Handling non-involved people at incidents

[Greem]

Spun off from this thread:

http://tentenths.com/forum/showthread.php?t=127910

A lot of our training revolves around trackside incident handling. The incident referred to in the above thread obviously straddled the boundary of "trackside", ending up as it did in a public area (and there have been many incidents at other circuits where a similar thing has happened).

Given that the person who started the thread felt they'd been treated a little too robustly, is it time that our higher-ups produced some training materials on how to deal politely (but firmly) with members of the public in those situations? Us marshals come from a lot of different backgrounds, have a lot of wildly differing experience in public events - whether as attendees, officials, management, volunteers or something else - and probably have massively different ways in which we would deal with the same situation.

I suppose the follow-on question at this point is: should marshals receive some form of training in crowd management (which is what this is really all about), or should that be left to circuit staff?

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by Greem

should marshals receive some form of training in crowd management (which is what this is really all about), or should that be left to circuit staff?

if its to do with an incident that has ended up in the crowd then training would be useful, as well as training to deal with the public, im affraid im not too sensitive with the public if they are filming accidents if i think theyre getting in the way or are filmingn innapropriately il tell them to stop, if they refuse id call circuit staff and get them ejected from the track

[saddelbags]

over 40 years of marshalling I have seen lots of bad accidents, a lot more in the past than now. I do wonder why a marshal should want to enforce his standards on members of the public. I found that most people did not get in the way of me doing my job, if someone was watching and taking photos from the public area so what, not my problem

[deadsquirrel]

Originally Posted by saddelbags

over 40 years of mashaling I have seen lots of bad accedents a lot more in the past than now I do wonder why a mashal should want to enforce his standerds on members of the public I found that most peopel did not get in the way of me doing my job if some one was whatching and taken photos from the public area so what not my problem

That's about what I was going to post, but I'd got my response up to 600 words, so thanyou

I've firmly requested a camera crew (with presenter) move from an incident scene, because they were physically in the way.

[Greem]

I'm not talking about forcing anyone to do anything. The discussion in the other thread got me thinking about rights (mentioned by the OP) and responsibilities (which we all have), and whether or not there's a consistent understanding of how to apply them.

It's self evident that if someone/group is in the way, I'd ask them to move. It's the grey area beyond that which I'm considering.

For the record, I worked in public entertainments venues for a number of years and it's very clear in those that if an agent of the venue management asks a customer to do something, or stop doing it, then that's the venue's absolute right. When signed on at a meeting as an official, what status does a marshal have with respect to paying customers?

I should note that I'm not passing judgement on anything here - I'm interested to see what the discussion pans out as.

[deley]

Originally Posted by Greem

I'm not talking about forcing anyone to do anything. The discussion in the other thread got me thinking about rights (mentioned by the OP) and responsibilities (which we all have), and whether or not there's a consistent understanding of how to apply them.

It's self evident that if someone/group is in the way, I'd ask them to move. It's the grey area beyond that which I'm considering.

For the record, I worked in public entertainments venues for a number of years and it's very clear in those that if an agent of the venue management asks a customer to do something, or stop doing it, then that's the venue's absolute right. When signed on at a meeting as an official, what status does a marshal have with respect to paying customers?

I should note that I'm not passing judgement on anything here - I'm interested to see what the discussion pans out as.

I think you really mean "rights" - these are often perceived rather than real

The small print associated with the public and events can be very long ..... for example the use of video recording equipment and the rights to any such recordings is usually controlled by the venue.

In the particular case referenced in the other thread, marshals worked with the circuit staff with regards to crowd control at and near to the scene.

[HairyDJ]

Rally marshals get a much greater proportion of their workload as crowd control, rather than hands on incident stuff, but still don't get in-depth training for it.

Best tale I heard was about a bunch of speccies who refused to move, so the marshal started handing out donor cards - worked better than head on confrontation, but shouldn't have been necessary in the first place.



I think we're on firmer ground when restricting access to an incident area than trying to get involved in the one on one management of scumbags. Maybe try to get the sensible majority in a crowd to obstruct the ghouls - plenty of peer pressure plus a smack in the mouth that all the good folk (and especially me!) wouldn't witness could work wonders.

