Simply unspeakable

[magnetman]

No, in fact, it's irony.

 

 

 

A statement like this, made by somebody who, elsewhere on the forum has stated that he has a disability (an autistic spectrum disorder) seems a little bit silly.

 

but welcome back, btw.

 

yes but is that actually a weakness in the sense of having a negative impact on the human race's ability to survive?

[carlt]

yes but is that actually a weakness in the sense of having a negative impact on the human race's ability to survive?

No more than kids mucking about with a swing bridge or over-enthusiasm on a H&S bureaucrat's part.

 

If you read my first post on this thread you'll find we're in broad agreement on this matter but, having an autistic son, who may never be able to visit the waterside alone, for his own safety, I took exception to the implication that he (or even you) had any less right to protection, than the rest of us.

 

I also believe keeping my son safe, by the waterside, is my responsibility, though, not the HSE's. This means adequate supervision and reporting unsafe structures, if I happen upon them.

[magnetman]

what a --------- liberty...

 

I say that I think that people who put themselves in harms way on account of their idiocy should be allowed, note the word ALLOWED, not FORCED, to die as nature's way of suggesting they shouldn't be around and removing weakness from the race. Health and Safety attempts to prevent this and ironically may end up removing stronger members of the race because things which are dangerous are made to look safe. Where did i mention anything about killing anyone anyway?

 

for the record. NO i do not support euthanasia of people with disabilities :lol:

 

quote from my earlier post:

'Health and Safety' is going to end up destroying the human race. If people are idiotic and put themselves in harms way they should be allowed to die, there are enough humans around already. supporting and encouraging any weakness in a species is a fundamental error."

 

so there. Toys back in pram please.

[carlt]

what a --------- liberty...

 

I say that I think that people who put themselves in harms way on account of their idiocy should be allowed, note the word ALLOWED, not FORCED, to die as nature's way of suggesting they shouldn't be around and removing weakness from the race. Health and Safety attempts to prevent this and ironically may end up removing stronger members of the race because things which are dangerous are made to look safe. Where did i mention anything about killing anyone anyway?

 

for the record. NO i do not support euthanasia of people with disabilities :lol:

 

quote from my earlier post:

'Health and Safety' is going to end up destroying the human race. If people are idiotic and put themselves in harms way they should be allowed to die, there are enough humans around already. supporting and encouraging any weakness in a species is a fundamental error."

 

so there. Toys back in pram please.

Well a post highlighting the irony of your comment is hardly chucking the toys out of the pram (or are you referring to your post?).

 

I apologise if I misinterpreted your statement that those unable to look after themselves be "allowed to die" as "should be killed".

 

I still find the comment offensive, and ironic, considering that, if you were less "high functioning" with your disability, you may, yourself have not been endowed with the common sense to avoid such hazards.

 

Edited for spelling and grammar.

Edited June 25, 2008 by carlt

[stort_mark]

That, my friend, is what is known in the trade as hyperbole!

What trade would that be? The 'I don't know what hyperbole is' profession?

 

For all those thousands of years, people (mostly) survived by virtue of a keen sense of self preservation, and awareness of danger. Sadly lapses in these senses caused a few to die or be maimed.

And then homo sapiens discovered how to use iron and cilivilization developed. Since then people (mostly) survived by an incerasing sense of civic responsibility to create a safer, healthier environment.

 

Then some public spirited soul invented "Elfin Safety", which was to be the saviour of our race. Many of the dangerous things that had previously existed were to be removed from society, and the small number of people who had previously come to grief because of these dangers would be saved.

Whereas reality shows statistically that a proactive approach to HSE has dramatically decreased the mortality rate in every walk of life and in every environment, no matter which way you measure it. The extreme absurdities of HSE are very few and far between: they just seem to be everpresent because they get the media coverage whenever they happen.

 

This, of course, was such a wonderful idea that it was expanded upon, to the point where any situation in which somebody was injured became an opportunity to see if more Elfin Safety could have prevented this tragedy.

Yes....agree with this.

What nobody noticed is that after an initial reduction in injuries (as dangerous situations that native wit couldn't protect against were guarded against) increasing Elfin Safety brought diminishing returns. Nobody thought to ask why this might be. The answer was simple. In their new, less dangerous, lives, people were less aware of danger, less on the look out for it, and consequently more succeptible to the dangers that remain.

