Simply unspeakable

[Hairy-Neil]

For exmple many lift bridges on the South Oxford just need a push in order to crash down on unsuspecting boaters

 

I've never seen an 'Oxford' type bridge that would stay up on its own. In wet weather then the wood is drenched they can be difficult for a lightweight to open....

[stort_mark]

Alas big brother is now out of his tree on crack cocaine.

 

Ah..you have specific evidence for this in this case, do you? Valuable. You should tell the police.

[1066]

I would sooner a child be escorted off the canal than drowning is some lock, or indeed what has happened to this young 10yo

 

A nice idea in theory, but when the 10 yo tells you to take a running jump at yourself, there is not a lot you can do ........ you certainly can't lay a finger on them, unless you want to end up in court.

[NB Phoenix]

I'm afraid education and/or supervision isn't going to stop accidents happening. Coming through Leeds in the height of summer, nearly every lock had families camped out on the grass, parents 3 sheets to the wind watching their kids, some as old as 8, 'cooling off' by jumping into the locks, some were diving in while we had the paddles open!!! Then asking if they could use the shower!!! You can teach people til you're blue in the face but there are some that just aren't going to listen. I'm not saying this girl was anything like this example but just pointing out the mentality of some folk.

 

There is no such thing as an accident! And I get annoyed at this modern no blame culture.

 

Somewhere along the line of events a person or persons carried out actions that caused this tragic event. Whether it was the girl, the person who moved the bridge or a boater who failed to secure the bridge after they left it.

 

It may be that all have a part to play. If the girl had not been sitting on a mechanical structure, with it inherent dangers, she would not have been injured. As I said in my previous post (I am not that familiar with this particular bridge) but sitting on the end of the bridge she could not have closed it. So a second person has swung the bridge and caused the injury. If the bridge should have been secured but was not, that person has to bear the consequence of their actions.

 

I think what I am trying to say is that this poor girl has learnt a very hard lesson. Maybe whoever has operated the bridge has also seen the outcome of their inappropriate behaviour. If the bridge was left insecure the person who did that may never know what they have contributed to.

 

We are all responsible for our actions and we must be allowed to learn from them. Not just think because we have got it wrong we can blame others.

[stort_mark]

In 2006, 3,172 people died on the roads of Britain, with a further 28,644 seriously injured. At that rate, on the same day as this awful swing-bridge accident, around 9 people died in road traffic accidents and 78 were injured. A sense of reality needs to be maintained.

 

It is also absurd to see these dumb comments about "parental responsibility". These kind of Daily Mailograph reactions suggest only the ability to read a newspaper rather than the ability to rationalise an argument. Parents cannot - not now and not at any time in the past - control what their children get up to every minute of the day. People who use this kind of specious argument should look back to their own childhood and look at the risks occasionally taken. Risks, accidents, crimes are respectively taken, happen to or committed by people of different upbringing, ethnicity, intelligence, levels of parental care and educational background - and a broad range of sensible measures needs to be taken.

[Liam]

I arrived into school one morning to find that one of my best friends had been playing around on the local train lines with another friend. They both heard and saw the train coming towards them but he wasn't the tallest, and was not able to climb up onto the platform and out of the way in time. He did try and make it to the end of the platform but he wasn't quick enough. As you can guess I was very upset when we found out about his death, as were the rest of the school but even then I said it was his own fault. You do not play around these sort of areas without taking risks. He only had himself to blame.

 

Anyway, I can't see how a boater, who either forgot to secure it or left it open on purpose is to blame.

[NB Phoenix]

I arrived into school one morning to find that one of my best friends had been playing around on the local train lines with another friend. They both heard and saw the train coming towards them but he wasn't the tallest, and was not able to climb up onto the platform and out of the way in time. He did try and make it to the end of the platform but he wasn't quick enough. As you can guess I was very upset when we found out about his death, as were the rest of the school but even then I said it was his own fault. You do not play around these sort of areas without taking risks. He only had himself to blame.

 

Very much agree Liam and well said.

 

Anyway, I can't see how a boater, who either forgot to secure it or left it open on purpose is to blame.