Having said that, without youtube etc, I wouldn't have seen how lucky our fellow marshals were, nor how well matters were dealt with in the aftermath. It's simply that most decent people know when to stop!

[snailpace85]

There's something in the human condition that produces 'us and them'. Marshals having 'privileged' access to their area and wearing orange suits makes them obviously different to the punters. I think, just sometimes, being a volunteer can produce a bit of an attitude. Certainly applies in other walks of life as well. I remember some good few years ago a controversy about marshal attitudes to the paying public - was that at Brands during Nicola Foulston's era? I forget.

I'm not having a go at marshals - far from it and I used to be a regular marshal. I'm just saying that there's automatically a tension and potential for conflict.

Perhaps a couple of examples from my own experience -

I was IO at Coppice, Donington. In those days, spectators always used to sit on the concrete wall with their legs under the fencing. It was always necessary to try to get them to move. I've seen some marshals ordering spectators not to do it. As IO there that day I used a different approach. Back from lunch break, sure enough speccies with legs over the wall. I went up to them and explained very politely why they shouldn't do it and that they might need to move in a hurry if something was to happen. Well, back then, the run off was less than today! Sure enough, they made a point of not moving! So I just walked back to the post. When I looked back, they'd complied! I'm sure a psychologist can explain it.

I was spectating at Mallory last year. At the esses, meeting finished, clerk had been round to close the course, paddock gate open and motorhomes etc. pouring onto the track to go home. I asked one of the marshals if it would be OK to go across the circuit with them because at a previous meeting, when I'd got to the circuit office area that you have to go through, someone had locked the door and I ended up having to cross the circuit anyway to get back to my car. His reaction was instant and harsh. I was flabbergasted. Really unnecessary - if he really felt it was an absolute no-no, he only had to say so politely!

I think, even in my day, I would have appreciated some guidance on handling the general public. These days, as the other thread linked to shows, it's so much more difficult. I reckon - yes, put something in the training.

Hope that's some assistance to the discussion.

Scott

[Woolley]

I stopped doing rallies partly because it went boringly front-wheel drive and partly because spectators suddenly seemed to know best what was safe and saw marshals as people to be challenged not respected.

I always try to be as polite as possible, but sometimes under a stressful situation it's necessary to get someone to do something NOW and we'll discuss it later. At Shelsley where the crowd is close if we're dealing with an incident I will explain to the spectators nearby why we're putting up sheets and why they shouldn't take pictures or video. I find it's usually taken in the right spirit and the speccies appreciate the explanation. A couple of stories to finish.

Explaining to a young lady why she shouldn't have her toddler sitting on the fence because if a car left the track she would naturally react by backing of and wouldn't be able to hold on. She was quite indignant and told me in no uncertain terms that he was perfectly secure and nothing would tear him from her grasp. The concentration she required in order to abuse me in this way meant she promptly dropped him face-first my side of the fence, happily without injury to the lad but plenty to her pride.

I've also been told of an occasion where a photographer was taking pictures of a big accident from immediately over the shoulder of one of the marshals, despite having been asked not to. The marshal was so distracted by the clicking he accidentally dropped the fire extinguisher, wherupon it landed on the photographer's foot. That caused him to stop taking pictures - well, dropping his camera in surprise might have contributed to that.

It's mainly a question of respect. Of the driver's dignity, the people doing a stressful job but also of the spectators who we should remember mostly don't have the information or direct experience that we benefit from.

[Guinness2702]

Originally Posted by Greem

I suppose the follow-on question at this point is: should marshals receive some form of training in crowd management (which is what this is really all about), or should that be left to circuit staff?

I think it's not just the how, but the what that needs to be covered. I've never been told by anybody that I should ask people to stop filming. I'd move people on if they were in the way, but I'd do that whether they were filming or not.

OTOH, I was at a recent meeting, and the PC informed us that he'd reported an accredited photographer to RC, for taking pictures of the aftermath of an incident (one in which nobody was seriously injured).

