Dangerous to boaters new Health and safety rails

[Laurence Hogg]

No doubt many might suggest better uses for the scaffolding poles.

 

Next headline news:

"CHILD IMPAILS HIMSELF RIDING BIKE OVER BRIDGE"

What a mess!

[sueb]

Why couldn't BW have installed small barriers at each end of the bridge, leaving room to walk round but stopping cyclists? They wouldn't have been such an eyesore

[NB Alnwick]

Why couldn't BW have installed small barriers at each end of the bridge, leaving room to walk round but stopping cyclists? They wouldn't have been such an eyesore

 

Such a sensible answer cannot possibly fit in with the modern 'jobsworth' culture . . .

 

If the present H & S culture continues, it won't be long before someone decides that these ancient industrial canals are just too much of a risk altogether?

[Domino_2]

Such a sensible answer cannot possibly fit in with the modern 'jobsworth' culture . . .

 

If the present H & S culture continues, it won't be long before someone decides that these ancient industrial canals are just too much of a risk altogether?

 

Am surprised the canals are still open...........

[CV32]

Very sad that a few people have died (usually due to doing something they should not be), it is a tiny % compared to the number of trips across these bridges for the correct reason. This over reaction of BW will undoubtably lead to a much higher % of incidents to people that are doing what they are meant to be ! We will be the victims of knee jerk reaction (obviously we already are in terms of cost).

[Hairy-Neil]

SNIP We will be the victims of knee jerk reaction (obviously we already are in terms of cost).

 

Surely it's our wonderful heritage that's the victim....

[sueb]

Never mind Cart have taken on 7 people to look after the heritage

[magpie patrick]

My "official" response, given I have been asked my opinion

 

 

I don’t understand how being on the bridge as opposed to being on the lock side would increase the risk of ending up in the lock chamber?

 

It’s the thin end of the wedge doing structures like this to my mind. If you create a new risk by building something then you have to risk assess and act accordingly. I wonder whether there’s a RA for boaters here and if it’s been updated now they can neatly remove their heads, as well as one for the pedestrians. If BW was to have done this to reduce the impact on the heritage structure they’ve miserably failed. The old bridge might be intact but visually it’s ruined now anyway.

 

Quite apart from anything else it’s a total waste of money. Probably cost more to “design” specify and supervise then to manufacture and install too. Wouldn’t be surprised at all if that’s cost £5k+

 

 

This ONLY relates to the Falling Sands bridge

 

I don't normally take to cut and paste, but at the moment I really can't be bothered to translate the above in CWDF speak

[Hairy-Neil]

Wouldn’t be surprised at all if that’s cost £5k+

 

 

 

As little as that?

[magpie patrick]

As little as that?

 

\yes, but that's the design and prelims to throw £500 worth of badly designed steel into place

[Hairy-Neil]

\yes, but that's the design and prelims to throw £500 worth of badly designed steel into place

 

You're way out on the steel costs, you would struggle to find 50 quids worth of raw materials there. But perhaps you were including the fabrication costs? Still pushing it a little, though factor in blasting/galvanising/painting/delivery/profit and you're about right....

[Domino_2]

You're way out on the steel costs, you would struggle to find 50 quids worth of raw materials there. But perhaps you were including the fabrication costs? Still pushing it a little, though factor in blasting/galvanising/painting/delivery/profit and you're about right....

 

Don't forget the labor charges....

[Rebotco]

Don't forget the labor charges....

 

Yeah - they could be quite high, what with the number of people who will have kittens when they see their approaching doom.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Rebotco

[RichardN]

\yes, but that's the design and prelims to throw £500 worth of badly designed steel into place

 

From the photos, I can't understand why they did it that way. It looks like a special fabrication, not a standard section and worse it is working in torsion which always makes things worse. Yet this is a narrow lock so if the sides are strong enough to attach the beam to then they will be strong enough to attach a handrail and being a narrowlock there is no reason why you can't size the handrail so it can span say 2.5m and have no beam at all - it is a 1 line calculation. Take longer to work out the fixing bolts but still not hard,

[RLWP]

From the photos, I can't understand why they did it that way. It looks like a special fabrication, not a standard section and worse it is working in torsion which always makes things worse. Yet this is a narrow lock so if the sides are strong enough to attach the beam to then they will be strong enough to attach a handrail and being a narrowlock there is no reason why you can't size the handrail so it can span say 2.5m and have no beam at all - it is a 1 line calculation. Take longer to work out the fixing bolts but still not hard,

 

If you see one properly installed, they are actually quite attractive.

