safty gear
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
As I learned now that while the last Unicon for some competitions the safty gear rules was changed / not fullfilled, I think it should be written in chapter one and maybe also per chapter that there is no way to act like that. This can end up in a big problem for the host / federation / other involved persons. The safty gear is defined in the rules and every rider can easy check the rules. If the riders feel that for a competition the wrong safty gear is mandatory, they can join the next ruelbook committee to change it for the future. A Host is also responsible to force riders to protect themself even they dont like it.
Comment
This point is already present in the Rulebook, at "1.3.1 Safety Equipment". It should however probably be made more explicit, and as you mention, it should be made clear that it is inacceptable.
As I said in the Street committee, concerning the Street competition at Unicon 17, I was aware of the change, but indeed didn't think about 1.3.1. and for some reason, I thought that the discipline director had the right to do so (which, if I remember right, was also accompanied by an IUF representative and following a large number of requests from competitors). It still of course doesn't excuse what happened, for which I take responsability. As far as I am aware, this is the only time such a situation occured.
Comment
Yes, 1.3.1 is already in there, for the exact reason of preventing what apparently happened at Unicon 17. Upon making an agreement to host an IUF-sanctioned event, the organizer makes a promise that they will be bound by the rules in force, unless changes are made through due process. Not at the last minute and without discussion at high levels. Individual event directors have decision-making authority in areas where the rules are not clear, but do not have power to change things that aren't in question.
Something similar happened at Unicon XVI, with the last-minute change in pedals rule for the 100k race. I never saw any documentation on this, so I don't know the details. All I know is that it put some competitors in a place of extreme inconvenience, as it required a last-minute change of not only pedals, but also shoes. This should not have been permitted by the IUF, unless there was good cause, such as a local law that nobody knew about until that moment. If it was a known law, or issue, but not dealt with, that still would not have made it okay to make the change without competitors having a chance to be prepared.
As Hugo learned, competitors are usually the first, and loudest ones complaining about safety gear requirements. My response to them would be "quit your whining." I started wearing kneepads and gloves before I even went to my first uni competition in 1980. Safety gear rules didn't exist yet but I had already figured out they were a good idea for me (helmets came about 10 years later). Competitors don't make the rules (unless they work on the committees) and they don't put together competitions (some do; most don't). If people are really serious about a lack of need to protect riders, they should organize their own conventions.
I think where this discussion may lead is to a general statement, right in the beginning of the Rulebook that the host has agreed to abide by the IUF rules, they acknowledge this, and also that they are not allowed to change them.
Comment
I agree 100% to this John.
It remebers me also to a competition where a rider was allowed to compete without required safty gear. After his run he was disqualified which end in a longe rProtest without success. I'm pretty sure that also this situation is not clear defined in the rules.
I also want to point oit that I wont balme Hugo / Benoit with this discussion, it happens to me also while a competition and as John point out it was not the first Unicon with that problem. In Canada it was meant to help the riders, in Brixen it works against the riders. The best way is to keep rules as they are. So a general Statement in chapter 1 would be good, maybe John can try to do a first shot of it (short but with the right message ;) )
Comment
I suggest to add a fairness rule and make clear, that "it is the responsibility of the discipline director or his substitute and all spectators at the start, to prohibit riders with missing safety gear from the start. If they all fail, there is no disqualification afterwards because of lacking safety gear. "
Comment
In America we have a basic rule that "Ignorance of the law is not a valid legal excuse."
Competitors have the responsibility to know and abide by the rules of the events they enter. This is stated in Section 1.24, though maybe it could use some editing to make it more clear. It should not be easy for any unicyclist to be registered for a large unicycle competition without knowing the requirements of entry to an event. Most require some form of safety gear. If a rider is unsure about the requirements, they should ask so they know they are meeting the requirements before the start of their event.
In the case of small children, or possibly club members that got registered by parents or club leaders, they must then share in the responsibility of making sure their competitors know what is required of them.
In many areas of the Rulebook it has been stated that officials must check for safety gear before riders start. Sometimes this is followed very well, sometimes it is ignored. But it cannot be used by riders as an excuse to ride without it.
Comment
Do we have any specific changes that we want to make to 1.3.1 to make this more clear? If anyone has a suggestion, then we can create a proposal.
Comment
Yes, we should indicate that each item has a definition. How about this for the second sentence?
"Safety equipment worn by riders must meet the definitions for each, which are found in Section 1d."
------
Currently we have definitions for Footwear (shoes), Gloves, Helmet and Kneepads. We are missing a definition for shin guards. We really need to add one of those since shin guards will probably be required for at least one event, regardless of whether it's an option instead of kneepdads. Should this be a separate discussion?
I don't own any shin guards myself (I have leg armor), so am not knowledgeable enough beyond providing a draft and asking for comments:
Shin Guards (spell check doesn't like "shinguards"): Any commercially made, rigid version is acceptable, such as those used for _________ and ___________ (sports that are common around the world). The intent is to protect from pedal pins and other hard impacts. They must cover at least 2/3 of the shin area, and stay on for the duration of any competition. Long pants, bandages, leg warmers and other random forms of coverage are not acceptable.
