£50,000 fine for H&S breach

[nicknorman]

The difference is that you 'choose' whether you chuck common sense out of the window every time you get on the bike, and like i said before and you never answered ..... HOW MANY TIMES have you got on and off your narrowboat in a dry dock with a plank that hasn't been secured at BOTH ends and a handrail fitted ?? Because the answer is you have at some time in the past done this, and i would be very surprised if you told me anything else, all i am asking is for people to hold their hands up and say, "yes i did that, and yes it was stupid and dangerous" "and i see the error of my ways" because we are all human and WE ALL MAKE MISTAKES, that is why the H&S law is there to protect us from ourselves and the stupidity of others, what i trying to get people to see here is regardless of whether Richard was wrong in not securing the plank himself or not, in a place like that, the choice should not be to secure or not to secure it should be WE (the drydock) have fitted and secured your plank, to ensure your and everyone else's safety, because 'historically' and it all goes back to when boats were born, and like i said you have done it and you know you have it's historical, and the handrail thing is new to most people. And anyway, the drydock has not shut down, it's still there and still going, so this whole thread was a waste of time and effort on everyone's behalf

There is a lot you do not know about this case which i cannot and would not discuss, due to 3 years later the case is still not settled.

Have I done as you suggest? - not that its really relevant but no, as it happens, because I have never had our boat in dry dock - its only had one blacking and that was done in a shed and not by me. Would I? I would assess the security of the plank and likely outcome if it or I slipped and then make a judgement, just as I do when crossing an open mitre gate on a narrow lock. The dangers are obvious, but I take care and therefore consider the probability of coming to grief is sufficiently low to accept the risk, provided I take care. I think this also highlights an important difference between occupational safety and leisure safety - if I were a professional boater working locks every day, day in day out, it would be almost inevitable that one day I would become complacent and slip from a bottom gate to my doom. But as a leisure boater doing it only from time to time, I pay attention and hopefully don't become complacent. So my point is that I can to some extent see that there is a difference between occupational and non-occupation safety.

 

For non-occupational activities I certainly don't want (unlike you, who seem to want) to be "saved from myself" by legislation. I am responsible for my own safety and no-one else. If I choose to go rock-climbing or, one of the most dangerous things, horse riding, I want to be free to do that even though the perils are obvious. If you don't want that freedom, that is sad but it is your choice I suppose, but don't presume that everyone else feels the same. Maybe consider buying a huge ball of cotton wool and living in it?

 

Oh and its really irritating if you start a discussion and then say something along the lines of "of course I know secrets about the case that you don't but I'm not going to talk about them". Knowledge sure is power!

Edited May 31, 2013 by nicknorman

[navmanl200]

 

 

Oh and its really irritating if you start a discussion and then say something along the lines of "of course I know secrets about the case that you don't but I'm not going to talk about them". Knowledge sure is power!

Not secrets.... Just stuff that i CAN'T say because the case is still open, i am sure even you can understand that !!

 

Like i said there are people who are happy to comply with and be protected by the law and then there is you !

I am not saying i am happy to be wrapped in cotton wool and strangled by H&S law, but i do want to be protected from my own occasional 'stupidity' and if you can tell me you have lived your whole life without 1 single 'stupid' moment then you are indeed a GOD and i bow down to you 'Sir' !!

 

 

[nicknorman]

Not secrets.... Just stuff that i CAN'T say because the case is still open, i am sure even you can understand that !!

 

Like i said there are people who are happy to comply with and be protected by the law and then there is you !

I am not saying i am happy to be wrapped in cotton wool and strangled by H&S law, but i do want to be protected from my own occasional 'stupidity' and if you can tell me you have lived your whole life without 1 single 'stupid' moment then you are indeed a GOD and i bow down to you 'Sir' !!

Trust me, I have had plenty of stupid moments throughout my life but have survived them and learnt from them. Its all part of living. I certainly wouldn't want to have been protected from them by the State - that would be like being a perpetual child with mummy and daddy watching over me saying "don't do that Nicky" and never allowing you to develop a sense of danger and judgement.

