Railings for Marple aqueduct - whats next?

[Jerra]

 

Along with every single lock.

It is hardly fair to compare a 90 foot drop on to the ground with a fall into water.

 

Yes I know locks can be dangerous but it would appear to me at least there is a big difference between the risks of an aqueduct and a lock.

 

However I am sure there must be ananswer other than a fence.

[mayalld]

It is hardly fair to compare a 90 foot drop on to the ground with a fall into water.

 

Yes I know locks can be dangerous but it would appear to me at least there is a big difference between the risks of an aqueduct and a lock.

 

However I am sure there must be ananswer other than a fence.

 

Yes, they are different, but that isn't the same as saying that one is more or less dangerous than the other.

 

The level of danger has to be considered as a function of probability and seriousness of consequence.

 

Falling into a lock is actually fairly probable, because people are legitimately in the area where the incident might happen. Falling off the wrong side of an aqueduct is VERY unlikely, because in order to do so, people have to deliberately put themselves into danger.

[DHutch]

 

Yes, they are different, but that isn't the same as saying that one is more or less dangerous than the other.

 

The level of danger has to be considered as a function of probability and seriousness of consequence.

 

Falling into a lock is actually fairly probable, because people are legitimately in the area where the incident might happen. Falling off the wrong side of an aqueduct is VERY unlikely, because in order to do so, people have to deliberately put themselves into danger.

Exactly.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

 

Daniel

[Pykebird]

It is hardly fair to compare a 90 foot drop on to the ground with a fall into water.

 

Yes I know locks can be dangerous but it would appear to me at least there is a big difference between the risks of an aqueduct and a lock.

 

However I am sure there must be ananswer other than a fence.

Electric fence! Problem solved

[NilesMI]

 

Falling off the wrong side of an aqueduct is VERY unlikely, because in order to do so, people have to deliberately put themselves into danger.

 

I have to say, I am torn on this one. While I'm generally in sympathy with IWA's objections to the installation of fencing, I can't completely put my former railway job to one side. I used to be resposible for the civils side of railway level crossings. We had numerous open pedestrian crossings, that is to say places where paths crossed the tracks while pedestrians watched for approaching trains. It was never thought that any protection other than signage and lineside fencing/gates were required for exactly the reason myalid gives - an accident was unlikely because people would not deliberately place themselves in danger.

 

That all changed after a series of fatalities at these kind of crossings and the resulting Health and Safety prosecutions. Courts finding Railtrack/Network rail at fault for not providing better protection, even to the point of eliminating the crossing entirely and building a footbridge. In particular rulings at the Court of Appeal have put the responsibility firmly on the operator for health and safety failings involving members of the public who access their property. Awards made are becoming eye watering, with examples such as a £700k fine levied against a private company for a case where no actual harm had been caused and the risk of harm was very low, and £500k for a serious but non-fatal incident involving Network Rail at an open crossing. The court said the fine would have been higher had it not been for the fact that NR's profits are reinvested for the public good.

 

I am sure that CRT must have at least one eye on the changing H&S landscape and the kinds of awards the courts are making. Bearing in mind the intention at this location is to actively attract far more members of the public, any incident, even one in which no-one is harmed could result in CRT looking at an H&S case.

Edited July 16, 2015 by NilesMI

[Machpoint005]

A balanced and fact-based posting - thank you!

[Phil.]

Just a brief update. I have had a reply from Historic England who manage scheduled monument consent. They have informed me that it is not possible to object to consent being given by DCMS but that the proposal should also need planning consent which is the responsibility of the local authority, Stockport. There is currently no planning application showing on their website, and Historic Engalnd have also not received a request yet.

Stockport council planning office open 10 til 12 so too late to call today, will do so tomorrow and further update.

 

As for post above yes it is a reasonable post but just goes to show what a nanny state we have become. CRT encourage people to visit lots of canal festivals up and down the country. I have yet to see temporary fencing placed round empty locks at these locations to stop anyone falling in during the festival period that they have been encouraged to visit.

 

Another example. People are encouraged to visit Beachy Head in Sussex. It is a spectacular cliff side location. Many people have ACTUALLY died there. Some who threw themselves off committing suicide, some by accident getting to close to the edge. Is there a campaign to fence off the cliffs, no. So what's the difference.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Phil.

[NilesMI]

Is there a campaign to fence off the cliffs, no. So what's the difference.

 

No fences at Beachy Head, but along that same stretch of coast there are parts of the cliff edge which are fenced off, specifically in places where the cliff top is eroding and liable to slip. Other areas have no fences, but the footpath is diverted to avoid the risk of people falling over as they walk along. It is all a question as to what is reasonably practicable to reduce the risk to an acceptable level.

