Discussion: Safety Policy of Orienteering Clubs

I would be interested in hearing what kind of policies do you have? Insurance companies don't specify their requirements, however, they base their rate on the policies we have. Specifically: when people arrive to an event, what kind of information do you collect? What is included in your waver, etc.

I'm part of the group working on this with Supermaster, and I'll just add that we need to be able to demonstrate to the insurance company - and potentially to the courts - that we have done a reasonable job of mitigating risk. (Not that anything has ever happened, but...) One example given to us is that if a participant doesn't check in at the finish and we call police, they will want the participant's address to confirm that he or she hasn't returned home.

As part of the registration process, RMOC collects car license plate or description (so that we can check the parking lot and determine if a person is genuinely still out or if they just left without checking in), and we also ask for their phone number so we can call them to confirm if we're not sure they ever returned from the woods.

Car rego numbers are good and have always been on our entry slip - but we keep forgeting to make sure that they are filled in by all entrants.

Phone numbers are great if there's mobile (cell) coverage.

A new competitor failed to return after course closure at a MTBO event a couple of years ago. We were planning to go look for him when I remembered we had the entry documents (pre-entered event) with us so I looked up his mobile number.

He answer from the loungeroom of his house and told me he was at home having a beer (it was a really hot day) and watching the cricket.
He also advised me that he hated orienteering and would never return. At least he was safe.

Often though there's not coverage (in Australia) so not easy to quickly establish if they are heading home or at home already.

That's the irony of this technology - it's not available where the greatest need for it may be. (I'm talking the need to save lives as opposed to checking if you need to get milk on the way home from the office)

We are finding landowners and agencies are becoming increasingly demanding requiring us to jump through many hoops to get access. We even have to give evacuation plans etc.

This extra workload is tedious, time consuming and for the most part useless (granted a small part of it is useful) as they just want to cover their arse and I'm afraid it will lead to more official burnout.

We also have a "Risk Minimisation Guideline" document (very dodgy and unofficial looking) but this has helped to show authorities that at least we have thought about some of this stuff.

I'm fearful though that this style of documents will paint the organisers into a legal corner should something go awry.

Since we practice and run our meets on military reservations, we have to follow the Army's risk management guidance...basically, a powerpoint chart of assessing initial risk, determining ways to mitigate it, determining the residual risk, and then someone with sufficient authority signing off on it as risk worth taking. Jon can probably email a copy of what we use if you want it.

I believe that USOF's blanket policy, while certainly a good thing, gives clubs a bit too much latitude in this area. Most clubs are good about collecting enough information that they can at least track the person down. I would think that at a very minimum you would want to know:

Name, address, phone of competitor.
Emergency contact.
Did you come to the event alone or with someone?
If alone, car license (or, color of bike for the handful of folks that bike to our meets).

The legal community has not reached consensus on waivers, but I'm squarely in the camp that says don't use them. For one thing, you cannot (in the US) waive your right to due process, so the line about "I won't sue" is just ink on a page. Secondly, by detailing what is waived, you are explicitly leaving yourself open to anything that's not waived. Personal injury attorneys are quite good at finding the gaps. Without a waiver, the defense of "what kind of moron jumps off a cliff?" stands up a lot better.

We are very fortunate that the USOF policy has never really been tested. Orienteers, even those dabbling in the sport, seem to be pretty willing to take responsibility for their actions. I worry though, with more clubs moving into adventure races where the risk of really serious injury is MUCH higher, that one of these days we will see a major lawsuit against the policy. When that happens, I can only hope that the host club has acted responsibly because, if they haven't we may find ourselves shut down in a hurry. You simply cannot get permission to do this on public land without insurance.

I know of no other sport that offers a blanket policy without attaching some guidelines with respect to registration (usually in the form of a standard entry). We have that for A-meets, but the far greater risk is with the off-beat stuff (Urban sprints, adventure racing, ROGAINEs, etc.).

And what happens if the meet crew cannot easily confirm a participant is safe? How much and how long do they search?

How many local meets even have a designated SAR coordinator and first aid worker as required by USOF Local Meet guidelines? Not to mention all the procedures and SAR equipment specified:

1. Search procedures must be organized and prepared for quick implementation prior to the meet. A search party equipment kit ... should contain at least the following:
a. Emergency First Aid equipment
b. Flashlights with spare batteries for each searcher
c. Map showing local roads
d. Walkie-talkies or other communication

4. If someone has failed to check in because he is lost or has had an accident:
a. Check all roads and trails the person is likely to cross or follow on that particular course.
b. Two good orienteers follow the course upon which the missing person started. One person follow numerical order of points, the other go in reverse order. They should agree where to meet.
c. Check the areas where it is possible that the person could have strayed from the course.
d. Check all control locations on other courses, especially near the person's assumed route.
e. Several searchers execute a planned sweep procedure of the area mapped.

Our club sought legal advice on safety policies. The attorney's agreed that the more detailed the safety plan the more liability the club assumes. A very elaborate plan can hold a club to impossible standards. Any litigant will pick apart a safety plan to demonstrate nonperformance. The best plan is a simple one, emphasizing that a competitor has total responsibility for his own safety.

That said, clubs should have informal common sense safety guidelines.

O is an amazingly safe sport. I once heard a person with public health experience give the three activities at an O event that are most dangerous to human health.

They are:

1. The drive to the event.
2. The after meet hamburgers
3. The handshakes at the awards ceremony

The U.S. may be different, but apparently the waivers stand up in Canada.

Good points Geoman, and I agree. But it is very difficult to adopt a posture that competitors are responsible for their own safety...and then require all of them to check in, to "avoid unnecessary searches." If you're truly going to put all responsibility on the competitor, why do you care about checking them in?

What does BAOC do? Do they promise to search....or not? And if so, are the above USOF guidelines followed?

BTW - If I'm ever "lost" (more likely injured) out there then please send out experienced orienteers and rogainers to look for me - not the police. From experience they don't seem to be very organised and actually hamper and delay the search.

Geoman wrote... "The attorney's agreed that the more detailed the safety plan the more liability the club assumes"

The triumph of the law over common sense. Right up there with the modern triumph of style over substance.

You know that simple, inexpensive warning device known as a whistle? My club has a policy that whistles are worn at non-urban events. There's hardly ever a whistle check, but the policy is advertised on the basis that having more people with whistles is better than having less.

Well we tried to get the measure adopted by the federation. The federation declined. Its legal advice was that if there was an incident in which a whistle could have been helpful, and there hadn't been a check, the club/fed could be held liable. It's strange then, that there isn't a traffic policeman at every stop sign, traffic light, blind bend, everwhere a road rule could conceivably be broken.