"Warning : Canal. May contain water."

[Clifford]

This is actually a mini-rant about the increasing visual clutter of signs along the towpath.

 

A big part of the attraction of canals is the feeling of "escape". Of course the canals are man-made, but it's still nice to feel you are away from the town - or if you are IN town, to pretend you are away from the twentyfirst century.

 

But shiny new signs in sexy san serif fonts on bright white reflective backgrounds don't help the illusion much, do they? Do CRT want canals to look just like streets?

 

This has been prompted by some "Warning, low headroom" signs I saw around Stone last weekend, on the towpath approach to some humpback bridges. Presumably a cyclist was going too fast with his head down (Clonk!) - and complained to CRT that he didn't know the towpath went under bridges and hadn't seen the bridge until it was too late? (so how would he have seen the sign?).

 

Since almost EVERY humpbacked bridge has low headroom over the towpath, I assume the Cyclists and Runners Trust is making thousands of these eyesores right now?

 

Edited to add : Please feel free to report your own least-favourite idiot board. Or on the other hand, to say how much you love seeing noticeboards proliferate.

Edited May 2, 2014 by Clifford

[NB Alnwick]

It is happening everywhere - not just on the canals. Clearly if some body like English Heritage or The National Trust could get legislation approved that required all signage on historical routes to be authentic and historically accurate (proper cast iron jobs) it would all prove too expensive! In the meantime, the producers of vinyl computer generated fluorescent signs are making a fortune . . . .

[Paul C]

My favourite is "Danger: Deep water" by the Cheshire Cat in Christleton. If only it were deep water!

[furnessvale]

This is actually a mini-rant about the increasing visual clutter of signs along the towpath.

 

A big part of the attraction of canals is the feeling of "escape". Of course the canals are man-made, but it's still nice to feel you are away from the town - or if you are IN town, to pretend you are away from the twentyfirst century.

 

But shiny new signs in sexy san serif fonts on bright white reflective backgrounds don't help the illusion much, do they? Do CRT want canals to look just like streets?

 

This has been prompted by some "Warning, low headroom" signs I saw around Stone last weekend, on the towpath approach to some humpback bridges. Presumably a cyclist was going too fast with his head down (Clonk!) - and complained to CRT that he didn't know the towpath went under bridges and hadn't seen the bridge until it was too late? (so how would he have seen the sign?).

 

Since almost EVERY humpbacked bridge has low headroom over the towpath, I assume the Cyclists and Runners Trust is making thousands of these eyesores right now?

Last year's H & S bonus issue in the north west was the fixing of signs to the cabins of all workboats saying "Danger, Crush Hazard".

 

This year's H & S bonus issue in the north west is the fixing of additional signs to the same workboat cabins saying " Beware, Pinch Point"

 

After a few years of this, I look forward to some bright H & S bod bringing forward the idea of decluttering signage to improve the effect of the few left. Now that WILL be worth his bonus.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[wreckferret]

The biggy will be the H&S bod that convinces the powers that be that all locks should have warning signage and railings all round them.....

Lets face it, if a workman leaves a hole in the ground without barriers it is an offence under the H&S at work act.......

Edited May 2, 2014 by wreckferret

[magnetman]

My favourite H&S sign

[Neil2]

My favourite H&S sign

That's a cracker, I want one!

[OldGoat]

The biggy will be the H&S bod that convinces the powers that be that all locks should have warning signage and railings all round them.....

Lets face it, if a workman leaves a hole in the ground without barriers it is an offence under the H&S at work act.......

 

 

It's already happened on the Thames, making some of them difficult to work when the lockie's not on duty.

 

It's all about the perceived requirements of H&S. If warnings aren't issues then the owner is more liable. That not only puts up their insurance premiums (after an incident), but makes the Management criminally liable.

 

What started out as something reasonable has now gone mad.

[Athy]

Gosh, I wonder how working boat people, many of whom were functionally illiterate, avoided braining themselves on bridge arches or getting crushed between boat sides and lock walls when there were no signs to warn them of the terrible dangers?

Oh yes, Common Sense. Could we please have a CS Directive as an antidote to the H&S Directive?

[Guest]

Gosh, I wonder how working boat people, many of whom were functionally illiterate, avoided braining themselves on bridge arches or getting crushed between boat sides and lock walls when there were no signs to warn them of the terrible dangers?

Oh yes, Common Sense. Could we please have a CS Directive as an antidote to the H&S Directive?

The problem is that the working boat families wouldn't have immediately rung an ambulance chasing lawyer if they cut their head banging it on a bridge. They would have just accepted it as an occupational hazard and got on with it.

 

Whereas now some people I'm sure must be on the phone to their lawyer whilst on the way to A&E.

 

The proliferation of signage is a response to that culture I would say. You see the same on the roads.

[Rich]

The problem is that the working boat families wouldn't have immediately rung an ambulance chasing lawyer if they cut their head banging it on a bridge. They would have just accepted it as an occupational hazard and got on with it.

 

 

I see nothing wrong in ambulance chasing lawyers and people seeking "damages" for doing something foolish. Someone should pay.

 

The only change I would make is to charge a tax on any awards at 110%.

 

[system 4-50]

The biggy will be the H&S bod that convinces the powers that be that all locks should have warning signage and railings all round them.....

