Absolutely!!!Nothing like a good debate and all that....What next??

We decided that Rebecca doesn't like kit checks, that she was up there on the wall repelling all boarders, and that quite a few folk were cheering her on.

I think we decided it was ok to go to muslim country for Christmas as long as they didn't have kit checks for women visitors.

ha ha. Best not re-start this thread!! What did we decide in the end? It seemed to go round in circles.......

No SHOUTING please :(

Pencil has to be aqua blue, as for the scarf - I don't think I've owned one since I was 5 years old, so thats an event definately off the list! can't stand stuff wra[pped round my neck - especially walking in isolated places - someone might just strangle me with it...

this pencil, 2H, 2B, or HB?

totally agree, kit checks are hilarious. I have been on events with supposed compulsory kit checks. I run and don't like to carry much, i check the forecast, 24 hours of high pressure, so i don't take waterproofs, the kit checker asks why, no rain i explain and relatively low level event. I explain if it was Feb i would. Sometimes those who check need to do more events. I know it's not a nice job but dealt with good humour , it shouldn't be such a big problem. I know who is more likely to finish safely, me and minimal kit or a person with every eventuality...

Oops had not noticed the other pages and that the debate had moved on somewhat.

At the risk of re kindling the debate but having just done the Tour de Trigs (www.tourdetrigs.org.uk) again (see Event Reports ) my views are; that, yes you have to wear walking trousers but despite having done over 25,000 miles on events LDPs and anytime challenges all in Ron Hill tracksters or shorts, this is an insignificant hurdle compared to the challenge of the event. I believe they are getting things out of proportion and missing out on a great event and as a result, sadly cutting off their nose to spite their face. It?s no ones loss but theirs if they really enjoy good challenge events. There was some talk about allowing thick winter trackster in certain material next year so these people might yet be able to enjoy the event.

The 70 Km Three Towers scout event from Reading www.threetowershike.org is also well worth doing but requires the carrying of a notebook and pencil plus a scarf, which is to be worn if appropriate. I?ve done this one too but sadly the scarf will be just too childish for some!

hows this for a kit check ,they even checked you had walking socks on at the tour de trigs kit check last w/e mind the weather was very very very bad (so fair play to them )only 23 full teams finished in the time and they considered abandoning the event during the early hours of sunday .

agreed - I disagree that asking about the law isn't helpful in this discussion, and feel that a recommended kit list is both helpful and flexible. As far as the organisers are concerned, they are fulfulling their duty of care, and as far as the participant is concerned, the recommended list gives a useful insight as to what conditions may be encountered on the walk. Mountain rescue events and scout events can have their own more aggressive rulings about this, but it would be very sad if the LDWA followed suit, especially when legally it offers nothing more, and all it seems to do is cause more hassle for entrants and organisers alike.

cont...Really hope that the trend doesn't become the 'norm' in LDWA events, especially as kit checks offer no more legal protection than a signed declaration.

Risk assessments are part of everyday life, but please organisers don't take away personal choice, don't be dictatorial, and if after reading this thread you still insist on having a kit check, make it reasonably flexible and not dictatorial.

But didn't someone say that kit checks were there as they offer the organiser more protection?

It is a good argument to ask whether this stands up in law, as it obviously doesn't, and I like many others have no problem whatsoever with a recommended kit list, or a signed declaration, but totally resent having signed this, for someone to check the items, or in the case of the 100, spot check.
I was carrying all the kit, but my hackles rose when they did this as I had already signed a declaration, and that should have been sufficient.
I know that events run by mountain rescue and the scouts such as the black mountain roundabout have kit checks, but I REALLY

But didn't someone say that kit checks were there as they offer the organiser more protection?

It is a good argument to ask whether this stands up in law, as it obviously doesn't, and I like many others have no problem whatsoever with a recommended kit list, or a signed declaration, but totally resent having signed this, for someone to check the items, or in the case of the 100, spot check.
I was carrying all the kit, but my hackles rose when they did this as I had already signed a declaration, and that should have been sufficient.
I know that events run by mountain rescue and the scouts such as the black mountain roundabout have kit checks, but I REALLY

I don?t think the law helps much in this discussion. The organiser of an event owes a duty of care to those people that it is foreseeable will be affected by their actions or omissions. The extent of that duty is simply to take those steps it is reasonable to take in the circumstances to ensure their safety. The duty is not absolute. I believe there is little or no case law to determine what is ?reasonable? in the specific context of long distance walking events. Event organisers are more likely to respond to legislation in other areas (e.g. the law changes for under-18?s following the Lyme Bay tragedy), conditions imposed by insurance companies, the requirements of police, local authorities ,etc. and their own experience and knowledge.

Organisers should (and as a condition of the insurance policy, LDWA event organisers must) prepare a Risk Assessment for their event. More bureaucracy perhaps, but it is only putting down on paper what any sensible organiser has always done, and the evidence of action taken as a result of significant anticipated risks ( not the changing of a light bulb type) is there in black and white in the event of damage or injury on the event.

A recommended or compulsory kit list is one obvious result of a Risk Assessment for events in remote terrain/winter/night , but the conditions under which events are held vary so much that it must be up to the organiser to decide what should go on the list and if and how kit checks are arranged. We can all have a laugh at some of the examples that have been raised, but it isn?t easy for an organiser to keep up with technological changes (what is a map, for instance) whilst keeping rules which are practical and uncomplicated. And I notice that the examples quoted appear to be non-LDWA events.