 

But they should carry part of the blame.

 

If it is deemed necessary to secure a piece of equipment to make it safer. The person who fails to do so must take part of the RESPONSIBILITY in increasing the danger to other people.

 

If they left it open on purpose that is classed as negligent as we all have a duty of care to others.

[stort_mark]

There is no such thing as an accident!

Actually yes there is such a thing as an accident, and it is precisely the almost insanely ritualistic demand for blame that is leading us inexorably towards litigation, retribution and "justice" for every minor incident. If you follow your logic, with regard to "responsibility" you end up with a small percentage of the risk probability caused by the structural nature of the bridge. Next thing you know, all swing bridges are fixed or available only at certain times under supervision.

[Yoda]

Ah..you have specific evidence for this in this case, do you? Valuable. You should tell the police.

 

Dont be a prat Mark. You really are a stupid person.

 

It was obvious that I meant that families do not look after themselves any more.

 

You have really gone too far.

[RLWP]

In 2006, 3,172 people died on the roads of Britain, with a further 28,644 seriously injured. At that rate, on the same day as this awful swing-bridge accident, around 9 people died in road traffic accidents and 78 were injured. A sense of reality needs to be maintained.

 

Well, yes, but it isn't "news" is it. "Shock horror - about the same number of people got killed on the roads today as yesterday, and the day before, and the one before that" and so on. I know it should be, but unfortunately people getting killed in this way is no longer news.

 

Now a nice story about a pretty young girl being caught up in a "horrific" accident with a heavy, metal canal bridge that maims her for life is always going to make headlines.

 

I think we all started this thread with an image in our minds of a pretty girl enjoying a sunny day by the canal being tragically caught and crushed by the bridge in a freak accident, perhaps caused by a careless boater leaving the bridge unlocked. It is a different image when she is sitting on the wall looking at the bridge coming towards her, particularly as there were kids, perhaps her friends, swinging on the bridge at the time.

 

She has my sympathy though - for what it is worth.

 

Richard

[stort_mark]

But they should carry part of the blame.

If it is a specific requirement to close it and lock it afterwards. (I don't know the rules for this)

[NB Phoenix]

Actually yes there is such a thing as an accident,

 

I would be very interested in an example please.

 

Edit to add:-

 

Accident

 

Please note the bit about predictable and preventable.

Edited June 24, 2008 by NB Phoenix

[stort_mark]

Dont be a prat Mark. You really are a stupid person.

 

It was obvious that I meant that families do not look after themselves any more.

 

You have really gone too far.

 

No Yoda. You have gone too far by making a huge sweeping generalisation.

[alan_fincher]

As for the L&L this was another tragic accident but the description above over simplifies it.

Accepted - the full report runs to many pages, and I wasn't going to repeat it all here.

 

I'm not sure what over-simplification you are referring to, but IIRC locked paddles may well have been what made the situation irretrievable..

 

For one, it should be standard practice to unlock all paddles regardless of direction of travel:

A nice ideal, but as many can be snapped shut without the key, how do you necessarily notice when helpful bystanders, (possibly from other boats, possibly not), have chosen to lock them off for you.

 

Plus if working single handed, it really can be very difficult when leaving the lock, as well as having to shut the gates, to also make a trip to the other end to lock the paddle gear.

 

I remain convinced that the antics necessary to overcome these devices undoubtedly sometimes cause you to have to take bigger risks than you would if they were not there.

 

......which is why they have now have baffles fitted to them.

Don't get me going on that one.

 

Most around here are fitted so that they deflect water towards the sides of the lock.

 

So why does the occasional one have to be fitted so it diverts water straight into the middle of the lock.

 

OK s it's probably not intended, but could they really not have noticed when they fitted it ?

[stort_mark]

I would be very interested in an example please.

Do you wear protection against being hit by a meterorite?

Lightning strike?

 

I am well aware of the technical terminology regarding accidents, predictability and preventability. The issue is at what point you include the "unintended" and "unexpected".