[Hepatic]

If the people were not in the way then i doubt i'd ask them to stop filming / shooting as you'd normally have more important things to deal with, but as the car was in a public area it's highly likely people were in the way or too close for comfort. Conversely, if the incident had been fatal we'd be asking anyone with evidence to come forward and provide it to race control. Its a fine line, sometimes it can help others it can hinder.

Very few times during circuit racing i've needed to worry about spectators. Normally its just answering questions like "how do you start marshalling" or "how much do you get paid?!" and i don't need any training to do that. We did once have a drivers parents witness his F3 car roll right in front of them. The car ended upside down with the bottom of the car facing the crowd so they couldn't see if he was OK. As we were dealing with it we became aware of a lot of shouting / crying from the crowd and all of a sudden his dad was trackside with us. As usual the rescue team were fantastic with their response - they could have shouted at the guy to get him away but it would have made the situation worse. The driver was still strapped in at this point and getting a bit scared as the double pull electrics/extinguisher had just been pulled for a 2nd time in error! After calming him down away from the car he was offered to come back and help talk to his son to calm him down as prepared to get him out. Turned a negative in to a positive

Only other time was a Chomondeley which is far more public facing. You deal with people all day, a lot of whom are rare / new visitors to a motorsport event. Some people have the "interaction gene" and others don't but if you are polite and firm with your instructions then more often than not they'll take that and comply. Its no different to dealing with people you don't know at work. I've had to ask people to leave the venue as they brought their dogs and had no idea what effect the cars and bikes could have on them. Our spectator marshal also come out with a stunner to stop some toff from jumping the bales and cutting a line at our crossing. He must have ****ed off about 400 people waiting to cross, didn't listen to anything we asking him to do and the spectator marshal improvised, got his mobile out and threatened to call the cops. It worked a treat. he backed down, his wife was mortified at the embarrassment and the rest of those waiting patiently cheered

I'm not sure what you could teach in crowd control because every situation is different. I'd just advise you put yourself in their situation and treat them in the way you'd want to be treated in order to comply with your request. Common sense really, or at least it should be.

[Stephen Green]

Guys, please adhere to the question asked by the OP, should situations such as the one in question be covered in training days.

My personal view is that it is worth a mention but no more than that. The number of times a car ends up in a spectator area (circuit racing I mean) is thankfully rare and no training can equip you for every eventuality.

[Piglet]

Interaction with teams and spectators etc used to be covered in Pits training, it's something that it's much more relevant in the off track disciplines, I don't know if it's still covered?

It's a difficult thing to do and whilst it is something that could be covered for on track training it is hopefully a skill that is used infrequently so peoples natural instinct kicks in rather than the training.

Sometimes confrontation is close to inevitable, a marshal has witnessed or been involved in an incident, the condition of the driver and perhaps others is still unknown and the spectator believes he has the"right" to enter am area, the spectator is also revved up, the whole situation is adrenalin fuelled and is a recipe for conflict. I think you can perhaps gives marshals the tools to try to deal with that conflict but having done this many times it's difficult to remember your training when faced with someone who can't our won't understand why they can't do what they want to do.

Edited to add, I'm using my phone and I've no idea how I got the thumbs down icon or how to get rid of it! - OK fixed it now

[tonyC]

I believe it was already mentioned on 10 tenths the Donington Training day when Chris Hobson responded to the comments of a (now ex) Circuit owner regarding the attitude of Marshals to the general public.

Still makes me jump thinking about it now !

[gachjoel]

Originally Posted by Greem

I suppose the follow-on question at this point is: should marshals receive some form of training in crowd management (which is what this is really all about), or should that be left to circuit staff?

Personally i think not, we are in the position to make the area safe for the extraction which ever means is needed for the safety of the driver, and to tend to anyone else injured in the incident.
As long as no one crosses in to the restriced area where officials are working, i feel they are free to do what they want.
and this i speak from experience of having to do it.
If the circuit has a different opinion on this, i feel it is down to them to supply the staff to deal with such issues.