I don?t altogether buy the ?I?m an experienced walker/runner and I know what is required? approach. The Westmorland Gazette regularly carries articles describing rescues and fatalities on the fells, a large proportion of which include the description ?experienced fellwalker?. Complacency? A kit list is an insurance policy against an event that may happen rarely, and there is no doubt that our climate has become more benign over the years and support/communications have improved, but there may be that one time in a hundred when it saves a life.

Don?t make the organisers life more difficult by becoming a barrack room lawyer over this ? the LDWA ?Guidelines for event organisers? is 62 pages long which gives an idea of how much is involved in putting on an event ? and we are working on a Risk Assessment template which will make it even longer!

I only have experience of them on Black Mountains, the old Mid Wales mountain marathon and the Reservoir roundabout. All high level/remote routes with potential winter conditions.
The question is really about the need for compulsory full kit checks, or everyone advised on what to carry ?
And does a full check actually achieve anything or possibly even lull some people into a sense of false security ( I'm carrying what they say, so I must be safe).
I wonder? I have certainly complied with their requirements and trimmed my kit down to the bear legal limit for running these events and met some pretty grim weather on top of Cadair and Black mountains a couple of years back. In fact I would say that only travelling fast and keeping my core temperature up has kept me going + experience of what to do and not panic etc.

The point is that I was legal, but no way could I have survived for long if I was reduced to walking pace. So do the compulsory checks actually achieve anything? There will always be people like myself ( I admit it) who will push the limits on gear, checks or no checks - it's just what we enjoy and how we do it. Matt.

Mat You have just made the best case yet for kit checks. If the M R insist on it there is a reason for it. These lads and lasses do not muck you around or bull s*** you. If they think it is needed that is good enough for me.
David H

I'll try the 'impingement of personal choice' line next time I do an event organised by a mountain rescue team - have a feeling I shall be told to ************* !!

In all seriousness, they are another group that seem to always insist on a full check. I can sort of see why from their proffessional point of view, but ultimately they are even better equipped to cope with any emergency that the avarage ldwa event.

Just another anomaly. Matt.

Self clips arn't an issue for me as I see this at part of the event, but rigid kit checks are an impingement on personal choice, and by the sounds of things don't offer the organiser any more protection that a signed declaration.

it was not a self clip it was a surprice check point , they missed out ,one that was not on the route list one put one to catch the walkers not on the route given . rebecca if you like night events you would love the t d t (even if you have to wear boots )best regards steve

i see self clips as an un manned checkpoint when helpers are thin on the ground, i wouldn't walk back 7 miles if i missed a selfclip i'd make a note of it for next year, and walking an extra 14 miles increases the probability of an injury

Interesting how many views this thread has had - it appears to be third on the list, after 'How much does this website cost?' and 'Northumberland 100'.

Anyway, to allow Rebecca another last word ....
in my previous posting I mentioned an 'Event Safety Management Plan' (who dreams up these titles?) which I spent many hours compiling. It included not just kit checks but every conceivable risk to entrants, helpers and the public that we could think of.

As to crossing roads, the entrants wouldn't have noticed, but there were large, high visibility signs warning motorists of crossing points, as well as a couple of signs warning entrants where we were particularly concerned. This one issue alone required quite a bit of organisation - 10 hazards identified and visited (more than once) photographs taken of suitable sign locations, signs printed on high vis paper, mounted on board, location maps scanned for erectors and not least, finding two volunteers to drive many miles during the event to put them up and to take them down. Who would be an event organiser?

Now all this may seem a bit over the top, just like kit checks, but we were well aware that we would have entrants that, after 24 hours, were very tired, maybe not alert, and heaven forbid, maybe not too sensible (they did enter a 100 after all). and this pushes the risk factor up a notch. The same reasoning applied to every other annoying rule we put on the entry form. BUT, none of them were put there without a lot of thought and discussion beforehand, and I am sure this applies to other event organisers as well.

To my knowledge, and I admit to total legal ignorance, no challenge event has been sued for negligence leading to injury. We have no precedent to call on and are therefore in the dark regarding what is and what is not acceptable regarding disclaimers etc. But the law is very clear about 'the duty of care' and as organisers, we may appear to be over zealous in our rules. but self preservation prompts us!

It's funny that self clips have not been mentioned in this thread. Surely they are more insulting to serious walkers than kit checks.

I like the idea of the signed declaration without a formal kit check. This way you are signing to say that 'the organisers accept no responsibility' but equally you have some artistic license regarding what kit you may feel is necessary without being dictated to - so i can ditch the waterproof trousers I have had to lug round on occasions!

I think there are so many things that can go wrong, especially with walking at night - tripping up for example!! and it is just a concern of mine that a formal kit check may not be offering the organisers the protection they think it is.

I would guess that it is a case of what the insurance policy dictates, and would imagine the organisers have to take 'reasonable care' to not invalidate the policy.

I for one would be happy to sign a disclaimer for each event (a lot of running events now have this), and I would hope that this gives the organisers enough protection from litigation.

