Dangerous to boaters new Health and safety rails

[Guest]

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 the challenge for BW here was cycling across that bridge COULD be seen as something that could be reasonably expected to be done without a significant risk of falling in (putting aside for a sec. if there was a need to do it). That said without knowing the full circumstances of what actually caused the fall it is difficult to be specific about what it was about the bridge design that caused the fall and what aspect the rail is meant to mitigate against, particularly as it is only on one side. (One can of course speculate that it has something to do with the very low sides).

 

Conversely -

 

I would say the reason we have not had rails erected at the sides of locks to prevent people trying to jump them (despite there being several instances of people dying while engaged in doing this) is that it is patently obvious it is a stupid thing to do and I'm not sure you can really realisticly and cost effectively mitigate against stupidity. Riding a bike across that bridge might be seen as a bit 'risky' but patently stupid? I'm not so sure, I bet loads have done it there and at other sites without falling in.

 

Whatever though at least they have seen fit to bite the bullet and rectify the problem caused for boaters..

Edited May 14, 2012 by MJG

[CV32]

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.

 

My point is that BW have over reacted, wasted money, created more hazard than there was before. Now they are going to waste even more money putting it right.

 

Crude criticism of BW ? They have screwed up and in the real private sector world someone wouild be getting their arse kicked.

Edited May 14, 2012 by CV32

[Guest]

My point is that BW have over reacted, wasted money, created more hazard than there was before. Now they are going to waste even more money putting it right.

 

Crude criticism of BW ? The have screwed up and in the real private sector world someone wouild be getting their arse kicked.

 

Though we don't know of course if someone hasn't....

[Chertsey]

My point is that BW have over reacted, wasted money, created more hazard than there was before. Now they are going to waste even more money putting it right.

 

Crude criticism of BW ? They have screwed up and in the real private sector world someone would be getting their arse kicked.

I don't disagree with your first three claims. Money spent putting it right will not be wasted, though.

Nonetheless, there is nothing to be gained by just shouting criticism at them.

And I would like to see your evidence that there is more accountability in the private sector. That's the sector banks are in, no?

[magpie patrick]

I would say the reason we have not had rails erected at the sides of locks to prevent people trying to jump them (despite there being several instances of people dying while engaged in doing this) is that it is patently obvious it is a stupid thing to do and I'm not sure you can really realisticly and cost effectively mitigate against stupidity.

 

I'm not sure I have said this on this thread before, but I have certainly said it on this forum

 

When Bath Deep Lock was built it had railings at the edge to prevent people falling in. Late 80's/early 90's a boat caught on the cill and the fire brigade had to sort the mess out, the first thing they did was cut the railings off. I have been told that the parting shot as they left was "And don't even think about putting those railings back". You can still see the bases of them.

 

With the controversial fence on the Rochdale Nine in Manchester it was the Fire Service who insisted the gate would not be locked, because they knew they'd have to get in quickly if there was a problem. Old adage about no fence will stop an accident happening, but it might stop the rescuers getting to the problem.

 

Bridges are a bit different, it is possible to avoid falling into a lock by keeping away from the edge, and the bridges on the T&M (?) that are about 4 feet wide but have no handrail hold no fears, at least for me. Quite why the S&W bridges were built how they were is probably lost in the mists of time, but they are not as safe.

[Guest]

Bridges are a bit different, it is possible to avoid falling into a lock by keeping away from the edge, and the bridges on the T&M (?) that are about 4 feet wide but have no handrail hold no fears, at least for me. Quite why the S&W bridges were built how they were is probably lost in the mists of time, but they are not as safe.

 

I'd actually forgotten about them until you mentioned them - yes - I think the other difference from memory is that they have no small rail like the lock in question so no tripping hazard either - they are just 'flat' and boarded from memory.

[alan_fincher]

Crude criticism of BW ? They have screwed up and in the real private sector world someone wouild be getting their arse kicked.

Not by any means guaranteed!

 

I worked for very many years for one of the largest multinationals, and it was as common for the incompetant to get moved on to, (and often promoted in to), new roles, once they had messed up in current ones.

 

I think those in the private sector who screw up regularly don't get their arses kicked, to be honest. At least based on my observations over the years.

[Guest]

Not by any means guaranteed!

 

I worked for very many years for one of the largest multinationals, and it was as common for the incompetant to get moved on to, (and often promoted in to), new roles, once they had messed up in current ones.

 

I think those in the private sector who screw up regularly don't get their arses kicked, to be honest. At least based on my observations over the years.

 

and my last few years working in the NHS (public sector obviously) seemed to be regularly punctuated with staff suspensions, disciplinary action/formal warnings and dismissals,

 

perception is a strange thing...

