Good boating practice

[Barry]

Dont remember saying anything about them not having feelings...I said it was their job...and it's their humanity that guides them to choose to do it.

 

So because they choose to do a job out of humanity you expect that they should not find it difficult.

 

Unbelievable!

[daves6guitars]

So because they choose to do a job out of humanity you expect that they should not find it difficult.

 

Unbelievable!

 

 

 

Didn't say or imply that either....read the post!!!!

[Barry]

Didn't say or imply that either....read the post!!!!

 

you refer to the people clearing up after an accident....it isn't a hazard to them, probably an inconvenience,

 

Clearing up after an accident is an inconvenience?

 

 

 

Generally speaking, the people who clear up after an accident are professionals, it is their job, for which they get paid

 

The implication being what?

 

 

 

and probably assess any risks associated with the job beforehand.

 

Actually this is correct but only after they have been through their training. Incident related stress has been formally recognised as a hazard to those who clear up after the accident - it is a danger to them and they can suffer to a greater or lesser degree. They don't assess the risks associated with the job before they take up the job because they, like you I suspect, are unaware of the difficulties they may really face. Once they are trained however they know the hazard they face now so they know the steps that can be put into place to mitigate the effects

 

 

 

The only way I could see him being a hazard to anyone else would be if the people waiting to clear up his accident (or any other unfortunate souls ) are waiting directly below him at the moment he falls.....highly unlikely, therefore a tolerable risk!

 

A tolerable risk to whom?

 

 

 

I suspect you speak through ignorance Dave - or a callous diregard of the people who clear up after the accident - which is it?

[Grace and Favour]

We pride ourselves for having freedom of choice, do we really need nanny state?

 

 

I haven't got a Nanni - - Mine's a Beta

[daves6guitars]

Clearing up after an accident is an inconvenience?

 

 

 

 

 

The implication being what?

 

 

 

 

 

Actually this is correct but only after they have been through their training. Incident related stress has been formally recognised as a hazard to those who clear up after the accident - it is a danger to them and they can suffer to a greater or lesser degree. They don't assess the risks associated with the job before they take up the job because they, like you I suspect, are unaware of the difficulties they may really face. Once they are trained however they know the hazard they face now so they know the steps that can be put into place to mitigate the effects

 

 

 

 

 

A tolerable risk to whom?

 

 

 

I suspect you speak through ignorance Dave - or a callous diregard of the people who clear up after the accident - which is it?

 

No not ignorance Bazza, just a clear understanding of hazards, based on a lifetime of experience , not to mention a high level IOSH qualification. As for a callous disregard...I'm afraid you're wrong again. I have complete empathy with these people and the very difficult and demanding jobs they have to get on with.

Edited September 13, 2010 by daves6guitars

[Barry]

No not ignorance Bazza, just a clear understanding of hazards, based on a lifetime of experience , not to mention a high level IOSH qualification. As for a callous disregard...I'm afraid you're wrong again. I have complete empathy with these people and the very difficult and demanding jobs they have to get on with.

 

As do I have a clear understanding of hazards, particularly these ones - and I also have IOSH qualifications

 

I've been a firefighter for 28 years, 15 of those as an operational firefighter doing the job; 12 years as an instructor teaching firefighters every aspect of their job, including health and safety and risk management; the last 5 years actively helping firefighters to overcome the stresses of their job.

 

You may claim empathy Dave, but I see little evidence of it in the post of yours I challenged

[Neil TNC]

I haven't got a Nanni - - Mine's a Beta

 

Either way you would be a Kubotaboata

[saltysplash]

I personally know a gentleman who survived but had his throat and face sliced. A women hire boater died some years ago by falling off the back. So with yours that is three.

Sue

 

Are these examples of people being knocked overboard by the tiller when going ahead? which is the point we are debating.

 

Im sorry but even if we have 3 examples that is hardly several as you suggested and not suggestive that people are being killed left right and centre due to the tiller whipping them into the water willy nilly.

 

I still have to be convinced that this is an unacceptable risk to undertake when boating.

It sounds very similar to the tales of all the dead people on boats due to gas fridges and instant gas water heaters.

[Guest]

My understanding of the Cropedy accident last year and another one a few years ago at Alweras involved falls over the rear rails and not necessarily the boater being swept off the boat by the tiller.

