Cyclists, aqueducts, and no-win situations

[magictime]

It strikes me that two current topics in this forum neatly illustrate the fact that the CRT can't do right for doing wrong sometimes.

 

On the one hand, we've had a series of anecdotal reports of incidents involving cyclists in which people and pets have been or could have been injured. Each report is followed by howls of indignation that the CRT are ignoring a serious safety issue, won't act until a child is killed, etc.

 

On the other hand, we have the CRT proposing to put up railings on Marple Aqueduct in response to reports of incidents in which adults and children have been at risk of falling to their deaths. Cue equally indignant howling that it's health and safety gone mad, no one has actually died yet so what's the problem, etc.

 

I honestly pity the poor souls at the CRT whose job it is to come up with proportionate, realistic, balanced responses to these issues. Whether they're getting it right is always going to be debatable, but one thing we can be sure of is that they're never going to please everyone.

 

[alan_fincher]

I guess what irks me is that increasingly CRT seem to say they are being balanced by having a consultation about something, but if the majority of responses to that consultation fail to support what CRT want to do, more often than not they go ahead and do just what they wanted to in the first place.

 

In which case I would argue that the consultation is a fiasco, and just wastes time and money. We might as well go back to how BW operated, with no consultation, because time and time again the end result seems to end up exactly the same!

[Laurence Hogg]

The Marple situation IF it succeeds will cause a whole lot more of safety investigations, there are hundreds of situations which could be deem a risk. What do we want, lights in tunnels, fences round locks? This will cause a unprecedented "spend" which CRT haven't forecasted for.

 

Look at the lock pall fiasco, ask yourselves how many windlasses actually in use everyday fit a tapering square section? This fact has been overlooked by CRT as any welded box section windlass is NOT fitting the taper, only at the points it touches, which is not good for the spindle.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Laurence Hogg

[magpie patrick]

Far from CRT not being able to do right for doing wrong, I think they have only themselves to blame.

 

In an effort to make waterways available to all, they have allowed a free for all on the towpath, there is minimal signage and no attempt to police their use (London may be an exception) and I've had enough issues when taking Magpie the Elder for a walk to realise this isn't just "same old, same old" when it comes to complaints. Someone minding their own business is going to get badly injured, and there aren't even signs advising cyclists of the hazard or, if you must, advising others of the hazard presented by cyclists.

 

And yet the very slight and entirely avoidable risk of falling off Marple Aqueduct gets the full H&S treatment. CRT could do to reverse their approach.

[NilesMI]

The Marple situation IF it succeeds will cause a whole lot more of safety investigations

 

I don't see whay that should be the case. The need to do something at Marple only arises because of the project to extend and encourage access to the particular location.

 

As for the consultation, it is fine for people to say that they don't want raillings, and their opinions should be taken into account. But CRT can't be bound to simply accept the majority view because if there ever is an incident (and it need not be a fatal, or even a serious incident) due to the offside parapet being open, it will be CRT who will be found at fault, not the consultation respondents.

[magpie patrick]

 

I don't see whay that should be the case. The need to do something at Marple only arises because of the project to extend and encourage access to the particular location.

 

As for the consultation, it is fine for people to say that they don't want raillings, and their opinions should be taken into account. But CRT can't be bound to simply accept the majority view because if there ever is an incident (and it need not be a fatal, or even a serious incident) due to the offside parapet being open, it will be CRT who will be found at fault, not the consultation respondents.

 

They shouldn't have asked the question then! The consultation should have started with "we have to put up railings, what type do you want?" not "do you want them at all?"!

[Jerra]

Surely if the situation at the aqueduct was properly risk assessed there would be ways of preventing/reducing to acceptable levels the risk.

 

I don't know the aqueduct but if I understand correctly it has a narrow part on the offside which it is possible to step off on to. Surely some sort of device preventing access from the land and plenty of "Danger of Death" signs as used for overhead wires would do the job.

 

This would I think satisfy both camps. It would render the side safe as only those who were daft enough to ignore the signs would be at risk and it would be cheaper and less intrusive (not to mention more in keeping with the original design).

 

Similarly there must be ways of slowing cyclists down which can't be vandalised (even if it means reinforced concrete) which allow sensible use of the towpath by all.

[NilesMI]

 

They shouldn't have asked the question then! The consultation should have started with "we have to put up railings, what type do you want?" not "do you want them at all?"!

 

They didn't ask the question, as far as I understand it.

 

What the consultation document said was: "Fencing blocking the off-side access at either end of the Aqueduct has been in place for some time but concerns exist about the adequacy of this as a control measure. In 2013 with the project imminent safety was reviewed here and our conclusion was that additional mitigation measures at the Aqueduct were required including provision of a parapet guard."

