Views wanted on possible safety fence on Marple Aqueduct

[Barry]

Taking the Marple/Ponty comparison.

 

The structure of the ponty does not 'invite' the boater to to step off the boat and walk on the offside. It would be very difficult for a boater to walk on the offside edge. If a boater does so any onlooker can reasonably conclude that the boater decided for themselves to take an extreme risk and so bears the entire responsibility for anything that happens to them

 

The structure of the Marple aqueduct does 'invite' the boater to walk on the offside. There is what looks like a path there and it is very easy to walk on it. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that CRT must take responsibility for it and put a fence on

[Laurie Booth]

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

Or heaven forbid, they fence off the stones and charge you to look at them !!

[John V]

 

The structure of the Marple aqueduct does 'invite' the boater to walk on the offside. There is what looks like a path there and it is very easy to walk on it. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that CRT must take responsibility for it and put a fence on

 

Would this not be covered legally by a notice at each end saying "Risk of Death Do not land on off side retaining wall"

[MHS]

 

Would this not be covered legally by a notice at each end saying "Risk of Death Do not land on off side retaining wall"

Not sure about the legal aspect, but Chirk aqueduct does have similar signs.

[MHS]

 

The structure of the Marple aqueduct does 'invite' the boater to walk on the offside. There is what looks like a path there and it is very easy to walk on it. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that CRT must take responsibility for it and put a fence on

I've never received such an invitation, but would have declined to attend. CRT's responsibility should only be to warn of the risk. You can't fence off every hazard, ie mountains etc. See my previous post re Striding Edge.

[Pluto]

As a canal historian, I would not be too concerned about fencing on the aqueduct's off side from a heritage point of, if it really is deemed necessary, which I suspect would come down to how law is interpreted. One of the delights of canals is the changes to the historic infrastructure over time, and fencing here would only reflect that the canal is now used to leisure. What concerns me, is that the fencing should be of a suitable quality. I would not suggest a fence of a similar type to the towpath wall, as that would make interpreting the historical context more difficult, but a good modern fence could add something. Perhaps make it into an arts project, for which there is external funding, and, for example, have a full sized horse and narrowboat outlined on the fence. A simple fence would always be controversial, and it needs to be something which adds value above pure safety grounds, and would then not be an example of H&S for other sites.

 

On the other side, the L&LC at Netherton should be considered, where the whole canal was fenced off and not integrated into the design when a new housing estate was built in the 1950s and 60s. People had to watch youngsters drown as they could not get over the fence to save them. Fencing is a two-edged weapon.

[Barry]

I've never received such an invitation, but would have declined to attend. CRT's responsibility should only be to warn of the risk. You can't fence off every hazard, ie mountains etc. See my previous post re Striding Edge.

 

I agree you can't fence off things like striding edge. It would not be reasonable. They are a natural feature - not man-made. And anybody wanting to walk there has to make a great effort to do exactly that

 

But Marple aqueduct is a man-made structure and, for boaters, very little effort is required to walk on the off side therefore the dangerous consequences of a moment's unconsidered inattention is greater. (or if you want to use risk assessment terminology - the liklihood of the hazard actually occurring is higher).

 

The case is entirely different and in my opinion CRT are right to consider fencing it off.

[Cheshire cat]

I don't think C&RT are considering fencing it off. I think from the tone of words in their consultation that decision has already been made.

 

It seems to me the consultation is about the form the fence should take!

[frangar]

Perhaps make it into an arts project, for which there is external funding, and, for example, have a full sized horse and narrowboat outlined on the fence. A simple fence would always be controversial, and it needs to be something which adds value above pure safety grounds, and would then not be an example of H&S for other sites.

 

 

 

Clearly what the cut needs is more money wasted on public "art"...perhaps a witty poem could be included too...

 

I really am beginning to despair....

 

Cheers

Gareth

[churchward]

I think it would be a bit of a shame to have to add railings after such a long time without them. I would like to know how many people have gone over the edge to date.

 

I also think it a shame that there is an attitude that the world must be made safe for everybody. How about taking responsibility for your own safety and your own actions?

 

Having said that I don't think some simple black railings would make much difference to the look of the Aqueduct so if it has to be done then it probably won't be too much of an imposition.