 

I was lucky because my daddy took me rock climbing, horse riding and sailing on the sea all before I reached teenage and mummy didn't object too much when I got a moped at 16. Yes I fell off it but that taught me that it hurt, and not to fall off again! (though of course I did). By the time I stepped off a 1200' cliff on my first ever flight in a hang glider (on the basis that it only hurt when you hit the ground, and best to start high so you have time to suss it out before the ground gets too close) I had a good sense of what danger and risk were. Ah the joys of living close to the edge! In fact after that (yes, I crashed a bit at the bottom) I decided that hang gliding was too dangerous and took up "real" gliding instead.

 

These days, the limit of excitement for youngsters is a trip to McDonalds (though that is quite dangerous I believe) and hence we have a generation that have no physical skills beyond ball games, or sense of adventure beyond causing a bit of trouble. (massive generalisation, I know!)

 

I think you are probably still in the minority in wanting the State to save you from yourself, but the worrying thing is that you are less and less in the minority and there is only one place it will all end and that is in tears.

Edited May 31, 2013 by nicknorman

[John Holden]

Yes but the difference is, its up to me to ensure that I abide by the law ( which of course I do, ossifer) its not up to the provider of the bike ( manufacturer or seller) to check that I'm doing so. In the same way as the owner of the dry dock provided a gangplank that probably shouldn't have been used, so Mr Suzuki has given my bike a top speed that probably shouldn't be used. But the law takes an inconsistent view on these two matters (fortunately, although I'm sure the nanny state is working on it!)

 

But if the manufacturers/suppliers sold you a bike that was not fit for purpose they would very much be responsible and expect to answer to the law..

[nicknorman]

But if the manufacturers/suppliers sold you a bike that was not fit for purpose they would very much be responsible and expect to answer to the law..

So I would say it depends on what you mean by fit for purpose. If a non-obvious fault such as brakes liable to fall off (or in the case of the drydock / gangplank, a major crack on the underside of the gangplank that resulted in it breaking in half when you walked across it) then fair enough. But is a bike with a top speed of 200 mph and 0-60 in under 3 seconds fit for the purpose I bought it for - mainly commuting to work through traffic where the maximum speed limit I encouter is less than 1/3 of its top speed?

 

Or is it up to me to use the potentially highly dangerous bike in a safe way regardless of its unsuitably high power to weight ratio? Or whether to walk across an obviously unsecured gangplank over a deep pit with no handholds rather than finding an alternative means to board the boat?

[John Holden]

 

So I would say it depends on what you mean by fit for purpose. If a non-obvious fault such as brakes liable to fall off (or in the case of the drydock / gangplank, a major crack on the underside of the gangplank that resulted in it breaking in half when you walked across it) then fair enough. But is a bike with a top speed of 200 mph and 0-60 in under 3 seconds fit for the purpose I bought it for - mainly commuting to work through traffic where the maximum speed limit I encouter is less than 1/3 of its top speed?

 

Or is it up to me to use the potentially highly dangerous bike in a safe way regardless of its unsuitably high power to weight ratio? Or whether to walk across an obviously unsecured gangplank over a deep pit with no handholds rather than finding an alternative means to board the boat?

 

Well, say the manufacturers knew that the brakes seized on at 150 mph but didn't bother to tell you, or the DD owners knew that if you fell from access it might kill you but didn't bother to tell you . . .

 

I take on board what you say about H&S making us all soft, but I'm sure we've both met the sort of people who are willing to try anything but are sadly lacking in common sense. The question is should those lacking in common sense be encouraged to die out?

[nicknorman]

Well, say the manufacturers knew that the brakes seized on at 150 mph but didn't bother to tell you, or the DD owners knew that if you fell from access it might kill you but didn't bother to tell you . . .

 

I take on board what you say about H&S making us all soft, but I'm sure we've both met the sort of people who are willing to try anything but are sadly lacking in common sense. The question is should those lacking in common sense be encouraged to die out?

But again, the difference is that the former is a hidden flaw, whereas the latter is obvious to a normal adult.

 

Natural Selection seems to have worked well for the last numerous million years and got us to where we are now. But we are increasingly inhibiting its action and we will end up like the Asgard (SG1).