 

If you go into detail risk assessment every time there is an accident, you end up going into an ever decreasing spiral that leads ultimately to an entire species hiding under their duvet (with suitable breathing apparatus of course). If you factor in the critical aspect of both likelihood of occurence and likelihood of severity PROPERLY (i.e. without the ridiculous political demand for "action....any action") then it makes sense to treat everything as predictable and preventable. If, however, you do not, then it's time to get under your duvet.

[Tim Lewis]

Making the bridge safer, by slowing its action or making it easier to lock, is fine and I'm all in favour of that.

 

The problem is that, the usual reaction is to declare "This bridge will now be fixed open (or closed, or removed)" and access is reduced and the kids go off and find something else dangerous, to play with.

 

 

 

 

Could you tell me at which point, in history, the canals were inaccessible to the public?

 

They were never fenced off, like railways, except in certain urban areas.

 

I don't know the exact dates but when I moved to London in 1980 the fact that the regents canal was closed to the public was still fresh in peoples minds.

 

Tim

Edited June 24, 2008 by Tim Lewis

[magpie patrick]

If it is a specific requirement to close it and lock it afterwards. (I don't know the rules for this)

 

On this bridge and it's neighbour there are signs making it very clear that the bridge MUST be locked shut. However the mechanism isn't great: once locked it's fine, but it's quite practical to return the bolt but miss the hole it should go into, which means the bolt is in the locked position but not locked

 

 

Accepted - the full report runs to many pages, and I wasn't going to repeat it all here.

 

I'm not sure what over-simplification you are referring to, but IIRC locked paddles may well have been what made the situation irretrievable..

 

Yes, it was the first of two decisive factors: the second was opening the gate paddles instead of the ground paddles. As is often the case, the final straw was that there were people inside the cabin and they were disabled and thus unable to get themselves out. Disaster usually occurs when several things go wrong all at the same time.

 

Don't get me going on that one.

 

Most around here are fitted so that they deflect water towards the sides of the lock.

 

So why does the occasional one have to be fitted so it diverts water straight into the middle of the lock.

 

OK s it's probably not intended, but could they really not have noticed when they fitted it ?

 

I wasn't saying they were a good idea! I noted at the time several gate paddles chained to prevent them being used... even those on locks where the gate paddles came out below water level...

[carlt]

I don't know the exact dates but when I moved to London in 1980 the fact that the regents canal was closed to the public was still fresh in peoples minds.

 

Tim

That would be covered by "certain urban areas", then but, apart from these very rare exceptions, the whole of the system was as open to the public as the public highway (there being, of course, a statutory right of navigation).

Edited June 24, 2008 by carlt

[alan_fincher]

Yes, it was the first of two decisive factors: the second was opening the gate paddles instead of the ground paddles. As is often the case, the final straw was that there were people inside the cabin and they were disabled and thus unable to get themselves out. Disaster usually occurs when several things go wrong all at the same time.

So, even allowing for the compounding causes, this IS probably a case where people died because locks had been fitted to the paddles.

 

My point was only meant to be that as more and more measures are thought to be necessary to combat various things, sometimes those very measures are increasing the dangers.

 

Anybody who wants a practical demonstration of how BW protecting the great British public has introduced a whole raft of new hazards for the boater only needs to try working through locks on the Regents Canal. There are lock enclosures you cant get in or out of (on foot) without a key. It's not possible to bow haul a boat out of some locks, due to permanent barricades between lock and steps. (And plenty more!)

 

Presumably too many people have stumbled out of the local hostelries, and into the lock. Do we put barriers round all locks where there is a nearby pub, for instance ? Where do you stop ?

 

Alan

Edited June 24, 2008 by alan_fincher

[NB Phoenix]

Do you wear protection against being hit by a meterorite?

Lightning strike?

 

 

? No....... Do you?

 

 

I am well aware of the technical terminology regarding accidents, predictability and preventability. The issue is at what point you include the "unintended" and "unexpected".

 

I believe, given the small amount of details known, that if this girl may have been sitting on the end of the bridge whilst it was swung back and forth by someone else. The outcome of this activity is easy to "predict" and therefore "expected" and by that definition "preventable". I would be fairly confident it was "unintended" but three out of four is not bad. So I still claim it was not an accident. It was a very predicable, preventable and an unfortunate event, and I'm sure all involved would not want to repeat.

