13 year old non swimmer drowns

[Captain Pegg]

I suspect the assistant coroner was mindful of the requirement of C&RT to identify and manage risk in a reasonable manner. The police clearly felt community work was lacking and I agree that would likely be more effective.

 

It isn't a logical conclusion that signs would be required all along the towpath should signage be a chosen method of risk mitigation. That's not how risk management works. The outcome would likely only be the lock in question and any others exhibiting the same degree of risk.

 

JP

[Dave_P]

Perhaps a re-run of this public information film is needed. It certainly terrified a generation of kids.

 

[mross]

Perhaps a re-run of this public information film is needed. It certainly terrified a generation of kids.

Oh no, you might frighten the children!

Edited November 25, 2016 by mross

[Chewbacka]

Perhaps a re-run of this public information film is needed. It certainly terrified a generation of kids.

 

That would never be shown today as it's much too frightening, might give them bad dreams.

More effective than any sign.

 

Added - we both thought the same, but you were quicker

Edited November 25, 2016 by Chewbacka

[Canal Cuttings]

I'm very disappointed with the role of the coroner here. They are meant to be pragmatic, not susceptible to hysteria and token gestures.

 

A warning sign can be invaluable, as in the recent case of a narrowboat which got caught on a known projection in the side of a lock and sank. That danger could not have been anticipated and a warning sign should have been placed there.

 

In this case, what is the unseen danger which differentiates this fatal location from all the other locks or canal banks? Is it hidden from view? Is there a slip or trip hazard? Is it particularly hard to exit the water? Are there exceptional dangers beneath the water - entangling weeds or sharp objects? Does it give the impression of being shallow, but with hidden depths? I suggest that none of the above apply and therefore, unless every few feet of every canal and river is signposted, there should be no special treatment here and a sign should not be placed. The only special factor is that it is within walking distance of where youngsters hang out, suggesting that efforts should be concentrated on the kids and not the lock.

 

Even placing a "token" sign is a bad move, as it will water down the impact of real warning signs; I pay less attention to warnings than in the past as they now tend to be "calibrated to the reckless" as David Mitchell put it.

 

Incidentally, how dangerous IS swimming in the locks/canals? If you accept that these unattended children are going to be doing something dangerous and possibly stupid anyway, is this worse than fooling around on bikes, possibly stealing cars, climbing over abandoned buildings, hanging out with druggies? Apart from Weil's disease and the lack of supervision, outdoors swimming is a reasonably healthy thing to do unless you can't swim. [Not condoning it, just accepting the truth].

[Flyboy]

I am well aware that swimming is part of the curriculum (having taught it) but the context of your statement was the schools should be educating the kids about hazards and the dangers of swimming in locks. I am fairly sure that locks and the dangers thereof aren't mentioned in the National Curriculum anywhere.

 

Your mention of swimming was in a different paragraph and not conected in anyway to the "education" aspect.

Where did I say this?

[Canal Cuttings]

A different aspect of this sad case: you can't teach your children how to avoid every hazard. If the parents HAD schooled him regularly in water safely and swimming, he might have instead lost his life fooling around near a transformer, playing chicken on a railway crossing, or falling for the story of a paedophile. That's why I have tried to give my children guidance in assessing situations, thinking about risks, weighing up the cost/benefits and avoiding following the "herd". That's what we do as adults, and should accept responsibility for our own actions.

[Captain Pegg]

I'm very disappointed with the role of the coroner here. They are meant to be pragmatic, not susceptible to hysteria and token gestures.

That would be the assistant coroner who is quoted as saying "I'm not satisfied that enough has been done" and has written to CRT asking for an explanation.

 

The inference of both the police and coroner is that C&RT haven't produced much of a response to a death on their property.

 

Nothing hysterical or token gesture about asking a question.

 

JP

Edited November 25, 2016 by Captain Pegg

[Flyboy]

A different aspect of this sad case: you can't teach your children how to avoid every hazard. If the parents HAD schooled him regularly in water safely and swimming, he might have instead lost his life fooling around near a transformer, playing chicken on a railway crossing, or falling for the story of a paedophile. That's why I have tried to give my children guidance in assessing situations, thinking about risks, weighing up the cost/benefits and avoiding following the "herd". That's what we do as adults, and should accept responsibility for our own actions.