I have difficulty believing that a 'kit check' offers much protection as the organisers could still be found negligent if the event was deemed unsafe, or unnecessarily risky - a kit check won't stop me getting run over crossing a busy road, and very often on route notes it states at road junctions 'cross with care' - in court could this be used against the organiser, as they are effectively acknowledging that they are asking you to cross an unsafe busy road? I don't know.

Do not want to be pedantic, as I am very protective of the LDWA, love my events, live for the overnighters, but I think we really as an organisation need to look at how best to protect ourselves, and how much protection things like kit checks really give.

Sorry - don't mean to have the last word - female trait...

the only time i've used a triangular bandage was to cover a split in my shorts, it's amazing what you can support with a triangular bandage

rebecca i will qoute from the 2 entry forms i have here 1)i understand that i take part at my own risk and that the organisers accept no liability for any injury bamage or loss sustained by me .kit list for this event is map compass whistle mug and its in march 2nd) the event conforms with the adventure activities licensing regulations 1996 which provides public liability insurance cover . persons taking part in this event do so entirely at thier own risk .the organisers cannot accept responsibility for any loss injury or damage suffered by any person partipating in this event .kit list is map compass whistle bacis first aid kit torch (working )bivvy /survival bag emergency food rationswaterproofs hat gloves and sensible foot wear with good ankle support, this event is in dec. so if you sign either of these entry form the people who are running the event are covered. the first has no kit check the 2nd does.i think runners should only be able to enter ldwa event between april -november as if the weather turns nasty most runners give up due to the fact that they only carry the basic kit so to get a good time best regards steve

Not ignoring the question - just busy and grappling with installation of a new computer. And the rain might stop this weekend! Watch this space.

I think Rebecca has a perfectly reasonable question on compulsory kit checks. My interpretation being:

1) Is a compulsory kit check a part of the insurance cover for events.

2) Is a recommended kit list acceptable for insurance cover for the event.

No point in event organisers burying their heads in the sand and hoping it never happens.
I have no legal training, but would drift towards (2), in which case, what is the point in (1)? Matt.

Rebecca are you related to my wife or is this just Girls thing that you must have the last word?. We all know that some people will break any rule that you make wether that rule is right or wrong. We all know or have heard of the people who have a kit check and then dump half of it in a car boot afterwards. This is a fact of life that we have to deal with by spot checks along the route. So we can protect ourselfs against possable legal action.
As far as I know our rules on events have not been challanged in Court and hopefully they never will be but the way you are going on some mutt will get the idea that they can make a fortune out of the LDWA by going to court on a minor point.
David H

But there still seems to be 2 reasons for a kit check - its part of the competition, which I accept, but eariler on in this thread organisers were implying it protects them from litigation, more so that a signed declaration. No one seems to have the answer as to how much more it protects from potential litigation? Are there any examples of where, in a court of law, having a kit check proved that the organisers of an event were not liable for an accident which took part during an event?

hisue the army cadet team we have trained for t d t walk in army boot all the time so they are used to them (they did try other boots but could not get on with them )the person i walk with every w/e will only wear pro boots . they also have a kit check at the end of t d t for the potential class winners as you say this is to make sure they have taken the kit all the way round on the hike and not dumped it on route .they also have surprise check point ,which has caught as many as 23 teams off route last year one team missed a surprise check point the next one was a self clip the after 7mile a mamed one they had to go back the 7 miles or pull out (so 7 mile back then 7 miles back to where they where ) best regards steve

I'm amazed that kit checkers allow army style boots, as they are proven to result in more pain, injuries etc. than normal walking boots or fell shoes.
On a different note, I helped on kit checks a few times on the Karrimor, but these were always at the end of the event, and selected those with fast times i.e. potential class winners. Their main purpose was to discourage entrants from dumping kit items before completing the 2nd day. (I was always full of admiration for those hardy elites whose sleeping bags had been stripped of most or all of their filling!!!)

hi rebecca yes do think kitchecks are a pain on the long mymd hike i allway take my kit in 2 carrier bags go into kit check then go outside and pack it , but on t d t once you have been to kit check you a put in a room till you are called to get your route details (so cannot even do that here ) . you said before about you can see the point of kit checks on competitive events , the t d t is a competitive event ,they have a team come over from the usa to take part and try and win a trophy as well as army ,navy ,collage ,works uni and youth teams from all over england best regards steve

I think I would look rather fetching in a bikini and leather boots, but I may get arrested like the naked rambler....

I accept that organisers do have the right to their rules about footwear (however silly in my opinion!!) and I think we'll have to agree to disagree about the fairness of the lay being eliminated, but this still doesn't answer the question I posed about the legal side of kit checks. As I said before , it is assumed they offer more protection from potential litigation than a signed declaration, but do they????? If not, then why have them as they are a pain for the competitor and organisers alike.

