Views wanted on possible safety fence on Marple Aqueduct

[alan_fincher]

I can't find the relevant clause, but a land owner is not required to protect the public from a risk that is self-evident, only from one that may not be appreciated.

Does someone trying to leap the cut from the tow-path side always appreciate that there is a greater isk than ending up in the cut, though?

 

Normally Alan, you talk sense, but any risk assessment at Pontcysyllte would yield a much higher risk of someone inadvertently going over the edge. To fall of Marple, you have to be somewhere you shouldn't be

We are all entitled to a view though. Obviously an accident is possible anywhere, but Marple encouages behaviours that simply can't happen on the ones that are trunks, with no "land area" on the offside.

 

Also, from a purely practical perspective, anything that made Pontcysyllte safer would have to stand several feet taller than anything that would make Marple safer, and hence be far more disfiguring of the structure. My logic is that even if stood on a counter stern you will already be a couple of feet above the edge. If stood on the roof, you would already be maybe 6 feet above the edge. I'm guessing that a barrier that prevented you going over the edge if you toppled from the roof would need to be at least 9 feet high, wouldn't it?

Edited January 2, 2015 by alan_fincher

[jenlyn]

The thing is, the trust are encouraging more folk to the canals, not just for boating. Places like this are going to be popular, so the odds on an accident are high. Nobody can be certain what a coroner or court would decide in this day and age, so perhaps better safe than sorry. As Patrick says, the choice of style and design would be more important.

[frangar]

Well I exepected some people on here to think that a fence was a good idea....but I'm greatly saddened to see people who I thought cared about the canals and their history to be agreeing with them...Oh well.

 

In a few years when you have to wear a fall arrest harness before going near a lock don't say you weren't warned.

 

Meanwhile I urge all of you who do see sense and care about heritage and history to email in.

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[alan_fincher]

Well I'm personally not defending it as a "good idea" more trying to take a balanced view, and get people to think about the argument from both sides.

 

I was opposed (for example) to all those S&W and T&M tailgate footbridges that didn't previously have handrails having to acquire them after the death of the young boy on a bike at Stourport - it seemed like overkill. However, having read a few more balanced analyses of where that left CRT, maybe I'm persuaded they had little choice but to do something, (OK, I know they did initially create dangers greater than the ones they were trying to mitigate - a bit of an "own goal"!)

 

When the canals were built, if tens of workmen got killed in the construction of a single tunnel, that was just bad luck - a hazard of the job. Now if a single worker got killed whilst relining a tunnel, (as an example), the ramifications on CRT could be enormous.

 

I love my "history and heritage" as much as the next man, before I get condemned as just someone looking for "cheap" summer holidays, who has no love of the canals. However, the world is changing all the time, and sometimes this maybe has to impact 200 year old structures, particularly if the public have free access to them.

[boathunter]

The problem with a safety fence is that if it gets vandalised, they'll shut the viaduct while it's repaired.

[jenlyn]

Greenie Alan.

Put as I would have liked to.

[Keeping Up]

The problem with a safeacross knowing that they w fence is that if it gets vandalised, they'll shut the viaduct while it's repaired.

The other problem is that it will actually encourage idiots to jump across knowing that they won't fall off the other side.

[frangar]

Well I'm personally not defending it as a "good idea" more trying to take a balanced view, and get people to think about the argument from both sides.I was opposed (for example) to all those S&W and T&M tailgate footbridges that didn't previously have handrails having to acquire them after the death of the young boy on a bike at Stourport - it seemed like overkill. However, having read a few more balanced analyses of where that left CRT, maybe I'm persuaded they had little choice but to do something, (OK, I know they did initially create dangers greater than the ones they were trying to mitigate - a bit of an "own goal"!)When the canals were built, if tens of workmen got killed in the construction of a single tunnel, that was just bad luck - a hazard of the job. Now if a single worker got killed whilst relining a tunnel, (as an example), the ramifications on CRT could be enormous.I love my "history and heritage" as much as the next man, before I get condemned as just someone looking for "cheap" summer holidays, who has no love of the canals. However, the world is changing all the time, and sometimes this maybe has to impact 200 year old structures, particularly if the public have free access to them.

So you will be quite happy when locks have fences all round them as they are far more accessible to the general public than the offside of the aqueducts?

Risk assement is just that..how dangerous is the risk?...if we have to account for people being stupid and causing themselves injury then I suggest that any water can be dangerous....so let's fill in these canals right away.

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[Loafer]

Can anyone confirm that there are square holes on the top offside edge of the iron trough on the Ponty? I wondered if there once was a railing there.

[Barry]

So you will be quite happy when locks have fences all round them as they are far more accessible to the general public than the offside of the aqueducts?

Risk assement is just that..how dangerous is the risk?...if we have to account for people being stupid and causing themselves injury then I suggest that any water can be dangerous....so let's fill in these canals right away.

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

 

Its not fair to interpolate what Alan was very reasonably saying into this

 

Greenie, by the way, for Alan's explanation of his view

[b0atman]

Never mind the fact that water is used as a barrier in some zoos and is acceptable.

