Responsibility and Duty of Care

[awol]

This May the Scottish Islands Peaks Race was "abandoned" after the first peak and after some runners ended up in the water. Prior to the start, the leg from Jura to Arran had been cancelled with the explanation being the spring tide and residue of a southwesterly gale causing heavy seas round the Mull of Kintyre. While these decisions were greeted as sensible by the majority, there remain a few who felt that, having had signed disclaimers of responsibility from all those taking part, runners and sailors, the organisers should have left it to the participants to make their own decisions. On our boat we had already prepared plans "B" and "C" but then neither our runners or the boat were in contention for honours.
The postponement of the Fastnet race goes against tradition and, in my opinion is a dangerous precedent. So there is a gale forecast - so what? It may happen or may not (the 1979 gale was a bit of a surprise for some) but surely it is up to the participants to decide their strategy and for the skippers to take full responsibility for the outcome.
It may be a bit Darwinian, but sailing in general has benefited from the 1979 Fastnet and the Sydney/Hobart experiences. So perhaps it is time for lawyers to do somerthing useful for a change and draft a cast-iron liability disclaimer so that organisers do not have to make decisions that should be left to skippers.

Incidently, after the SIPR was cancelled , we sailed the boat back to the Clyde round the M of K about 24 hours later than our original schedule with no difficulty or drama.

 

[pyrojames]

Agreed. I should have read this before responding to the Fastnet thread!

 

[Lakesailor]

[ QUOTE ]
perhaps it is time for lawyers to do somerthing useful for a change and draft a cast-iron liability disclaimer so that organisers do not have to make decisions that should be left to skippers.


[/ QUOTE ] It may be my poor memory but I'm sure I've read that no amount of such disclaimers will overcome the EU rules on this.

Another reason for us not to be in.

 

[pyrojames]

Interesting on how that wil impact a marina saying they don't have space for someone to stay, or enter, if the forecast is crap.

 

[mortehoe]

I\'m not sure where to post this ..... BUT ....

the problems in the 1979 Fastent Race weren't caused either by the lack of forecasting, or the lack of forecasting ability, or the dissemination by radio of what the forecast was (except by the French LW & MW radio who made a better interpretation than everybody else) but by the sudden formation of a secondary low - See the RORC Fastnet Report Appendix by Alan Watts.

What is forecast (sofar) bears no similarity to what happened then, but given the volatility of weather systems now (ie the current position of the 564mB isobar) then anything could happen .... but the probability is that properly found boats designed for all-weather conditions could take it in their stride, but that the current trend for super-fast super-wet slamming boats with flat bottoms and with snap off keels won't make the grade.

However, having done both benign and serious ocean racing, I'd say that the organisers are playing nanny-state super-overcautious and .... Well, there hasn't been a Sydney - Hobart delayed yet, and that's a race on par with the Fastnet, or more probably, visa-versa!

 

[Danny Jo]

Unlike the actual racing, there will be no going back now that organizers have started cancelling and postponing. Lawyers for aggrieved dependants of deceased competitors will be able to point to precedent as evidence that race organizers have a duty of care to participants.

Like night follows day, there will be an endless escalation of caution by organizers until the day comes when there'll be no races like the Fastnet left, because of the impossibility of establishing for sure that an unexpectedly nasty gale won't blow up during the race.

Edit: just seen that much the same point has already been made by pyrojames, but the point that it could lead ultimately to the end of serious ocean racing stands.

 

[ShipsWoofy]

The 2004 (I think) cutter race from the Mersey was delayed 24hrs as leaving into a full F11 in November was thought to be a little daft.

The organisers have delayed a race due to serious weather worry, not just a gale, this could get quite frightening if Tuesdays chart comes true.

60hr - 72hr

And as to nanny state tosh, every other sport on the planet has been postponed for one reason or another, why the hell should sailing be exempt from a difficult but very sensible decision. Remember not all competitors have unlimited budget, many are as amateur as it gets. This is not the round-the-world race, this is historically a fun race started by normal without sponsoship skippers.

You lot will whine about anything, seriously, if another 16 people die on Fastnet, which decision do you think would have the greatest affect on the sport, a delay or another year of hearses pulling in the West coast harbours?

 

[WowdyWebel]

I rather agree with this and think most of the preceding posts are plain nonsense.

Generally, nanny statist arguments procede on the basis that if someone wants to do something which endangers their own life, they and there family will be the only ones effected by it, and on that basis who should tell them what they should and should not do.

It is very easy to adopt this cavalier approach to ones own mortality when sitting in the marina and brushing off an impending gale.

When the gale comes, and your boat has been rolled a few times, and when you are beginning to suffer from hypothermia, and your crew mate has been washed away because he doesn't like to be told to wear a harness you will call the emergency services. Furthermore you will expect them to repond and you will knowingly be endangering the life of someone else in your mistaken belief that no one else will be effected.