 

But in truth, those people whom you mention are the way they are as a product of modern society, being too mollycoddled as children to develop a sense of danger, risk and common sense. They are almost certainly not like that because of their genetics.

Edited May 31, 2013 by nicknorman

[John Holden]

 

But again, the difference is that the former is a hidden flaw, whereas the latter is obvious to a normal adult.

 

Natural Selection seems to have worked well for the last numerous million years and got us to where we are now. But we are increasingly inhibiting its action and we will end up like the Asgard (SG1).

 

But in truth, those people whom you mention are the way they are as a product of modern society, being too mollycoddled as children to develop a sense of danger, risk and common sense. They are almost certainly not like that because of their genetics.

 

But the unfortunate guy who inspired this thread was no teenager mollycoddled by H&S but a man who had lived a good part of his life unconcerned about H&S. It may well be that his parents, as ill informed as he was, did nothing to acquaint him with risk and danger but that is hardly justification for his death.

You say the latter is obvious to a normal adult then I must have known a tremendous amount of abnormal adults, like the saw operator who faced with a wind blown tree over a gully, supported at each end but free in the middle, chose to stand in the middle and try to saw it in half. Or the two guys I saw at the weekend working their way down the Rochdale Nine in a narrow boat opened each gate fully before entering or leaving the lock.

We weren't all encouraged to take up dangerous sports by our parents, some left school for nice safe office jobs, paid people to maintain their houses and never took any risk greater than driving too fast, how are they supposed to recognise a dangerous situation if they are presented with one?

[luctor et emergo]

Norman, whilst I agree with your dislike of (over)zealous H&S, I think an important detail in this specific case is missed in the discussion. The dockyard was instructed by the H&SE to provide a safe access gang plank, with a hand rail, because of a previous incident. They did not, and because of that, deserve to have the book thrown at them.

 

As an aside, I use a scaffolding plank for access. I also routinely move along my 2" wide gunnel, whilst my boat moves along customer's boats. I jump across from my moving boat, or back to my moving boat. I do a lot of stupid things (fallen in to many times to count...), but all knowing that I am responsible.

[nicknorman]

 

But the unfortunate guy who inspired this thread was no teenager mollycoddled by H&S but a man who had lived a good part of his life unconcerned about H&S. It may well be that his parents, as ill informed as he was, did nothing to acquaint him with risk and danger but that is hardly justification for his death.

You say the latter is obvious to a normal adult then I must have known a tremendous amount of abnormal adults, like the saw operator who faced with a wind blown tree over a gully, supported at each end but free in the middle, chose to stand in the middle and try to saw it in half. Or the two guys I saw at the weekend working their way down the Rochdale Nine in a narrow boat opened each gate fully before entering or leaving the lock.

We weren't all encouraged to take up dangerous sports by our parents, some left school for nice safe office jobs, paid people to maintain their houses and never took any risk greater than driving too fast, how are they supposed to recognise a dangerous situation if they are presented with one?

That is a fair point but ultimately having state regulation of personal safety can never work unless you never leave the confines of commercial premises. As I said, the world outside of urban areas is a dangerous place and can never be made safe by regulation. Taking state regulation of safety as the answer inevitably results in, for example, the fencing off of all canals and locks because water and heights are dangerous. Is that the world you really want to live in? And how to make safe the Highlands of Scotland so that people can wander into them in just a T shirt when a blizzard is forecast without risk? As a concept, it is fatally flawed and unworkable.

 

In the case of the gentleman in question he knew the risks and decided to take them regardless. That was his choice and he met with the consequences as all life forms have done for millennia. We are all mortal and I would rather enjoy life than try to prolong it just for the sake of it. There is no point in taking pointless or foolish risk, but some risk is inevitable and can contribute to a happy life, even it is shorter than the maximum potential lifespan.

 

Lucky, yes one could have argued that they should have complied with their legal obligations and were certainly foolish not to from a business point of view but I see that as a side issue with the main issue being that the gentleman was old enough and aware enough to decide on his own risk factors. But he got it wrong.