Wrong. And disingenuous. The law of diminishing returns is well known across the world of HSE and there is a lot of discussion, debate and research conducted to consider how to tackle it. One of the problems, of course, is that a 'politically acceptable solution (often as determined by the media, not necessarily politicians) is essential, rather then the most effective solution. Check through the recommendations of the Gargrave MAIB report and note the ONE recommendation that would probably make a huge real difference to safety and ask yourself why it is the one recommendation that has been largely ignored and forgotten. Without knowing anything about the accident on the Ashton, it is conceivable that that recommendation might well have prevented it happening.

 

We have arrived at a point where people, and young people in particular, expect that "somebody" will have ensured that nothing dangerous will happen to them. They no longer believe that their safety is their responsibility. Elfin Safety has defeated itself.

Experience suggests that there is very low perception of personal risk (perhaps ironically because their world has become so much safer during their lifetime) and when there is a heightened sense of risk from many young people, it seems to be more in terms of things they actively do (smoking, driving too fast, excessive drinking) rather than passive actions (standing or sitting in the wrong place). Someone earlier in this thread talked about there being less sense of responsibility being taught by parents and teachers, and I think is the key to it all.

 

Just imagine how much safer the roads would be if seatbelts and airbags were banned, and all cars were fitted with a foot long spike sticking out of the steering wheel.

You would have a situation like in China which has one of the highest road death rates. (Few cars with airbags, many with no seatbelts, less than 5% use of seatbekts when fitted, car design equates to fitting a spike in the dashboard).

 

Yes, it is a tragedy, but that doesn't mean that there is somebody else to blame.

Agreed. An awful, awful tragedy

[CanalWalker]

the policy in the huge Leeds district has been to fence off all accessible stretches of water

 

if anyone has any proof of this policy I would like to see it. I went to Leeds the other week and saw with my own eyes that this is not the case. None of the 13 miles of Leeds Liverpool Canal were fenced off.

[StoneHenge]

It wasn't so long ago we were all young and probably doing things which now would be construed as highly dangerous.

 

Who remembers playsing on building sites? I did, loved it. If we took a fall, we came home, got patched up and went off again.

 

We were taught to swim, not to talk to strangers, cross roads safely, ride bikes safely, and all that jazz, but we still played on building sites. We were well aware of most of the dangers, but when you are younger, they seem not to matter so much, you are having fun, you are young, the world's your oyster, etc.

 

Then something like this happens and those other teenagers will probably never venture near a lock or a swing bridge again. If she had just fallen in and got some bruises, it would have all been a good giggle and they would have no doubt come back.

 

I bet that day and those events and what they saw will be etched on their minds for a very long time. Long enough for them to learn not to prat about there again. Maybe their school will then reiterate the dangers near such places and maybe, just maybe, something good will come out of a tragedy in terms of a percentage of kids will now know different.

 

This doesn't have to change any of the mechanics of the bridge (other than ensuring it can be locked properly if those are the rules), or HSE, or anything else, just that those kids will have seen something they probably never want to see again.

[RLWP]

what a --------- liberty...

 

I say that I think that people who put themselves in harms way on account of their idiocy should be allowed, note the word ALLOWED, not FORCED, to die as nature's way of suggesting they shouldn't be around and removing weakness from the race. Health and Safety attempts to prevent this and ironically may end up removing stronger members of the race because things which are dangerous are made to look safe. Where did i mention anything about killing anyone anyway?

 

for the record. NO i do not support euthanasia of people with disabilities

 

quote from my earlier post:

'Health and Safety' is going to end up destroying the human race. If people are idiotic and put themselves in harms way they should be allowed to die, there are enough humans around already. supporting and encouraging any weakness in a species is a fundamental error."

 

so there. Toys back in pram please.

 

Can I just check my understanding here. I think that although arguing robustly in a thread on an internet forum, you are not really saying that we don't need health and safety - are you? Or the factories act, or any of the fundamental safety legislation about mining, quarrying, handling dangerous chemicals or operating dangerous machinery?

