As you probably already know, in light of the continuing growth of ISKA and the changing legal environment, the ISKA committee have been looking at several measures to improve safety at our activities, and to give peace of mind to our volunteers.
Among the practical measures discussed were producing risk assessments to assist with planning and leading trips safely on the water.
These risk assessments (RAs) are attached here, available for all to read. They are very much a first draft, and the committee are keen to improve them as time goes by. We hope that in time they will become a valued resource for anyone considering leading a trip at an ISKA meet.
How they work
They are divided into two levels.
The first level is a general overview of the area of the meet, describing the paddling environment, and containing detailed information vital to trip planning in the area, such as tides and where to access the latest weather information etc.
The next level consists of generic RAs for the typical paddling activities enjoyed at an ISKA meet.
There is a lot of repetition in these documents, as it is expected that only 1 would need to be used at a time, as appropriate to the nature of the trip being planned.
It is hoped that these generic RAs will help the leaders of a trip prepare for their activity, and will inform their pre-launch brief.
The activity RAs follow a 5x5 tabular format. This is a format commonly used in industry, and while it may seem confusing at first, it is actually quite straightforward.
The activity is broken down step by step, and at each step the likelihood of an unwanted event is ranked 1 to 5. Next the severity of the outcome is ranked 1 to 5. The likelihood multiplied by the severity gives a numerical value for the risk. Mitigation measures are then considered, and the risk reassessed. The residual numerical value is then used to decide whether the risk is acceptable or not.
This format is imperfect, and doesn't always sit comfortably with how a paddling trip works, but it is a useful way to logically analyse an activity and come up with consistent assessments.
Please note that the risks identified in these RAs are not exhaustive, and nor will the mitigation measures be appropriate in all circumstances. It is up to the trip leaders to decide what is necessary and appropriate for their trip, the RAs are just there to help them in their decision making process.
These RAs are live documents. They will be refined over time, with experience in their use, and feedback from members. We encourage all ISKA members to engage with them, and help with improve them, for all our benefit.
The RAs can be read or/and downloaded from this Dropbox link. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/xh6bzz7i ... gbmz7&dl=0
Eventually we hope to get a dedicated place for them on the website/forum where they will be more visible and can be accessed more easily.
Risk Assessment
-
tallpersononboard
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2022 3:05 pm
Re: Risk Assessment
A necessary evil some might say, whether u like it or not, but this is our future. Well done Tash, some excellent work there - the Streamstown one should be used as a selling point 
Re: Risk Assessment
Thanks Dave.
They are a necessary thing nowadays, but they don't have to be evil.
If they are done right, they will actually be useful.
Time will tell if they've been done right!
They are a necessary thing nowadays, but they don't have to be evil.
If they are done right, they will actually be useful.
Time will tell if they've been done right!
Re: Risk Assessment
Thank you very much for these risk assessments. I know an awful lot of work must have gone into them. They are very informative and a great learning tool. Much appreciated.
-
brianmacmahon
- Posts: 189
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:37 am
Re: Risk Assessment
“A Necessary Evil ?” Hmmmm Evil certainly, Necessary ? Im not convinced. I strongly believe that drafting “Risk Assessment documents” before every meet could be the very stick that comes back to hit us.
I’m curious as to where this journey in bureaucracy is leading us ?.
Legal waivers followed by risk assessments followed by health and safety statements and a constitution followed inevitably and inexorably towards INSURANCE. Or at least the illusion of insurance.
I can’t believe we are here once again.
All of this was debated and voted on what seems like donkey’s years ago. Months of research into various insurance options, with only one conclusion …. Insurance for sea kayaking is nothing but a placebo.
Apparently it’s because of the changed legal environment ?
However the law hasn’t changed in this area for decades so I’m somewhat curious as to WHAT has changed.
Treating ISKA as a Sea Kayak business ???
Thankfully the then ISKA committee saw through all the nonsense and the membership overwhelmingly rejected it.
I wouldn’t hope to presume that these changes will be put before the membership once again for a yay or nay ?
After all it speaks to the very ethos of the Irish Sea Kayaking Association !
Waivers and Risk Assessments have already magically appeared without the members input….I would hope that any constitution in particular will be ratified by the membership.
The old guard myself included kept this bureaucracy from our door for many years. There’s a new generation of sea kayakers now ….maybe they want this ….!
However they should be given the opportunity to read through the changes, the constitution and all other relevant documentation before deciding for themselves.
The opportunity to vote was extended to previous members, new members should be afforded the same courtesy.
Remember you get what you vote for.
Brian Mac
Ex Meets Officer
I’m curious as to where this journey in bureaucracy is leading us ?.
Legal waivers followed by risk assessments followed by health and safety statements and a constitution followed inevitably and inexorably towards INSURANCE. Or at least the illusion of insurance.
I can’t believe we are here once again.
All of this was debated and voted on what seems like donkey’s years ago. Months of research into various insurance options, with only one conclusion …. Insurance for sea kayaking is nothing but a placebo.
Apparently it’s because of the changed legal environment ?
However the law hasn’t changed in this area for decades so I’m somewhat curious as to WHAT has changed.
Treating ISKA as a Sea Kayak business ???
