Views wanted on possible safety fence on Marple Aqueduct

[DHutch]

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

Which also appears include a fence, stopping you accessing the non-towpath side from the ends.

 

 

Daniel

[IanD]

Like I said, it's impossible to make everything perfectly safe -- especially with old things like the canal system -- and you should always fix the biggest risks first, not the smallest ones. This is true no matter how loudly people say "it's not safe, something must be done". In today's litigious society it's impossible to prevent all possible things that might conceivably hurt somebody, so you fix the ones that are most likely to hurt most people first.

 

Whether it's vandalism or not is a separate issue, the point I'm discussing is how to best reduce risk and save lives (and limbs) without infinitely deep pockets -- or even with them...

 

Say -- for example -- that a fairly large sum was spent on nice tasteful cast-iron railings to prevent the (maybe hypothetical) case of somebody falling off Marple aqueduct. Then some other tragedy on the system results in a death which could have been prevented (a known risk), but wasn't because there was no money in that year's budget because it had been spent on Marple.

 

CRT would still get sued for damages, and the excuse "but we spent it on Marple" would be shot down in flames by any competent counsel who could show that what killed/maimed their client was far more likely to happen then falling off Marple, and so CRT would be doubly at fault by knowing the risks but making the wrong decision because some numptys said "but Marple's dangerous, it must be fixed!"

 

The way that H&S works is you have to show that you understand and have considered the risks, it doesn't mean you have to fix them if you can show the money would be better spent elsewhere to save lives and reduce risks -- so long as you then do spend it there, not just keep it in the bank.

 

This isn't penny-pinching, it's how best to save lives in the real world as opposed to cloud-cuckoo land.

Edited January 3, 2015 by IanD

[Phil.]

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.

Well if that is the benchmark then surely a slippery towpath leading to a non swimmer falling in the cut and drowning means that consideration should be given to make all towpaths level and even, and every 200 yards or so along the canal steps and handrails should descend into the water to facilitate climbing out. Just in case you understand?

[IanD]

Well if that is the benchmark then surely a slippery towpath leading to a non swimmer falling in the cut and drowning means that consideration should be given to make all towpaths level and even, and every 200 yards or so along the canal steps and handrails should descend into the water to facilitate climbing out. Just in case you understand?

But before this you'd certainly have to fill in all the locks, they're by far the most dangerous things on the canal system what with drownings, cilling, crushing, capsizing...

[boathunter]

Well if that is the benchmark then surely a slippery towpath leading to a non swimmer falling in the cut and drowning means that consideration should be given to make all towpaths level and even, and every 200 yards or so along the canal steps and handrails should descend into the water to facilitate climbing out. Just in case you understand?

...and life belts on posts in between?

[MartinClark]

 

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

 

You think that's cr@p, David? You should see the original published by CRT, before I tinkered with it!

 

 

Edited January 3, 2015 by MartinClark

[Hawkmoth]

You really have no idea do you? Thanks for the personal insult btw...at least I don't hide behind pseudonyms and various names but hey ho....

 

As a motorcyclist and cyclist believe me cars would be driven with much more care if fitted with spikes on the steering wheel rather than the occupants thinking they are invincible with all their crumple zones and airbags...otherwise known as the Volvo mindset by bike riders!

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

As a biker you get a greenie for that!

Bob

[Hawkmoth]

Pseudonym's and various names??? Lol.

 

As for the rest of your post, been there, seen it, got the tshirt. I never had cause to have a "Volvo" mindset when riding bikes for the last 40 years (not one accident in that time), perhaps you should have the spike on your bars?

The "Volvo mindset" is the car driver, not the cyclist. So, many years of no accidents. Wow! How many near accidents were averted by someone else taking emergency action to save you?

I'm not saying that this happened, it's just that you seem to think that not having an accident is purely down to YOU. Now that rings a bell.

Bob

[jenlyn]

The "Volvo mindset" is the car driver, not the cyclist. So, many years of no accidents. Wow! How many near accidents were averted by someone else taking emergency action to save you?

I'm not saying that this happened, it's just that you seem to think that not having an accident is purely down to YOU. Now that rings a bell.

Bob

Yes, it was down to me in my opinion. Also, please note he was talking motorcycle as well as bicycle. :-)

[Hawkmoth]

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.

Greenie for that.

Bob

[Hawkmoth]

Yes, it was down to me in my opinion. Also, please note he was talking motorcycle as well as bicycle. :-)

I think you're aware of my feelings about cyclists. They're just urban terrorists. They are trying to take over our roads and ban everything motorised, while at the same time taking no notice of the rules of the road where they may get in the way of them doing what they want. Red lights are just left over Christmas decorations to some. Speeds limits don't apply. Pedestrian footpaths are for their exclusive use, as are towpaths.