[alan_fincher]

Bridges are a bit different, it is possible to avoid falling into a lock by keeping away from the edge, and the bridges on the T&M (?) that are about 4 feet wide but have no handrail hold no fears, at least for me. Quite why the S&W bridges were built how they were is probably lost in the mists of time, but they are not as safe.

The current initiative is, unfortunately, not restricted to the S&W. When boating with Sickle a month or so back, we also saw similar activities on the T&M, almost certainly part of this same safety review. And possibly elsewhere, too, I'm not now totally sure. I wish I had photographed some now, as (trust me!) Falling Sands, (which we didn't visit), is not the only daft one needing some revision, (or preferably removal).

[Chertsey]

Not by any means guaranteed!

 

I worked for very many years for one of the largest multinationals, and it was as common for the incompetant to get moved on to, (and often promoted in to), new roles, once they had messed up in current ones.

 

I think those in the private sector who screw up regularly don't get their arses kicked, to be honest. At least based on my observations over the years.

Yes, it's a myth that the private sector is more efficient or more accountable. It's just a lot better at hiding its cock-ups, precisely because it isn't held to account to the same degree as the public sector.

[carlt]

They have screwed up and in the real private sector world someone wouild be getting their arse kicked.

When I worked in the private sector there was an annoying habit of incompetent fools being "promoted out of trouble" rather than fired.

[Midnight Rider]

I'd actually forgotten about them until you mentioned them - yes - I think the other difference from memory is that they have no small rail like the lock in question so no tripping hazard either - they are just 'flat' and boarded from memory.

Looks like you have solved the problem Martin ----- cut the rails off the Stourport bridge & leave the other buggers alone.

[Domino_2]

Bridges are a bit different, it is possible to avoid falling into a lock by keeping away from the edge, and the bridges on the T&M (?) that are about 4 feet wide but have no handrail hold no fears, at least for me. Quite why the S&W bridges were built how they were is probably lost in the mists of time, but they are not as safe.

 

Hubby & I are currently cruising the T&M - the little bridges have received the Health & Safety Gone Mad (HSGM) treatment - some with scaffolding and others with wood. On the ones at Fradley Locks, there is a notice attached to the wooden railings stating that these are temporary fixtures awaiting planning consent!

 

Given the general tone in this thread, maybe we should all write to the relevant planning council and say we are opposed to these railings and thereby scarper BW's attempt at HSGM!

[Chertsey]

Hubby & I are currently cruising the T&M - the little bridges have received the Health & Safety Gone Mad (HSGM) treatment - some with scaffolding and others with wood. On the ones at Fradley Locks, there is a notice attached to the wooden railings stating that these are temporary fixtures awaiting planning consent!

 

Given the general tone in this thread, maybe we should all write to the relevant planning council and say we are opposed to these railings and thereby scarper BW's attempt at HSGM!

I think they need planning consent on the T&M because the bridges are listed. The S&W ones didn't.

It is good that time is being taken with the T&M ones to find a design that is both aesthetically acceptable and safe for all users - this may take a while! The chances of not having railings at all are very slim now I would say.

 

PS. If you look at a lot of the older railings on these canals, these also are not original, and are not really in keeping with the original design, but we don't give them a second glance now.

Edited May 14, 2012 by Chertsey

[Rebotco]

Hubby & I are currently cruising the T&M - the little bridges have received the Health & Safety Gone Mad (HSGM) treatment - some with scaffolding and others with wood. On the ones at Fradley Locks, there is a notice attached to the wooden railings stating that these are temporary fixtures awaiting planning consent!

 

Given the general tone in this thread, maybe we should all write to the relevant planning council and say we are opposed to these railings and thereby scarper BW's attempt at HSGM!

 

 

I believe the majority of today's H&S excesses, have nothing to do with Health or Safety, but everything to do with with managers trying to protect their own arses in a litigious society.

[BruceinSanity]

Hubby & I are currently cruising the T&M - the little bridges have received the Health & Safety Gone Mad (HSGM) treatment - some with scaffolding and others with wood. On the ones at Fradley Locks, there is a notice attached to the wooden railings stating that these are temporary fixtures awaiting planning consent!

 

 

I was going to ad this, but now don't need to bother. Oh well, that's saved me doing one post…

 

 

The rails at Middle Lock are a real sod, making it difficult to climb over the balance beam when the gate is open.

 

[adam1uk]

If you look at a lot of the older railings on these canals, these also are not original, and are not really in keeping with the original design, but we don't give them a second glance now.