[Guest]

I think it would be a bit of a shame to have to add railings after such a long time without them. I would like to know how many people have gone over the edge to date.

 

I also think it a shame that there is an attitude that the world must be made safe for everybody. How about taking responsibility for your own safety and your own actions?

 

Having said that I don't think some simple black railings would make much difference to the look of the Aqueduct so if it has to be done then it probably won't be too much of an imposition.

It is very noticeable in France how relaxed they seem to be about stuff like this. You will often see unguarded weirs, unfenced high castle walls and it feels vey much when I am there that if you were 'stupid enough to lean too far and you fell off that's your look out buddy'. BUT and I think this is the difference I don't think (but I am happy to be corrected) they yet have inherited the 'ambulance chasing' lawyer culture that we have imported from the US.

 

You can soon see that it would only need a couple of deaths of family breadwinners after falling off the aqueduct at Marple and the cost and installation starts to make sense.

[cuthound]

My views is that is should be subject to a robust risk assessment, as in any other industry. i.e probability versus likely severity of outcome.

 

This would almost certainly come out as very low probability (the vast majority of people don't try to jump across or get off the boat onto the offside) versus almost certain death, so could go either way, depending upon the risk averseness of the person undertaking the RA.

 

If it was up time I would undertake an RA and use it to show that the extremely low probability didn't justify further safety measures.

 

By the way, I have reviewed hundreds of RA's in my career, covering "live" working on MV electrical systems, lifting 40 tonne generators onto 14 storey buildings etc, all of which included a risk of death. Providing you can prove you have taken reasonable steps to minimise the risk (not necessarily the outcome, for example someone falling from the 14th floor is always going to die) then you have discharged your duties under the HSAW act.

[churchward]

It is very noticeable in France how relaxed they seem to be about stuff like this. You will often see unguarded weirs, unfenced high castle walls and it feels vey much when I am there that if you were 'stupid enough to lean too far and you fell off that's your look out buddy'. BUT and I think this is the difference I don't think (but I am happy to be corrected) they yet have inherited the 'ambulance chasing' lawyer culture that we have imported from the US.

 

You can soon see that it would only need a couple of deaths of family breadwinners after falling off the aqueduct at Marple and the cost and installation starts to make sense.

Yes that is so. But it rather supports my point. I think adults at least ought to fully know it is dangerous to be near a high drop so if they fall it is likely to be their fault not the bridge, cliff etc. owner to protect them from their own stupidity.

 

I agree much of the attitude probably does come from USA.

 

I once visited a railway museum at Alice Springs about the Ghan line in Australia. They had a shed full of old locos in various states of repair. There was a notice on the outside saying you can go in this shed and climb onto the locos but its your fault if you fall off! I thought fair enough and had a good time looking at what they had in there. It seems a better attitude to me.

 

In the USA they are not all about fencing everything off either. The US railroads are heavily regulated yet unlike in the UK the tracks are not necessarily fenced off even in a town/city and railroad level road crossings are not either. Basically as long as the railroad follows the regs it is deemed your fault if your daft enough to get in the way of a train.

[Loafer]

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

 

Thank you Gareth. I did have trouble believing there had been railings that had been removed! (Even for the war effort)

Edited January 3, 2015 by Loafer

[1st ade]

There are already signs on each end warning boaters of the danger - big, red, white letters, can be seen on street view (so not that new), "Danger, Risk of Falling. Remain within the confines of your boat".

 

There are presumably two different aspects: -

• should CRT protect those legitimate users (whether boaters, walkers, anglers, cyclists...) from a fairly obvious hazard which I think they do (although reading some comments here it won't be long before Hire Fleet instructions include asking the Helm to shout such warnings into the cabin...)
• Should CRT protect themselves from idiots who lack common sense - not for me to say but I can see where that will lead eventually.

 

The problem I see is that having an "official" fence is sending an invite that it is "OK" to there in the first place. So the fence has to stand up to an 18 Stone boater leaping off a baot and leaning against it to take pictures of the railway. And the fence must be high enough that you can't accidentally fall over (would the stone parapet on the towpath side pass a modern design standard?). And, since we are protecting against idiots who are prepared to jump 7ft of water to land on concrete to get there, the fence must be anti-climb. and ... The fence on the railway viaduct is for the protection of trained Permanent Way staff, not random members of the public.