In essence there is a water barrier between the towpath where the cyclists and walkers are and the offside.

However what is there to stop the morons walking along the wall on the tow path side .

[steven wilkinson]

is there a history of near misses here? If there is, then CRT need to protect themselves, if not, they don't.

[Guest]

Its not fair to interpolate what Alan was very reasonably saying into this

 

Greenie, by the way, for Alan's explanation of his view

Agreed.

[b0atman]

Have you seen the height of the curbs in Cropredy near the Red Lion ?

[frangar]

Can anyone confirm that there are square holes on the top offside edge of the iron trough on the Ponty? I wondered if there once was a railing there.

There was never a fence there.....the holes are because of the clever desgin of the cast iron plates...they can be used either way up thus meaning a fewer number of casting moulds was needed. They are designed to "wedge" together if you find a picture of the outside of the trough.

 

I steered a trip boat across there for a season....I had a lot of time to look how it was put together....Amazing technology for the time.

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[alan_fincher]

So you will be quite happy when locks have fences all round them as they are far more accessible to the general public than the offside of the aqueducts?

 

No, of course not.

 

Just because you make such extrapolations doesn't in any way mean that is what I think.

 

If you read my blog, you will find for example I criticise what I consider to be completely (in my view) OTT railings erected around the staircase lock at Etruria, which make it look more like a sewage works than a lock.

 

Anyway, it's not purely about "accessibility" is it? People who fall into a lock will have a good chance of survival, mostly - those who fall the full height of Marple aqueduct very little chance, I imagine.

[alan_fincher]

is there a history of near misses here? If there is, then CRT need to protect themselves, if not, they don't.

 

I doubt anybody was aware of any great history of near misses at the Stourport lock where a boy died there.

 

My initial reaction was "he tried to ride a bike over a bridge a little over a foot wide that has low raised iron edges - what would you expect to happen?".

 

At first the reaction of going out and modifying a whole swathe of bridges because of this one act of (it has to be said) total stupidity seemed like complete overkill, and I would have declared myself opposed to it, particularly as many of the modified bridges were in far more remote locations, with far less public visits.

 

However, reading some well thought out assessments of the situation, and the possibility that CRT could have been prosecuted for their failure to protect the public, I reluctantly came to the conclusion they had little choice but to react as they did.

 

I would suggest it's not necessarily about "near misses" - it is about the worst that could happen, and is it possible / reasonable to mitigate against it.

Edited January 2, 2015 by alan_fincher

[Phil.]

Just another example of pandering to the health and safety brigade in an attempt to remove risk from those to stupid to take appropriate care. By all means educate by signage or restrict access but to put modern structures on old or ancient structures amounts to vandalism.

I mean what next, perhaps Stonehenge should have all its stones secured by big bolts just in case one fell off.

[Guest]

Just another example of pandering to the health and safety brigade in an attempt to remove risk from those to stupid to take appropriate care. By all means educate by signage or restrict access but to put modern structures on old or ancient structures amounts to vandalism.

I mean what next, perhaps Stonehenge should have all its stones secured by big bolts just in case one fell off.

I don't believe you are comparing like with like both in terms of the structures and the potential risks. Given the length of time Stonehenge has been there without one of the stones falling off the need to further secure them is clearly unnecessary. The perceived risk here is greater.

 

I do think though it's important they respect the heritage of the site when considering the appearance of any fencing. It's interesting to note the railway bridge above has a metal fence attached to the stonework and that doesn't really detract.

Edited January 3, 2015 by The Dog House

[gaggle]

Whats the problem , its still going to be there , just safer .

[David Mack]

Existing:

 

Proposed:

 

That artists impression is just cr*p! Clearly the artist hasn't bothered to find out what a typical narrow boat looks like.

 

What a pity CRT can't get someone to do a decent photo montage to show what is proposed.

[MHS]

1) Like many, I've crossed Pontcysyllte and Chirk aqueducts many times and never fallen in.

If you stay in the profile of the boat, you are perfectly safe.

 

2) it's time to get away from blame culture. Why should CRT have to pay out if someone falls off? Fall off Striding Edge in the Lake District, who do you sue? The local or county council? The national park authorities? Or God?

 

3) Franger is right about the spike on the steering wheel. Over the years I've owned 2 (classic) cars with no seat belts, or crumple zones. You do drive just a little more carefully.

[Alan de Enfield]

I can't find the relevant clause, but a land owner is not required to protect the public from a risk that is self-evident, only from one that may not be appreciated. Wild Swimming UK make this point in answer to all those "no swimming" signs.

 

 

 

Are you sure that is the case ?

 

There was a court case a couple (or three) years ago where a golfer was hit in the eye and blinded by a badly hit ball from another golfer. He was awarded £400,000 and the judge said that the Golfer should pay 70% and the Golf Course Owners 30% as they had not erected signs warning of the potential of being hit by stray golf balls - it raised a lot of concerns in the golf industry at the time.

 

(It also raised a lot of "Stupid H&S" rules when you had to erect signs on a golf course warning of 'flying golf balls')

 

Added - report from the time :

 

He sued James Gordon, the man who struck the bad shot, and the golf club at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, seeking damages for the injury he suffered.