Thankfully the then ISKA committee saw through all the nonsense and the membership overwhelmingly rejected it.
I wouldn’t hope to presume that these changes will be put before the membership once again for a yay or nay ?
After all it speaks to the very ethos of the Irish Sea Kayaking Association !
Waivers and Risk Assessments have already magically appeared without the members input….I would hope that any constitution in particular will be ratified by the membership.
The old guard myself included kept this bureaucracy from our door for many years. There’s a new generation of sea kayakers now ….maybe they want this ….!
However they should be given the opportunity to read through the changes, the constitution and all other relevant documentation before deciding for themselves.
The opportunity to vote was extended to previous members, new members should be afforded the same courtesy.
Remember you get what you vote for.
Brian Mac
Ex Meets Officer
-
Chris McDaid
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:35 pm
Re: Risk Assessment
Here we go again!! As a former chair having served this organisation for 7 years I am dismayed at the direction it now seems to be going. There was a very heated debate a few years back regarding insurance and I put it to a membership vote. The vote was a conclusive NO to insurance. How is that relevant to the risk assessment proposal you may ask?
1. The risk assessment proposal is only relevant to the volunteers who lead and assist at meets. Have these volunteers been consulted? Or is it being foisted on them? Risk assessments are always carried out at meets in an informal manner. Putting in in writing is the equivalent of painting a target on the backs of those who volunteer. Personally I see no need for it.
2. There should be a consultation and vote put to those volunteers (and ONLY those volunteers) if this proposal is acceptable to them
Personally speaking, if this formal risk assessment is adopted, I will no longer be willing to assist/lead at future meets. The ethos of ISKA has always been that we all look out for each other. I strongly suggest it remains that way. It is unfair to ask volunteers at meets to formally put their necks on the block with a formal risk assessment. Good luck finding those volunteers if this proposal is adopted.
Cheers
Chris
1. The risk assessment proposal is only relevant to the volunteers who lead and assist at meets. Have these volunteers been consulted? Or is it being foisted on them? Risk assessments are always carried out at meets in an informal manner. Putting in in writing is the equivalent of painting a target on the backs of those who volunteer. Personally I see no need for it.
2. There should be a consultation and vote put to those volunteers (and ONLY those volunteers) if this proposal is acceptable to them
Personally speaking, if this formal risk assessment is adopted, I will no longer be willing to assist/lead at future meets. The ethos of ISKA has always been that we all look out for each other. I strongly suggest it remains that way. It is unfair to ask volunteers at meets to formally put their necks on the block with a formal risk assessment. Good luck finding those volunteers if this proposal is adopted.
Cheers
Chris
-
conorsmith
- Posts: 212
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:37 am
Re: Risk Assessment
I have very mixed feelings about the newly proposed risk assessments. While not intended, one would think this is a new approach and that there has been little or no risk assessment before now. If you were new to the group, you would almost believe this is a new departure for ISKA.
ISKA was formed in the early 1990s, with the first symposium taking place in 1992. Over the last 30 years I would estimate there has been upwards of 150 to 200 meets. If we assume an average attendance of just 25 per meet, that would indicate somewhere between 4,000 and 5,000 individual paddles in that time. With growing numbers in the last decade, this has to be conservative.
Being an adventure sport in a very dynamic environment, in that 30 years, it is incredible to think we have had so few incidents. It speaks volumes for all those leaders and their support who have volunteered, without fee nor favour, to bring so many on the water all for the love of the sport. You have to agree, their safety record has been exemplary. If you have been one of those leaders or support, you should take a bow, it is well deserved.
I would be disappointed if anyone were to think any of these leaders did not always carry out a comprehensive risk assessment every time and continued to reassess conditions and the groups ability throughout.
I would never underestimate the importance of risk assessment, however I am very concerned about this new approach and believe it could unnecessarily expose our volunteer leaders, with just a few concerns listed:
1. First, all leaders should be consulted for their opinion and if they are willing to do all this new paperwork. I feel it is being forced on us without being asked for, while ignoring the track record;
2. How many leaders might we lose and might it mean we will struggle for support. Already we have fewer meets scheduled this year and I know of several leaders now questioning their position going forward;
3. If a precedent is set but not followed to the letter by subsequent leaders and there is incident, does it create additional exposure that did not exist before now;
4. The risk assessment sets out a long list of hazards however, where you might list 100, it is the single one that you miss that will nail you to the cross.
Lengthy new waivers also go on to list hazards where again, it is not what you list but what you omit that will hang you. We have a member with legal background that previously drafted a waiver for us along the following lines:
ISKA is an association with voluntary committee and leaders that does not hold any insurance. Sea kayaking is an adventure sport that takes place in a dynamic environment, that could result in damage or loss of equipment, injury or even death. By participating with this group or its members at meets and events, you accept these hazards and responsibility for your own decisions and actions completely.
The correct wording might be slightly different, however that aside, I cannot understand why people with no legal background believe they can better it or want to continually add further to this. If something is all encompassing (as best possible) and not broken, why do we feel we need to fix it?
We should think long and hard about this new approach, consult better with the actual leaders and be careful of placing new unnecessary hazards or burdens before those you rely on, especially where it has not been asked for.