 

I'm with the no camp - I can understand that CRT need to protect their Backs*** but in the long run, it's a slippery slope.

[churchward]

I wonder if they will be considering doing the same to the Chirk Aqueduct? It's pretty much the same. Probably more boats passing too.

[alan_fincher]

I wonder if they will be considering doing the same to the Chirk Aqueduct? It's pretty much the same. Probably more boats passing too.

 

Yes, that has been pointed out elsewhere.

The problem I see is that having an "official" fence is sending an invite that it is "OK" to there in the first place.

 

That is a fair point, which I'm not sure has been made before.

 

I can see it can be argued it "legitimises" the behaviour.

[churchward]

 

The problem I see is that having an "official" fence is sending an invite that it is "OK" to there in the first place. So the fence has to stand up to an 18 Stone boater leaping off a baot and leaning against it to take pictures of the railway. And the fence must be high enough that you can't accidentally fall over (would the stone parapet on the towpath side pass a modern design standard?). And, since we are protecting against idiots who are prepared to jump 7ft of water to land on concrete to get there, the fence must be anti-climb. and ... The fence on the railway viaduct is for the protection of trained Permanent Way staff, not random members of the public.

 

I'm with the no camp - I can understand that CRT need to protect their Backs*** but in the long run, it's a slippery slope.

Indeed where do you stop? I suppose rather than having the fence at the outer edge of the aquaduct on that side (as in the mock-up picture) it could be put the water side with a keep off notice then that would go some way to mitigating that it would be OK to stand, walk on that side.

[5thHorseman]

The H&S at work act is not designed to protect people who are determined to put themselves at risk neither is it designed to protect the lowest common denominator. The word "reasonable" is used for a purpose. Risk assesments are just that - an assesment done by an individual or group of individuals into the balance of probability of a certain set of circumstances occuring which could create a risk of injury/death.

 

This assesment is done by human beings and therefor is open to criticism and review. The difficulty is drawing the line between what is "reasonable" and what is plain daft and that, as always, is a matter of opinion.

 

CRT should must have the people to do the risk assesment and if the answer is there is a valid and reasonable risk, the discussion should be opened up to the most sympathetic (given the age and historic nature of the structure) way to provide the necessary protection and not if the protection should be provided as this is not for the boating/walking/cycling/angling etc community to decide.

 

Edited to add: Just because something is done at Marple does not mean it has to be done at Chirk or anywhere else

Edited January 3, 2015 by 5thHorseman

[Pluto]

Clearly what the cut needs is more money wasted on public "art"...perhaps a witty poem could be included too...

 

I really am beginning to despair....

 

Cheers

Gareth

In that case, let's ban all pleasure boats and keep towpaths as private property with permissive access in some places, just as it used to be. That is how I would probably prefer things to be, though I may allow a few steam and motor boats, but keeping horse power as the main way of moving boats. However, it would be completely unsustainable, so things have to change, as they have always done. What I was trying to point out is that there are sources of funding available which would not have an adverse effect on existing funding for maintaining the waterway, whereas a simple fence will come out of existing funding. The decision about having fences will depend upon legal advice, which will be very much up to the person interpreting the law and the risk. I don't like the risk-averse society we seem to have evolved into, but you can't ignore it.

[boathunter]

Of course you could argue that the lack of safety railing in itself should signal that this place is not for people. But with a sign each end pointing this out as well, surely that's enough?

 

Lucky Ely City Council isn't involved. When it was decided that Ely should have a bandstand, there was a lot of support, but they then built a bulky GRP thing that would look more at home outside a Happy Eater pub.

 

I would vote for the plainest railing possible, paint it black and you'll hardly notice it, but you can bet it'll be an over-chunky thing, with unsitable baubles on the posts.

[frangar]

In that case, let's ban all pleasure boats and keep towpaths as private property with permissive access in some places, just as it used to be. That is how I would probably prefer things to be, though I may allow a few steam and motor boats, but keeping horse power as the main way of moving boats. However, it would be completely unsustainable, so things have to change, as they have always done. What I was trying to point out is that there are sources of funding available which would not have an adverse effect on existing funding for maintaining the waterway, whereas a simple fence will come out of existing funding. The decision about having fences will depend upon legal advice, which will be very much up to the person interpreting the law and the risk. I don't like the risk-averse society we seem to have evolved into, but you can't ignore it.