 

Richard

[Chertsey]

My "official" response, given I have been asked my opinion

 

 

I don’t understand how being on the bridge as opposed to being on the lock side would increase the risk of ending up in the lock chamber?

 

It’s the thin end of the wedge doing structures like this to my mind. If you create a new risk by building something then you have to risk assess and act accordingly. I wonder whether there’s a RA for boaters here and if it’s been updated now they can neatly remove their heads, as well as one for the pedestrians. If BW was to have done this to reduce the impact on the heritage structure they’ve miserably failed. The old bridge might be intact but visually it’s ruined now anyway.

 

Quite apart from anything else it’s a total waste of money. Probably cost more to “design” specify and supervise then to manufacture and install too. Wouldn’t be surprised at all if that’s cost £5k+

 

 

This ONLY relates to the Falling Sands bridge

 

I don't normally take to cut and paste, but at the moment I really can't be bothered to translate the above in CWDF speak

The latest news seems to be that BW are going to redo the railings at Falling Sands to remove the headroom hazard.

 

Cue lots of complaints about the additional costs! But at least they have taken complaints on board and are now acting swiftly.

 

As for the aesthetics, this is a matter of some discussion, which I would be pleased to go into with anyone who is really interested but I'm a bit knackered to type it all up now.

[CV32]

The latest news seems to be that BW are going to redo the railings at Falling Sands to remove the headroom hazard.

 

Cue lots of complaints about the additional costs! But at least they have taken complaints on board and are now acting swiftly.

 

As for the aesthetics, this is a matter of some discussion, which I would be pleased to go into with anyone who is really interested but I'm a bit knackered to type it all up now.

 

Yes, they have taken the complaints on board but it should not have got to that situation - BW/C&RT does not have unlimited funds, therefore it should have been done correctly with all the thought required in the first place.

Edited May 13, 2012 by CV32

[Chertsey]

Yes, they have taken the complaints on board but it should not have got to that situation - BW/C&RT does not have unlimited funds, therefore it should have been done correctly with all the thought required in the first place.

But what is the point of saying that now, except for the sake of having a moan? Aside from the fact that it's also so bleedin' obvious it doesn't need saying anyway.

[BruceinSanity]

But what is the point of saying that now, except for the sake of having a moan? Aside from the fact that it's also so bleedin' obvious it doesn't need saying anyway.

 

I know what you mean, but again and again after this sort of thing, we get the "lessons have been learned, next time we will consult properly before acting" shtick, and then it all happens again. Either BW management are so bad at learning lessons we should be paying for them to have a remedial teacher, or it's just a hypocritical "say anything to get these whingers off our backs" PR manipulation.

 

 

 

One of the real tests for the CRT will be if they can get the system working to avoid wasting money in this way.

 

Anyway, well done to you personally, Sarah, and to everyone else who's managed to get BW to do the sensible thing.

 

[alan_fincher]

Yes, they have taken the complaints on board but it should not have got to that situation - BW/C&RT does not have unlimited funds, therefore it should have been done correctly with all the thought required in the first place.

 

But what is the point of saying that now, except for the sake of having a moan? Aside from the fact that it's also so bleedin' obvious it doesn't need saying anyway.

 

I accept that the falling Sands example (in particular) is sadly yet another case of BW getting it badly wrong, and that the money already thrown at it needs to be wasted, because what has been put there is clearly more dangerous than any danger it sought to mitigate in the first place.

 

What I don't accept is that any case has adequately been made that a lot of these handrails were actually required, and I'm uncomfortable with a situation that says "BW know best" when making such decisions, and the only emphasis needs to be on doing them in the best way.