ISKA was formed in the early 1990s, with the first symposium taking place in 1992. Over the last 30 years I would estimate there has been upwards of 150 to 200 meets. If we assume an average attendance of just 25 per meet, that would indicate somewhere between 4,000 and 5,000 individual paddles in that time. With growing numbers in the last decade, this has to be conservative.
Being an adventure sport in a very dynamic environment, in that 30 years, it is incredible to think we have had so few incidents. It speaks volumes for all those leaders and their support who have volunteered, without fee nor favour, to bring so many on the water all for the love of the sport. You have to agree, their safety record has been exemplary. If you have been one of those leaders or support, you should take a bow, it is well deserved.
I would be disappointed if anyone were to think any of these leaders did not always carry out a comprehensive risk assessment every time and continued to reassess conditions and the groups ability throughout.
I would never underestimate the importance of risk assessment, however I am very concerned about this new approach and believe it could unnecessarily expose our volunteer leaders, with just a few concerns listed:
1. First, all leaders should be consulted for their opinion and if they are willing to do all this new paperwork. I feel it is being forced on us without being asked for, while ignoring the track record;
2. How many leaders might we lose and might it mean we will struggle for support. Already we have fewer meets scheduled this year and I know of several leaders now questioning their position going forward;
3. If a precedent is set but not followed to the letter by subsequent leaders and there is incident, does it create additional exposure that did not exist before now;
4. The risk assessment sets out a long list of hazards however, where you might list 100, it is the single one that you miss that will nail you to the cross.
Lengthy new waivers also go on to list hazards where again, it is not what you list but what you omit that will hang you. We have a member with legal background that previously drafted a waiver for us along the following lines:
ISKA is an association with voluntary committee and leaders that does not hold any insurance. Sea kayaking is an adventure sport that takes place in a dynamic environment, that could result in damage or loss of equipment, injury or even death. By participating with this group or its members at meets and events, you accept these hazards and responsibility for your own decisions and actions completely.
The correct wording might be slightly different, however that aside, I cannot understand why people with no legal background believe they can better it or want to continually add further to this. If something is all encompassing (as best possible) and not broken, why do we feel we need to fix it?
We should think long and hard about this new approach, consult better with the actual leaders and be careful of placing new unnecessary hazards or burdens before those you rely on, especially where it has not been asked for.
Re: Risk Assessment
Thanks Brian, Chris and Conor for your feedback and contribution to the discussion.
It's good to get differing opinions on these things, as it helps everyone to understand what this is all about.
I know you guys have all put in a lot of time and effort into ISKA over many years, and clearly the organisation means a lot to all 3 of you. I'm only a noob by comparison, but I'm no less committed to giving back to the organisation for that.
@Chris, I was chatting to you at a meet early in 2024 or late 2023 (I can't remember exactly where/when it was), and you told me that ISKA was dying. I was shocked, but you went on to explain that no one was stepping up to take on the volunteer roles, and already many of the volunteers on the committee had been there too long and needed to take a step back.
I thought about that a lot over the next few months, and I chatted to Pa, the Southern Rep at the time, and decided that I didn't want ISKA to die. I also didn't want to get embedded in another committee, because I was already burned-out from years on another committee, and I'd only recently managed to get off that one. But I thought that the Southern Rep role might be OK for a couple of years, if all I had to do was plan one meet a year.
I had already decided to take on the role when I met you again at the symposium in Mulranny. The first thing you said when I met you that day was to repeat that ISKA would die if more people didn't volunteer.
The only reason I'm telling you this is because I want to make it clear that I have no agenda. All I wanted to do when I volunteered was to give a little back to what I thought was a great organisation, then hand the baton on to to next mug.
I have no desire or intention to treat ISKA as a sea kayaking business. I have no desire to make things more complicated. I have no desire to spoil anyone's fun (I'm only in ISKA for the fun). I certainly have no desire to put anyone in physical danger or at risk of legal action.
All that said, as soon as I was added to the committee conversation, I became aware of the vastly divergent opinions among the committee members about how to run meets, who is or isn't liable if there's an incident and all that other stuff that has been debated over many years. I didn't have time to read it all back, but I read enough to get an idea of what was being discussed. I was also completely confused by it all. Such diametrically opposed positions - white is black and black is white; that kind of debate. No clarity whatsoever.
So I decided to seek my own legal advice on the situation, to try and get some clarity.
I found a specialist in sports law in Ireland, with no connection to ISKA or CI whatsoever. I paid (a lot) for his advice out of my own pocket, because I was seeking advice for myself, not specifically for ISKA alone. I also asked him a lot of questions about the paddling I do outside of ISKA.
The answers he gave weren't those of a friend or a relative, given free for a favour, or of an interested party with a conflicted agenda. I have no reason to doubt that he was a completely impartial expert on the subject of liability in sports cases in Ireland.
You guys might have received legal advice that is contrary to the advice I received, but the advice I paid for is the advice I'm going by.
The advice I received was very clear that if I organised a meet, and if someone at that meet was injured, or suffered a loss of some kind, I could absolutely be liable for that. So could the rest of the committee. So could the trip leader. So could any other member or participant at the meet, but the main organiser would probably be first in line.
Now I want to give something back to ISKA, but I am not prepared to put my home and everything else I've worked my arse off for the last 30 years on the line to do so.