[NewYankee01]

good ob, ive been to 5 training events this year all over the country and its not touched upon apart from 10 minutes in a rally seminar, ive had training and put into practice on how to deal with difficult students in a college but thats a world away from paying public who can be three times the age of me! we need something because although most marshals will be highly professional even in difficult situations there will be the times in the heat of the moment some spectators get the better of them just try overstep the mark to really get their monies worth. the worrying thing is spectator marshals of what ive seen get the crap jobs that they should definately be doing as an unpaid volunteer that the organisers (not naming names) didnt want to pay for in enough circuit staff.

[skeee]

Originally Posted by gachjoel

Personally i think not, we are in the position to make the area safe for the extraction which ever means is needed for the safety of the driver, and to tend to anyone else injured in the incident.
As long as no one crosses in to the restriced area where officials are working, i feel they are free to do what they want.
and this i speak from experience of having to do it.
If the circuit has a different opinion on this, i feel it is down to them to supply the staff to deal with such issues.

I have to agree with this, (except for the experience bit) as at racing circuits there is a clear demarcation between the spectator’s area and trackside. In the rare occasion when a race incident breaches this line then I would imagine the immediate vicinity of the vehicle should be treated as per trackside as the medical services (including marshals) will need free and unhindered access.
I can’t see what extra training would be required for this as the marshals and medics etc will be busy with their usual duties, except, perhaps if available, nominate a couple of marshals to hold a tarp and politely ask bystanders to keep a distance and out of the medics way.

I haven’t attended a rally so cannot comment on that. Although from what I’ve seen on tv it appears the cars often end up amongst spectators so that may be a very different situation.

[Teletubby]

I am involved in marshal's training (for non-rally events) and have never considered the need to train marshals in crowd management. The number of incidents involving cars breaching the barriers is very low and I have always found that the marshals at the scene just get on with it. We shouldn't get hung up on or beat ourselves up over an incident with extraordinary circumstances that made things very difficult to deal with.

The scene of a serious accident is inherently unsafe and bystanders should be kept at least 10m away, leaking fuel (and there is always some of that) indicates that the cordon should really be at least 20m in my opinion. Tarpaulins and blankets are useful as screens but if people want to film they will, albeit now from 20m away. That said I did once have to ask that an airship was moved!!

I have always found that the venue staff are very good at managing the public and many disappear when asked to provide their details for the Police as potential witnesses!

[skeee]

Originally Posted by Teletubby

............... and many (public) disappear when asked to provide their details for the Police as potential witnesses!

Excellent training advice.
Thanks!

So if I ever do end up in that rare situation where a spectator is filming an accident aftermath, rather than ask them to stop I'll simply request that if they are going to (continue) filming/photograph, that they must hang around afterwards to report their details to the police as they could be a potential witness.

I'll remember that one!

[grumpy52]

when i marshalled i was given a badge ! It said " Evil, Mean, Wicked and Nasty" this was for my attitude towards MOP s and stroppy drivers , never had a problem in 36 years !! Don't know why !!

[Hubble]

Originally Posted by skeee

Excellent training advice.
Thanks!

So if I ever do end up in that rare situation where a spectator is filming an accident aftermath, rather than ask them to stop I'll simply request that if they are going to (continue) filming/photograph, that they must hang around afterwards to report their details to the police as they could be a potential witness.

I'll remember that one!

If they are only filming the aftermath they are not witnesses.....and even if they are witness to the incident they are under no obligation to comply with your request....

[Teletubby]

Originally Posted by Hubble

If they are only filming the aftermath they are not witnesses.....and even if they are witness to the incident they are under no obligation to comply with your request....

But they (for the most part) don't seem to know that and those that think they do are swayed by the fact that the other people are complying!

[Terrible-Tones]

Interesting one this -

To answer the original question - do I think I need training in crowd/people management?

Not entirely sure - the only time I have really interacted with speccies/teams is getting them off the pit wall which I do with politeness and have never had a problem. And also asking the occasional person to get back to the "crowd" side of barriers, again politely and I have never had an issue.

I would however like the following explained on the basis of the previous posts.

1) I am signed on - but who with exactly? Organising Club, MSA or circuit - or all of the above?