 

 

Richard

[fender]

Fencing rarely prevents access to the water by persons determined to 'play' in it. More likely is the fence obstructs the rescuers when the inevitable incident eventually happens

 

Fencing rarley prevents vandals and graffiti artists from accessing the tube and national rail system. I know a good bit of the European rail system doesnt have fencing so why do we have so much namby pamby in the UK?

[Catrin]

I know a good bit of the European rail system doesnt have fencing ....

Interesting point, I've seen completely unfenced rail tracks in towns in France. While fencing to railways in the UK must cost millions to put up and maintain. I have no idea what number of people get killed crossing railways in Europe, and what the general attitude of the population is - anyone got any idea?

Cheers

Cath

[mayalld]

Wrong. And disingenuous. The law of diminishing returns is well known across the world of HSE and there is a lot of discussion, debate and research conducted to consider how to tackle it. One of the problems, of course, is that a 'politically acceptable solution (often as determined by the media, not necessarily politicians) is essential, rather then the most effective solution. Check through the recommendations of the Gargrave MAIB report and note the ONE recommendation that would probably make a huge real difference to safety and ask yourself why it is the one recommendation that has been largely ignored and forgotten. Without knowing anything about the accident on the Ashton, it is conceivable that that recommendation might well have prevented it happening.

 

Remind me of that solution?

 

You would have a situation like in China which has one of the highest road death rates. (Few cars with airbags, many with no seatbelts, less than 5% use of seatbekts when fitted, car design equates to fitting a spike in the dashboard).

 

Nope. The spike is actually required, as a constant reminder of the danger.

[magpie patrick]

Wrong. And disingenuous. The law of diminishing returns is well known across the world of HSE and there is a lot of discussion, debate and research conducted to consider how to tackle it. One of the problems, of course, is that a 'politically acceptable solution (often as determined by the media, not necessarily politicians) is essential, rather then the most effective solution. Check through the recommendations of the Gargrave MAIB report and note the ONE recommendation that would probably make a huge real difference to safety and ask yourself why it is the one recommendation that has been largely ignored and forgotten. Without knowing anything about the accident on the Ashton, it is conceivable that that recommendation might well have prevented it happening.

 

OK, I have. I must admit the report made sobering reading and it was clear i was working under some misconceptions. Easy to say in the cold light of day 9 years later but the overall operation of the lock was a little bit slack, However MAIB made some recommendations and they were

 

QUOTE

 

SECTION 4 - RECOMMENDATIONS

 

British Waterways is recommended to:

 

1. Require all owners of boats using canals and navigations under its control to inform

British Waterways of all accidents and hazardous incidents.

 

2. Consider modifying lock gates/narrow boat bow fendering arrangements to prevent

similar accidents in the future if database trend and risk analyses so indicate.

 

3. Review the adequacy of existing emergency escape routes on board narrow boats,

with particular regard to the carriage of disabled, elderly and young persons.

 

4. Encourage boat owners to fit weak securing arrangements to bow fenders of the

type fitted to Drum Major.

 

UNQUOTE

 

Interestingly baffling gate paddles wasn't among them!

 

Not so much which one wasn't implemented, as which one was? I think most broad locks now have bumper plates at the narrow beam position, but no recommendations have been made on fitting fenders with weak links or having extra access points...

[blackelle123]

It wasn't so long ago we were all young and probably doing things which now would be construed as highly dangerous.

 

Who remembers playsing on building sites? I did, loved it. If we took a fall, we came home, got patched up and went off again.

 

We were taught to swim, not to talk to strangers, cross roads safely, ride bikes safely, and all that jazz, but we still played on building sites. We were well aware of most of the dangers, but when you are younger, they seem not to matter so much, you are having fun, you are young, the world's your oyster, etc.

 

Then something like this happens and those other teenagers will probably never venture near a lock or a swing bridge again. If she had just fallen in and got some bruises, it would have all been a good giggle and they would have no doubt come back.

 

I bet that day and those events and what they saw will be etched on their minds for a very long time. Long enough for them to learn not to prat about there again. Maybe their school will then reiterate the dangers near such places and maybe, just maybe, something good will come out of a tragedy in terms of a percentage of kids will now know different.

 

This doesn't have to change any of the mechanics of the bridge (other than ensuring it can be locked properly if those are the rules), or HSE, or anything else, just that those kids will have seen something they probably never want to see again.