You may disagree with that legal advice, and that's your prerogative, but ask yourself - why has it been so hard to get volunteers over the last few years? Could it be because people with more savvy than me can see straight off that it would be taking on a huge risk to take on a committee role?
Maybe if we can put some protections in place for committee members, regional reps and trip leaders, more people will be prepared to step up and give back to this great organisation.
How do we protect people? By formalising things a bit. Taking reasonable precautions like having a documented risk assessment and formalising some of the great practices that already exist in ISKA (that have given rise to the wonderful safety record that Conor referred to). Ultimately, yes it probably will mean having to join an NGB to avail of their insurance, but that isn't the nightmare scenario some people seem to paint it as. I'm sure a large number of members are already NGB members. I don't know why it is such a big deal for some people. I have been talking to paddlers that are also cyclists, sailors, hikers etc. and they all join the NGB for their other sports as a matter of course. No one I have spoken to can understand why joining an NGB is a tough ask for some paddlers.
Anyway, there are some specific points ye raised in your posts that I would like to address:
"Risk Assessment documents...could be the very stick that comes back to hit us"
I strongly disagree.
In my workplace I have been involved in countless accident and near-miss investigations and reports. In such an investigation it is certainly noted if someone deviated significantly from their RA, but if they had no RA at all before starting whatever they were doing before the accident, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
It might be different in a paddling/meet scenario, but not by much, I'd say.
"Insurance for sea kayaking is...an illusion...nothing but a placebo"
I too have spent months researching this and have spoken to several insurers. It is not an illusion. They have their stipulations of course, but unless you go off the reservation altogether, the insurance is valid. It is also expensive, compared to cover from the NGB. It would be the NGB's standards we would be measured against in the event of an investigation, so my conclusion is that it is easier and a lot cheaper to just go with the NGB.
"I wouldn’t hope to presume that these changes will be put before the membership once again for a yay or nay? I would hope that any constitution in particular will be ratified by the membership?"
Of course!
I wouldn't be part of any committee that tried to ram significant changes down the throats of the members.
"There’s a new generation of sea kayakers now ….maybe they want this ….!"
Nobody wants this @Brian. But we also don't want to put our livelihoods on the line every time we organise a meet. We also don't want ISKA to die. If it doesn't evolve it will die...or eventually someone will get burned.
"The risk assessment proposal is only relevant to the volunteers who lead and assist at meets. Have these volunteers been consulted?"
We are all volunteers @Chris. At least some of the volunteers that planned Streamstown this year were part of the discussion about RAs. I'm sure the others were aware of it too.
"Risk assessments are always carried out at meets in an informal manner. Putting it in writing is the equivalent of painting a target on the backs of those who volunteer."
Dynamic risk assessment is essential. It is what keeps us safe from minute to minute in all parts of our lives. But in an organisation, if an accident has happened and there's an investigation, it's not worth the paper it's not written on. Believe me, I've been there. A good documented RA is your best defence when you are being asked hard questions.
"The ethos of ISKA has always been that we all look out for each other."
Absolutely. Excellent ethos. That should never change.
"if this formal risk assessment is adopted, I will no longer be willing to assist/lead at future meets."
That's a pity @Chris. Sea kayaking in Ireland is better for having experienced capable paddlers like you leading by example; showing how it is done, giving good advice and making the right decisions in active situations.
You might not think it, but I believe you were at risk more than you knew when you lead trips in the past. In the future, with some simple changes, you would be far safer to do so than it was before. But that's your choice. No one can be forced or coerced to take on a role if they don't feel comfortable.
"It is unfair to ask volunteers at meets to formally put their necks on the block..."
I absolutely agree.
"...with a formal risk assessment."
I absolutely disagree. That's just not how the world works. Everything in my experience tells me that's not how the world works.
"Being an adventure sport in a very dynamic environment, in that 30 years, it is incredible to think we have had so few incidents."
You are right @Conor, that is a great safety record. It is clear that risks have been managed well over a long time. The kind of scenario we are afraid of might only be one in a million (but let's be honest, probably a lot less than a million), but it can happen some day. With all the best precautions and the best will in the world, sometimes shit just happens, and I don't want my neck on the block when the axe falls.
How many near misses were there over the years? We tend to laugh them off, but honestly, over those years, how many times did a serious accident nearly happen, but for luck or a very small difference in the circumstances? A serious accident could happen any time. The law of large numbers must be coming into play by now!
I am reminded of the man that fell off the top of a 20 storey building. As he passed the 10th floor on the way down, he was heard shouting "So far so good!".
"leaders should be consulted for their opinion and if they are willing to do all this new paperwork"
Trip leaders aren't being asked to do any paperwork. If we go ahead with this approach, the meet organiser and safety officer will prepare the paperwork. It will mostly be a copy and paste job anyway, as we do the same things over and over again. Very little effort required once it's all set up.
"How many leaders might we lose and might it mean we will struggle for support. Already we have fewer meets scheduled this year and I know of several leaders now questioning their position going forward"
We have fewer meets because the people who could be organising them don't want to put their necks on the line under the historical arrangements.