Absolutely fully agree.

[Jess--]

In this case CRT appear to be in an awkward position.

 

from the sound of it this lock is no more or less dangerous than the majority of locks on the system, so why does this lock need signage that other locks do not?

 

If CRT add a new warning sign here (and nowhere else) then in the event of a similar accident elsewhere it could be argued that CRT were partially to blame for not having installed similar signage (possibly leaving themselves wide open to legal claims)

 

the logical assumption would be that ALL locks (of a similar design) will also need warning signs

[WotEver]

Why do folk keep referring to a lock? As far as I can can ascertain from the OP the poor kid drowned in the canal, not the lock. Or have I missed something?

[PaulG]

In this case CRT appear to be in an awkward position.

 

from the sound of it this lock is no more or less dangerous than the majority of locks on the system, so why does this lock need signage that other locks do not?

 

If CRT add a new warning sign here (and nowhere else) then in the event of a similar accident elsewhere it could be argued that CRT were partially to blame for not having installed similar signage (possibly leaving themselves wide open to legal claims)

 

the logical assumption would be that ALL locks (of a similar design) will also need warning signs

The idea that this lock requires a warning sign does not necessarily mean that all locks need a warning sign.

It may depend on location. For example, the disused stop lock at the Worcester Bar has a notice forbidding people to attempt to jump the lock.

But even these existing warning signs are inconsistently placed.

Strangely, the last time I went through Smethwick locks, (where two people drowned as a result of attempting to jump the lock) there were no warning signs.

Edited November 25, 2016 by PaulG

[Captain Pegg]

Why do folk keep referring to a lock? As far as I can can ascertain from the OP the poor kid drowned in the canal, not the lock. Or have I missed something?

Although the wording of the report doesn't explicitly state the incident took place in a lock there is enough in there to surmise that it did. One of the contributors also seems to have personal knowledge that it was in a lock.

 

JP

Edited November 25, 2016 by Captain Pegg

[WotEver]

Although the wording of the report doesn't explicitly state the incident took place in a lock there is enough in there to surmise that it did. One of the contributors also seems to have personal knowledge that it was in a lock.

 

JP

Ahh okay. Thanks

[Canal Cuttings]

Why do folk keep referring to a lock? As far as I can can ascertain from the OP the poor kid drowned in the canal, not the lock. Or have I missed something?

 

Not very clear from the original story, but a lock is mentioned several times without saying if the swimming was in the lock or just near it.

 

 

Steve Astles, safety advisor at the Canal & River Trust, told MailOnline:

...

‘We are aware now that this particular lock on the Rochdale Canal is a known hotspot for young people jumping in the canal during the summer.

 

Detective Sergeant O'Callaghan said: ‘There were no safety signs or warnings in relation to entering the water. There's no recommendations into signage, the signage is mainly for the lock usage rather than swimming.

 

If the accident was on an ordinary stretch of canal, then the suggestion of a sign is ludicrous. With spacing of 30 feet between signs, I estimate that in the UK you'd need 153,000 signs just for the towpath side of the canal. Not to mention UK Rivers. Fair enough if they were useful, but to tell people that water is dangerous if you can't swim? Obviously you could concentrate on built up areas, but who would be the judge of that?

[mayalld]

Why do folk keep referring to a lock? As far as I can can ascertain from the OP the poor kid drowned in the canal, not the lock. Or have I missed something?

 

Balance of Probabilities;

 

But the teenage schoolboy panicked when he found himself in the middle of the 9ft-wide canal

 

9 foot wide (however inaccurate) suggests a lock chamber

 

The pair then joined three girls all aged 13 who were already at the canal's edge by Lock 62.

 

So, they were definitely near a lock, and probably in it

 

He went down the ladder to the water level which was around one foot below the canal bank

 

Ladders are usually located in lock chambers. A look on Canalplan and Pennine Waterways shows a ladder in the lock, but nothing above or below.