 

Oh! - How I agree!!!

The problem being - no life skills and too much time spent infront of TV, computer or messing around filming 'happy slapping' on mobile phones. Kids don't know a thing about the environment around them, about the joy it brings and also the dangers.

The old adage comes to mind - 'Curiosity killed the cat'. Everyone knows that to learn from a mistake - a mistake has to be made first!!

 

I really feel for this young girl and her family, she will never be able to go back - but I bet (and hope) her friends and school colleagues have learnt a valuble lesson.

 

But I am sure the H & S exec will come in and introduce a new way of putting people off from exploring their environment and thus learning from it!

[RLWP]

But I am sure the H & S exec will come in

 

 

Funny? Definately. True? Have a look here: http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/index.htm

 

Richard

[carlt]

 

Funny? Definately. True? Have a look here: http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/index.htm

 

Richard

Interesting site!

I think it is fair to say that it is people's knee-jerk over-reaction to Health and Safety issues, rather than the HSE, that is at fault.

[stort_mark]

British Waterways is recommended to:

 

1. Require all owners of boats using canals and navigations under its control to inform

British Waterways of all accidents and hazardous incidents.

 

That's the recommendation that would seem to make a possible difference as it would allow HSE professionals to identify real priorities.

 

Ironically, the closest I have come to a real disaster on the canals was in a lock with unbaffled gate paddles. According to magnetman I should have been "ALLOWED, not FORCED, to die as nature's way of suggesting (I) shouldn't be around", but fortunately there were people near the lock at the time who didn't share magnetman's compassionate view of the world and who were able to assist.

[John Orentas]

Yes sadly this kind of accident is all too common, perceived danger is very different when you are young.. Not sure though about the assumption that such happenings are more common than they where in past years, when I was young, bonfire night was a time of absolute carnage, the main children's hospital in Manchester would overflow into the general wards in other hospitals and 'burns units' found they could not cope..

 

The small school I attended always had a varied mix of kids with legs/ arms in plaster, and eyes bandaged, I remember too that there were constant reports in the press of children loosing their lives on the railways and drowning in canals, it would be interesting to see some actual statistics.

 

Having said that, if it is your child involved the figure is 100%.

[stort_mark]

Interesting site!

I think it is fair to say that it is people's knee-jerk over-reaction to Health and Safety issues, rather than the HSE, that is at fault.

 

I remember a similar one run by the EU to counter the British media's stories. (Funnily enough, some of the myths involved the EU and the HSE....such as the 'hard hats for trapeze artists')

[Chertsey]

Can I just check my understanding here. I think that although arguing robustly in a thread on an internet forum, you are not really saying that we don't need health and safety - are you? Or the factories act, or any of the fundamental safety legislation about mining, quarrying, handling dangerous chemicals or operating dangerous machinery?

 

 

Richard

I think there's a key distinction here. Health and safety at work legislation is a vital protection that (in theory) stops employees, who have limited choice in the matter, being put into dangerous situations, working with dangerous equipment etc by unscrupulous employers. There also needs to be protection for vulnerable people e.g. in old people's homes, and people who have no choice about being where they are.

 

What is more contentious is how far the state should go in protecting the general public in situations where they are acting completely freely. Some people - children, people of all ages with impaired judgement, etc. will need protecting in and from certain situations. But is that the duty of the state, the landowner etc, or is it down to other people (family, professional carers etc) with responsibility for those individuals?

 

Most people would rather make up their own minds and decide what risks they were willing to take. But in order to do that they have to have a fairly accurate idea of what the risks are. Constantly trying to make everything safe renders this impossible. People come to assume that nothing is dangerous, because 'they' wouldn't allow it. I agree with Catrin, children growing up only playing in rubber floored playgrounds where nothing's more than 18 inches off the ground, where they can never so much as graze a knee, won't develop the awareness to know when something's dangerous. It's a vicious spiral.

 

edited to add:

A friend of mine was doing research into compulsory cycle helmets. He found that in Australia, when a law was introduced making cycle helmets compulsory, cycling head injuries actually ROSE. Possible reasons include, helmets impeded vision or hearing, but also, that they made people feel safer and they thus took more risks. What has happened to road fatalities in relation to the introduction of ABS, airbags, etc etc, I wonder?