 

Indeed - this sort of thing has been going on for years. One of the locks on the Leicester Line is known as Double Rail Lock. It got its second set of rails following the drowning of an old lady, according to the Pearson's guide. When, it doesn't say, but long enough ago for the name to have worked its way into the language.

[trackman]

Just to add to the debate I'd like to add more evidence of how ill considered the temporary parapet fences are.

 

On the Staffs & Worcester last week at Wightwick Mill Lock we came very close to disaster due to one of the temporary scaffold fences that had been vandalised overnight. Its construction meant that the vandals had been able to pivot the whole structure around the horizontal tube that had been wedged between the lock walls beside the bridge, so that the whole thing was resting on the balance beams of the bottom gates. Had a boater nudged open the gates of the empty lock with their boat, the whole lot would have fallen onto the boat. If the first boat that morning had been going down the lock the problem might not have been appreciated until the lock was emptied with a boat in it. In that case, when the gates were opened the boat and any occupants at the bow would again have been at risk.

 

With the help of a passing walker we were able to pull the scaffold back to its proper place. However, a concrete block had been thrown behind a gate preventing it from opening so we still couldn't proceed. A call to BW did eventually get this sorted.

 

The temporary parapet was totally unnecessary, since as with many similar ones on this canal, the bridge is wide enough for a car or tractor to pass over, and there is no need for walkers or cyclists to go anywhere near the low brick parapet on the lock side of it. There is an original full height brick parapet on the side remote from the lock. The construction of the temporary parapet was totally inappropriate, as demonstrated by the ease with which it had been turned by vandals into a serious hazard to boaters. It was also arguably completely ineffective for its purpose as a parapet.

 

In the case of risks like these BW is under a statutory obligation to ensure the safety of everyone, and before it reacted to the case of the fatality at Stourport, it should have carried out a full risk analysis of the original risk and the risks created by the proposed solutions. I have had significant experience with such processes as an engineer on the railways, and it is my considered opinion that BW cannot have carried out an adequate assessment of the risks of these temporary structures. If it had, in my opinion they should not have erected them in this manner.

 

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

From a report by Operations director, Vince Moran, given to BW's board in January

 

The accidental death of a 12 year old male who drowned at Stourport Basin when he

fell into the lock from his cycle when crossing a lock tail bridge with very low parapets

is still under investigation by the Health & Safety Executive although the verdict of

accidental death has been recorded. As a result of investigations following this

tragic accident, 26 other lock crossings with similar risks were identified across the

network. Work to install appropriate handrails is scheduled to be complete by April

2012. It is unfortunate that some boating groups have criticised our actions following

this tragedy, claiming that our reaction is excessive. Such accusations have been

robustly rejected.

[Chertsey]

From a report by Operations director, Vince Moran, given to BW's board in January

It has to be said that other people within BW have been far more receptive to constructive criticism than Mr Moran.

It is likely that the whole handrails initiative probably originated from him, so he is bound to be defensive.

[Guest]

It has to be said that other people within BW have been far more receptive to constructive criticism than Mr Moran.

It is likely that the whole handrails initiative probably originated from him, so he is bound to be defensive.

 

Sounds like a classic case of 'disconnection' between the big cheese and what the staff on the ground are saying and doing - not uncommon in large organisations.

[furnessvale]

I believe the majority of today's H&S excesses, have nothing to do with Health or Safety, but everything to do with with managers trying to protect their own arses in a litigious society.

 

Let us consider a hypothetical situation.

 

I am promoted within my organisation to a new post of "Health and Safety Manager" charged with promoting H & S. After I have reviewed the existing situation and sorted out all the real H & S problems I am now left with two options.

 

I can turn to the boss and say "OK boss I've sorted it, you can sack me now" Or I can keep ferreting about finding ever more ridiculous excuses to justify my existence.

 

Has anyone seen the notices appearing on the sides of workboats (in the NW at least) reminding staff about the crush hazard. Not seen them on their lorries and vans yet but I would have thought there is a similar crush hazard there. Probably saving that for next year.

 

Another example was the timetable in British Rail days. It changed religiously every six months. No wonder when hundreds of timetabling clerks relied on changes to justify their jobs. Now in privatisation much fewer changes take place and are confined to those really necessary.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[alan_fincher]

.

Edited May 15, 2012 by alan_fincher

[Chris Pink]

Responsibility and BW director in the same sentence.

 

 

..

Edited May 15, 2012 by Chris Pink

[Chertsey]

Yes, there are some good people at BW but I have seen no reason to believe that Mr Moran is one of them.

But what were they thinking of appointing him in the first place? It's exactly the sort of 'private sector good, public sector bad' attitude that was demonstrated earlier in this thread that got us into this mess.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Chertsey