Gas company fined after boy dies falling from pipe over canal.

[bigcol]

What happens if when icy, somone catches item of clothing on handrail, slips on a lock gate,

Who's at fault then if lock was or seen to be in need of repair.

Too many people hurting themselves, put in a complaint, or claim.

Lock gates should not be used, to walk over for health and safety.

 

In this silly nilly state. Could this happen??

Lots of things made in the past, deemed to be just dangerous nowadays

 

What other changes could their be in the future for boaters?

[DHutch]

Who only knows!

[bigcol]

Some time in the future you been hearing "Back in the old'n day people use to walk across those gates sonny" for pleasure

Before then they had to, as folks and children and to work the locks.

A bit before that, they use to stick children up chimneys! "Can you believe that"

[Murflynn]

in the bad old days kids had to walk to school.

 

mind you the roads were much safer because they weren't chock-a-block with mums multi-tasking between child control, texting and driving as they drove their overweight kids to school in the family chelsea tractor.

Edited December 10, 2015 by Murflynn

[bassplayer]

in the bad old days kids had to walk to school.

 

mind you the roads were much safer because they weren't chock-a-block with mums multi-tasking between child control, texting and driving as they drove their overweight kids to school in the family chelsea tractor.

How very sexist...you forgot makeup BTW...

[frangar]

When this first happened I was vilified for saying it was Darwin in action......

 

I agree with others on here....where will it end? I've had to work some locks that have the towpath fenced in on the landing.....they are a nightmare.....I'm afraid life has risk...as a kid I was either taught by my parents what was safe and what wasn't and when I ignored that I usually found out the hard way.

 

I still take risks like most normal people....some calculated and some not....and I wouldn't want it any other way.....but if you start trying to cater for what people...kids and adults...might do I'm afraid that everything will become very dull and very expensive quite quickly.

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[magictime]

Statistics and logging processes are probably more reliable these days so I would question the graph.

 

But surely there's no good reason to think there were hundreds upon hundreds of "false positives" every year 20 or 30 years ago - e.g. dozens of deaths from cancer or violence being recorded as deaths from electrocution or falls? Isn't it more likely, if anything, that poor recording of accidental deaths would mean the figures underestimated the scale of the problem?

 

In terms of thrill seeking, placing a danger notice somewhere or putting up barbed wire just increases the thrill.

 

But most people (children included) aren't the sort of "thrill seekers" who deliberately seek out high-risk activities, even if they enjoy activities with an element of risk. Out of 100 children who might enjoy climbing on a pile of bricks or crawling through a tunnel on an unfenced building site, how many do you think would try to scale a barbed-wire-topped fence to get in? Out of 100 children who might enjoy paddling in a river, how many do you think would deliberately choose a stretch labelled "Danger - strong currents"?

 

There is always a fine balance between having the freedom to have fun and safety.

 

Sure, but that trade-off doesn't have any bearing on a question like "should there be barriers preventing access to exposed gas pipes alongside bridges?". The only freedom being given up is the freedom to climb along a gas pipe that no-one should be climbing on anyway.

 

For me, the pendulum has swung too far

 

I just don't see it. Putting up a safety rail doesn't stop children using a skate ramp; selling cycling helmets doesn't stop children riding bikes. If anything, doesn't a bit of reassurance that kids are as safe as they can be make parents more willing to let them enjoy somewhat risky activities? In that sense, more safety can mean more freedom to have fun.

[magictime]

When this first happened I was vilified for saying it was Darwin in action......

 

Consider yourself vilified all over again. What sort of person reacts to the death of an 11-year-old boy, even one who's taken a stupid risk, by suggesting that it represents a cleansing of the gene pool?

 

All children take stupid risks at one time or another. Most of the time they get away with it completely. Some of the time, as in your case, they "find out the hard way" why they shouldn't be taking that risk. Occasionally they just end up dead. That's not "Darwin in action", it's a human tragedy.

 

Shame on you.