He said the incident had been a 'harrowing experience' to partially lose his sight.

Lord Brailsford who heard the case ruled today that Mr Gordon was 70 per cent responsible for the accident.

The remaining 30 per cent of liability rested with the golf club for its 'failure' to erect proper warning signs on the course.

The final level of Mr Phee's payout will be set at a future court hearing. However, his lawyers said damages have been agreed of around £400,000

Lord Brailsford also said the golf club should have erected signs alerting path users to potential hazards.

'Experts considered that signs would have been a proper and effective way to draw risk to the attention of golfers and, moreover, that such signs, had they existed, would have been likely to have been heeded,' he said.

'I accordingly form the view that the failure to provide signs either at the 18th tee or in the area between the 6th green and 7th tee was a failure of duty'.

 

Edit again to add another example:

 

The above is a Scottish case, so may have different laws - however the following is an English case :

 

A golf club has been fined £5,000 after a businesswoman was left with a ‘face like a puffer fish’ after being felled by a stray ball.

 

Mrs Davis, who runs her own marketing consultancy, lost a tooth and was left bloodied and bruised after the incident at the Branston Golf and Country Club near Burton-on-Trent, Staffordshire.

She had just completed nine holes with a colleague and a client they had been entertaining when the incident happened last September.

Yesterday, magistrates fined the club £5,000 after it admitted failing to ensure Mrs Davis’s safety - a breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act.

Angela Wakefield, prosecuting in the case brought by East Staffordshire Borough Council, said Mrs Davis and her two male playing partners were making their way along a ‘designated footpath’ back to the car park following their round when one of the men saw a ball ‘flash’ past him.

‘There were no signs warning of the risks of being struck by golf balls,’ she said.

Edited January 3, 2015 by Alan de Enfield

[DHutch]

I am also in the 'no' camp. In places such as canal street in Manchester, where the use of the area adjoining the canal is such that there was a well proven issue with public safety, there is occasionally a need to make changes. Although in this case I understand there are still cases of people falling as sadly the barrier design is fairly average at best. I also think have a review of certain things from time to time as a preventative measure is appropriate.

However I also think that being able to conclude that review with 'actually, the risk is minimal' and then leaving it, is also important.

 

#

 

If the place is going to be promoted, and therefore gets busy, perhaps best to have a fence. Better than an accident and consequently a court case.

I presume this the root source of the proposal, and the reason why I think a review is reasonable. BUt I must say, while I hope numbers do increase, I am not expecting it to become crowded over night! Rather the numbers will increased from 'really very few indeed' to 'not really that many' in practice.

 

The point is that here people do get off, and walk around on the offside.

True, but if comparing to the Ponty as an example, you are effectively already standing on the offside, when standing on you boat. However, to be knowledge, there has also been no history of people falling. The risk is huge, but incredibly self evident.

 

 

The other problem is that it will actually encourage idiots to jump across knowing that they won't fall off the other side.

It is certainly true that, should a fence be added, there would be a lot more incentive to try the jump. It would have to be a good fence too. Personally I would consider a firmly affixed period iron affair to the the only acceptable addition. But it just seems such a shame to change such a structure for what appears to be a fairly poorly thought out and largely insignificant suggested reason.

 

If put in place, and the found to allow someone to fall, the knock on effects would surely be atleast as high a not fitting one, and the number of potential occurrences far higher.

 

 

Daniel

[magpie patrick]

Alan, the scottish case would not form a precedent in England. With regard to the second case, following a designated footpath one might expect (I'm not sure about reasonably expect) to be warned of hazards, although a golfer on a golf course should perhaps have known better. If there was no barrier on the towpath side of Marple Aqueduct then there'd be hell to pay if someone fell off.

 

With regard to the wild swimming reference, the land owners do not have to warn you not to, there isn't a right to do so in, for example, an abandonded quarry on private land, if they stuck up a sign saying "swimmers welcome" they might be in trouble. In any event a judgement is only as good as the lawyers who argue the case - if they neglect to point out the relevant provision to the judge he is unlikely to act on it.

 

Something I've thought for a long time is CRT ought to be a bit more open with their risk assessments, it first crossed my miind when someone was not allowed to take a 62 foot boat through Tinsley Locks following a "risk assessment. I grew up with this aqueduct, and have been a regular visitor to Marple ever since as Dad still lives in the same house in Marple. "people jump across it for a dare" is stated - well yes, occasionally they do, but at the north end where there is considerably more landing room and a lot less of a drop - presumably these scallywags realise the middle is a bit too dangerous and there is nor run up in the middle of the aqueduct. Kids also walk on top of the towpath wall - don't ask how I know this.

 

The designs offered also show that CRT don't have a clue. they are incompetent in this regard - I've just had 3d photmontages done for a scheme in Frome, it isn't difficult and has only cost the town council money (about £500 a montage) because we don't have the skills in house. Frome Town Council is a lot smaller than CRT and CRT should have such skills in house if they wish to be taken seriously. There is no evidence that we can trust their risk assessment or their design skills.