Edited June 25, 2008 by WarriorWoman

[RLWP]

Interesting site!

I think it is fair to say that it is people's knee-jerk over-reaction to Health and Safety issues, rather than the HSE, that is at fault.

 

There are other aspects to this like what companies think their insurance companies will do if an accident happens, or how liable managers think they will be under law. Consequently people overreact.

 

Richard

Edited June 25, 2008 by RLWP

[alan_fincher]

QUOTE

 

SECTION 4 - RECOMMENDATIONS

 

British Waterways is recommended to:

 

1. Require all owners of boats using canals and navigations under its control to inform

British Waterways of all accidents and hazardous incidents.

 

If anybody has actually tried to inform BW of a dangerous feature that has resulted in a (very!) near miss, then they will probably be only too well aware of what a thankless task this is.

 

After a very frightening experience when the base-plate of the boat caught on a rubbing stone that had been excessively built up beyond the wall of a lock, I tried to persue it with BW.

 

We established from the retired lock-keeper living by the lock that it was a known hazard, where several boats had got caught before when descending, and we knew BW had already taken some ineffective action on it. However, when speaking to the manager in charge of British Waterways, South East, he assured me this was not the case, and BW had never been made aware. I also got given a load of bollocks that it was a "heritage feature" that could not be changed without involving special authority, even though it was now clearly shuttered modern day concrete, rather than granite, or whatever.

 

Only weeks later did I get a grovelling apology that they had been aware all along, but the hazard still remained for many more months.

 

Mercifully it was finally removed, but I suspect most people would have been a lot less tenacious than I ended up being.

 

So am I going to try and report the destruction of some of the anti-vandal locks on the same patch.... What do you think ?

[magpie patrick]

That's the recommendation that would seem to make a possible difference as it would allow HSE professionals to identify real priorities.

 

Ironically, the closest I have come to a real disaster on the canals was in a lock with unbaffled gate paddles. According to magnetman I should have been "ALLOWED, not FORCED, to die as nature's way of suggesting (I) shouldn't be around", but fortunately there were people near the lock at the time who didn't share magnetman's compassionate view of the world and who were able to assist.

 

Can't look at the procedures at the moment but I think you might find that this is now done. I was asked to report my snapping the tiller handle ona a bridge as a "near miss". I will say that, with hindsight, I can see that the accident that occurred to start this thread was always a possibility at this location, more so than others. When I've been through this bridge I've regarded it as a bit rough but to be honest only thought in terms of a maintenance liability because the bridge hits the concrete so hard something will give, and the concrete was already showing signs of doing so. I also noticed the dodgy locking mechanism.

 

It never dawned on me there might be an accident of this severity.

[carlt]

If anybody has actually tried to inform BW of a dangerous feature that has resulted in a (very!) near miss, then they will probably be only too well aware of what a thankless task this is.

I once spoke to a BW engineer, to report a dangerous drop, down a hole, onto a sluice mechanism, at Cropredy.

 

I was told that "you use the canal system at your own risk and BW are not liable for any injuries." (this was 1997, btw, not 1797)

 

I pointed out to him that I was doing his equivalent job, on the Highways, and, if I gave out such misinformation, I wouldn't keep my job for long.

 

He insisted (wrongly) that the waterways were exempt from public liability issues, but the hole was covered, a few days later.

[magpie patrick]

A friend of mine was doing research into compulsory cycle helmets. He found that in Australia, when a law was introduced making cycle helmets compulsory, cycling head injuries actually ROSE. Possible reasons include, helmets impeded vision or hearing, but also, that they made people feel safer and they thus took more risks. What has happened to road fatalities in relation to the introduction of ABS, airbags, etc etc, I wonder?

 

Not only did injuries rise but some people stopped cycling placing themselves at risk of obesity related diseases, for this reason the BMA initially refused to support compulsory helmets here

 

On roads, what has happened is that car occupants are safer, and yes they do take more risks as a result, with the effect that vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists suffer.

[stort_mark]

On roads, what has happened is that car occupants are safer, and yes they do take more risks as a result, with the effect that vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists suffer.

 

I remember in the early 1990s a safety engineer referring to this as "the Volvo syndrome"