 

I'll vote for that. Some sort of perimeter marker and a modest sign warning of the presence of medieval machinery presenting a risk of injury to the ignorant seems reasonable.

[mark99]

 

I see nothing wrong in ambulance chasing lawyers and people seeking "damages" for doing something foolish. Someone should pay.

 

The only change I would make is to charge a tax on any awards at 110%.

 

 

 

I like it.

 

What about this?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/10013746/Monkey-nuts-withdrawn-from-sale-for-failing-to-warn-they-may-contain-peanuts.html

Edited May 2, 2014 by mark99

[PaulG]

 

 

I like it.

 

What about this?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/10013746/Monkey-nuts-withdrawn-from-sale-for-failing-to-warn-they-may-contain-peanuts.html

Wonderful!

[David Mack]

 

 

I like it.

 

What about this?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/10013746/Monkey-nuts-withdrawn-from-sale-for-failing-to-warn-they-may-contain-peanuts.html

 

Or this, which apparently has to be provided in every vehicle sold in California:

 

 

We might have to have similar notices in boats!

[PaulG]

[Neil2]

Not a warning sign, but I could find a few uses for this one

 

[alan_fincher]

I would not seek to defend a rash of signs - how could I - I have often spoken out against many as quite useless!

 

However I think one thing that does need to be considered when making comparisons with (for example) working boat families, is that back then, the canals were are largely private place and the public were not expected to be. (You could only access the BCN through a limited number of supposedly locked gates, or shinning over walls, and getting on to central London towpaths as a private individual was a challenge).

 

So there is a big difference between those working in an environment, who should hopefully already know the risks, and letting lose the general public who may not. (Those "only cross the line by the footbridge", or "warning high voltage live rail" signs on railways are largely there for the public, not railway employees, who probably already know these things).

 

And let us not assume it was not a highly dangerous environment for the working boatmen, and their families. There were very high numbers of fatalities, often, but not exclusively, by drowning, and often of young children.

 

(But yes, there are still far too many new and appropriate signs, and far too many of them are completely pointless!).

[junior]

When I was going down the Aylesbury Arm last year there were a group of men In suits, hi-viz and hard hats (they must have been expecting things to start dropping out of the sky) stood around one of the locks.

As I stepped off with the centre line they asked if they could have a moment of my time to answer some questions. They had been commissioned by CRT to do a survey on different types of lock ladder and how safe they were. After a bit of pressing from me they told me it was in response to an unusually high number of claims by Americans who were over here on canal boat holidays claiming that operating locks, and specifically the ladders, was unsafe.

[magnetman]

They obviously think the ladders are there for boaters!

[Guest]

When I was going down the Aylesbury Arm last year there were a group of men In suits, hi-viz and hard hats (they must have been expecting things to start dropping out of the sky) stood around one of the locks.

As I stepped off with the centre line they asked if they could have a moment of my time to answer some questions. They had been commissioned by CRT to do a survey on different types of lock ladder and how safe they were. After a bit of pressing from me they told me it was in response to an unusually high number of claims by Americans who were over here on canal boat holidays claiming that operating locks, and specifically the ladders, was unsafe.

What I find strange about that is that assuming these are US folk on holiday and presumably well sorted crew wise, why the need to use lock ladders?

 

Even as a couple I can't recall the last time I used one, why the need for them to?( noting of course we have yet to transverse loads of the system). But are there really so many locks that cannot be done without using a ladder, when you have crew?

 

If they are putting themselves at risk clambering about on ladders when there is no need they deserve to fall in.

Edited May 2, 2014 by The Dog House

[Athy]

Quite so - it's that common sense factor again.

In fairness to our Transatlantic cousins, if you have received only brief tuition from your hire boat firm, and you see a ladder in a lock, you may well assume that it's there for your use, so you had better climb up or down it!

 

I have never yet used a lock ladder in 15 years of boating. Am I unusual? (Quiet at the back there).

[Neil2]

Surely lock ladders were and are intended for safety ie if you fall in. Their very construction implies they are not supposed to be use routinely for alighting from a boat.

[Guest]

Neil2, on 02 May 2014 - 3:57 PM, said:

 

Surely lock ladders were and are intended for safety ie if you fall in. Their very construction implies they are not supposed to be use routinely for alighting from a boat.

The only boaters I have normally seen using them for climbing on or off the boat are single handers who have declined my offer of help or I have pitched up too late.

 

We once shared locks with a guy on the L&L who although not single handing seemed to think it was better to get off the boat in the lock using the ladder rather than before it which seemed strange at the time but I just left him to it.

Edited May 2, 2014 by The Dog House

[Paul C]

Quite so - it's that common sense factor again.

In fairness to our Transatlantic cousins, if you have received only brief tuition from your hire boat firm, and you see a ladder in a lock, you may well assume that it's there for your use, so you had better climb up or down it!

 

I have never yet used a lock ladder in 15 years of boating. Am I unusual? (Quiet at the back there).

 

Lock ladders are only needed in the following situation:

 

- single handing

- lock is deeper than approx. 8 feet

- lock has a tail bridge with no gap in middle (to pass a rope through)

 

And even then, its possible to work around the lack of a ladder (but its easier to use the ladder in those circumstances).