2) Therefore with regards to the above - I am an official of the meeting (presumably) but whom do I represent exactly?

3) With regards to 1 & 2 above - it would be nice to fully understand where our juristriction lays, both geographically on circuit and what we can reasonably demand of people & what we can reasonably ask them to do. Also, very importantly, knowing that gives us all a defined line that we then know not to cross, leading to consistency.

None of the above are crystal clear to me - therefore I would suggest that is a training issue?

[Terrible-Tones]

Also interesting is the debate about taking photos' videos, both on this and another, perhaps more candid, thread elswhere on the forum.

Taking off my marshal hat for a bit and putting on my media hat....(I was a BBC TV Camera Supervisor, News for 16 or so years).

To a degree there is some polarisation within three areas in this - between my right to film, common decency and an individuals right to privacy. TBH when I was roaming around as a News Cameraman the law wasn't clear. Many times I had run ins with the boys in blue. Sometimes they were right, sometimes simply being officious. Mostly we would need a licence to film (commercially) on the streets of London, but the BBC had such a thing.

As far as I could (can) tell everyone has a right to film anything unless it poses a security risk to the country, or an individual (so you wouldn't be allowed to film security measures for a visit by the Queen for instance). You have a right to film/photo in any public areas. You can take pictures of anyone and you do all the time - how many strangers appear in the back of your holiday snaps for instance.

If you are overtly taking a snap of a stranger it is probably best to ask them. Covertly (long lens to get that nice protrait of the old bloke feeding the geese for instance) then they probably won't know anyway.

I believe it only becomes a privacy issue if you continue to harrass someone - for instance do it more than once. However, is once many pictures at one event, or does that count as several instances - see the problem here?

For me I tried to balance between my right to film, the public's right to know (effectively I was the public eyes), and decency. As a professional I knew what shots would make the news. A close up of a mangled dead body is not going to make the 9'oclock News - so I wouldn't take it as I also did not consider it decent and also an invasion of that persons dignity (even if they were dead). A wide shot maybe, dependant on circumstances. Much better a general shot of the security/army/emergency services doing their job and perhaps an ambulance leaving the scene.

Therefore it was professionalism, I knew when to stop, and generally (though not always) did so when an officer told me. At Brands the guy on the other thread who claims to be a pro doesn't seem to have this wired in and IMO I think he is wrong in that respect, coming across as having little moral judgement in this case. By all means get a shot of the scene from further away, ambulance leaving OK, but do not expect to get close ups of a guy being cut out of a car. At that point he probably did not know if he was dead or alive. To me that is actually unprofessional. However he did stop when asked so that was a good thing, and did bring up perhaps a valid discussion point afterwards.

Back to putting my marshal hat on. Where does that leave us? Honestly I am not sure - it depends on how much juristriction we have. My opinion is that basically we have no right whatsoever to stop someone filming anything from a public area. We can request that they do, and we could stop them if it interfered with the work in hand. We might question their morals but that is all.

You could ask that they stop on the grounds you don't want to appear in the photos/video but I think that is questionable. A stronger position would be protecting the privacy and decency of the individuals involved in the incident. Even that I am not sure would hold sway.

To me it comes down to two things - the common decency of the photograher/videographer and I would bet that on most occasions if you ask someone to stop, they will. The other is knowing what juristriction we have on what after all is actually private property, to which the public pay to get into.

[Terrible-Tones]

Forgot to mention on my post #23

The term "Public Area" when used in context of a race track isn't really "public" in terms of a General Public area like a Park for instance. The land is privately owned and the public pay to get in.

Perhaps the term "General Access Area" would be a more descriptive, (but less elegant) term. The circuit owners rules will apply in these areas, not General Public rules (within reason). So I wonder if it down to what juristriction the circuit owners give us as marshals?

The circuit owner could allow people into these "public areas" but state that "no green shirts and stripey hats are allowed", for instance. Therefore as a marshal could we/would we say - "Oi Mate, you've got a stripey hat on, 'fraid you will have to leave"? What juristriction does the circuit owner give us?