I agree the cut can evolve but at the moment it's running the real risk of becoming a theme park with no relevance to history and why things are as they are.

 

Seeing how things changed over time as motor boats came along...locks were widend...material handling changed etc I agree is very interesting....having fences and signs erected all over the place because the human race appears to be losing all common sense is both a detrement to the present waterways enviroment and will mean we slowly lose the reason of how & why structures were originally constructed as they are.

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[IanD]

Can people who are worried about this get a sense of proportion?

 

If people are drunk/silly enough to jump across the cut at Marple and fall off the other side, they'll almost certainly kill themselves. Of course the same applies to people running across a main road when there's traffic to get to the other side because they think it's cool or they've had a drink or they can't be bothered to wait or find a crossing.

 

How many people die on average each year by each method? (clue: thousands of times more on the roads)

 

So before putting railings along Marple, it would pay to put railings along every main road in UK -- but I don't see anyone suggesting this is a good idea.

 

The world is cursed with people who understand nothing about risk spending a lot of (usually somebody else's) money to stop other people from doing something which has negligible risk in practice. A perfect example was the Selby rail crash, where after a freak accident which had never happened before (or since) the authorities spent a huge amount of money adding extra barriers at similar negligible-risk spots all over the country. Yes 10 people died, but there are many far better ways of spending such money to reduce risk on the railways than what was done here, which would have saved multiple lives by now instead of none.

 

I'm sure that if proper risk analysis was done for "deaths by falling off Marple aqueduct" compared to "other ways people die on the canals" there would be many far more effective solutions -- both in lives saved and cost per life saved -- than this idiotic idea. Until CRT have an unlimited budget, if they want to save lives and reduce risk they should do it by concentrating first on things which kill people every year, not hypothetical hand-wringing "what if somebody stupid does this?" idiots.

 

Actually, nothing can be made 100% safe even with an unlimited budget, human stupidity should never be underestimated :-)

Edited January 3, 2015 by IanD

[alan_fincher]

Can people who are worried about this get a sense of proportion?

 

Until CRT have an unlimited budget, if they want to save lives and reduce risk they should do it by concentrating first on things which kill people every year, not hypothetical hand-wringing "what if somebody stupid does this?" idiots.

 

But sometimes if somebody dies, even if they have done something most of us consider incredibly stupid, the decision goes against the enterprise on who's property they carried out that act of stupidity.

 

You may not like it, (indeed it may even seem bonkers), but it is not impossible that CRT being able to demonstrate they took some action to mitigate against a known risk might actually save them money over waiting for it to happen, and then somebody having their day in court.

 

I'm not fully up to speed on those circumstances where large payouts have occurred, and those where they have not, but as an example, I seem to remember claims that BW paid something around half a million pounds to the girl who lost both legs when she was part of a group playing with a swing bridge on (IIRC) the Ashton canal. If there is any truth in payouts of this size, it may often be more sensible to try and circumvent a tragedy, even if a tragedy is only likely because someone is doing something very daft.

[Philip]

Logically I don't see it that necessary but it's a very small price to pay (literally and metaphorically) to have a fence put up to prevent the potential loss of a human life every however many years and the what if scenario and ramifications that would come with it. The preservation aspect is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned; the structure will still be there intact; it'll hardly restrict the view and the railway viaduct alongside will also remain standing there bold as ever. If they were planning on knocking it down and building a new bridge then it's different but they're not doing.

 

Some people are a bit over sensitive about this. I like tradition on the canals but sometimes you have to compromise. Steel lock gates replaced wooden gates in the 60s; they're characterless but because they were cheap and money was tight at the time it enabled them to keep the locks in working order and the canals going. Anyone who thinks putting a fence up is anything remotely like vandalism should think about all the traditional bridges replaced by the concrete flat deck types in the 60s and the demolition of many lock keepers' cottages, toll houses and the like in the same era.

Edited January 3, 2015 by Philip