this bit should have been on the start of the last post , twthree things stand out here they are 1 when it says on a entry form that all kit must be worn or carried then that is what you do 2 if it says this kit should be carried or worn (or recommended kit list ) then as alduts we have the choise or what kit we take 3rd when we sigh the entry forms to say that we will abide by the rules of the hike tthen as adults we should abide by them best regards to you all steve ( ps a member of the scout movent for my sins im a cub leader in warwickshire not oxfordshire )

when you sigh the entry forn to say i agree to abide by the rules of the event +observe the country code you must do so ,if you dont agree then phone the people up who are running the event if still no joy dont enter find an event you can enter , the 3rdpoint is if as anne say the lady changed her boots because she would not have finished the event then so be it you drop out at a check point and the rest ofthe team ad hoc . one thing anne the local papers called you a top midlands ladies team and also said you now ho;d the record for the first team to be elimininated in the 37 year history of the event (one more memory of the event for you record holder ) must go now have to wax my leather boots for next w/e tour de trigs event rebecca would you like a pair of real leather 12 lace holed british army pro boots (para boots ) to go with your bikini ???i will wax them for you and put a new pair of in soles in as well (going all the way here for you )

Wow! I didn't realise this would create such a torrent of interesting comments. Just for the record I did make the other 2 ladies in my team aware of the rules and I was very frustrated when one of them decided to change her footwear half way through. But they are adults and make their own decisions and it was the only way that she was going to be able to complete the event. So we did complete it as a team, but were disqualified at the finish, which was rather disheartening. And, as I said, a completion certificate would have been nice.
Also the T de T was the only event in the year that I would wear boots. I too wear fell shoes all the time in all conditions and at all times of the year and never have any problems. My ankles are very strong for precisely this reason. I doubt whether I'll ever wear boots again.
Anyway, I think that a separate set of 'rules' for under 18s is a good idea. Many events do not allow under 18s and those that do always require parents' permission. I am a teacher and also a D. of E. Award Officer, so I am regularly with young people in the countryside as leader, remote supervisor or assessor. They generally like kit lists because it gives them confidence. But more important that the kit lists and kit checks is the training in how to use the equipment. There is no point in having a first aid kit if you haven't got a clue how to use any of it.
I have got several groups of young people taking part in a 20 mile Night Race overnight on Sat 2nd Dec. I have their parents' permission and they have had a recommended kit list and training, but there will be no kit check and it is up to them what they wear.

It would be interesting to know exactly what a formal kit check offers legally compared to simply signing a form saying you are carrying the kit. Reading this thread it seems to be presumed that it does offer more protection, but I'm not convinced, and it would be interesting to get a legal point of view on this.

As for the TdT - I think this is a different issue altogether, as the kit check doesn't appear to be for legal reasons, more so its always been like that for 30 years, and they seem reluctant to change!

It does still seem a bit 'the computer says no' type of rule though, which, even though a form is signed, this particular rule still seems ridiculously inflexible, and I can't believe it would effect the result, and as the lady in question says she was doing really well before being eliminated, why then was the fact she was walking in trainers rather than boots be considered a risk? If she was struggling, then I could have understood the organisers getting heavy about the rule. If this event has been going 30 odd years, then perhaps it is the rules that need updating a little?

Looking back through this thread, the same points keep going through my mind, and I still feel we haven't found the answer to them:

1 - Kit checks are deemed necessary by some event organisers as they are worried about litigation, but how much extra protection does a kit check REALLY offer compared to a 'recommended kit list' or signing a disclaimer?

2 - A lot of people seem to resent the dictatorial nature of certain events regarding kit (e.g. the carrying of waterproof trousers, even if you never use them, boots not trainers, size of bandages / thickness of coats) - could this be toned down without compromising safety and replaced with an essential list and a recommended list?

3 - On scout events could over 18's be exempt from dictatorial kit checks?

the lady was elimininated because the team leader signed the left hand side of the entry form which says the team leader will make sure that all members abide by the rules of the hike at all time and are made aware of all the rules .does the lady want the rule of life changed the rule being that if you are born then at some point you must die ?? (no matter what creams you use ) the hike started for scouts only at first and used the same route every year then they opened it up to other youth groups then to as it is today ,but had to change the route every year as people where taking short cut and getting the scouts a bad name , this is why you cannot pre walk the route as you do not get it till 30 mins before you go out ,and it is in grid ref form the start is not a mass start you are given a time when you will be sent out the draw is made 10 days before the event in this order first the 14 -17 year olds ,then the novices , then the team which have a member or members who has done the hike before .the hike is in its 39th year (so they must be doing something right ??? )

so maybe the scout group should re-examine their rules in the light that this is now the 21st century? If the wearing of boots on the tdt is because of the muddy terrain, then why was the lady elimininated for changing to trainers and carrying boots if she felt that she could cope with the walking conditions in trainers? Surely if she had of encountered difficult terrain then she could have changed into the boots? i never use boots as despite the ankle supports, i have always managed to twist my ankle in them. it is a falicy to pretend they solve all problems of a twisted ankle or even worse - a ruptured achilles.

the point I'm trying to make is that I feel certain events have rules for the sake of having them and have never re-examined the reasons behind them or even done a risk assessment and looked at the consequences of changing the rules.

looking at the interest this thread has generated there are lots of opinions for and against, and the arguments for kit checks seem totally resolvable with a little forward planning and common sense.

john the rules are not my rules they are the rules of the scout group that run the t d t i have no connection with them at all (i only do the event ) what was said at first was it fair to run down the scout movement on here when they cannot answer back to the point that had been made i to do the long mynd hike and find that a good event i to can see it from the runners point of view steve

I have to lean very much towards the 'recommended kit' to carry. But if an event stipulates a list that must be carried - then so be it, this applies to fell races as well.
But there is little point these days in stipulating kit that is not necessary or has been superseeded by more modern equipment. I find it hard to believe that the tdt walk actually states 'walking boots' in this day and age - however well intentioned. Even the long myndd hike (scouts event) allows fell shoes nowadays.
I certainly would never visit this event, I haven't owned any walking boots for 10-15 years and not likely to start now. Fell shoes for me and sealskin socks if the weather is wet. If you don't agree with the rules then don't go again, they may eventually change the rules. Matt.