[mayalld]

My understanding of the Cropedy accident last year and another one a few years ago at Alweras involved falls over the rear rails and not necessarily the boater being swept off the boat by the tiller.

 

Certainly, my understanding of Cropredy last year is that the lady fell over the rear rails when the stern impacted the gates. No mention of the tiller at all.

[Guest]

Certainly, my understanding of Cropredy last year is that the lady fell over the rear rails when the stern impacted the gates. No mention of the tiller at all.

 

Just goggled and found this ref. the Alrewas accident-

 

http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources/Fatal%20Injuries%20from%20Propeller_Flyer.pdf

 

which I recall has been posted on here before - no reference to being swept off by the tiller.

 

Tragic all the same though.

[David Schweizer]

I was taught to steer a narrowboat by an ex working boatman, and he always insisted that we stood inside the hatches when steering, and most of the working boatmen that I knew also closed the cabin doors in tunnels.

 

If the professionals of the day saw it as a potential risk, that is good enough for me.

Edited September 14, 2010 by David Schweizer

[NB Alnwick]

My understanding of the Cropedy accident last year and another one a few years ago at Alweras involved falls over the rear rails and not necessarily the boater being swept off the boat by the tiller.

 

Although the tiller wasn't mentioned in the report of the inquest, I know from a reliable and trusted source that the sequence of events was that an instruction was shouted from the lock side to put the boat in reverse, the deceased was not at the tiller at the time (it was later said that she had been "adjusting a fender"), a second more urgent shout instructed her to put the boat in reverse, she returned to the controls put the boat's morse control fully into reverse as far as it would go, moments later the tiller swung across and knocked her over the side whereupon she became entangled in the prop and died instantly.

 

Afterwards, the boat was brought down to Cropredy BW wharf, lifted out and taken away for examination. The stern of the boat was protected by a screen or canvas when it was lifted out and the undertakers were in attendance. At the time, there was speculation that the body or parts of the body were still on the boat when it was lifted out - this has not been confirmed.

 

Just to be clear, I was referring to the fatality on the Oxford Canal.

[Dovetail]

Sorry folks but can we stop talking about this poor lady now its getting a bit to graphic

[alan_fincher]

Just goggled and found this ref. the Alrewas accident-

 

http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources/Fatal%20Injuries%20from%20Propeller_Flyer.pdf

 

which I recall has been posted on here before - no reference to being swept off by the tiller.

 

Tragic all the same though.

You are correct.

 

Even the original report, (which I can no longer find), and not just this simplified flyer, did not actually conclude that the tiller had swept the unfortunate individual over, although I think I have myself since fallen guilty of thinking that was the case, simply because it is so often repeated.

 

What is probably more generally accepted, like in some other incidents, is that the inappropriately low rail around the back made things far worse. Where people are tipped over them, they seem far more likely to enter the water head first, probably disorientated and making the nature of propeller injuries far worse.

 

The jury is out for me on whether the tiller did, or did not play a part at Alrewas. I now recall being frustrated with the lack of detail given by the MAIB. Having seen some canal-time hirers antics, it is certainly a distinct possibility it did.

[Nine of Hearts]

Although the tiller wasn't mentioned in the report of the inquest, I know from a reliable and trusted source that the sequence of events was that an instruction was shouted from the lock side to put the boat in reverse, the deceased was not at the tiller at the time (it was later said that she had been "adjusting a fender"), a second more urgent shout instructed her to put the boat in reverse, she returned to the controls put the boat's morse control fully into reverse as far as it would go, moments later the tiller swung across and knocked her over the side whereupon she became entangled in the prop and died instantly.

 

Afterwards, the boat was brought down to Cropredy BW wharf, lifted out and taken away for examination. The stern of the boat was protected by a screen or canvas when it was lifted out and the undertakers were in attendance. At the time, there was speculation that the body or parts of the body were still on the boat when it was lifted out - this has not been confirmed.

 

Just to be clear, I was referring to the fatality on the Oxford Canal.

 

It's still not a case of being swept off by the tiller whilst in forward motion, though. If you get knocked off (or fall off) while the boat is going astern then the boat is coming over you. If you're going forwards, it's going away so you're less likely to end up in the mincer. From your citing of the incident it is not a question of standing in the tiller arc alone, it's standing in the tlller arc whilst in full reverse whilst in a lock.

