Dangerous to boaters new Health and safety rails

[rrt2]

"BW has what is, in effect, a zero accident policy. In other words it does not accept that some accidents are not preventable. It also places H&S as its top priority, above even its primary duty of maintaining the network.

 

This is why a 'hurdle' exists before bonus can be paid. Basically the directors have to satisfy the remuneration committee on H&S because it is the 'top priority'."

 

 

 

Pity they do not have the same hurdle with regards to the time they are behind with the dredging program. I think the last figure I heard it was 7 years.

Then you could add in all the rest of the works that are needed to be done all around the system.

 

Would the directors end up having to pay BWB a bonus to work there I wonder.

[Lewis 53]

No, Grace Hopper was the inventor of the drop back vent.

 

I thought he was in "Kung Fu" shows what I know !

Edited May 19, 2012 by Lewis 53

[Mike Todd]

Also remember that there were plenty of No Cycling signs around the original lock where the accident happened - non-one should have been on a bike there at all. However, when liability comes into, it seems that putting up signs to warn of dangers is not sufficient.

[Chertsey]

Also remember that there were plenty of No Cycling signs around the original lock where the accident happened - non-one should have been on a bike there at all. However, when liability comes into, it seems that putting up signs to warn of dangers is not sufficient.

Were there?

I'm not saying there weren't, but I don't recall seeing any.

[alias]

Were there?

I'm not saying there weren't, but I don't recall seeing any.

 

Para 15 of Stammers' statement at the inquest states that signage was in place: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/111773/response/274440/attach/3/Tony%20Stammers%20Inquest%20Statement.pdf

 

I think I recall seeing an image of it in one of the other attachments to that FOI request, but can't remember which one.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

An update -

 

Article

 

and

 

the HSE letter on which it was based.

 

A personal view is that I feel very sorry for BW/CART in this instance.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Guest]

An update -

 

Article

 

and

 

the HSE letter on which it was based.

 

A personal view is that I feel very sorry for BW/CART in this instance.

 

and all that is going to lead to a huge waste of money not only in pursuing and defending an unjustified prosecution but also a multitude of further unnecessary safety precautions to save people from themselves....

 

I for one hope a judge with a degree of common sense presides over the case and any jury see just how preposterous it is for the H&S exec. to pursue this.

 

A successful prosecution here will make C&RT very risk averse I suspect.... not good.

Edited July 19, 2012 by The Dog House

[Doorman]

 

 

I for one hope a judge with a degree of common sense presides over the case and any jury see just how preposterous it is for the H&S exec. to pursue this.

 

 

 

 

Please don't hold your breath waiting for that one.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Doorman

[system 4-50]

I don't know anything about the bridge that gave rise to this controversy but I think the general (ie not on a boat) public should be discouraged from entering the working area of every lock, that is the immediate area traveled by a boater operating the lock ie in the vicinity of the area covered by the gate arms and any ropes used. So they are advised to keep a few yards away. Is that so bad?

 

It is simple, working machinery that can injure or kill, albeit rarely, and people who don't know the detail of the risks and who have had no training. Some warning is necessary.

 

 

I don't think a parallel with roads is valid as (I assume) all children for example are taught about the dangers of roads at school etc but not about the dangers of locks.

 

Hard hat donned and retires to bunker...

[Chertsey]

The problem is, how do you keep the public away? It's relatively easy for, say, Network Rail - they can fence off most of their operations. BW on the other hand have made public access part of their raison d'etre, arguably already to the detriment of boaters. Could you really fence off every lock, like Hampstead Road? It doesn't even work there. Fence off the towpaths? But then how would they justify getting funding from anyone but boaters.

 

Roads are a reasonable analogy in that respect, and surely that makes for an argument for better education about the dangers of canals and associated infrastructure. But there will always be people, especially young people, for whom the danger is the very attraction. A few years ago a boy was killed in my home town playing chicken on a busy road. I don't believe the highway authority was prosecuted.

 

The Stourport incident, by the way, didn't even involve a lock. It was an access bridge.

 

This strikes me as very bad news indeed.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Chertsey

[ditchcrawler]

The problem is, how do you keep the public away? It's relatively easy for, say, Network Rail - they can fence off most of their operations. BW on the other hand have made public access part of their raison d'etre, arguably already to the detriment of boaters. Could you really fence off every lock, like Hampstead Road? It doesn't even work there. Fence off the towpaths? But then how would they justify getting funding from anyone but boaters.