Thanks Steve I note your comments but i am not complaining or condoning your rules, i am sure you are acting in a way you fell is in everybodys interest.

Although for what it is worth i live in cumbria where 99% of my Running/ walking is done in fell shoes, and if i feel the condions to be severe enough i would use a lightweight crampon with fell shoe.

In fact only yesterday i ran over Wetherlam, Coniston and Dow Crag in fell shoes with snow underfoot with nary a slip.

On the issue of ankle support in my opinion boots are no substitute for strong ankles which cannot be achived by the use of boots in fact i have seen more walkers in boots with broken ankles than walkers/runners in fell shoes sufering similary, in addition on a long challenge event heavy boots use valuable energy which towards the end results in stumbling and often falls.

When i say fell shoes i mean dedicated fell shoes, defernately not road shoes or Trainners that is asking for trouble.

I haven`t made this post to undermine your comments but to try and give a view of another side of an interesting debate.


I cover over 2500 miles a year on foot and as i say mostly in fell shoes unless the terrain is rmostly road then it is road shoes.

And should i enter any event that says boots then boots it would be, but having said that it would be a quality boot and not some of the rubbish i have seen go through kit checks, only to lead to the wearer falling to achieve there aims

sorry john this may answer your question on boots this is part of aletter to all walkers on the 2005 t d t . its the begining of december the weather has the potential to make life extremely difficult ,in the past we have had almost zero visibility ,fog ,snow, heavy rain ,sheet ice on parts of the cource floods . it is muddy the soil of north oxfordshire has almost magical qualities in that it sticks to anything .good qualty boots are a must for this event these provide correct anlke support preventing injuries and other minor disasters. make sure your boots fit you ill fitting boots cause problems . hope this answers your question steve

Stephen your post`s my be taken more kindly if you knocked the CAPs key off, i am sure that you don`t need reminding that it is regarded as rude to post all in caps, as in modern computer ethics posting all in caps is regarded as shouting, not only that upper and lower case is easier to read.

Thanks for your efforts though.

best wishes
John

HAVE NO IDEAR WHAT THE REASONING BEHIND THE BOOTS RULE CAN GIVE YOU THE PHONE NUMBER TO RING AND ASK IF YOU WANT . ?? LIKE ANTHONY WE ARE ALL OVER 50 (IN FACT OUR TOTAL AGE IS 166 YEARS )

I agree that a full kit check should be carried out for the under 18's on the T D T, but I think experienced walkers with a proven track record should be exempt from kit checks, especially when they can be viewed as pedantic and instead of appearing sensible they appear dictatorial. I think kit checks that dictate types of footwear, types of trousers and sizez of bandages are going that bit too far.

As I've said before I am not against a recommended kit list, and quite welcome it as it acts as a reminder to me to take all the stuff I need, but it needs to offer the flexibility to allow personal choice so why can't I wear my trusted trainers on a challenge walk in the UK?

I did a challenge walk in wales last spring with a kit check where boots were stipulated, but I rang the organiser and asked if I could wear trainers, which they agreed.

I know that most people who do the TdT are happy wearing boots, but why is it so inflexible? What is the reasoning behind it apart from 'its the rules'?

perhaps there should be separate rules for the U18's then - i.e. a full kit check and over 18's 'a recommended kit list?' I think that would work really well in this instance. The bandage size could be 'recommended' but not dictated - we all have our choice, and at the end of the day you can make an ankle support out of a plastic bag and a shoe lace, or a scarf in an emergency, so size shouldn't really matter!!I would love to do the T d T but like Rebecca would be put off by the over regulation and dictatorial nature of the kit check, certainly as I am 50 not 18....

i to have done the t d t for the last 10 years and am not one of the organisers and if you ask about you will find the people willing to wear boots (i carry all the t d t kit on every walk i do be it a socal or challenge walk as i did on sat when the heart of england had a social walk lead by myself ) plus took a team of army cadets with us who had a full t d t style kit check at the start then whent on to do a night hike ready for this years t d t

the new kit list for the tour de trigs (i lookeed at my last 10 years lists ) say safety pins there is no numbers so you can take two if you want to . the local doctors and first aiders say the 10 x4 crepe bandage is the best size to cover the needs of the people taking part in an event like this . the 14 -17 year olds need this size to surpport any knee or ankle injuries they may get . just remember these young people are the next l d wa members in years to come

I agree with you Anne. What amazes me sometimes is how badly some organisers react to any critism, and normally react by saying 'if you don't like it then don't enter then'.Obviously the lady in question here has a serious issue with what happened to her at the T de T, and it is ludicrous to simply yell back, without any attempt to address the issues raised or at least compromise.

Perhaps the bandage has to be carried to wrap up your poor feet after trekking 50m in heavy boots, and the safety pins to prick your blisters?