 

As to Mr Man on the aqueduct, in my normal stance alongside the tiller (gasp!) on my semi-trad (burn the witch!) I am probably running the slight risk of a dunking in 3' of diluted rat piss. On that aqueduct I would be running the slight risk of a dirty great fall and certain death. I would be inside the doors. With my wellies araldited to the deck.

[Doorman]

Reminds me of the film 'Dumb & Dumber'

 

I was taught to steer a narrowboat by an ex working boatman, and he always insisted that we stood inside the hatches when steering, and most of the working boatmen that I knew also closed the cabin doors in tunnels.

 

If the professionals of the day saw it as a potential risk, that is good enough for me.

 

 

We'll second that! Just plain common sense, surely?

 

Mike

[carlt]

Reminds me of the film 'Dumb & Dumber'

 

The photo, or the discussion about the photo?

[Doorman]

The photo, or the discussion about the photo?

 

 

Smiles with utter irony :-) I'm the daft get who's supposed to make sarcky remarks like that, ask Gibbo.

[NB Alnwick]

Having had experience of the vigilant and detailed reporting undertaken by the HSE and now the RAIB in respect of even the most minor rail incidents, I am genuinely surprised by the lack of thorough investigation into many incidents that are understood to have involved serious injury or fatality on the waterways.

[mayalld]

Having had experience of the vigilant and detailed reporting undertaken by the HSE and now the RAIB in respect of even the most minor rail incidents, I am genuinely surprised by the lack of thorough investigation into many incidents that are understood to have involved serious injury or fatality on the waterways.

 

I suspect that the difference lies in who is injured or killed.

 

With rail accidents, this commonly includes people other than those operating the trains.

 

With boating accidents, that isn't so.

[NB Alnwick]

I suspect that the difference lies in who is injured or killed.

 

With rail accidents, this commonly includes people other than those operating the trains.

 

With boating accidents, that isn't so.

 

Although this is a common perception, most railway accidents do not involve members of the public. In earlier times, the railway companies struggled to raise safety awareness among staff but, despite their efforts, there were frequent injuries and fatalities involving certain groups of staff - particularly among permanent way staff and those involved with shunting operations.

 

Also, it appears to me that many of the well publicised boating accidents involve hirers - who I would class as members of the public since they have not been engaged and appropriately trained specifically to work a boat on behalf of an employer.

 

I would suggest that, especially in the case of the HSE, the main concern was the safety of employees.

[furnessvale]

Having had experience of the vigilant and detailed reporting undertaken by the HSE and now the RAIB in respect of even the most minor rail incidents, I am genuinely surprised by the lack of thorough investigation into many incidents that are understood to have involved serious injury or fatality on the waterways.

 

Don't get me started on attitudes to transport accidents which allow for mass slaughter on our roads while forcing railways to apply ever more stringent safety systems to cut out ever more theoretical risks.

 

The cost of these rail safety systems has now made the cost of a ticket so great that people travel by road because it is cheaper. Of course this means they join in the mass slaughter but this is somehow acceptable by road.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[NB Alnwick]

Don't get me started on attitudes to transport accidents which allow for mass slaughter on our roads while forcing railways to apply ever more stringent safety systems to cut out ever more theoretical risks.

 

The cost of these rail safety systems has now made the cost of a ticket so great that people travel by road because it is cheaper. Of course this means they join in the mass slaughter but this is somehow acceptable by road.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

Certainly, if every road accident or near miss had to be reported and investigated in the same way as it is on the railways, such would be the requirement for additional staff that the nation's unemployment problems might be solved overnight.

[Guest]

Sorry folks but can we stop talking about this poor lady now its getting a bit to graphic

 

Then sorry but look away or watch from behind the sofa...

 

If discussion about this issue raises awareness of the risks and consequences of boating accidents then my view is 'graphic' has a place.

 

If just one more death is prevented by discussion about the accident and the horrible impact it had then it is a valuable debate IMHO, as I say if it does get a bit too 'detailed' simply don't look at or participate in the discussion - you have that choice.

 

As a result of previous debate on this I have drummed into Jan about careful reversing/moving forward whilst in the lock chamber - when I described to her what could happen if she did not heed this she fully understood the need to comply and adheres to this requirement 100% of the time now.

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited September 14, 2010 by MJG