I only made a fleeting visit to Streamstown this year (I had family commitments) but I heard there was reluctance by some to step up to lead. I don't know why that was. Maybe people were intimidated by the risk assessments. Maybe they had heard scaremongering and were frightened off from leading. Maybe they just didn't realise that they would be safer with the RAs in place. Or maybe they did realise, but also realise that RAs on their own aren't enough of a protection, and want ISKA to go further to protect its volunteers. I don't know. Maybe time will tell. Maybe we should also ask "How many leaders will we gain?".
"If a precedent is set but not followed to the letter by subsequent leaders and there is incident, does it create additional exposure that did not exist before now"
If I understand your question properly, in my opinion, no. Any leader can dynamically assess the risks and decide that certain measures in the documented RA are not suitable on the day. If there is an incident, and a subsequent investigation, they should to be able to state why they deviated from the RA in particular aspects. If the rationale is reasonable, then that should be enough.
On the other hand, if they are in the same situation and they have nothing to show the investigator, they have a lot of explaining to do.
"The risk assessment sets out a long list of hazards however, where you might list 100, it is the single one that you miss that will nail you to the cross."
It is true that you cannot predict all risks. One of the functions of the RA is to demonstrate that you made a reasonable attempt to identify and mitigate risks. No one is expected to be perfect. No one can guarantee the safety of others in an adventure sport, and nor are they expected to. All we have to do is demonstrate that we have taken reasonable precautions.
If what we have done is reasonable, no one will be nailed to a cross!
"Lengthy new waivers..."
Yeah, the waiver probably isn't worth the paper it's written on if there is a serious case. We all know that. Its main function is to deflect opportunistic (pricks) from trying to make a fast buck with a dodgy claim. It might also help with a real case if it's not too serious. If there is a life changing injury or similar major incident, the waiver would be useless. It's a small thing, but it might help in some situations.
Doctors differ, patients die. Different solicitors recommend different waivers. Maybe the old one was better, maybe the new one is better, I don't know. If you asked 100 solicitors to write a waiver, you'd get 100 different documents. The old one was written by a solicitor. The current one was written by a solicitor. I'm not a solicitor. What the fuck do I know?
"We should think long and hard about this new approach, consult better with the actual leaders and be careful of placing new unnecessary hazards or burdens before those you rely on, especially where it has not been asked for."
I agree.
I have been thinking long and hard about this (can't you tell, if you've made it this far you've read through War and Peace already). I think this is the best way forward, to put ISKA on a stable footing for the future, where everyone's as protected as they can be.
I also agree that the regular trip leaders need to be a big part of the discussion. This is as much to protect them as anyone else.
We also need to think about all the competent paddlers that could but don't/haven't lead with ISKA. Why haven't they taken the lead before? Were they afraid to expose themselves to so much risk?
Finally, I am not so arrogant to assume that I am right, gawd knows I'm wrong often enough (just ask my wife). I could well be wrong about all this, but really the only way we will find out is if it's tested in court. But I don't want to put my life on hold for years as a case drags through the legal system, just to find out that I didn't need to do a risk assessment after all. Or to find out that the risk assessment was what saved my ass in the end, or whatever.
So, I will happily step aside and make room for another volunteer to take over the Southern Rep role, if they think they can plan a meet without personal consequences, or maybe if they have nothing to loose. Last time I checked though, there wasn't a queue of people lining up for the job. If you're out there, just let me know, I'll happily walk away with my chin up, having tried my best to do what I think needs to be done.
It's good to get differing opinions on these things, as it helps everyone to understand what this is all about.
I know you guys have all put in a lot of time and effort into ISKA over many years, and clearly the organisation means a lot to all 3 of you. I'm only a noob by comparison, but I'm no less committed to giving back to the organisation for that.
@Chris, I was chatting to you at a meet early in 2024 or late 2023 (I can't remember exactly where/when it was), and you told me that ISKA was dying. I was shocked, but you went on to explain that no one was stepping up to take on the volunteer roles, and already many of the volunteers on the committee had been there too long and needed to take a step back.
I thought about that a lot over the next few months, and I chatted to Pa, the Southern Rep at the time, and decided that I didn't want ISKA to die. I also didn't want to get embedded in another committee, because I was already burned-out from years on another committee, and I'd only recently managed to get off that one. But I thought that the Southern Rep role might be OK for a couple of years, if all I had to do was plan one meet a year.
I had already decided to take on the role when I met you again at the symposium in Mulranny. The first thing you said when I met you that day was to repeat that ISKA would die if more people didn't volunteer.
The only reason I'm telling you this is because I want to make it clear that I have no agenda. All I wanted to do when I volunteered was to give a little back to what I thought was a great organisation, then hand the baton on to to next mug.
I have no desire or intention to treat ISKA as a sea kayaking business. I have no desire to make things more complicated. I have no desire to spoil anyone's fun (I'm only in ISKA for the fun). I certainly have no desire to put anyone in physical danger or at risk of legal action.
All that said, as soon as I was added to the committee conversation, I became aware of the vastly divergent opinions among the committee members about how to run meets, who is or isn't liable if there's an incident and all that other stuff that has been debated over many years. I didn't have time to read it all back, but I read enough to get an idea of what was being discussed. I was also completely confused by it all. Such diametrically opposed positions - white is black and black is white; that kind of debate. No clarity whatsoever.