Come on - lets be more sensible, flexible, and not dictatorial about kit, and not fly off the handle when someone dares to challenge your rules. Take the comments on the chin

Stephen
There is no need to shout or be so aggressive. It is exactly your attitude which has put me and many others off the Tour de Trigs. Other scout-organised events that I have taken part in are not so stupid about the boots versus proper fellrunning shoes issue. It is the fact that you are taking up the challenge on foot.
I have no problem at all in carrying the required kit in a rucksack either and, as John points out, modern equipment is light and small. And, quite rightly, if we don't like the rules then we won't enter an event. I just don't think that what you wear should be so dictated. Provided what you have on is sensible for the time of year and conditions, and the fact that you can carry extra clothing etc is what is most important. Also that you are comfortable and wearing what you are used to- why make things more difficult than they need to be. Some people prefer boots, wellies, trainers or fell shoes. Surely we can make our own decisions.
I have actually completed the Tour de Trigs 10 times in various teams and I have always enjoyed the challenge of the navigation. In fact, that's what I particularly like about most of the events that I take part in. The Tour de Trigs was also the first long distance event that I took part in in 1993, so I have fond memories of every one.
However, I was very upset after the last one that I did because I was wearing 'proper' walking trousers and boots and had everything else as prescribed in the rules, but was still denied even a certificate. The other ladies in my team did not cheat either and there was no outside help. The lady who changed her boots for trainers had actually carried them so far and then carried her boots the rest of the way. At the kit check they saw the required kit and surely it doesn't matter what else you carry. They don't look at absolutely everything in your bag. We just got the feeling that the organisers did not expect us to do so well and therefore looked for every opportunity to trip us up, which in my book is ludicrous given the tough nature of the event.
I would love to take part in the Tour de Trigs again, but feel unable to until the rules are made more sensible and up-to-date. The main problem is finding team members who are willing to wear boots.

Well said John

Why is wearing trainers instead of boots 'cheating'?

I accept that rules should be followed if they are to create a level playing field in a competitive event, but if the kit check is simply there as a safety standard then being treated like an adult is a relevant aspect.

The rules have got to make sense and be flexible enough to allow for people's difference preference regarding kit. There is no point having rules that are so ridiculous and uncompromising. What is one mans petty dictate is another mans important safety rule as always a balance is required.

I have never entered the T de T, and didn't know about the 'rules' until I read about them on this thread, and I must admit they would put me off entering which is a shame (I cannot walk in boots as my feet blister incredibly easily, and there is no way I could walk 50m in boots sadly) I have heard many a GOOD word about the T de T.

Modern equipment that usually complies with most (kit that must be carried rules )is so light and compact that you barely notice it.

Mine has happily sat at the bottom of a small bumbag for several years and thankfully has only seen the light of day for kit checks.


Personally my thinking is simply that whether i like it or not i will rules is rules and i will not miss a good challenge for the sake of my own principles, after all if it wasn`t for the organisers and volunteers there would be no events.

IT WOULD HELP IF THE TWO LADIES WHO WHERE SLAGGING OFF THE SCOUT ORGANISED EVENTS WOULD JUST THINK BEFOR THEY DO THIS AS THEY CANNOT ANSWER BACK SO IT IS UNFAIR . LETS ME POINT OUT THAT WHEN YOU ENTER TOURR DE TRIGS YOU ARE TOLD THE RULES THEY ARE THAT YOU MUST WEAR BOOT NOT TRAINERS SO IF THEY WENT THROUGH KIT CHECK DID THEY ALSO TAKE THE TRAINERS WITH THEM ??? IF NO HOW DID THEY GET THEM TO CHANGE INTO ON ROUTE ??? DID THEY HAVE OUTSIDE HELP ?? THE SCOUT MOVEMENT TEACH ALL SCOUTS IT IS BETTER TO TAKE PART AND COME LAST THAN CHEAT ?? THE KIT LIST MEANS ALL TEAMS GO OUT ON A EVEN KEEL . AS FOR PEOPLE RUMMAGING THROUGH THE LADIES RUCKSACK , YOU WILL FIND AT THE T D T KIT CHECK YOU HAVE TO TAKE ALL YOUR KIT OUT FOR THEM TO SEE . THE T DT IS ON THE WEBB SITE AS A TOUGH X COUNTRY NAVIGATION EXERCISE , AND NOT A CHALLANGE EVENT SO THEY DO TREAT THE SCOUTS LIKE ADULKTS NOT LIKE CHILDREN .LAST W/E ON A H O E SOCAL WALK WE HAD 2 ARMY CADETS (WHO WHERE DOING THERE LAST TRAINING WALK FOR T D T ) THEY HAD A FULL T D T KIT CHECK BEFOR WE STARTED AND AFTER THE 20MILE SOCAL WALK THEY WENT ON TO DO A 10 MILE NIGHT HIKE STILL WITH FULL KIT NOT ONCE DID THEY MOAN ( NOT LIKE THE SO CALLED L D W A MEMBER ON HERE . THE ANSWER TO THE TWO LADIES IS IF YOU DONT LIKE THE RULES THEN PLEASE DONT ENTER . I WILL MAKE SURE THE EVENT IS IN NEXT YEAR STRIDER .