Enter the Fastnet or any other race for that matter in the face of gale warnings if that what you want to- but destroy your VHF first, bin the EPIRB and then see if you think it a fair challenge between yourself and the sea. The emergency services are there for people who are caught out and not for those who are wantonly stupid.

 

[awol]

[ QUOTE ]
.... seriously, if another 16 people die on Fastnet, which decision do you think would have the greatest affect on the sport, a delay or another year of hearses pulling in the West coast harbours?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sadly, as far as beneficial effect is concerned, it would be the hearses. Many safety improvements have come from previous "disasters" and, while I wish harm on no-one, the Darwinian corollary to survival-of-the-fittest will probably benefit us all.

 

[WowdyWebel]

I don't think you will find that "survival of the fittest" is Darwinian concept- "natural selection" was his bag which postulates that survival or reproduction is based on a wider range of desirable traits.

The sentiment isn't however a bad one in the sense that the terminally stupid will be weeded out - however the process of them being weeded out presents the possibility that the brave rescuers may also be weeded out - unless of course they are stupid as well but I think it unlikely that would be a particularly popular view.

It is not therefore a harmless way of achieving progress

 

[savageseadog]

[ QUOTE ]
It may be a bit Darwinian, but sailing in general has benefited from the 1979 Fastnet and the Sydney/Hobart experiences. So perhaps it is time for lawyers to do somerthing useful for a change and draft a cast-iron liability disclaimer so that organisers do not have to make decisions that should be left

[/ QUOTE ] As someone has already pointed out it is legally impossible to disclaim negligence whether under European or British law. That would leave the courts to decide if starting the race was negligent, a very debatable point indeed I would have thought.
Tackling this issue from the real world point of view, the fact has to be faced that the culture in Britain is not the same as Australia. Most people in the UK do not participate in risky outdoor sports and the attitude of the press in the UK to risk sports (and any risk in general) is generally hostile. As I've said in another thread, if anything were to happen the press would have a field day.

On the plus side the current forecast isn't too bad (for a 40+ footer) On the minus side the weather is and has been very unstable, it could do almost anything.

 

[photodog]

I think that you touch on a really good point here, my personal feelings as to if the organisers should postpone or not is mixed, but if the race encounters a major predicted storm, and the CG and NAvy have to go out and rescue a bunch of folk, then the press and the labour party will have a field day, and we will be seen as being a dangerous sport that needs regulation, never mind drink driving rules, we could see all sorts of new rules being applied, certainly licencing, training, and probably some sort of Weather rating/banning system as well.

And the majority of people wont give a stuff, because sailing is seen as something just a bunch of toffs do (In fact it was described in the times this week, when talking about Cowes, as the ultimate toffs sport) and Labour would like nothing more than to get us all in line..

So, the organisers I guess need to be seen to be acting responsibly, but of course ultimatly the decision must rest with the skipper.

 

[pyrojames]

It isn't a matter of postponing it or otherwise. It should be the skipper who decides to postpone or not. It suggests to me that the organiser do not think the skippers of the vessels involved are capable of making those decisions. If this is the case, then the races should simply not be run, or the organisers should make a critical judgement of whether the entry boats and skippers are suitably experienced, as they now do for the Sydney Hobart. My criticism of the delayed scenario is that it makes it clear that racing skippers are judged to be too macho to delay a start in the interest of their crews.

 

[alec]

Quote:
Tackling this issue from the real world point of view, the fact has to be faced that the culture in Britain is not the same as Australia. Most people in the UK do not participate in risky outdoor sports and the attitude of the press in the UK to risk sports (and any risk in general) is generally hostile

==================================================================

I would add that our press and media are the worst and most cynical in the civilized world. It is a sad and ironic fact that we are affected by this like children form powerful attachments to the worst of parents. It is very difficult for people outside Britain to understand this. Any form of creativity or decision making that may go wrong for a hundred different reasons is liable to severe punishment and humiliation, loss of job etc etc.

I have huge sympathy for any group of people having to make a decision like now on the Fastnet. The decision on say the Whitbread RTW is easy as all boats are roughly the same with very experienced sailors. This is not the case with the Fastnet.

 

[Bajansailor]

When I heard that the race start had been postponed by 25 hours, I initially thought it was a sensible move, but after thinking about it a bit more now, I am not too sure if it will have the desired effect of improving safety (?).

As far as I understand, the weather forecast for Sunday and Monday in the Channel was quite reasonable - hence maybe they should have started the race this morning as scheduled.
If I was a skipper racing, and it started blowing old boots by the time I got down to say Cornwall, I would have no qualms about putting into a safe haven for say 24 hours (or even 36 if necessary), let the crew have a good night's sleep, and a nice dinner, letting the weather 'blow thorough', and then resuming the race again when conditions are suitable.