 

Roads are a reasonable analogy in that respect, and surely that makes for an argument for better education about the dangers of canals and associated infrastructure. But there will always be people, especially young people, for whom the danger is the very attraction. A few years ago a boy was killed in my home town playing chicken on a busy road. I don't believe the highway authority was prosecuted.

 

The Stourport incident, by the way, didn't even involve a lock. It was an access bridge.

 

This strikes me as very bad news indeed.

The EA have done so on the Ouse on a majority of their locks

[Chertsey]

The EA have done so on the Ouse on a majority of their locks

Granted, and then they have signs warning people not to get crushed between the lock beam and the fence (that was on the Denver Relief Channel iirc).

But locks on rivers are a lot fewer and further between, as well as often bigger and more dangerous. What would BW do with flights, for example? Fence off each lock individually, or the whole flight? But this is a red herring; three kids (at least) were drowned last year as a result of mucking about at locks and afaik that has not resulted in any prosecutions. Did the HSE prosecute over that girl losing her legs on the swingbridge a few years back?

[Guest]

Granted, and then they have signs warning people not to get crushed between the lock beam and the fence (that was on the Denver Relief Channel iirc).

But locks on rivers are a lot fewer and further between, as well as often bigger and more dangerous. What would BW do with flights, for example? Fence off each lock individually, or the whole flight? But this is a red herring; three kids (at least) were drowned last year as a result of mucking about at locks and afaik that has not resulted in any prosecutions. Did the HSE prosecute over that girl losing her legs on the swingbridge a few years back?

 

I'm struggling too to see why the HSE are running with this one - it just doesn't make any sense...the only hope is a jury will say 'hang a mo, this area is not generally available to Jo public, the bridge is narrow, with shallow sides, there is a sign that says 'do not cycle' and disregarding all of this somebody does....

 

are we all now going to have to pay the price for some young lads stupidity...or at best his naivety...

Edited July 19, 2012 by The Dog House

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I'm struggling too to see why the HSE are running with this one - it just doesn't make any sense...the only hope is a jury will say 'hang a mo, this area is not generally available to Jo public, the bridge is narrow, with shallow sides, there is a sign that says 'do not cycle' and disregarding all of this somebody does....

 

are we all now going to have to pay the price for some young lads stupidity...or at best his naivety...

 

I suspect that it is to do with the contradiction in BW's minimum safety standards regarding lock crossings.

[magpie patrick]

Thanks Allan, the following is a snip from the letter you linked to:

 

In this case, I have considered the following factors in favour of disclosure:

 

Promote transparency in the process of law enforcement

Maintain public confidence in litigation

 

And the following factors in favour of non-disclosure:

 

*Impede the chances of a fair trial occurring

**Impede the chances of a successful prosecution occurring

Inhibit other ongoing/potential proceedings

 

Am I alone in thinking that the items I have marked * and ** are contradictory? Surely an action in favour of a succesful prosecution is an action against the chances of a fair trial?

[Chertsey]

Thanks Allan, the following is a snip from the letter you linked to:

 

 

 

Am I alone in thinking that the items I have marked * and ** are contradictory? Surely an action in favour of a succesful prosecution is an action against the chances of a fair trial?

** is certainly begging the question re *

Good point.

 

But then I suppose as a prosecuting authority the HSE has no interest in promoting an acquittal, and this is about them not releasing information in their interests, not the interests of justice considered more widely.

 

On a wider point, can anyone who actually knows about these things posit a view as to what the likely outcome of a successful prosecution would be, other than a big fine? Have there been any previous successful (or unsuccessful I suppose) HSE actions against BW?

[KevMc]

I'm struggling too to see why the HSE are running with this one - it just doesn't make any sense...the only hope is a jury will say 'hang a mo, this area is not generally available to Jo public, the bridge is narrow, with shallow sides, there is a sign that says 'do not cycle' and disregarding all of this somebody does....

 

are we all now going to have to pay the price for some young lads stupidity...or at best his naivety...

 

Maybe, just maybe the court will have a bit of common sense and rule against the HSE thus creating a precedent which relieves businesses of the need to take excessive steps to protect the terminally stupid - but I'm not holding my breath

[BruceinSanity]

Did the HSE prosecute over that girl losing her legs on the swingbridge a few years back?