 

We are aware now that this particular lock on the Rochdale Canal is a known hotspot for young people jumping in the canal during the summer

 

CRT seem to think it was a lock

[PaulG]

 

Not very clear from the original story, but a lock is mentioned several times without saying if the swimming was in the lock or just near it.

 

 

If the accident was on an ordinary stretch of canal, then the suggestion of a sign is ludicrous. With spacing of 30 feet between signs, I estimate that in the UK you'd need 153,000 signs just for the towpath side of the canal. Not to mention UK Rivers. Fair enough if they were useful, but to tell people that water is dangerous if you can't swim? Obviously you could concentrate on built up areas, but who would be the judge of that?

Like the lady in Gloucester who stated that the G&S was "dangerous and should be fenced off" because her teenage son fell in the drink trying to retrieve a football....

[WotEver]

Like the lady in Gloucester who stated that the G&S was "dangerous and should be fenced off" because her teenage son fell in the drink trying to retrieve a football....

Or the poor drunk university student who fell in one night in Leicester a couple of years back and his fellow students 'insisted' that CaRT put lighting alongside the canal.

 

Some friends of ours lost their 18 year old son several years back after he left a party and fell into the river Anker. It's only a couple of feet deep so depth isn't necessarily a factor. Whilst inconsolable with grief they accepted that it was a tragic accident.

 

The definition of an accident is that it was accidental - it wasn't anybody'a fault. (Other than by misadventure perhaps.)

[mross]

Perhaps CaRT should consider renaming this lock for Rafael Pizzaro as a memorial. A description of the accident might act as a warning to others?

[Mike Todd]

I suspect the assistant coroner was mindful of the requirement of C&RT to identify and manage risk in a reasonable manner. The police clearly felt community work was lacking and I agree that would likely be more effective.

 

It isn't a logical conclusion that signs would be required all along the towpath should signage be a chosen method of risk mitigation. That's not how risk management works. The outcome would likely only be the lock in question and any others exhibiting the same degree of risk.

 

JP

I am not sure how you get to a point at which some locks are considered a greater risk than others. Physically they are all much the same (and the press reports are unclear about how far the actual lock was contributory or could it have happened anywhere along the canal?). I am concerned that you are tacitly concurring with the assumption that some locks are a higher risk (in a material way) than others just because of the surrounding social area. There is much danger in going down that route and my risk assessment is that you avoid it.

 

There are some sections (eg north out of Leeds) where there are known problems and CaRT do what their limited resources can do but it also infringes on the rights of boaters (who can only pass through when there is supervision and security locks are removed)

 

It is also important to think through any simplistic initial safety measures (I don't for one moment blame the mother but am repeatedly disappointed by coroners who seem to think that they should court public opinion by making statements of shallow thinking). Sometimes such steps actually increase the risk, as some posts have highlighted, either through the way in which people react to warnings, or by displacing the risk onto someone else in a way that actually makes the situation riskier.

 

To avoid raising emotions in a canal context, I will illustrate from a context I also know something about: church security. From time to time, churches are damaged by less-than-charming visitors, either direct vandalism or damage in the act of theft. At one time there was a rush of churches to lock them as much as possible, only opening when there was a service. In places like here in Cornwall, this would mean that one of the most valuable assets for tourists is unavailable. In fact, nowadays the main insurance company actively encourages churches to be left open, at least during daylight hours, whilst making sure that nothing of value can be removed just by lifting it away, even - often - unattended. The damage done during a break-in is often much greater than the value of what is stolen.

 

Too often in our current society we react to adverse events (many involving sad fatal accidents or life limiting injury) in what I provocatively call Red Top knee jerk reactions. There is an underlying assumption that all danger is avoidable and so the call is that They should do something about it. The result is an ever-growing list of rules and regulations. Part of the current political climate, across many countries not just UK, involves a reaction (probably equally short sighted) to sweep away regulation so that we are 'free to make our own decisions'. Such freedom, if it is real and not synthetic, provides the opportunities to make mistakes, that either affect ourselves adversely but sometimes affects others that way.