So I decided to seek my own legal advice on the situation, to try and get some clarity.
I found a specialist in sports law in Ireland, with no connection to ISKA or CI whatsoever. I paid (a lot) for his advice out of my own pocket, because I was seeking advice for myself, not specifically for ISKA alone. I also asked him a lot of questions about the paddling I do outside of ISKA.
The answers he gave weren't those of a friend or a relative, given free for a favour, or of an interested party with a conflicted agenda. I have no reason to doubt that he was a completely impartial expert on the subject of liability in sports cases in Ireland.
You guys might have received legal advice that is contrary to the advice I received, but the advice I paid for is the advice I'm going by.
The advice I received was very clear that if I organised a meet, and if someone at that meet was injured, or suffered a loss of some kind, I could absolutely be liable for that. So could the rest of the committee. So could the trip leader. So could any other member or participant at the meet, but the main organiser would probably be first in line.
Now I want to give something back to ISKA, but I am not prepared to put my home and everything else I've worked my arse off for the last 30 years on the line to do so.
You may disagree with that legal advice, and that's your prerogative, but ask yourself - why has it been so hard to get volunteers over the last few years? Could it be because people with more savvy than me can see straight off that it would be taking on a huge risk to take on a committee role?
Maybe if we can put some protections in place for committee members, regional reps and trip leaders, more people will be prepared to step up and give back to this great organisation.
How do we protect people? By formalising things a bit. Taking reasonable precautions like having a documented risk assessment and formalising some of the great practices that already exist in ISKA (that have given rise to the wonderful safety record that Conor referred to). Ultimately, yes it probably will mean having to join an NGB to avail of their insurance, but that isn't the nightmare scenario some people seem to paint it as. I'm sure a large number of members are already NGB members. I don't know why it is such a big deal for some people. I have been talking to paddlers that are also cyclists, sailors, hikers etc. and they all join the NGB for their other sports as a matter of course. No one I have spoken to can understand why joining an NGB is a tough ask for some paddlers.
Anyway, there are some specific points ye raised in your posts that I would like to address:
"Risk Assessment documents...could be the very stick that comes back to hit us"
I strongly disagree.
In my workplace I have been involved in countless accident and near-miss investigations and reports. In such an investigation it is certainly noted if someone deviated significantly from their RA, but if they had no RA at all before starting whatever they were doing before the accident, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
It might be different in a paddling/meet scenario, but not by much, I'd say.
"Insurance for sea kayaking is...an illusion...nothing but a placebo"
I too have spent months researching this and have spoken to several insurers. It is not an illusion. They have their stipulations of course, but unless you go off the reservation altogether, the insurance is valid. It is also expensive, compared to cover from the NGB. It would be the NGB's standards we would be measured against in the event of an investigation, so my conclusion is that it is easier and a lot cheaper to just go with the NGB.
"I wouldn’t hope to presume that these changes will be put before the membership once again for a yay or nay? I would hope that any constitution in particular will be ratified by the membership?"
Of course!
I wouldn't be part of any committee that tried to ram significant changes down the throats of the members.
"There’s a new generation of sea kayakers now ….maybe they want this ….!"
Nobody wants this @Brian. But we also don't want to put our livelihoods on the line every time we organise a meet. We also don't want ISKA to die. If it doesn't evolve it will die...or eventually someone will get burned.
"The risk assessment proposal is only relevant to the volunteers who lead and assist at meets. Have these volunteers been consulted?"
We are all volunteers @Chris. At least some of the volunteers that planned Streamstown this year were part of the discussion about RAs. I'm sure the others were aware of it too.
"Risk assessments are always carried out at meets in an informal manner. Putting it in writing is the equivalent of painting a target on the backs of those who volunteer."
Dynamic risk assessment is essential. It is what keeps us safe from minute to minute in all parts of our lives. But in an organisation, if an accident has happened and there's an investigation, it's not worth the paper it's not written on. Believe me, I've been there. A good documented RA is your best defence when you are being asked hard questions.
"The ethos of ISKA has always been that we all look out for each other."
Absolutely. Excellent ethos. That should never change.
"if this formal risk assessment is adopted, I will no longer be willing to assist/lead at future meets."
That's a pity @Chris. Sea kayaking in Ireland is better for having experienced capable paddlers like you leading by example; showing how it is done, giving good advice and making the right decisions in active situations.
You might not think it, but I believe you were at risk more than you knew when you lead trips in the past. In the future, with some simple changes, you would be far safer to do so than it was before. But that's your choice. No one can be forced or coerced to take on a role if they don't feel comfortable.
"It is unfair to ask volunteers at meets to formally put their necks on the block..."
I absolutely agree.
"...with a formal risk assessment."
I absolutely disagree. That's just not how the world works. Everything in my experience tells me that's not how the world works.
"Being an adventure sport in a very dynamic environment, in that 30 years, it is incredible to think we have had so few incidents."
You are right @Conor, that is a great safety record. It is clear that risks have been managed well over a long time. The kind of scenario we are afraid of might only be one in a million (but let's be honest, probably a lot less than a million), but it can happen some day. With all the best precautions and the best will in the world, sometimes shit just happens, and I don't want my neck on the block when the axe falls.