[blackrose]

I'm not sure why the discussions on this forum become so polarised with each side so firmly entrenched in their positions.

 

I can see it from both sides. The boy shouldn't have been going across the pipe in the first place, but the gas company should have prevented him gaining access to it. Six of one, half a dozen of the other... Possibly the reason that personal responsibility on the part of the deceased wasn't a major factor is because he was a minor, so the gas company lost the case.

 

When I was a kid in the early 70s I did some really stupid and dangerous things - running across a whole set of 9 train tracks including electrified and high speed lines. We used to get onto the railway sidings and hide down a big manhole right next to the tracks and wait for a train to go over us. Insane! I guess we were lucky nobody was killed.

Edited December 10, 2015 by blackrose

[Laurie Booth]

At school we managed to kill two boys.

[PaulG]

I'm not sure why the discussions on this forum become so polarised with each side so firmly entrenched in their positions.

 

Nor me.

I'm sure that all the people on the "serve him right" side of the argument were little angels when they were young and never did anything dangerous or risky.

Like traveling in a car without a seatbelt, for example, or riding a bike without a helmet.

[magictime]

I'm not sure why the discussions on this forum become so polarised with each side so firmly entrenched in their positions.

 

I can see it from both sides. The boy shouldn't have been going across the pipe in the first place, but the gas company should have prevented him gaining access to it.

 

But there's no "side" in this argument that thinks the boy should have been going across the pipe. Of course he shouldn't.

 

At school we managed to kill two boys.

 

Good grief. Do you mind if I ask what on Earth happened?

[frangar]

Nor me.

I'm sure that all the people on the "serve him right" side of the argument were little angels when they were young and never did anything dangerous or risky.

Like traveling in a car without a seatbelt, for example, or riding a bike without a helmet.

We all did stuff that we shouldn't....some of us still do....but it's all about knowing...or being told.....where the limits are....and if you exceed them then please don't automatically look for blame elsewhere...

 

I did stuff as kid which should have by rights resulted in injury or death....my parents clipped me round the ear and told me not to be so stupid...they didn't look for blame or compensation beyond stopping my pocket money!

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[KevMc]

 

Like traveling in a car without a seatbelt, for example, or riding a bike without a helmet.

 

I've never worn a helmet while riding a bike ... and I have no intention of ever doing so

[RLWP]

 

I've never worn a helmet while riding a bike ... and I have no intention of ever doing so

 

I have smashed up two helmets riding bikes

 

Richard

[PaulG]

At school we managed to kill two boys.

I went on a walking holiday in the Lake District (organised by my school) when I was about 12 or 13 years old.

 

During a fell-walking competition, designed to test map reading skills, etc, one of the boys fell off Eagle Crag and died next day in Carlisle Infirmary.

 

His own fault, of course. He should have realised that the cliff was dangerous....

[Machpoint005]

I went on a walking holiday in the Lake District (organised by my school) when I was about 12 or 13 years old.

 

During a fell-walking competition, designed to test map reading skills, etc, one of the boys fell off Eagle Crag and died next day in Carlisle Infirmary.

 

His own fault, of course. He should have realised that the cliff was dangerous....

 

This isn't relevant to the OP. The owner of the pipe knew there was a risk, had measures it knew it should have taken to reduce that risk, and failed to implement them. Foreseeability, causation and negligence. That's it.

 

The company was heavily fined because its negligence caused, or was a significant contributory factor in, the death of a third party.

[Murflynn]

nobody has explained why a pipe fixed to a bridge is regarded as a potential danger whilst the bridge itself (parapets) is not.

[Athy]

 

Consider yourself vilified all over again. What sort of person reacts to the death of an 11-year-old boy, even one who's taken a stupid risk, by suggesting that it represents a cleansing of the gene pool?

 

All children take stupid risks at one time or another. Most of the time they get away with it completely. Some of the time, as in your case, they "find out the hard way" why they shouldn't be taking that risk. Occasionally they just end up dead. That's not "Darwin in action", it's a human tragedy.

