A wet a windy day in the Lake District - Currently 14 Mountain Fell Runners still missing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/7691531.stm

The organisers banned mobile phones. That's like banning life rafts in a sailing contest. Hopefully they'll abandon this insane rule. Or people will have the sense not to go on it.
The Sock

They are all accounted for now, according to The Independent.

It sounds like they were all well-prepared. Mobile phone coverage is poor in the area anyway.

Just curious, what is the rationale behind banning cell phones?

John E

From their web site:

"This is the premier UK event to test teamwork, self-reliance, endurance, outdoor and navigational skills. The reputation of the event is worldwide and every year we have entrants from between 12-14 countries.

The ethos of the event is to be totally self-reliant, in the wilds, carrying all equipment, no outside support and without GPS or cell phone. Your first source of help is your partner and if you retire you are responsible for getting yourselves back to base. Any teams not arriving at the overnight camp are assumed to have camped safely. In these days of 24/7 contact and total support this is an event to test and indeed help develop teamwork and self-reliance."

The Sock

A laudable goal, however it sounds like they chose to continue a recreational activity in the face of lousy weather, when they really should have "ehh, it's a game- we have a rain date".

Again I ask, what is the rationale behind banning cell phones? Are the people organising this event so stupid as to think that if someone were to get seriously injured or killed that using a cell phone violates the spirit of the game?

It is a game right? Or are the participants expected to simply die if they make a serious mistake?

How does banning emergency communications "develop teamwork and self-reliance"?

I suppose that SAR teams should go on a misson without their radios just to prove that they can...

John E

The Lake District is one of the few areas of the UK with patchy mobile phone coverage. Many people outdoors these days fall back on their mobile phones to call for help when there is an emergency and have no other plan. Unfortunately this would leave them dangerously exposed in the Lake District, no coverage, no help.

Thus by stopping the use of phones the runners KNOW in advance to have a safety plan that works. The right kit,knowledge and experience to get out of trouble. They know no one will be coming to their aid because they can't just call.

These runners are in pairs and have a culture of helping other pairs to complete the course, high camaraderie.

The course is tough and only for very experienced people who have to prove that experience before being allowed to enter the race.

It works, the OMM has been going for years, over 40 I believe, and the only problems are usually twisted ankles and so on. It is indicative that even in the appalling weather this year only trivial injuries have occurred.

One of the objects of the race is to build self reliance but our society is increasingly being the nanny. These people know exactly the risk, manage it correctly and succeed safely year after year.

It shows there are other ways of being safe without relying on mobile phones, GPS and technology in general.

From the BBC website:
RAF Flt Lt Curly Crawford earlier said a helicopter crew had airlifted five runners and two mountain rescue volunteers to safety.

"A female had been washed into a river by the rains, and obviously [was] in grave danger of being washed away," he told the BBC.

"Fortunately she'd been recovered by fellow runners but was severely injured and suffering from hypothermia."

this is 'trivial'?

The Sock

If true, for her, no.

For the event, yes.

As a percentage of the runners the number of injuries are far less than other events, e.g. the London Marathon which has a lot of wannabes who injure themselves and also has a number of deaths at its door and this is the centre of London on a fine day.

Assessment of risk is a tricky thing, 10 people a day die on the roads of the UK, does this worry you when you drive? No, because you accept that risk as a penalty of the benefit of driving.

Likewise the runners assess the risk expertly and competently and manage that risk to minimise it. It cannot be eliminated, there is risk to everything we do. For her it went wrong, for the event it was a success.

Please do not believe all you read at the BBC. That was some of the poorest reporting I have seen for a while, just trying to make a story out of nothing.

Read the comments of the people who were there:
OMM Discussion Site

Reporting is usually poor. Ask anyone who has been involved in an event in the news.
So I'm trying to get the facts.
Ringing round the hospitals to confirm the injuries is getting me nowhere. None of them will reveal anything. But RAF Valley who provided the rescue helicopters has a web site with their rescues on it. This weekends has not been added yet. I'll update you when they have.

But did the helicopter crews and other rescuers sign up to risk their lives for this event?
And if these people really do believe in 'self reliance but our society is increasingly being the nanny'. Why did they then ask to be rescued?

It's a bit like Wall Street believes in tooth and claw competition; but only till they are in trouble...
The Sock

Actually, I think a lot of the competitors in this years OMM are secretly enjoying all the publicity of the media hyperbole such as 'Lake District 'could have become a morgue'



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3264226/...e-a-morgue.html

You pay your money and you take your chances. The contestants know the rules going into the competition and they should be prepared for what the competition throws at them. Cell phones won't make up for bad judgement which is how one generally avoids getting into trouble in the first place.

The car analogy is excellent. On average 700+ people will die on US roads this week, we all know it will happen to someone else.

Comments in their forums mention "radio points", presumably provided at intervals by the officials to give emergency communications. Here's an account of the stream rescue, from OMM:

For anyone who wants to know, we tried to cross a "stream" (unfortunately can't get the name as my map washed away a little bit...) was about half way across when my feet went from under me. apparently i went somewhere around 200yards downstream, washed up on an island, within a couple of mins of which phil and tim moseyed up from checking out the ford(?) lower down. spotted me, looked for rach, got my dad and sis leggin it down the hill instead having sent rach for help at the nearest radio point and luckily finding a group of walkers (neglected by the media i notice - inexperienced walkers out on the hill at the same time, also requiring MR/emergency services in some cases), one of whom had a phone.
A while later (no idea of time) after having wrapped me up in several layers, a tent, space blanket etc, and constructed 2 tents on our little island we heard the whistle of the mountain rescue team and soon after the roar of the helicopter which whisked us away (and half our kit downstream but nevermind!!).

So it sounds like they used the mobile phone of a passer by, but there was an alternative in place. Also she sounds to have been in fairly good shape and may not have actually needed rescuing. (She's already booked up for next year.) Even ignoring the passers by, there sound to have been a lot of people on the mountain who could help.

Interesting, people will complain about a nanny state but then voluntarily agree to give up the means to summon help for themselves if they run into trouble, who's the nanny there?

I participate in long distance motorcycle rallies involving thousands of miles of riding and the equivalent of geo caching or scavenger hunting, the idea that the organisers of any of the rallies would ban the use of cell phones in an emergency is simply lunacy. "sorry pal, you knew it was dangerous when you signed up, find some other way to get help..."

If the folks who were stupid enough to agree to such a thing mean what they say, they should refuse outside help of any kind, no rescue helos, no well meaning passers by. Finish or die. Anything else is simply hypocrisy.

Doesn't matter what the cell tower coverage is, that's a red herring tossed in by the organisers in a lame excuse to explain some stupid decisions. Banning the means for someone to summon help if needed and then appealing to that person's sense of nobility in being self reliant is really pathetic. I'm not sure who's worse, the self deluded folks who agreed to participate or the self-rightous morons who made the rule.

Simple question, how many people on this forum would knowingly and purposefully, NOT include the means to communicate in their survival kits/plans because they're worried about society turning into a "nanny state"?

John E

As you say JohnE; by the same argument they should have banned whistles and high visibility clothing.
The Sock

That's what pockets are for - to hide your cell phone.