 

The responses, both essentially for and essentially against railings, were tallied from the section of the consultation labelled "Other comments".

[magpie patrick]

 

They didn't ask the question, as far as I understand it.

 

What the consultation document said was: "Fencing blocking the off-side access at either end of the Aqueduct has been in place for some time but concerns exist about the adequacy of this as a control measure. In 2013 with the project imminent safety was reviewed here and our conclusion was that additional mitigation measures at the Aqueduct were required including provision of a parapet guard."

 

The responses, both essentially for and essentially against railings, were tallied from the section of the consultation labelled "Other comments".

 

The consultation response document gives evidence of safety issues in the form of incident records and citing holiday videos/reported near misses. Leaving aside that a fence won't prevent suicide (which the actual incidents appear to be) this evidence was not part of the original consultation.

 

This may be why 69 respondents said it wasn't needed and cited a lack of evidence.

 

Had CRT put the evidence up as clearly at the consultation stage they may have got a different outcome.

 

With regards to increased visitor access, which is quoted as a reason, the aqueduct is already popular enough to justify action if it's felt to be needed. I speak from a position of some knowledge, I grew up near the aqueduct and my father still lives there

 

How big will the claim be when a cyclist hits and injures an 82 year old man walking on the towpath - if that old man is my father it will be me who is making it!

 

It may be the culture that great lengths should be taken to safeguard against tiny risks that only the unwary or unwise are prey to, that doesn't excuse CRT being irresponsible with other types of risk.

[alan_fincher]

I don't know the aqueduct but if I understand correctly it has a narrow part on the offside which it is possible to step off on to. Surely some sort of device preventing access from the land and plenty of "Danger of Death" signs as used for overhead wires would do the job.

 

It is not actually a narrow area at all - it is probably 5 or 6 feet wide, and probably at least as wide as the tow-path on the other side. There is actually no danger at all to anybody who chooses to walk on that area near to the canal edge - the danger only arises if you get close to the drop.

 

I can't imagine what "device" could prevent you from stepping off on to it that would be significantly less obtrusive than whatever railings will get erected.

 

In fact the railings don't have to be, (and indeed may well end up not being), erected on the furthest side just before the fall - and, of course, if they are, it is far more likely that people will stop their boats on the aqueduct, and step off to take pictures, or to admire the view!

 

I've no idea what is currently in CRT's their heads, but maybe railings somewhere in the middle of the wide area is what they will do - gives a fair separation from the fall, (unless people climb over them), but doesn't place an obstruction close to the canal, and risk any kind of incident with people on boats getting mixed up in them.

Edited July 16, 2015 by alan_fincher

[NilesMI]

 

Had CRT put the evidence up as clearly at the consultation stage they may have got a different outcome.

 

I think even CRT admit that. It's not clear why they didn't provide their basis for having decided that more protection was necessary.

 

Perhaps the thinking was: "We have decided to put a barrier on the parapet at this aqueduct. Now let us consult on what that barrier should be." and were surprised to get so many people commenting about something which they had already decided on. Given that people did comment, it seems reasonable to be transparent and publish the numbers on each side. Having done so CRT is then accused of ignoring the results of their consultation. Is this one of the no-win situations the OP had in mind?

 

As for cyclists colliding with pedestrians, it is not inherently dangerous to have cyclists and pedestrians sharing the same space. If the collision occurs because a cyclist is being reckless, the pedestrian's claim would be against the cyclist, rather than CRT.

I've no idea what is currently in CRT's their heads

 

There is an artist's impression of the (preferred style of) railings included in the consultation report. The railings seem to be at/towards the outer edge of the structure with occasional raked supports.

[furnessvale]

 

 

As for cyclists colliding with pedestrians, it is not inherently dangerous to have cyclists and pedestrians sharing the same space. If the collision occurs because a cyclist is being reckless, the pedestrian's claim would be against the cyclist, rather than CRT.

Most provision for cyclists by CRT is in breach of DfT codes of practice for shared paths.

 

Be assured, that should anything happen to me or mine, CRT will most certainly be a target of litigation.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Jerra]

I can't imagine what "device" could prevent you from stepping off on to it that would be significantly less obtrusive than whatever railings will get erected.

Sorry you obviously misunderstood/misread what I put. I said a device to stop the getting on from the land. In other words some sort of fence across the point where it changes from field to aqueduct.

 

Then on the area its self danger of death signs similar to those used by CRT to warn fishermen about overhead wires. They don't see the need to put anything up to prevent rods (and lines) touching the wires feeling notices will suffice. Why then is there a need for fencing on the aqueduct if you have prevented (or made it only possible for the very determined) access to all other than boaters.