I have just one niggle with Peter Morrill's excellent response on this subject - the phrase "in this increasingly litigious age" is another one of those statements (like "the route to Everest base camp is littered with rubbish") that becomes accepted because it is repeated so often. An excellent article by a solicitor in the Fell Running magazine puts things into perspective, and the points made can be translated into our environment. I would be happy to send a copy to anyone who is interested. E-mail me at chair@ldwa.org.uk

That's crazy!! I suppose having a scientist brain, I like things to be evidence based. Has anyone ever not completed the tour de trigs because they were wearing trainers instead of boots?...Unlikely.....Has anyone ever not completed the tour de trigs because of uncomfortable heavy walking boots?...I know of at least 2. So why is it a rule then? You can apply the same logic by saying 'has anyone ever in the history of the event ever come to grief because (shock horror) they were carrying 3 safety pins instead of 4? Highly unlikely.

If rules make sense, I am only too happy to abide by them. If they don't make sense, they annoy me, and there is nothing to be gained from them.

I agree with a 'guideline' or recommended kit that you suggest. That way, there is a certain ammount of flexibilty on the part of the entrant, without compromising safety.

I have never had a problem with kit checks on LDWA events. Most events have a recommended list, which you don't have to abide by, but it is sensible and responsible to carry certain items of equipment, depending on how long the event is, how long you intend it to take you, the weather, terrain etc etc. I do think that we should be allowed to make our own decisions about what to carry in the light of all this and because we're adults. However, it is simply not fair to expect other people to bail you out if you get into difficulty, just because you are inadequately prepared yourself.
LDWA events foster a spirit of adventure, discovery and self-reliance, and I would hate for any of these to be undermined by bureaucracy and silly rules.
I fully agree with disclaimers and the idea that, as adults, we are responsible for ourselves. However, it is often the irresponsible who are the first to blame and sue. So I can understand why our ultra long events have compulsory kit lists. Provided these remain sensible and suitably vague, then it shouldn't be difficult to make your own interpretation and still stay within the guidelines.

The worst events for silly rules and stupid kit checks are the scout-organised ones. Presumably this is because they are dealing primarily with children and treat adults in the same way. The very worst event in this respect is the Tour de Trigs, which does not advertise in Strider any more. Thank goodness. As part of a ladies team that did very well one year, I was disqualified because one lady changed her boots for trainers about half way round because of blisters. Also they hounded us more and more as the event proceeded. It was as if they were looking for reasons to fail us. This is also an event where they actually count the number of safety pins that you have and check that your crepe bandage is exactly 10cm x 4m. The kit list also states that walking trousers or breeches should be worn. I have not seen anyone in breeches for years. Not only do they treat us like children, but also as if it was the dark ages. Modern fabrics and fell shoes have passed them by.

I do agree with Rebecca, and hate the over regulation, and school masterish attitude towards it. I am not even sure how much more protection from litigation a kit check offers to organisers. Surely a duff route description, or sending people off on awkward terrain at night, or not providing adequate sustenance would leave you far more exposed as an organiser? Also surely a mobile phone ought to be an essential item - I know there isn't always a signal, but generally there is.

I would rather the organisers have adequate insurance cover and have to pay more to enter the events than have to endure a kit check, or perhaps walkers should have their own insurance anyway.

I wouldn't knowingly break the rules, but......ok I do confess to not having any waterproof trousers on the 100 - but, I hasten to add, this was the only piece of kit I was not carrying. Why? because I had a survival bag if i broke my leg, 2 thermal jumpers, a fleece ....and don't EVER use waterproof trousers, so why should I carry them just to satisfy the organisers?

I can understand the need for appropriate clothing, but as the 100 needs a 50 qualifier,haven't you already demonstrated a level of ability?

This isn't an attack on any event organiser or particular event at all, but it is healthy to be able to debate and question issues and practices, and, I still find kit checks get under my skin, and a lot will agree with me!

There will be obviously 2 sides to this debate, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one!!

Rebecca

Kit checks are a fact of organised events - if you don't like kit checks don't enter organised events.

If you do enter organised events don't undermine the organisers by signing a declaration stating you are abiding by the rules and then knowingly and wilfully breaking them.

If a kit check, after you have signed a declaration, makes you 'feel like a liar' have you ever stopped to wonder why?

It is not big or brave or defending freedom to break safety rules and undermine the people who organise challenge events - if it does anything, it threatens the future of such events because organisers will consider very carefully just how exposed they want to be in the event of an accident, fatal or otherwise.

Kit checks are a pain and I hate being told how many safety pins I have to carry to enter The Fellsman but I know the rules before I fill in the entry form and much as I hate them I recognise it helps no-one to disregard them and hope not to get caught.

Rebecca I believe that event organisers are bound by a duty of care to show that they have taken all reasonable precautions to ensure the participant's safety.
You might be happy to sign a form and accept the decision but there are too many people who will sign a form and then when something goes wrong try to sue the organisers. The times they are a'changing.

Yes - you have to take responsibility for yourself. I am happy to sign a disclaimer, and I even don't mind signing a form to say I am carrying all the items.

I just resent the feeling that someone is rummaging through my bag to check, as it makes me feel like I'm on a school camping trip (perish the thought!) or worse, if there is a kit check after I have signed to say I'm carrying the items, it makes me feel like a liar.