 

Despite having followed the more balanced debate on the topic, (and yours was very balanced Sarah), I still remain unconvinced that such a widespread initiative was actually necessary. Yes, you can say other companies have been prosecuted when someone has done something daft, and steps have not been taken to stop repeat incidents. But I find the "jumping across the lock" argument compelling - it is simply not possible to react to all the stupid ways people have killed themselves on our canal system, and I really don't understand why every bridge without handrails has suddenly got promoted to such a high level of risk.

[CV32]

But what is the point of saying that now, except for the sake of having a moan? Aside from the fact that it's also so bleedin' obvious it doesn't need saying anyway.

 

Well i am not mystic meg so i could not see into the future and know they were going to screw up.

 

Yes, i am having a moan. I am one of their customers and its costing me as well as everybody else - Am i not allowed to comment on this forum ? Are you the arbitrator of acceptable response ?

[Chertsey]

Well i am not mystic meg so i could not see into the future and know they were going to screw up.

 

Yes, i am having a moan. I am one of their customers and its costing me as well as everybody else - Am i not allowed to comment on this forum ? Are you the arbitrator of acceptable response ?

I am not the arbitrator but I am as entitled as you to express an opinion.

That opinion is based on the belief that just moaning about things does nothing to remedy the situation. It is far better to engage in constructive dialogue to achieve a desired outcome, rather than just coming across as negative and critical.

[Lewis 53]

It would be very interesting to see the Risk Assessment for the Stourport Lock "bridge". Part of it should have included a calculation of the chances of this type of accident happening again and part of that would have included "historic data" on accidents and incidents on this and similar structures through out the canal system. If this truly is a one off incident in 200 years it would seem a massive over reaction to instigate the current action especially as mitigating the risk to one user of the canals has increased the risk to other users.

 

Who does BW's/CRT risk assessments anyway ?

[Chertsey]

I accept that the falling Sands example (in particular) is sadly yet another case of BW getting it badly wrong, and that the money already thrown at it needs to be wasted, because what has been put there is clearly more dangerous than any danger it sought to mitigate in the first place.

 

What I don't accept is that any case has adequately been made that a lot of these handrails were actually required, and I'm uncomfortable with a situation that says "BW know best" when making such decisions, and the only emphasis needs to be on doing them in the best way.

 

Despite having followed the more balanced debate on the topic, (and yours was very balanced Sarah), I still remain unconvinced that such a widespread initiative was actually necessary. Yes, you can say other companies have been prosecuted when someone has done something daft, and steps have not been taken to stop repeat incidents. But I find the "jumping across the lock" argument compelling - it is simply not possible to react to all the stupid ways people have killed themselves on our canal system, and I really don't understand why every bridge without handrails has suddenly got promoted to such a high level of risk.

I agree Alan, it wasn't necessary, and if BW had consulted with users and had detailed discussions with the HSE before taking action these handrails would not have been made and fitted in the way thay have been; they might even have turned out not to have been required at all. I will stick my neck out now and say that it was a knee-jerk reaction, albeit an understandable one for a number of reasons (horror at the child's death; the Network Rail case). But it is no good crying over spilt milk and the only thing to do now is to rectify the worst examples and ensure that lessons are learnt for the future - and the best way of achieving this is not by crude criticism of BW (not a reference to your post but a previous one) but by engaging with them, and having some understanding of the position they felt themselves to be in.

 

It would be very interesting to see the Risk Assessment for the Stourport Lock "bridge". Part of it should have included a calculation of the chances of this type of accident happening again and part of that would have included "historic data" on accidents and incidents on this and similar structures through out the canal system. If this truly is a one off incident in 200 years it would seem a massive over reaction to instigate the current action especially as mitigating the risk to one user of the canals has increased the risk to other users.

 

Who does BW's/CRT risk assessments anyway ?

I think HNBC have put in an FOI request for this, if it exists.

 

Your final question is a very interesting one.

Edited May 14, 2012 by Chertsey

[Doorman]

And what an excellent and balanced piece it is, too! How about sending it in a letter to BW / C&RT, Sarah?

 

Totally agree and including the photograph from a boater's perspective further enhances her point of view.

 

One really wonders what goes around the pea-brained designer's head whom sanctioned the installation of this helpful hazard!

 

Surely, with a little bit more forethought, a better solution to this could have been devised?

 

Mike

Edited May 14, 2012 by Doorman