How many near misses were there over the years? We tend to laugh them off, but honestly, over those years, how many times did a serious accident nearly happen, but for luck or a very small difference in the circumstances? A serious accident could happen any time. The law of large numbers must be coming into play by now!
I am reminded of the man that fell off the top of a 20 storey building. As he passed the 10th floor on the way down, he was heard shouting "So far so good!".
"leaders should be consulted for their opinion and if they are willing to do all this new paperwork"
Trip leaders aren't being asked to do any paperwork. If we go ahead with this approach, the meet organiser and safety officer will prepare the paperwork. It will mostly be a copy and paste job anyway, as we do the same things over and over again. Very little effort required once it's all set up.
"How many leaders might we lose and might it mean we will struggle for support. Already we have fewer meets scheduled this year and I know of several leaders now questioning their position going forward"
We have fewer meets because the people who could be organising them don't want to put their necks on the line under the historical arrangements.
I only made a fleeting visit to Streamstown this year (I had family commitments) but I heard there was reluctance by some to step up to lead. I don't know why that was. Maybe people were intimidated by the risk assessments. Maybe they had heard scaremongering and were frightened off from leading. Maybe they just didn't realise that they would be safer with the RAs in place. Or maybe they did realise, but also realise that RAs on their own aren't enough of a protection, and want ISKA to go further to protect its volunteers. I don't know. Maybe time will tell. Maybe we should also ask "How many leaders will we gain?".
"If a precedent is set but not followed to the letter by subsequent leaders and there is incident, does it create additional exposure that did not exist before now"
If I understand your question properly, in my opinion, no. Any leader can dynamically assess the risks and decide that certain measures in the documented RA are not suitable on the day. If there is an incident, and a subsequent investigation, they should to be able to state why they deviated from the RA in particular aspects. If the rationale is reasonable, then that should be enough.
On the other hand, if they are in the same situation and they have nothing to show the investigator, they have a lot of explaining to do.
"The risk assessment sets out a long list of hazards however, where you might list 100, it is the single one that you miss that will nail you to the cross."
It is true that you cannot predict all risks. One of the functions of the RA is to demonstrate that you made a reasonable attempt to identify and mitigate risks. No one is expected to be perfect. No one can guarantee the safety of others in an adventure sport, and nor are they expected to. All we have to do is demonstrate that we have taken reasonable precautions.
If what we have done is reasonable, no one will be nailed to a cross!
"Lengthy new waivers..."
Yeah, the waiver probably isn't worth the paper it's written on if there is a serious case. We all know that. Its main function is to deflect opportunistic (pricks) from trying to make a fast buck with a dodgy claim. It might also help with a real case if it's not too serious. If there is a life changing injury or similar major incident, the waiver would be useless. It's a small thing, but it might help in some situations.
Doctors differ, patients die. Different solicitors recommend different waivers. Maybe the old one was better, maybe the new one is better, I don't know. If you asked 100 solicitors to write a waiver, you'd get 100 different documents. The old one was written by a solicitor. The current one was written by a solicitor. I'm not a solicitor. What the fuck do I know?
"We should think long and hard about this new approach, consult better with the actual leaders and be careful of placing new unnecessary hazards or burdens before those you rely on, especially where it has not been asked for."
I agree.
I have been thinking long and hard about this (can't you tell, if you've made it this far you've read through War and Peace already). I think this is the best way forward, to put ISKA on a stable footing for the future, where everyone's as protected as they can be.
I also agree that the regular trip leaders need to be a big part of the discussion. This is as much to protect them as anyone else.
We also need to think about all the competent paddlers that could but don't/haven't lead with ISKA. Why haven't they taken the lead before? Were they afraid to expose themselves to so much risk?
Finally, I am not so arrogant to assume that I am right, gawd knows I'm wrong often enough (just ask my wife). I could well be wrong about all this, but really the only way we will find out is if it's tested in court. But I don't want to put my life on hold for years as a case drags through the legal system, just to find out that I didn't need to do a risk assessment after all. Or to find out that the risk assessment was what saved my ass in the end, or whatever.
So, I will happily step aside and make room for another volunteer to take over the Southern Rep role, if they think they can plan a meet without personal consequences, or maybe if they have nothing to loose. Last time I checked though, there wasn't a queue of people lining up for the job. If you're out there, just let me know, I'll happily walk away with my chin up, having tried my best to do what I think needs to be done.
-
brianmacmahon
- Posts: 189
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:37 am
Re: Risk Assessment
Hi Tash,
Thank you for that very comprehensive reply.
While I do not doubt your bona fides I do disagree with you regarding the legal implications. However I am not going to get into legal arguments with you here.
You have however pointed to the onus of ISKA’s problem…….volunteers !
While I do appreciate you and your colleagues stepping up onto the committee and I do not question your motives for one second. The issue is now that the older members have stepped back their roles haven't been replaced by new members.
While Providers stepping into these roles have stabilised things for the moment, long term it is not sustainable. ISKA is not a business, it’s not a Club, it’s an Association of like minded individuals meeting up during the year to paddle and share experience and expertise.
It is in legal parlance a “non legal entity”.