 

We desperately need to find a philosophy that makes proper provision to avoid risk (anyone see Victoria Derbyshire this morning?) but also understands that a balanced freedom does sometimes mean taking our own responsibilities. Arguing for one extreme or the other is not good for our collective social health.

[Canal Cuttings]

Perhaps CaRT should consider renaming this lock for Rafael Pizzaro as a memorial. A description of the accident might act as a warning to others?

Excellent idea, if the family agree.

 

Something similar was done after 200 years to mark the site of Britain's worst canal disaster, when people rushed onto a pleasure boat and caused it to tip.

 

 

Virtually nothing is left of the canal nowadays.

Edited November 25, 2016 by Canal Cuttings

[mayalld]

I suspect the assistant coroner was mindful of the requirement of C&RT to identify and manage risk in a reasonable manner. The police clearly felt community work was lacking and I agree that would likely be more effective.

 

It isn't a logical conclusion that signs would be required all along the towpath should signage be a chosen method of risk mitigation. That's not how risk management works. The outcome would likely only be the lock in question and any others exhibiting the same degree of risk.

 

JP

 

I know how risk management works!

 

the point is that if they conclude that a sign should be erected here, it IS a logical conclusion that they should be erected every 6 feet along the canal.

 

The reason I say this is that it is self-evident that putting signs up at the lock wouldn't stop teenagers thinking that they are immortal. Only by putting them everywhere like a rash would they have a HOPE of making them think.

 

I am disappointed with the coroner here, as the comments seem to represent a general shift in attitude from coroners, who now see their function as primarily to exonerate anybody who may have contributed to their own death by foolishness, and transfer that blame to some authority.

 

I am sure they see this as a valuable public service, and that they are helping the relatives, who probably blame themselves, by giving them a new reality in which a scapegoat has been found. The trouble is that making relatives feel better is NOT what they are there for.

 

I certainly don't subscribe to the "Darwin Awards" view that was set out above, but I have to say that the SINGLE most effective way of getting the message across to teenagers that something is dangerous is another teenager losing their life or being seriously injured doing the dangerous thing (remember the swing bridge incident on the Ashton Canal)

 

Tragic though this incident is, particularly for this lad's family, the simple and inescapable sequence of events is that kids will swim where they shouldn't, one will eventually drown, and that following that event, kids will be more careful for a good while.

 

No amount of other measures will prevent the deaths, they may mean that it is a different child that dies.

[Sir Nibble]

In order to possibly save a life, may I point out that jumping onto motorways or railways is unsafe. In fact best look both ways before crossing the roads anywhere.

[PaulG]

I am not sure how you get to a point at which some locks are considered a greater risk than others. Physically they are all much the same (and the press reports are unclear about how far the actual lock was contributory or could it have happened anywhere along the canal?). I am concerned that you are tacitly concurring with the assumption that some locks are a higher risk (in a material way) than others just because of the surrounding social area. There is much danger in going down that route and my risk assessment is that you avoid it. <big snip>

With the greatest of respect, that is tosh.

Some rural locks are in the middle of nowhere, and are therefore low risk.

Others are in built-up areas where there is a high proportion of young people who are bad at recognising and mitigating dangers, and also adults who's judgement might well be impaired by the consumption of drink or drugs.

 

If CRT applied your logic, all locks would be fitted with anti-vandal devices.

[IanD]

How are canals (with or without locks) any different to rivers, which are often much deeper with far more dangerous currents?

 

Do we put warning signs saying "Danger, water may cause drowning" every 100 feet or so along every river more than a few feet deep?

 

And many more people die crossing the road than drowning (in rivers or canals) -- do we need signs every 100 feet along every road saying "Danger, vehicles may run over and kill you"?

 

There are lots of things in the world which are hazardous to some extent, and we expect people to be aware of common obvious ones like water or traffic.

 

I have sympathy for anyone (and their families) who dies in an unfortunate accident, but that's exactly what many of them are, and new laws and warning signs are not the solution except in cases of unusual or exceptional danger -- which canal locks aren't, in the same way as stairs, ladders, roads, and many other everyday things which kill or injure many more people.

Edited November 25, 2016 by IanD