[DHutch]

It is all a question as to what is reasonably practicable to reduce the risk to an acceptable level.

That is exactly what it hinges on. The issue is that I have seen literally no well reasoned arguments why it is reasonable to conclude a fence is required, and yet on the flip side additional examples of where similar risks do not require fences appear on a daily basis, as so examples where changes made are for far more valid reasons than any I have seen for fitting a fence at Marple.

 

Yes the whole world is moving the way it considers safely, but even aside from the topic of how far that should go, the proposal to install a fence at Marple appears out of current expectations and measures.

 

Sometimes it is appropriate to mitigate risks, but equally it is often appropriate the deem the risk acceptable.

 

##

 

The post on the topic of open pedestrian rail crossings for example is a great post, but is talking about fencing a risk area which has free access to the general public, furthermore where have not only get close to the risk area (standing right by the track) but actually enter it as a suitable time-frame. In comparison to Marple, where the general public does not have access (you need a boat, else it is already fenced off) and where you have no reason or need to even get close to the risk area let alone enter it.

 

Conversely, the last posts on the topic of Beachy Head and other cliff areas is an excellent example of where a similarly dangerous risk of falling does not requite a fence, despite being far more publicly accessible and well known tourist attractions. Fences where the land-slips are common being totally different again as in that case the risk is not obviously seen, Marple is not as far as I know likely or expected to fail structurally.

 

 

Daniel

[NilesMI]

Sometimes it is appropriate to mitigate risks, but equally it is often appropriate the deem the risk acceptable.

 

 

Absolutely right. Depends on circumstances.

 

The points I was trying to make in my post about rail crossings was that what was once and for well over a hundred years, deemed to be an acceptable risk, can now be deemed unacceptable. And that the awards being made in H&S cases have proceeded well beyond the nominal slap on the wrist, don't do it again, style to serious eye watering amounts.

 

Even if we are talking about apples and bananas whan it comes to defining the actual risks of open public rail crossings versus open sided viaducts, CRT are operating in the same (legal) environment.

 

The open side of the viaduct is open to the public. At least that part of the public which hangs around on boats. And the law says that CRT must conduct its business in a way which does not put the public at risk of harm.

 

The argument; that there are much greater risks to be found elsewhere, would cut absolutely no ice whatsoever if there was an incident and it resulted in an H&S action. Neither would the fact that the very same risk has existed for at least 200 years. It's an interesting debating point on a discussion board, but in legal terms, it is meaningless. What would actually matter is whether CRT have done everything reasonably practicable to reduce the risk to an acceptable level.

Edited July 16, 2015 by NilesMI

[DHutch]

The points I was trying to make in my post about rail crossings was that what was once and for well over a hundred years, deemed to be an acceptable risk, can now be deemed unacceptable.

Which is fair and right.

...the law says that CRT must conduct its business in a way which does not put the public at risk of harm....

Yes and no, nothing is risk-free, so you can have a law the allows no risk.

The argument; that there are much greater risks to be found elsewhere, would cut absolutely no ice whatsoever if there was an incident and it resulted in an H&S action.

Agreed, and rightly so. Two wrongs cannot make a right.

Neither would the fact that the very same risk has existed for at least 200 years.

The duration of the risk is relevant however, when used in conjunction with the number of incidence over that time.

 

There was for instance as I recall a line the the BSS says word to the effect of 'none room sealed water heaters are permissible, due to the excellent track record of these devices' .

 

 

Daniel

[GoodGurl]

While they are at it why don't they do away with all trad NB's that dont have a rail at the back JUST incase someone might get thrown in by the tiller.

We could all be fitted with safety harnesses too just to make doubly sure we don't get into any danger.

Better than that we could have a cage built that we stand in so nothing at all can happen to anyone ever.

[Phil.]

Absolutely right. Depends on circumstances.

 

The points I was trying to make in my post about rail crossings was that what was once and for well over a hundred years, deemed to be an acceptable risk, can now be deemed unacceptable. And that the awards being made in H&S cases have proceeded well beyond the nominal slap on the wrist, don't do it again, style to serious eye watering amounts.

 

Even if we are talking about apples and bananas whan it comes to defining the actual risks of open public rail crossings versus open sided viaducts, CRT are operating in the same (legal) environment.

 

The open side of the viaduct is open to the public. At least that part of the public which hangs around on boats. And the law says that CRT must conduct its business in a way which does not put the public at risk of harm.