I think that for most people, they are doing the race as a challenge to themselves, and not necessarily with the aim of being die hard pot hunters. Simply finishing the race, and knowing that it has been a good (rather than frightening) experience surely must be a better way of approaching it, rather than going for it 'come what may', and running the risk of damages (and everything else).

And remembering the tale of the tortoise and the hare, the boats that seek refuge might not necessarily come last, as the process of attrition might well weed out the boats who do decide to go for it!

As has been said many times before, it is up to the individual skipper to decide if conditions are safe for carrying on, and if there is doubt, then a decision should be made by the skipper to either carry on, or seek safe haven, or heave to, or retire, or whatever.

 

[photodog]

I just read Elaine Buntings blog, and there was a interesting point, The Maxi's will now (After Postponement) be past Lands End when the storms hit, but the small boats will still be strung out along the south coast, so...

The small boats will hopefully not catch the worst sea state, Ie the NW's crossed with the SW's, and they will be within easy reach of shelter.

Kinda makes sense from that perspective, versus having them all out past Lands End when the worst hits.

 

[LymingtonPugwash]

After the 79 Fastnet, needless to say there was a lot of heartsearching going on well into the night for many months in our Lymington clubs bars as we who survived worked through the guilt of survival and mourned those who did not survive as we remembered them drinking in the bar with us just before the race, but despite all the many and varied emotions, I am sure that I never, ever heard anybody suggest in any way that we should never have gone, or we should have been warned, or that the weather forecasters were to blame, or that anybody other than we carried any responsibility for the decisions to go...... I cannot even remember anybody even thinking of blaming their skipper.
We had our boom snap like a thin dry twig and made it in to Cork under our own steam as we listened helplessly to all that was going on, but we never for one moment thought off attaching blame....... of course there was intense analysis of what happened, but although it may seem that some were looking to attribute blame somewhere, it was from the media, not the sailors themselves who were looking to analyse for the sake of learning from the experience, rather than to place blame.
I really believe that the 'blame' culture of the Western world has now already caught up with the majority of the average sailing fraternity and if 1979 happened now, the subsequent analysis and consequences would be much worse....... I totally agree with those who have said that they believe that the decision to delay the race has in effect driven a number of major nails into the coffin of this type of open racing.
It is already rife in dinghy racing and causing mass hysteria every time a few youngsters capsize in a regatta and causing multiple race cancellations in almost any breezy conditions as race officers balance liability/potential blame with sending out the dinghies in windy conditions and giving them the experience to gain confidence in windy conditions.

Sorry for the long ramble, but it is something I am really peed off about as I see what is happening to the racing in my old clubs, the LTSC and RLYC these days, through no fault of their own, but through needing to protect the officers and clubs from this extreme blame culture in all activities.

 

[Oldhand]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as I understand, the weather forecast for Sunday and Monday in the Channel was quite reasonable - hence maybe they should have started the race this morning as scheduled.
If I was a skipper racing, and it started blowing old boots by the time I got down to say Cornwall, I would have no qualms about putting into a safe haven for say 24 hours (or even 36 if necessary), let the crew have a good night's sleep, and a nice dinner, letting the weather 'blow thorough', and then resuming the race again when conditions are suitable.


[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps the 25hr delay is to make sure that Falmouth has the capacity to take all those competitors who are likely to seek shelter there? I can't come up with any other logical reason for it.

Looking at the forecast I thought rather than postpone, they should have started yesterday with a shortened course round Bishop Rock at least for the smaller boats if not all.

 

[Guest]

[ QUOTE ]
I really believe that the 'blame' culture of the Western world has now already caught up with the majority of the average sailing fraternity

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely. That's why so many are seeking to blame the organisers of the race for taking an eminently sensible decision. They are hanged if they do, hanged if they don't.

Even if it's not a sensible decision, who cares? All they've done is decide to delay a race by a day, it's not the end of the world. And if they cancel it, so what? Personally I blame the press for perpetuating this blame culture.

 

[wotayottie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
perhaps it is time for lawyers to do somerthing useful for a change and draft a cast-iron liability disclaimer so that organisers do not have to make decisions that should be left to skippers.


[/ QUOTE ] It may be my poor memory but I'm sure I've read that no amount of such disclaimers will overcome the EU rules on this.

Another reason for us not to be in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont think its anything to do with the EU (except in the mind of the Daily Mail). Its the UK legal system that wont allow you to sign away your right to go to court. They say its a matter of "public policy" but the more likely reality is that its a matter of legal fees.

So no disclaimer that says " i waive any right to go to court" will ever be held up in a UK court.

This H & S obsession really is an Anglo Saxon legal thing. Not even the H&S Executive are happy with the present situation.