[adam1uk]

In fact the railings don't have to be, (and indeed may well end up not being), erected on the furthest side just before the fall - and, of course, if they are, it is far more likely that people will stop their boats on the aqueduct, and step off to take pictures, or to admire the view!

 

I suspect you're right -- more people are likely to step onto that area if there are railings there, than do so now. Having railings almost invites people to do so -- so I also suspect the railings will also end up festooned in signs urging people not to step off on that side

[furnessvale]

 

It is not actually a narrow area at all - it is probably 5 or 6 feet wide, and probably at least as wide as the tow-path on the other side. There is actually no danger at all to anybody who chooses to walk on that area near to the canal edge - the danger only arises if you get close to the drop.

 

In fact the railings don't have to be, (and indeed may well end up not being), erected on the furthest side just before the fall - and, of course, if they are, it is far more likely that people will stop their boats on the aqueduct, and step off to take pictures, or to admire the view!

 

I've no idea what is currently in CRT's their heads, but maybe railings somewhere in the middle of the wide area is what they will do - gives a fair separation from the fall, (unless people climb over them), but doesn't place an obstruction close to the canal, and risk any kind of incident with people on boats getting mixed up in them.

One of the problems CRT wish to solve is the possibility of "dare devil" youths jumping from the towpath to the offside.

 

To no avail, I have pointed out to CRT that the provision of an offside fence will simply encourage such behaviour as the possibility of overrunning is removed.

 

The fencing will also provide a wonderful anchor point for abseilers!

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[mayalld]

It strikes me that two current topics in this forum neatly illustrate the fact that the CRT can't do right for doing wrong sometimes.

 

On the one hand, we've had a series of anecdotal reports of incidents involving cyclists in which people and pets have been or could have been injured. Each report is followed by howls of indignation that the CRT are ignoring a serious safety issue, won't act until a child is killed, etc.

 

On the other hand, we have the CRT proposing to put up railings on Marple Aqueduct in response to reports of incidents in which adults and children have been at risk of falling to their deaths. Cue equally indignant howling that it's health and safety gone mad, no one has actually died yet so what's the problem, etc.

 

 

the difference is that in the first case, incidents are happening, and nothing is being done. In the second, we have had 200 years with no incidents whatsoever, and they want to do something.

[alan_fincher]

The fencing will also provide a wonderful anchor point for abseilers!

 

I feel a "win win" emerging situation here!

 

It's in line with CRT's stated objective of promoting use of the canals for all kinds of sporting activities.

 

Moreover if the abseiling lines are attached to the top of the new railings, but then taken across the cut, and over the stone parapet on the tow-path side, then that also includes Laurence's device for beheading speeding cyclists at absolutely no extra cost to CRT.

 

One downside of course is that these ropes would also prevent the passage of boats across the aqueduct, but actual movement of boats now seems fairly low on the list for future use of our canal system, so perhaps unimportant in the grander scheme of things? And anyway, no boats means nobody stepping off of them on to the wrong side, so yet another win.....

 

(Coat please!)

[magpie patrick]

Most provision for cyclists by CRT is in breach of DfT codes of practice for shared paths.

 

Be assured, that should anything happen to me or mine, CRT will most certainly be a target of litigation.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

I'd agree - at this location at least it is inherently dangerous, and CRT are permitting it to happen, the towpath across the aqueduct is (unusually) a public footpath, but there is no right of way for cycles.

[furnessvale]

 

I feel a "win win" emerging situation here!

 

It's in line with CRT's stated objective of promoting use of the canals for all kinds of sporting activities.

 

Moreover if the abseiling lines are attached to the top of the new railings, but then taken across the cut, and over the stone parapet on the tow-path side, then that also includes Laurence's device for beheading speeding cyclists at absolutely no extra cost to CRT.

 

One downside of course is that these ropes would also prevent the passage of boats across the aqueduct, but actual movement of boats now seems fairly low on the list for future use of our canal system, so perhaps unimportant in the grander scheme of things? And anyway, no boats means nobody stepping off of them on to the wrong side, so yet another win.....

 

(Coat please!)

That's OK. A Fly Boat cutter will be most useful! Of course, the abseiler may not agree.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[NilesMI]

One of the problems CRT wish to solve is the possibility of "dare devil" youths jumping from the towpath to the offside.

 

To no avail, I have pointed out to CRT that the provision of an offside fence will simply encourage such behaviour as the possibility of overrunning is removed.

 

You could equally well imagine that having put up railings, the lack of danger would discourage the practice. It no longer being a "dare devil" escapade. All the youths could do would be to jump over a narrow section of canal.