 

The argument; that there are much greater risks to be found elsewhere, would cut absolutely no ice whatsoever if there was an incident and it resulted in an H&S action. Neither would the fact that the very same risk has existed for at least 200 years. It's an interesting debating point on a discussion board, but in legal terms, it is meaningless. What would actually matter is whether CRT have done everything reasonably practicable to reduce the risk to an acceptable level.

I don't buy this arguement at all. CRT will not have to run their business in a way that does not harm the public as this would be practically impossible. What they will have to do is identify risks and then mitigate against them. Firstly having identified a risk they would have to grade the level of potential injury from unacceptably high to low. Having done that they would then have to assess the likelihood of it occurring.

Having done thousands of risk assessments in the past I would suggest the level of injury risk is high but the likelihood of occurring is low. In doing risk assessments you only need to account for the reasonable. You do not need to account for idiots.

Therefore in the case of the Aquaduct restricting access to the dangerous side and clear unambiguous signage would suffice.

Take you railway analogy. At the station the quickest way to the opposite platform is to jump down and cross the tracks. The risk of people doing this is prevented by providing a safe bridge to use and signage informing people that trespassing on the tracks is an offence. You still get idiots crossing the tracks and every so often they die. But the railway are not held responsible for their stupidity.

The case of the unmanned crossings differs because it invites people to use it. CRT could instruct people not to jump to the offside, if someone then does so it is no different to if they had jumped onto the tracks to cross them at the station.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Phil.

[churchward]

While they are at it why don't they do away with all trad NB's that dont have a rail at the back JUST incase someone might get thrown in by the tiller.

We could all be fitted with safety harnesses too just to make doubly sure we don't get into any danger.

Better than that we could have a cage built that we stand in so nothing at all can happen to anyone ever.

...or just sell the boat.

[churchward]

Therefore in the case of the Aquaduct restricting access to the dangerous side and clear unambiguous signage would suffice.

Take you railway analogy. At the station the quickest way to the opposite platform is to jump down and cross the tracks. The risk of people doing this is prevented by providing a safe bridge to use and signage informing people that trespassing on the tracks is an offence. You still get idiots crossing the tracks and every so often they die. But the railway are not held responsible for their stupidity.

The case of the unmanned crossings differs because it invites people to use it. CRT could instruct people not to jump to the offside, if someone then does so it is no different to if they had jumped onto the tracks to cross them at the station.

Interesting to note that in the USA a country that arguably is the most litigious for people bringing cases against public or commercial bodies after suffering injuries that railway crossings are quite rudimentary, unprotected crossings with no or just partial gates. There are also 1000s and 1000s of miles of unfenced railway lines.

[NilesMI]

The duration of the risk is relevant however, when used in conjunction with the number of incidence over that time.

 

There was for instance as I recall a line the the BSS says word to the effect of 'none room sealed water heaters are permissible, due to the excellent track record of these devices' .

 

Yes. You could cite a low rate of incidents over time as being indicative of a low risk of them occurring.

 

The difficulty with Marple viaduct is that for most of the 200+yrs it was being used by experienced commercial boatmen. Can you really extrapolate into the age of leisure and hire boaters and say the risk to them is the same?

 

 

CRT will not have to run their business in a way that does not harm the public as this would be practically impossible. What they will have to do is identify risks and then mitigate against them.

 

That is right. I was trying not to be too wordy and had already mentioned the term "as far as reasonably practicable", which is in the H&S Act. CRT are not required to remove all risk, but they are required to mitigate it, to that extent.

 

 

Firstly having identified a risk they would have to grade the level of potential injury from unacceptably high to low. Having done that they would then have to assess the likelihood of it occurring.

 

Yes, again. That is the process of making a risk assessment.

 

 

Having done thousands of risk assessments in the past I would suggest the level of injury risk is high but the likelihood of occurring is low. In doing risk assessments you only need to account for the reasonable. You do not need to account for idiots.

Therefore in the case of the Aquaduct restricting access to the dangerous side and clear unambiguous signage would suffice.

 

Yes. So for those crossing the viaduct on boats, how will you be restricting access to the dangerous side?

 

Take you railway analogy.

 

As I said, it is not an analogy. Apples and bananas.

 

 

CRT could instruct people not to jump to the offside, if someone then does so it is no different to if they had jumped onto the tracks to cross them at the station.

 

What I would say though, is that while there is an instruction telling people not to cross the railway tracks, it is also something which people are not in the habit of doing, normally or absent mindedly.