------
The above definition is based on the one for Kneepads. For kneepads, we restricted it to commercially made products, due to the complexity of making something that can protect the knee joint while being flexible and "wearable". Shin guards might be different in that they are simpler. Should we allow custom made ones? I prefer not, since it again gets complicated. As in any other situation, if there is doubt, the head official for that competition event can determine whether the gear someone brings is sufficient to meet the definitions.
Comment
John, why don't you start a new proposal with the Shin Guard definition. Suggested sports are mountain and BMX biking. It should also state that soccer/football shin guards are not acceptable. The definition isn't quite finished but it's easier to work on it as an actual proposal.
My spell check is fine with shinguard and shin guard, but a quick google search shows that most brands spell it as two words (for example 661 and POC).
Comment
> I don't own any shin guards myself (I have leg armor)
This makes me wonder: does commercially made leg armour that includes a rigid shin protector (such as my old trusty 661 4x4) suffice when shin guards are required? We should probably somehow mention that if even John Foss thinks they are no shin guards.
> Long pants, bandages, leg warmers and other random forms of coverage are not acceptable.
Just to avoid that people think they may not wear e.g. long pants in addition to the required protection, I would add at the end of the sentence " as shin guards".
Secondly I would remove "and other random forms of coverage", because it is very vague.
Comment
Emile came up with a shinguard definition for chapter one already in the Trials Safty gear discussion:
New:
"Kneepads: Any commercially made, thick version is acceptable, such as
those used for basketball and volleyball, or any with hard plastic caps. Kneepads must cover the entire knee and stay on during the whole length of the competition. Long pants, bandages or patches are not acceptable"
"Shinpads: Any commercially made, thick version is acceptable, such as those used for football or bicycling, or any with hard plastic shell. Shinpads must stay on during the length of the competition. Long pants, bandages or patches are not acceptable."
seems it should be here also
Comment
May I suggest to add at the end of both definitions, after "are not acceptable"
"as kneepads" and "as shinpads" respectively.
Oh and I think among unicyclists, "shin guards" is more widely used than "shin pads" or "shinpads". Google thinks so too.
Comment
Scott suggested that football/soccer shin guards would not be acceptable but I don't know why. Can others add anything there? So the shin guards definition might have to be different. Otherwise I like what Emile wrote.
Yes, I do think "commercially made leg armor for cycling", such as Kris Holm or 661, are definitely acceptable for both shin and knee protection. Do we need to mention this in the definitions?
Rather than adding "as kneeepads" or "as shin guards" at the end, you could also just add the word "substitutes".
I recommend sticking with "shin guards" as this seems the most common term, at least in English.
Comment
> Yes, I do think "commercially made leg armor for cycling", such as Kris Holm or 661, are definitely acceptable for both shin and knee protection. Do we need to mention this in the definitions?
I would have thought we wouldn't, but then you mentioned that you have leg armour but you don't have shin guards. As if leg armour wouldn't suffice. That made me think again.
I'm OK with adding "substitutes" at the end.
Comment
Clarification: I have always used leg armor (since I got a pair of the Roach type, around 2002 or so). I would not question whether they were sufficient protection for knee and shin. I just have never owned a pair of basic shin guards, so have no experience with which sports they go with, or even where to find them in the store. :-)
Still not sure if we have to mention it though. What do others think?
Comment
In the absence of other responses: I for one won't push for it. I think I misunderstood you when you wrote that you don't own any shin guards. That realisation makes me think that even without mentioning this specifically, everyone will understand that e.g. a 661 4x4 (commercially made, thick rigid material, covers the shin) qualifies as an acceptable shin guard. Yes it also covers the knee, so what? That's not a crime.
Comment
I see great soccer and bad bmx shinguards so I see no reason to block soccer shin protection. Usually they are cheap and good and as the rule define "Shinpads must stay on during the length of the competition" the rider has to choice soccer shin protection that cover that rule.
Comment
The proposal looks good to me. What it needed was more "teeth", to make it clear that competition officials are not free to make their own rules; they are only free to interpret where the rules are not clear or specific. I recommend those with voting power approve this change to keep the safety equipment as this committee intended.
Comment
Earlier in this discussion John wrote "I think where this discussion may lead is to a general statement, right in the beginning of the Rulebook that the host has agreed to abide by the IUF rules, they acknowledge this, and also that they are not allowed to change them."
I am in favour of this, but it's not in the current proposal. Is it covered somewhere else?
Comment
I don't think this is covered anywhere else right now. Would you be interested in writing up something for this?
Comment
Klaas is right; it's not specifically stated in there, and it must be. In fact, the text of the Safety Gear proposal should probably refer to the higher level statement (that we must add). I think it should probably belong in Section 1.1. Or it should use some of that content and be broken out into a subsection. Basically about the host agreeing to be bound by these rules when offering to hold an IUF event. This is, in essence, a contract between the host and the IUF, that they will use our intellectual property as intended.
Section 1.4.1, Providing Special Rules, and Section 1.4.5, Disclaimers, Cancellations should probably appear near that main statement. 1.4.5 probably needs some editing to be clear that hosts (or officials) are not allowed to change rules. That section is there as an "out" to keep people from being too butt-hurt if some events have to be modified or cancelled due to weather or other problem.
Comment
John, I'm happily delegating Scott's request to you :-). Please feel free to propose something concrete, as you seem to have clearly outlined ideas.