 

Yes, they did, IIRC.

[jenlyn]

A couple of facts that may lead the judge to find for CRT. The lad was using a bike categorised as being suitable for up to a five year old. He was bunny hopping (stunting) across the bridge, when he misjudged and caught a wheel on the parapet, which led to him going in.

I suppose the judge may rule that CRT must erect signs stating cyclists must not stunt near locks, of course, superseding the sign saying NO CYCLING.

It's tragic that this happened, but it's just as tragic that some Pratt has decided to prosecute, given that signage was on site.

It's disgusting as well as senseless.

[alan_fincher]

Did the HSE prosecute over that girl losing her legs on the swingbridge a few years back?

 

Yes, they did, IIRC.

I have just spewnt a bit of time "Googling", and although I can find many news articles about Jade Smethurst's remarkable fight back, (she was walking on artificial limbs within 3 months of the tragedy), I can't immediately find any evidence of a subsequent court case related to it.

 

If the claim made at the time was that the bridge was normally kept locked, but had been unlocked by some of those involved, (possibly using a stolen key), it would be disappointing in my view if BW had had to answer a case in court.

 

A couple of facts that may lead the judge to find for CRT. The lad was using a bike categorised as being suitable for up to a five year old. He was bunny hopping (stunting) across the bridge, when he misjudged and caught a wheel on the parapet, which led to him going in.

I suppose the judge may rule that CRT must erect signs stating cyclists must not stunt near locks, of course, superseding the sign saying NO CYCLING.

It's tragic that this happened, but it's just as tragic that some Pratt has decided to prosecute, given that signage was on site.

It's disgusting as well as senseless.

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned, and I'll probably get accused of political in-correctness if I do, but I have heard it suggested that the child involved was in any case not a reader, so signage might not have helped him, even had he been prepared to comply with it.

[Guest]

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned, and I'll probably get accused of political in-correctness if I do, but I have heard it suggested that the child involved was in any case not a reader, so signage might not have helped him, even had he been prepared to comply with it.

 

So the sign was not visually representative of 'No cycling' as in ??? -

 

[alan_fincher]

So the sign was not visually representative of 'No cycling' as in ??? -

 

I don't know - I'm not sure if details have been shown in any of the threads on this. But I cannot quite imagine what the putative "no stunting" sign that Jenlyn refers to would look like, if it had to be purely graphical, with no words.

 

By the way, when I was involved with the Berkhamsted Cycle Campaign, the local councillor involved, herself a keen cyclist, thought the sign you have shown meant that something is a cycle path, and had to be corrected on that point! She was not otherwise a silly lady. So even simple graphical signs are not universally understood, it seems!

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Thanks Allan, the following is a snip from the letter you linked to:

 

 

 

Am I alone in thinking that the items I have marked * and ** are contradictory? Surely an action in favour of a succesful prosecution is an action against the chances of a fair trial?

 

I agree. It is contradictory.

 

I have asked them to carry out an internal review.

[jenlyn]

I have just spewnt a bit of time "Googling", and although I can find many news articles about Jade Smethurst's remarkable fight back, (she was walking on artificial limbs within 3 months of the tragedy), I can't immediately find any evidence of a subsequent court case related to it.

 

If the claim made at the time was that the bridge was normally kept locked, but had been unlocked by some of those involved, (possibly using a stolen key), it would be disappointing in my view if BW had had to answer a case in court.

 

 

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned, and I'll probably get accused of political in-correctness if I do, but I have heard it suggested that the child involved was in any case not a reader, so signage might not have helped him, even had he been prepared to comply with it.

It's not political incorrectness to state a fact Alan. It would probably draw out a further argument as to why he could not read though ;-)

[Guest]

By the way, when I was involved with the Berkhamsted Cycle Campaign, the local councillor involved, herself a keen cyclist, thought the sign you have shown meant that something is a cycle path, and had to be corrected on that point! She was not otherwise a silly lady. So even simple graphical signs are not universally understood, it seems!

 

But in terms of universal understanding this would (only in my opinion of course I'm obviously not a lawyer) be a better defence for BW compared to a sign that says 'no cycling' when indeed a significant number of the population are illiterate.