 

 

the difference is that in the first case, incidents are happening, and nothing is being done. In the second, we have had 200 years with no incidents whatsoever, and they want to do something.

 

I don't think it's the case that they "want to do something". They say they have looked at the risks (and there have been several recent incidents, though not fatal/falls) and have concluded that they need to do something.

[Phil.]

It strikes me that two current topics in this forum neatly illustrate the fact that the CRT can't do right for doing wrong sometimes.

 

On the one hand, we've had a series of anecdotal reports of incidents involving cyclists in which people and pets have been or could have been injured. Each report is followed by howls of indignation that the CRT are ignoring a serious safety issue, won't act until a child is killed, etc.

 

On the other hand, we have the CRT proposing to put up railings on Marple Aqueduct in response to reports of incidents in which adults and children have been at risk of falling to their deaths. Cue equally indignant howling that it's health and safety gone mad, no one has actually died yet so what's the problem, etc.

 

I honestly pity the poor souls at the CRT whose job it is to come up with proportionate, realistic, balanced responses to these issues. Whether they're getting it right is always going to be debatable, but one thing we can be sure of is that they're never going to please everyone.

 

Whilst on the face of it this seems to be the case, your two example are very different. In the Aquaduct example injury is going to be caused by the individual themselves probably through their own stupidity. In respect of the cycling the injury is being caused by the actions of a third party, not the victim or CRT.

[churchward]

It strikes me that two current topics in this forum neatly illustrate the fact that the CRT can't do right for doing wrong sometimes.

 

On the one hand, we've had a series of anecdotal reports of incidents involving cyclists in which people and pets have been or could have been injured. Each report is followed by howls of indignation that the CRT are ignoring a serious safety issue, won't act until a child is killed, etc.

 

On the other hand, we have the CRT proposing to put up railings on Marple Aqueduct in response to reports of incidents in which adults and children have been at risk of falling to their deaths. Cue equally indignant howling that it's health and safety gone mad, no one has actually died yet so what's the problem, etc.

 

I honestly pity the poor souls at the CRT whose job it is to come up with proportionate, realistic, balanced responses to these issues. Whether they're getting it right is always going to be debatable, but one thing we can be sure of is that they're never going to please everyone.

 

I understand your point and at times on here I think it can easily be that way. In this example I am not so sure. The outcry about the cyclists is about a real issue particularly in and around busy towns and cities. Folk are being injured but CRT do not seem to want o engage in doing anything about it. The case of Marple Aqueduct is one of spending potentially thousands on something that the consultation said was not needed and CRT not taking any notice of that consultation.

Edited July 16, 2015 by churchward

[sirweste]

One of the problems CRT wish to solve is the possibility of "dare devil" youths jumping from the towpath to the offside.

 

To no avail, I have pointed out to CRT that the provision of an offside fence will simply encourage such behaviour as the possibility of overrunning is removed.

 

 

No reason to make i safe for dare devils, in general H&S usually interferes with natural selection.

[MtB]

 

It is not actually a narrow area at all - it is probably 5 or 6 feet wide, and probably at least as wide as the tow-path on the other side. There is actually no danger at all to anybody who chooses to walk on that area near to the canal edge - the danger only arises if you get close to the drop.

 

 

 

 

Blimey that photo makes me feel horribly willocky.

 

I fully support CRT's plan to put up a railing.

[NilesMI]

I understand your point and at times on here I think it can easily be that way. In this example I am not so sure. The outcry about the cyclists is about a real issue particularly in and around busy towns and cities. Folk are being injured but CRT do not seem to want o engage in doing anything about it. The case of Marple Aqueduct is one of spending potentially thousands on something that the consultation said was not needed and CRT not taking any notice of that consultation.

 

The consultation was not about whether there should or shouldn't be a barrier on the open side of the viaduct. CRT says it had assesed the risk and decided it was needed. However, as well as answering the consultation as to what kind of barrier would be best, some people also left opinons about whether they thought it was even necessary.

 

Apart from the fact they weren't asked, it's not the respondents to the consultation who are responsible for the risk, is it? It is easy for someone to say that railings are a waste of money if they are not liable for the conseqences of not providing them. Perhaps you would like to take the risk off CRT's hands, in the form of an insurance policy? Given the size of settlement that could accrue if someone did slip or fall, what premium would you charge? Would it be less, over, say, the next 50 yrs, than the cost of putting up railings?

 

I have to say it's a shame in that railings will spoil the look of the viaduct, IMO. But you have to set that against the money that CRT and others are getting to spend on the canal, that there will be more visitors and users and that might, just might, mean the canal continues to exist for a decade or two.