The charity (sponsored) walks industry (for that's what it has become) is now so prevalent that it is, I regret, inevitable that sooner or later there will be a serious incident involving under-prepared, under-equipped and inexperienced participants. When it happens (write the headlines, facebook and twitter comments for yourself) the whole industry will be put into disrepute. The result, for the few years at least, will be an unwillingness of charities to host such events, matched by a reluctance by entirely well-intentioned supporters to take part.

There are exceptions, though. On a spectrum from well-organised, well-supported and safety-oriented events to inadequately mounted, supported and supervised ones, I would put the Oxfam Trailtrekker 100Km event in the Yorkshire Dales, followed by the LDWA hundreds ... to, at the bottom, SOME Yorkshire three-peaks and SOME National three-peaks charity events. Trailtrekker is the best organised event of any sort that I have participated in, and, so far as this discussion is concerned, has the highest level of support and safety awareness that I've ever encountered. It's what got me into the hundred (I didn't know if could do 100 Km let alone 100 miles, and was so impressed with Trailtrekker that I continue to support it).

At the other end of the scale, I have participated in a different charity walk event in the Dales and done an individual (non-sponsored) Yorkshire three peaks. On the day in question I was near the front of the large crowd when the group in the lead diverted off onto a signed route (it was the 5-mile route not the 24-mile: the advertised arrow markers were the same for the two distances, and not one of the diverters was using a map or their route information). The first set of gates which I encountered were all left wide open; when I shut them the group behind complained (they were already open, see). Near the end of the longer route I overtook many of the 12-milers, some limping badly while volunteers stood watching. There were free (donated) boxed sandwiches and a small box of raisins; there was no other food available other than a breakfast burger, and the impression had been given that it would be (it was possibly enough for 5 miles but not 12 or 24).

On the Yorkshire three-peaks day there were approximately 400 people doing a variety of sponsored events with a few individuals and small groups. On the way up Pen-y-Ghent the first gate was already open, and there were no volunteers or backmarkers to close it. The (now diverted) route to Whernside was through the slop-fest, no attempt being made by group leaders to avoid it or pre-warn. The same leaders had already passed discarded litter. No-one I saw was carrying sufficient water, and I didn't see evidence of maps, compasses or GPS.

It's not that inexperience and unpreparedness is confined to charity events, it's the sheer numbers now doing them. That combined with a lack of support, safety awareness and countryside knowledge on the part of organisers. The result of the first media-fuelled incident is likely to be a call for compulsory registration and/or some sort of code of conduct to which charities and participants have to sign up. Trailtrekker is not cheap (£50 per person with early-bird reductions), but if that's what an adequate level of support requires, let that be the benchmark. Charity fund-raising will inevitably suffer, and that will be a very great shame, since the rationale and motivation for such events is indisputable.

Iain

Charity walks in general and the Three Peaks Challenge in particular are a pain in the neck for Lake District mountain rescue teams (and valley residents who get absolutely nothing in compensation for the disruption to their lives). Not sure that expecting the charity to vet participants is very practical, likely to add cost and bureaucracy without solving the problem.

Take a look at the MRT websites and Grough website for regular examples of this sort of stupidity. It's not confined to charity participants of course. I was approaching Esk Hause the other day when a group approached me They asked the way to Scafell Pike and were quite upset that there wasn't a signpost telling them which way to go. They hadn't a map between them of course. As it was during the Easter holiday and the weather was settled I was able to tell them to just follow the crowds!

I'm fairly sure this topic has come up before, but I thought I'd mention another instance which featured on the front page of this week's local paper. A woman undertaking a three day trek in Iceland in aid of kidney research, using the mention in the paper to solicit donations. As part of her training, she was out walking in the Lake District with her dog but no human companion, and had to call out the mountain rescue service: "The weather changed and it became windy, misty and raining. I didn't have my map and lost the path." The paper frames it as an illustration of the difficulties involved in such a trek, without suggesting that she was in any way to blame for her own predicament.

I don't claim to be the world's most experienced walker, but even I can tell that venturing out into the Lake District alone, with no map and unprepared for any change in weather, is asking for trouble. If she tries anything similar in the rest of her training or when (if?) she actually gets as far as Iceland, she'll be putting herself and others in unnecessary danger (and no doubt try to pass it off as something which had to be endured for the sake of the charity). Obviously a charity's main aim in organising such events is to raise as much money as possible, and thus when signing up participants they request a minimum amount of sponsorship rather than a minimum level of fitness - but I suspect that, in doing so, some of them underplay the difficulty of the challenge in order to give the impression that anyone who can raise the sponsorship can do the event. I think there really ought to be some sort of code of conduct for such events - compelling the organising charity to vet applicants for fitness/competence before allowing them to take part.