As such it cannot issue waivers, nor any illusion of a legally binding document because neither the state or the judiciary recognise it. An example of a non legal entity would be all the religious orders in the country. It is why to this day successive governments have not been able to force redress payments from them for legacy crimes against children.
Sorry I’ve inadvertently gone into legal arguments ….
Back to my main point lack of volunteers. Providers can keep the Association on life support for a bit but without volunteers from the membership ISKA will eventually fade away. It was never envisaged that there would be Providers on the committee as there is clear conflicts of interests there.
The core volunteers that are left are all of the old guard. We have looked to them to lead and assist for many years. They have stepped up willingly and most have previously served on the committee. I don’t wish to speak for them but I would bet that they are feeling very uncomfortable at the direction the committee is taking. In fact I know so since we have been through all this before.
The committee is formalising procedures in order to “Protect” leaders and volunteers and committee members.
Most of the volunteers that are left and don’t have dodgy shoulders disagree with you.
You may achieve the opposite of what you are aiming for and that is having less leaders to call upon for meets.
However all of these points may be mute as it still doesn’t solve the problem of having volunteers stepping up to committee roles and leadership roles.
Perhaps introducing all of these measures may give reassurance to members to step up !
Time will tell.
Brian Mac
Ex Meets (dodgy shoulder)
Thank you for that very comprehensive reply.
While I do not doubt your bona fides I do disagree with you regarding the legal implications. However I am not going to get into legal arguments with you here.
You have however pointed to the onus of ISKA’s problem…….volunteers !
While I do appreciate you and your colleagues stepping up onto the committee and I do not question your motives for one second. The issue is now that the older members have stepped back their roles haven't been replaced by new members.
While Providers stepping into these roles have stabilised things for the moment, long term it is not sustainable. ISKA is not a business, it’s not a Club, it’s an Association of like minded individuals meeting up during the year to paddle and share experience and expertise.
It is in legal parlance a “non legal entity”.
As such it cannot issue waivers, nor any illusion of a legally binding document because neither the state or the judiciary recognise it. An example of a non legal entity would be all the religious orders in the country. It is why to this day successive governments have not been able to force redress payments from them for legacy crimes against children.
Sorry I’ve inadvertently gone into legal arguments ….
Back to my main point lack of volunteers. Providers can keep the Association on life support for a bit but without volunteers from the membership ISKA will eventually fade away. It was never envisaged that there would be Providers on the committee as there is clear conflicts of interests there.
The core volunteers that are left are all of the old guard. We have looked to them to lead and assist for many years. They have stepped up willingly and most have previously served on the committee. I don’t wish to speak for them but I would bet that they are feeling very uncomfortable at the direction the committee is taking. In fact I know so since we have been through all this before.
The committee is formalising procedures in order to “Protect” leaders and volunteers and committee members.
Most of the volunteers that are left and don’t have dodgy shoulders disagree with you.
You may achieve the opposite of what you are aiming for and that is having less leaders to call upon for meets.
However all of these points may be mute as it still doesn’t solve the problem of having volunteers stepping up to committee roles and leadership roles.
Perhaps introducing all of these measures may give reassurance to members to step up !
Time will tell.
Brian Mac
Ex Meets (dodgy shoulder)
Last edited by brianmacmahon on Mon May 26, 2025 9:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Chris McDaid
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:35 pm
Re: Risk Assessment
Tash,
Thanks for your considered reply…….
The reason volunteers don’t step up for the Committee or to lead at meets has little to do with any legal implication, it’s because folk are perfectly happy to let others (the usual suspects) do it for them
Re NGB insurance - myself & Conor Smith had a meeting with CI’s CEO at the Dungarvan symposium. She was extremely impressed at the organisation & emphasis on safety at the event. During this conversation we were assured that we would be given written confirmation of what their insurance would cover (we were considering affiliation). No such confirmation was ever forthcoming, despite repeated requests by myself. CI are just not interested in sea kayaking
For the above reason, it is highly unlikely that ISKA meets would comply with CI/insurance requirements, given we do not know what they are (and neither do they it seems)
If we are to have insurance, it must cover our activities as they are. In other words, it has to fit us, not the other way round.
We’ve been here before, the members didn’t want it then and I doubt they want it now
I don’t doubt your motives at all, however I truly believe that this would be a backward step for ISKA.
Cheers
Chris (former chair)
Thanks for your considered reply…….
The reason volunteers don’t step up for the Committee or to lead at meets has little to do with any legal implication, it’s because folk are perfectly happy to let others (the usual suspects) do it for them
Re NGB insurance - myself & Conor Smith had a meeting with CI’s CEO at the Dungarvan symposium. She was extremely impressed at the organisation & emphasis on safety at the event. During this conversation we were assured that we would be given written confirmation of what their insurance would cover (we were considering affiliation). No such confirmation was ever forthcoming, despite repeated requests by myself. CI are just not interested in sea kayaking
For the above reason, it is highly unlikely that ISKA meets would comply with CI/insurance requirements, given we do not know what they are (and neither do they it seems)
If we are to have insurance, it must cover our activities as they are. In other words, it has to fit us, not the other way round.
We’ve been here before, the members didn’t want it then and I doubt they want it now
I don’t doubt your motives at all, however I truly believe that this would be a backward step for ISKA.
Cheers
Chris (former chair)