 

Shame on you.

How pleasant to see forum colleagues' receptiveness to various points of view. Have a look at Black Rose's post no. 59, a sane and reasonable message.

[bigcol]

nobody has explained why a pipe fixed to a bridge is regarded as a potential danger whilst the bridge itself (parapets) is not.

I be seen kids, once 3 years ago with their parents , and running walking along the bridge parapet playing

Including Jumping of a parapet, told them water wasn't deep they shouldnt do it, fcuk off was the answer.

 

How and what can CRT do to stop this, again there is a tragergy waiting to happen.

 

 

Col

[magictime]

How pleasant to see forum colleagues' receptiveness to various points of view.

 

Absolutely priceless.

 

PERSON A: "Have you heard about the 11-year-old boy who died after climbing on a gas pipe and falling into the canal?"

 

PERSON B: "Yes. If you ask me, it's just nature weeding out an individual who's not fit to reproduce."

 

PERSON C: "Shame on you for talking that way about the death of a child."

 

PERSON D: "Well that's not very pleasant. You should be more receptive to other points of view."

[Athy]

 

Absolutely priceless.

 

PERSON A: "Have you heard about the 11-year-old boy who died after climbing on a gas pipe and falling into the canal?"

 

PERSON B: "Yes. If you ask me, it's just nature weeding out an individual who's not fit to reproduce."

 

PERSON C: "Shame on you for talking that way about the death of a child."

 

PERSON D: "Well that's not very pleasant. You should be more receptive to other points of view."

Yes, a balanced expression of varying viewpoints, as I said. My two penn'orth is somewhere in the middle.

Edited December 10, 2015 by Athy

[madcat]

the untimely death of a child is a tragedy for the family and friends of that child.

 

As far as risk taking goes I'm here posting this in spite of any amount of juvenile forays along pipes over shallow and deep water and climbing on anything available and climb able. I used to try influence my mothers choice of footwear based on comfort and being good for climbing stuff. I was a curious little kitten and I'm still here . I consider myself lucky and I carry on taking risks but not with other people's lives.

 

I reckon there's any amount of us who are only here due to luck not judgement .

[Laurie Booth]

 

But there's no "side" in this argument that thinks the boy should have been going across the pipe. Of course he shouldn't.

 

 

Good grief. Do you mind if I ask what on Earth happened?

We were in a boarding school and bought an old car from a local farmer (Standard Vanguard) for £5.00.

 

We kept the car hidden on the grounds, which we used most Saturday nights to go to the local town.

My job was to let my mates out of the building using a back door which I could unlock. On their return I would let them in.

 

One night the lads got pissed drunk (14 year olds) and crashed the car into a tree, killing two of the boys.

 

I waited, and waited for them to return but of course they never did.

 

[NilesMI]

I be seen kids, once 3 years ago with their parents , and running walking along the bridge parapet playing

Including Jumping of a parapet, told them water wasn't deep they shouldnt do it, fcuk off was the answer.

 

How and what can CRT do to stop this, again there is a tragergy waiting to happen.

 

 

Col

 

There is a partial answer there to the question which keeps being asked, which is; "Where do we stop with all the the health and safety?"

 

Anti-climb paint, or a guard, either end of a pipe bridge are fairly simple devices to discourage someone from climbing onto it, falling and killing or injuring themselves.

 

There may be a risk of someone being killed or injured in exactly the same way, by falling from a bridge parapet, but what, reasonably, can be done to try and prevent it? After all, in many cases, the parapet is simply a wall, itself designed to prevent someone accidentally falling off the bridge.

 

H&S doesn't require that in the limit, all risks must be prevented. It requires that first, risks are assessed and having done that, where a risk is identified and an oganisation has a duty of care towards someone, they make arrangements, so far as reasonably practicable, to ensure their safety.

 

So far as is reasonably practicable.

 

Why is that an overbearing imposition on someone who has a duty of care?

 

And why should it lead to locks being fenced off or access to canals being closed completely?