Is anyone in the legal profession? Would a disclaimer be sufficient to put kit checks finally in their place......... redundant?

Also, as someone brought up on a previous occasion - carrying a map and compass doesn't mean you know how to use them - so why bother to check unless you have to demonstrate their use??!!

I totally agree with you Rebecca. If (adult) walk participants choose not to carry items of kit which they've been asked to, and are injured or worse as a result, then it's down to them, and not the event organisers.

I can see your point but I suppose working for an NHS trust I get health and safety / risk management rammed down our throats 24/7. I even had to do a risk assessment on changing a light bulb. I just hate all the health and safety malarcy impinging on my leisure pursuits as well.

I love travelling abroad, especially places like Nepal and find the lack of safety barriers, rules and the feeling of true adventure refreshing - call me stupid, but it is so liberating when back at home we live in a society swamped by rules and litigation.


I feel it sad that what I love doing most - my walking is becoming overly clinicalised, swamped my rules and threatened by litigation, and whether you think this foolish or not, I will kick against it to the end, and hope others will join me.

Pity the poor event organiser.
Can?t do right for doing wrong!

It?s not so much an insurance requirement that most events have a kit check, more common sense on the organiser?s part. In this increasingly litigious age, the onus for entrant?s safety lies increasingly with the organiser, who has to be seen to have reduced any risks to an acceptable level. As the one who ?carried the can? for this year?s 100, I spent many hours writing an ?Event Safety Management Plan? for the Regional Safety Committee, which consisted of the police, ambulance, fire and the Regional Safety Officer (who also happened to be our Raynet man ? so I couldn?t get out of it).

It was made clear that, without their approval of our safety management, I was on my own (legally) in the event of any incident. This is not just Northumberland being over-zealous, but is being implemented nationally as a result of recent Government guidelines to Local Authorities. They cover not just events like ours, but carnivals, fairs etc. I suspect that this increasing bureaucracy and red tape will discourage future event organisers.

The required kit (and its checking) figured high on the safety committee?s priorities as there have been many instances of badly organised events (usually charity or sponsored) being caught out by bad weather in the hills with inappropriate kit.

At the time I resented having to write such a plan, not least because implementing things like kit checks requires more volunteers, and it is becoming harder to find enough people to service an event like the 100. However, given that we sadly had a fatality on the event, not having evidence of our safety organisation could have left us rather exposed legally.

I am a bit perplexed by the use of ?insulting? kit checks. All events I have entered, which have kit checks, stated it clearly on the entry form, so I had a choice whether to enter or not. It is easy to be a bit sarcastic about replacement batteries or waterproof trousers, but if that is what the organisers felt was necessary, then we should accept it or not enter. It would be nice to think that all entrants to our events are eminently sensible, able to think very clearly for 48 hours, are unselfish to a fault and brilliant at navigation, unfortunately life isn?t like that, and organisers are taking a personal risk by ignoring it.

Luckily I was stood behind a guy on the 100 kit check who picked number 5 which was a compass, which I obviously knew I had, so I just said number 5 too. I refuse to cart around waterproof trousers which I never use as I end up wetter from cooking inside them than I ever would be without!

if he slipped and fell down a ravine and you couldn't reach them and they had the map, you would'nt be able to give the grid reference to the rescuers, agree about the 100, it was my daughters birthday the night i travelled up for the 100 so i was busy with that and i forgot my mug, if i had picked the wrong number at the kit check and had to show my mug, would i have been disqualified for no mug?

i was told a story of a group on a previous walk where after struggling up a steep hill in wind and rain they had stopped at the top exhausted so they consumed their rations only to be stopped on the way down where they were accused of having no rations in there kit, being good LDWAers they were able to produced their empty wrappings as proof.

Well, it turned out he'd not seen an LED torch before. (I can't remember how many hours the batteries lasted in that particular torch, but it was certainly more than the then 27hr time limit!)

Thats crazy! They'll be insisting on us bringing gas lamps next incase the batteries, and bulbs all blow. How many hours do you get on an LED bulb? Maybe the kit checker thought you were going to be a long time? :-)

I remember several years ago having to argue with a kit checker on the Fellsman, who was insisting I should have spare bulbs as well as batteries for my LED headtorch! Some kind person (who also had an LED torch) came to my rescue by explaining that I really wasn't lying.

Rhayader Mountain Trail, August 18th 2007. To be confirmed.

Bikinis and high heels compulsory equipment for all women. No kit check, so please turn up.

In anticipation of a groundbreaking ldwa event!!! Matt.

I know there was a thread on this before, but just for the record I hate them. I normally walk with my partner, and if one of us has to drop out, unless there are exceptional circumstances we both pull out, and have got back to the start at our own expense. So, you can imagine my annoyance on a walk we did last year when there was a kit check and they insisted on us having a map each 'in case we lost one another'??!!I haven't been able to lose my partner yet, despite several attempts to.... I just think its a bit silly when I can drive myself to the scotish highlands and walk up there in a bikini and high heels if I wanted to, and no-one could stop me, and yet there is all this red tape on certain walks? Is this a requirement of insurance? I generally avoid walks now with kit checks as I find them insulting, but I was totally thrown by the kit check on the last 100, and annoyed by it.