Edited May 31, 2013 by nicknorman

[navmanl200]

Norman, whilst I agree with your dislike of (over)zealous H&S, I think an important detail in this specific case is missed in the discussion. The dockyard was instructed by the H&SE to provide a safe access gang plank, with a hand rail, because of a previous incident. They did not, and because of that, deserve to have the book thrown at them.

 

 

And that is what i have been saying ALL along, but Nick seems to know or think he knows better than the law, plus i don't think anyone of us is going to get the last word in because Nick obviously is not one to let you have the last word !

 

Cue NickNorman......

Edited May 31, 2013 by navmanl200

[Ian Mac]

I find it interesting that this thread has started up again, I wonder if it has any connection with the fact that the civil case is about to get under way? Having seen the draft copy of one witness report on the incident, I think the chap that died would have done so, even if a handrail was fitted, due to his style of use of the gang plank, with both hands full of paint cans, having refused help, from the other boater on the dock at the same time. The civil case will become interesting as the insurers will fight this tooth and nail, to limit any claim for damages, were as they would not help WDD and instructed (to all intents and purposes) them to plead guilty as it was by far the cheaper option for the insurance company, who did not provide legal cover to fight H&S court cases.

The guy that die had also interfered with the set-up of the gangplank which is why he was able to kick it off his boat while stepping onto it - see H&S report. So a handrail would have made no difference to the outcome in my opinion. It may have force him to open his front tarp properly, so that he was not stooping whilst attempting to gain access to the said gang plank, but that is debatable.

[navmanl200]

I would be interested to know where you got a draft copy of a witness report from ??

[John Holden]

As I said, the

In the case of the gentleman in question he knew the risks and decided to take them regardless.

 

Are you sure that he knew the risks or fully appreciated them?

[John Holden]

Nick let me ask you one question. When you got your 200 mph motor bike did you leap on it and ride off with no previous experience or were you mollycoddled through several tests and probationary periods?

[nicknorman]

Nick let me ask you one question. When you got your 200 mph motor bike did you leap on it and ride off with no previous experience or were you mollycoddled through several tests and probationary periods?

bloody ell, never going to get up in time for my flight... Had a moped at 16 for a year with no training, on L plates. CBT was not even a twinkle in some bureaucrats eye. Got a 250 and passed test at 17 - in those days the examiner stood on the kerb and watched you pass by. That is the extent of the mollycoddling through tests (1) and probationary periods (zero). But not sure this is relevant?

 

Ange yes I take the point, however I'm not sure its helpful for him to want to blame anyone other than the person who died through his own misadventure. I didn't know the guy but suspect he was a bit happy go lucky and enjoyed life. It was unfortunately a shorter life than it could have been but that was not anyone else's fault, and to claim otherwise is to be in denial which, whilst part of the grieving process, is a state that's best moved on from. Anyway, he got personal first.

Edited May 31, 2013 by nicknorman

[Québec]

I can't see anything 'fluffy' or 'cosy about the HSE regulations about working at height. They seem eminently sensible.

 

As part of the Regulations, duty holders must ensure:

 

all work at height is properly planned and organised;

those involved in work at height are competent;

the risks from work at height are assessed and appropriate work equipment is selected and used;

the risks from fragile surfaces are properly controlled; and

equipment for work at height is properly inspected and maintained.

 

There is a simple hierarchy for managing and selecting equipment for work at height. Duty holders must:

 

avoid work at height where they can;

use work equipment or other measures to prevent falls where they cannot avoid working at height; and

where they cannot eliminate the risk of a fall, use work equipment or other measures to minimise the distance and consequences of a fall should one occur.

 

The Regulations include schedules giving requirements for existing places of work and means of access for work at height, collective fall prevention (e.g. guardrails and working platforms), collective fall arrest (e.g. nets, airbags etc), personal fall protection (e.g. work restraints, fall arrest and rope access) and ladders.