Bob

[jenlyn]

I think you're aware of my feelings about cyclists. They're just urban terrorists. They are trying to take over our roads and ban everything motorised, while at the same time taking no notice of the rules of the road where they may get in the way of them doing what they want. Red lights are just left over Christmas decorations to some. Speeds limits don't apply. Pedestrian footpaths are for their exclusive use, as are towpaths.

Bob

No, I wasn't aware. To be honest, it's the first time I've noticed you on here :-)

[Hawkmoth]

No, I wasn't aware. To be honest, it's the first time I've noticed you on here :-)

Errrr.. You have answered me before. Ah well

Bob

[Groundhog]

CRT want a fence. There will be fence. People will play their faces about it. So it goes.

[David Mack]

in 2011, as part of wider towpath improvements works, BW wanted to fit a railing to the stone parapet of the Blackpit Aqueduct at Hebden Bridge, due to the perceived risk of cyclists falling over the existing somewhat low stone parapet. There were a number of objections to the railing, and the Conservation Officer was clearly not happy. In the end Calderdale Council gave permission for the towpath works, but refused the railing. The issues are discussed in the Officers Notes at http://portal.calderdale.gov.uk/online-applications/files/C4D3E771CDDD2B2AC405E94B2CD339B3/pdf/10_01482_LBC--304006.pdf . The discussion includes some interesting thoughts on what type of railing might be acceptable, if the railing was permitted - not that which was proposed!. The full application documentation is here .

 

By contrast, in 2012, BW proposed to install a railing at Luddendenfoot aqueduct - the towpath here is a paved road which forms the access to a new housing development. In this case there were no objections, and the Conservation officer saw no real issues and the railing was approved. Details here.

 

2 different responses from the same local authority! So those objecting to a railing at Marple should raise their concerns with the Conservation Officer at the Stockport Council.

[DHutch]

The first link doesnt appear to work, but otherwise very interesting.

 

 

 

Daniel

[MtB]

CRT want a fence. There will be fence. People will play their faces about it. So it goes.

 

Quite.

 

And if in 100 years someone proposes taking the fence down again, there will be a load of moaning about how it is an integral part of an historic structure...

 

MtB

[Maffi]

 

 

There is a stop at each end of the aqueduct. Judging by the vegetation access to it is not easy.

[furnessvale]

 

 

There is a stop at each end of the aqueduct. Judging by the vegetation access to it is not easy.

It is quite clear that the only ones in danger are boaters who step off on the wrong side who should know better, and idiots who deliberately jump a seven foot gap in order to trespass.

 

Darwinism should be allowed to take its course but sadly the legislature and judiciary of this country have dictated otherwise.

 

I fear for the gene pool of this once great country.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[frangar]

It is quite clear that the only ones in danger are boaters who step off on the wrong side who should know better, and idiots who deliberately jump a seven foot gap in order to trespass.Darwinism should be allowed to take its course but sadly the legislature and judiciary of this country have dictated otherwise.I fear for the gene pool of this once great country.George ex nb Alton retired

Well said!

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[hvdb]

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

 

This was the only sign we saw when we crossed Chirk Aquaduct in 2012. Seemed clear enough to me.

 

 

Helen

[frangar]

Well I've written to CRT and the Stockport council conservation officer. His details can be found on the bottom of this page

 

http://www.stockport.gov.uk/services/environment/planningbuilding/conservationheritage/conservationareas/

 

Im not sure about putting his email address in case the spambots find it!

 

So if you do object please feel free to email away. I"ve also posted on the HNBOC Facebook page.

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[Laurie Booth]

I fear for the gene pool of this once great country.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

We lost that in the First World War

[b0atman]

Would it be a loss if some idiot was to cross the canal and through sheer stupidity go over the edge .

Because I believe that this sort of idiot would think nothing of climbing over the proposed fence .

As I said previously what is to stop the idiots from walking along the towpath wall top.

Nanny state maybe we should erect a cage over full length of aquaduct ?

[harleyj]

One of the things that we enjoy most about the canal system in the UK is the idea that you have to use common sense when it comes to safety. Unlike in our country where if there isn't a sign up to warn you that you may get hurt, there soon will be! The canal system would be closed down in Australia because H&S would deem it too dangerous. We have virtually taken away the thought that you are responsible for your own actions.

I was bought up on a farm in the south west of Western Australia which has an irrigation channel on two sides of the garden of the homestead which while not deep would be deep enough for a child to drown in. We were taught to swim at a very young age and learnt respect for water and safety in general. In my teens(a long time ago) my parents put a pool in the back yard without a pool fence which eventually H&S changed the laws so that that same pool has a fence surrounding it now. My brother still lives on the farm and has two young children with the irrigation channel still only fenced by a normal farm fence.

If we let the fun police have their way there will have to be warning signs and fences on anything that may be dangerous.

Fight hard to stop them before they get like this nanny state.