 

Whereas people don't normally or habitually leap right over narrow sections of canal, steping off the back, or climbing out of the front of a narrowboat onto (what looks like) a nice flat towpath, is something boaters do all the time. Despite signage, and other warnings, is there not a significant risk that someone absent mindedly or because of habit, stepped off the boat onto the open side? The consultation report cites several instances of exactly this happening.

Edited July 16, 2015 by NilesMI

[Jerra]

 

That is right. I was trying not to be too wordy and had already mentioned the term "as far as reasonably practicable", which is in the H&S Act. CRT are not required to remove all risk, but they are required to mitigate it, to that extent.

If a sign saying Danger of Death is sufficient to mitigate the risk of over head wires would it not be enough coupled with restricting access from each end?

[NilesMI]

I'd be happy that signage and fences at the ends reduces the risk as far as is reasonably practicable to anyone approaching the viaduct other than on a boat.

 

It's the boat to open side access that I think is problematic.

[Jerra]

I'd be happy that signage and fences at the ends reduces the risk as far as is reasonably practicable to anyone approaching the viaduct other than on a boat.

 

It's the boat to open side access that I think is problematic.

Surely they see the signs and secondly a few along the length of the Aqueduct would suffice. It seems that one as you approach overhead wires is sufficient for fishermen. Are boaters less intelligent than fishermen?

[Mike Todd]

You have to wonder what a 'near miss' on the aqueduct might be. Someone standing on the edge giving the impression of a pair of badly adjusted windmills as they try to keep their balance perhaps?

 

If this aqueduct is unsafe, and locks have already been mentioned, how about the whole of the unprotected canal network? During 3 or 4 months each year the water temperature is such that a fall into the canal doesn't give you long to get changed and warmed up before death from hypothermia. Perhaps then the canal should be fenced off in its entirety. Access gates would be provided, locked of course. All of this would be paid for by a steep increase in licence fees. After all, boats would then be secure, would they not? And then, each gate could be numbered to end the uncertainty that ccers, cmers, bridge hoppers etc. have to endure over what is a place and what isn't. Clear and concise regulation, at long last.

 

Win win innit.

And then end up with the porblem that once existed in Liverpool. At one time much of the final stretch had security fencing intended to make the canal inaccessible to locals. Back in the lat Sixties when we went that way for the first time, there was much talk about a sad incident that was fesh in people's minds. The fence proved not to be impenetrable to some local kids who then made their way along the canal. One child then fell in the water and altough there were people nearby who could see what was happening, none could gain access and the victim did not survive. The frustrated onlookers were traumatised.

[DHutch]

They do not appear to have been promoted very well, if at all, however I have managed to find these two documents online which details the responses of the consultation.

 

An interesting read, although in my mind on firms up my thoughts that the fence should not be added.

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/11131-marple-aqueduct-safety-fencing-consultation-report-june-2015-final.pdf

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/11133-response-to-the-marple-aueduct-safety-fencing-consultation.pdf

 

 

Daniel

[adam1uk]

While they are at it why don't they do away with all trad NB's that dont have a rail at the back JUST incase someone might get thrown in by the tiller.

We could all be fitted with safety harnesses too just to make doubly sure we don't get into any danger.

Better than that we could have a cage built that we stand in so nothing at all can happen to anyone ever.

No, if anything they should be getting rid of the rails, which can make things much worse. Although if you're standing in the correct place -- in front of the tiller not next to it, and certainly not on the back counter -- there's absolutely no chance of being thrown in by it.

[KarlosMacronius]

could always put triangular coping stones along it.... would discourage people stepping on it and have a much smaller impact on the overall shape and appearance.

[DHutch]

could always put triangular coping stones along it.... would discourage people stepping on it and have a much smaller impact on the overall shape and appearance.

There was mention by the IWA and or HNBC of changing the surface type to one less associated with that intend for walking, although I would oppose an undulating surface as it would then add risk for those still adamant on accessing the off side.

 

 

Daniel

[Phil.]

They do not appear to have been promoted very well, if at all, however I have managed to find these two documents online which details the responses of the consultation.

An interesting read, although in my mind on firms up my thoughts that the fence should not be added.

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/11131-marple-aqueduct-safety-fencing-consultation-report-june-2015-final.pdf

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/11133-response-to-the-marple-aueduct-safety-fencing-consultation.pdf

Daniel

Certainly the mention of the two suicides in the report are fairly meaningless as far as justifying the fence. A three foot railing will not prevent anyone from deliberately throwing themselves off, so what you are in fact left with is a couple of incidents of people using the offside.