualifications essentially irrelevant: an unqualified coach who does what a qualified coach would be expected to do is not negligent, but a qualified coach who does not do what a qualified coach would be expected to do is prima facie negligent.

4) Attempts to satisfy a duty of care can in themselves increase the level of duty of care. If Notts CC stopped manning HPP, and simply put up notices saying 'You canoe at your own risk' thern they would not be held negligible if a canoeist drowned. Nobody gets sued if a climber falls off Ben Nevis.

5) Look up Volenti non fit Iniuria on Wikipedia

[BaldockBabe]

Fantastic a 'Law extract'

Statement 1 - Does this not translate into normal speak as; if you are at the finish and don't rescue someone you are will be found guilty if that person dies or is injured? The organiser of the race may also come under fire, but he will be insured by the BCU Events insurance.

Statement 2 - Does this not translate as; The organiser has admonished responsibility as he has made a reasonable request for two paddlers (more in some cases), to reduce the risk beyond reasonable doubt. I.e. his risk assessment shows that at the finish line, two paddlers will be able to rescue one person, (equipment is irrelevant), and where this seems more of a challenge 3 or 4 paddlers asked to stay on, as this many is deemed a suitable number to rescue a person at the finish.

Statement 3: The use of notices/announcements/rules by the organiser to say there is a dangerous weir, or a wave with spikes, or a possibility of simply falling in and hurting oneself on the rocks/underwater objects, does not mean the paddler accepts this risk; even if they have verbal, written or documented evidence that the paddler has acknowledged this information of the risk being there, and the necessary precautions required to avoid the risk.

Errr... No... The first statement means that if you put a term in a contract trying to exclude liablity for death or personal injury it will be invalid i.e. the statement signed on the entry cards and bib forms.

The second statment means that if you exclude liability for any other type of loss (i.e. not personal injury or death) that my be valid provided it is reasonable.

In the case of the third statement it basically means you cannot try to avoid any liability incurred through negligence by just getting someone to sign a contract. If you are negligent you can still be liable.

This is UK law, though not a contract lawyer I am a lawyer!

[John Sturgess]

However all the relevant cases I know of are dealt with under the Law of Torts, and not under Contract Law...

[Neil H]

Mmmmmmmmm Torte's....................sorry John. I'll get me coat.

[djberriman]

"official practice - if your on a run you can do each gate in the course as many times as you like. you'll get a rubbish result but there are no limits to the number of times you can pass through a gate as long as you complete it in numerically accending order."

This is incorrect see rules UK C22.2 and UK C22.2.1 below particularly the last para as per my belief another paddler may not interfere with your official practice and may only negotiate a gate once

UK C22.2 The Organiser must ensure that the official training runs take
place without interference.
UK C22.2.1 For each official training run it is necessary that:
- There be a specific person who is the general overseer and
that the directions of this person are adhered to.
- The runs take place with start numbers and in numerical
(start) order.
- They are carried out according to the competition rules.
- Usual safety precautions are observed.
- A Rescue Squad is in place when it is required.
- At Championship, and Division 1 events
and at other events when so directed by the Organiser or the
Jury, each gate is negotiated once only. A second passage
of a gate is allowed only when it is one of a combination of
gates that constitutes a single technical manoeuvre so recognised
and published by the Course Designer(s).

[oldschool]

I stand corrected!

So the only time you are only allowed to present a gate once on a run is your official practice. You live and learn.

[djberriman]

"You live and learn." - I do all the time although sometimes it takes a lot to beat it into me!