[end]

 

Nicknorman and some others are clearly libertarians, and therefore against what they see as the coercive state inhibiting their freedom to kill themselves in the course of undertaking any activity they see fit to voluntarily undertake, whether it's riding at 200mph or crossing a dangerously positioned gangplank. What they fail to take into account is the potential cost - emotional as well as financial - of their actions. H&S regulations exist not just to protect individuals but also to minimise that cost. I'm assuming that those who support that position also believe that the 'state' has no responsibility whatsoever to pick up or scrape up or mend the lives that are shattered by the exercise of that personal liberty.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Québec

[Ange]

 

Ange yes I take the point, however I'm not sure its helpful for him to want to blame anyone other than the person who died through his own misadventure. I didn't know the guy but suspect he was a bit happy go lucky and enjoyed life. It was unfortunately a shorter life than it could have been but that was not anyone else's fault, and to claim otherwise is to be in denial which, whilst part of the grieving process, is a state that's best moved on from. Anyway, he got personal first.

My point is that you're talking to an angry, bereaved man. Saying "he got personal first" is the language of a schoolboy.

 

The denial part of grieving isn't helped by being ridiculed by a stranger on the internet.

 

I just see someone scoring points off someone in a bad place. Not good.

 

And what the hell were you thinking of when you referred to Drummer Rigby and God - hell's teeth man have you lost the plot! No god's were referred to - and utterly distasteful. Shame on you.

 

I'll leave you to wallow in the cotton wool of your own ignorance - enjoy the fluffy cozy feeling while you leap over lock gates ignorant of the fact that you might have profoundly hurt real, grieving people. Of course it'll be their fault won't it. You are a truly ignorant and arrogant man in my opinion.

Edited June 1, 2013 by Ange

[sociable_hermit]

 

If the dry dock rigged the walkway, or told him that he should use it, then you may have a point.

 

If he merely utilised equipment that was stored in the building you do not.

 

He hired the premises, in order to carry out work. He was not employed by the owners to carry out work.

 

The owners have a duty to ensure that the premises are not in an unsafe condition, but that duty cannot extend to ensuring that he provides himself with a safe walkway.

 

If a dry dock owner wishes to hire out a dry dock with the proviso that the owner must provide his own equipment (pressure washer, access equipment etc) then that would be perfectly legitimate.

 

No, this is tosh.

 

If you, as a boatyard operator, know that an individual is staying in a boat in dry dock on site, it is up to you to check that the boarding arrangements they have made are safe. Or alternatively it is up to you to set up something safe in the first place, thereby negating the risk.

 

Yes, the individual also has a duty to protect themselves, but they may not have been familiar with the staging and the risks associated with it, which is why a check is necessary.

 

5 minutes doing this is not going to cost a Marina very much, and should have been factored into the dry dock costs.

 

The dry dock I use (Aqua Narrowboats, at Mercia Marina) provide a set of steps with a handrail to climb up from the dock floor into the boat. They also leave the lights in the building on so I can see what I am doing, and ensure that the steps are stable and I'm aware of the potential hazards of stepping across from the steps into the boat when I'm 6' above the concrete floor. Obviously it's never going to be 100% safe because of the environment the boat, by necessity, has to be in - but they really try their best, and I'm grateful for that.

[nicknorman]

My point is that you're talking to an angry, bereaved man. Saying "he got personal first" is the language of a schoolboy.

 

The denial part of grieving isn't helped by being ridiculed by a stranger on the internet.

 

I just see someone scoring points off someone in a bad place. Not good.

 

And what the hell were you thinking of when you referred to Drummer Rigby and God - hell's teeth man have you lost the plot! No god's were referred to - and utterly distasteful. Shame on you.

 

I'll leave you to wallow in the cotton wool of your own ignorance - enjoy the fluffy cozy feeling while you leap over lock gates ignorant of the fact that you might have profoundly hurt real, grieving people. Of course it'll be their fault won't it. You are a truly ignorant and arrogant man in my opinion.

Thanks for your view Ange. The gods by the way, were the god HSE and the god of the extremist jihadist Islamist, the point being the blindness of the devout follower of either. Lower case gods, you might notice.