 

If you go into detail risk assessment every time there is an accident, you end up going into an ever decreasing spiral that leads ultimately to an entire species hiding under their duvet (with suitable breathing apparatus of course). If you factor in the critical aspect of both likelihood of occurence and likelihood of severity PROPERLY (i.e. without the ridiculous political demand for "action....any action") then it makes sense to treat everything as predictable and preventable. If, however, you do not, then it's time to get under your duvet.

 

And on this we agree. As I said in a previous post, I do not like the no blame culture and we should learn accept the outcome of our actions.

[WJM]

When I was a kid my friend rode his bike into a lock and drowned. His family lived in the keepers cottage beside the lock so they must have all been aware of the dangers. The canal was derelict at the time but thankfully the authorities didnt fill it in. It is restored to navigation now.

[alan_fincher]

I believe, given the small amount of details known, that if this girl may have been sitting on the end of the bridge whilst it was swung back and forth by someone else.

According to the video news on the BBC web-site she was sitting on the wall that the bridge swings back against, with her legs dangling over, and the bridge swung into her. (Presumably was pushed into her, although that isn't stated).

 

I don't think it changes your argument, though......

[magpie patrick]

So, even allowing for the compounding causes, this IS probably a case where people died because locks had been fitted to the paddles.

 

My point was only meant to be that as more and more measures are thought to be necessary to combat various things, sometimes those very measures are increasing the dangers.

 

Anybody who wants a practical demonstration of how BW protecting the great British public has introduced a whole raft of new hazards for the boater only needs to try working through locks on the Regents Canal. There are lock enclosures you cant get in or out of (on foot) without a key. It's not possible to bow haul a boat out of some locks, due to permanent barricades between lock and steps. (And plenty more!)

 

Presumably too many people have stumbled out of the local hostelries, and into the lock. Do we put barriers round all locks where there is a nearby pub, for instance ? Where do you stop ?

 

Alan

 

I'd accept your general point Alan, and can give other examples. Bath Deep lock had railings actually at the lockside when it opened, then when someone cilled a boat in it the fire service cut the rails off and allegedly told BW very firmly that off they must stay. I worry about EA locks that are surrounded by pallisade fencing because it stops access if something does go wrong.

 

However, in this instance, they'd have been better off not refilling the lock at all, the gate paddles swamped the boat, if they'd done nothing the stern would probably have stayed clear of the water

[Hairy-Neil]

I find it odd that we were laughing about this last week....

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php...st&p=240657

 

The only difference as I see it is that, in the video, the youth was responsible for his own misfortune. With the swingbridge it is someone else that has got hurt.

 

Swingbridges shouldn't need anti vandal gear, any more than concrete panelled walls across the country should be fitted with a means to prevent a recurrence of the collapse.

 

The local youth are likely to give this swingbridge a wide berth for a while.

[RLWP]

? No....... Do you?

 

 

 

 

I believe, given the small amount of details known, that if this girl may have been sitting on the end of the bridge whilst it was swung back and forth by someone else. The outcome of this activity is easy to "predict" and therefore "expected" and by that definition "preventable". I would be fairly confident it was "unintended" but three out of four is not bad. So I still claim it was not an accident. It was a very predicable, preventable and an unfortunate event, and I'm sure all involved would not want to repeat.

 

 

 

And on this we agree. As I said in a previous post, I do not like the no blame culture and we should learn accept the outcome of our actions.

 

Well, yes, but. Let's say that you have 100lbs of blame to hand out. There are a number of participants in this, some known and some unknown. If I imagine a list of them it could include:

 

The designer of the bridge locking bolt

The maintainer of the bridge

The last boater to use the bridge before the accident

The person who unlocked the bridge (which may or may not be the boater)

The kids swinging on the bridge

The girl sat where the bridge closes

The designer of the bridge stop

 

Now, take your 100lbs of blame and share it out. Not easy. So far we know very little about what actually happened in this incident.

 

Richard