 

What would you say to the grieving mum whose child has just drowned in the canal and who is running a campaign to have all the canals filled in? Would you agree with her, or would you explain that the world is a dangerous place and putting it bluntly that the canals should remain and the accident was either just bad luck, or the product of bad parenting? A tricky one. Sorry but if someone wants to take their private grieving onto a public forum they shouldn't be too surprised if they hear contrary views.

 

<yawn, really dull regulations quoted verbatim> What they fail to take into account is the potential cost - emotional as well as financial - of their actions. H&S regulations exist not just to protect individuals but also to minimise that cost. I'm assuming that those who support that position also believe that the 'state' has no responsibility whatsoever to pick up or scrape up or mend the lives that are shattered by the exercise of that personal liberty.

But the true cost is the loss of liberty and common sense. Yes you could just ban everything slightly dangerous, that would save a lot, but we would all die of boredom or at least lead very unfulfilling if long lives.

 

The god HSE recently banned us from climbing up 10' or so to check the top cowling latches on our helicopters, even though in the past there were a number of occasions when these had been found open. Guess what, the HSE laws don't apply once we get airborne, so HSE doesn't care if we crash and burn taking 19 passengers with us, so long as we didn't climb up 10' before taking off. Now that is sensible!

Edited June 1, 2013 by nicknorman

[luctor et emergo]

So, Norman, sofar you have made it clear, repeatedly, that you don't agree with H&S directives, and that people are responsible for their own actions. You have not commented on the fact that the boatyard had a previous incident, and that as a result of that they were instructed to provide the secured youngmans board, with a railing. They ignored this, or at best did not properly provide it.

 

All things equal, if a safe method is available, would you deliberately choose a dangerous method, just for the sake?

 

When you ride you bike, do you wear leathers, and a helmet?

[Tuscan]

If I engage a professional handyman to come round and fix my guttering and he uses a ladder as opposed to scaffolding to do it am I label in anyway for allowing onto my land to do this should he fall off? Serious question as i have just asked the village builder who does all these odd jobs to come round to do this and some pointing.

[nicknorman]

Lucky, I answered it at the bottom of post #85. I am not averse to sensible safety precautions, but they are the responsibility of the person, not somebody else. Yes I do (have to ) wear a helmet unless on holiday in the Far East when all sense goes out of the window (and its too hot) but not leathers.

[Québec]

<yawn, really dull regulations quoted verbatim>

The temptation to yawn back (it's catching) at your repeated arrogance and rudeness is overwhelming. Yes, regulations are boring, especially when they're designed to save lives.

 

At the risk of boring you even further I happen to believe that there is a role for a mature society to protect all, rather like the law that insists adults wear car seat belts (I bet you wear one when driving). It is not about creating an unnecessary burden, but rather about protecting those ignorant of the risks and potentially saves society the cost of the health, welfare, and social care bills of those who would have otherwise been injured or in the case of those killed, of their dependents. The long-term harm is funded by the taxpayer i.e. you and me (I assume you pay your taxes, or do you regard that as another unnecessary infringement on your freedom?)

 

As it happens I agree with you in that there are what appear to be absurdities in the application of H&S regulations. Very often these arise because someone has decided to interpret the regulations in their own, inimitable way.

 

If I engage a professional handyman to come round and fix my guttering and he uses a ladder as opposed to scaffolding to do it am I label in anyway for allowing onto my land to do this should he fall off? Serious question as i have just asked the village builder who does all these odd jobs to come round to do this and some pointing.

No. You're not liable. If he is genuinely self-employed it's his responsibility to ensure the safety of his equipment and working practices. He should refuse to do any work that poses an obvious and significant risk if he doesn't have the right equipment or skills.

[billS]

The god HSE recently banned us from climbing up 10' or so to check the top cowling latches on our helicopters, even though in the past there were a number of occasions when these had been found open. Guess what, the HSE laws don't apply once we get airborne, so HSE doesn't care if we crash and burn taking 19 passengers with us, so long as we didn't climb up 10' before taking off. Now that is sensible!

Nick- are you standing by this statement? It implies that no alternative process has been put in place. Our company use your aircraft regularly, and this is a shocking implication. Particularly given yesterday's report on the recent BA incident.