Cheeky kids on Thorne bridge

[frangar]

I'm with making them move off the bridge.....it's just another case of kids and then by default adults expecting to have a right to do as they please without thinking how this might affect others.....you can bet if the little darlings got hurt the finger would soon be pointed at the person operating the bridge. 

[Kendorr]

13 minutes ago, frangar said:

I'm with making them move off the bridge.....it's just another case of kids and then by default adults expecting to have a right to do as they please without thinking how this might affect others.....you can bet if the little darlings got hurt the finger would soon be pointed at the person operating the bridge. 

Yep, my thoughts, which is why I cajoled them and eventually got them off. Just to add, I've noticed a couple of CCTV cameras have recently appeared at the bridge, so, presumably, it was all caught on camera.

[mayalld]

11 hours ago, Laurie.Booth said:

I don't see letting the children ride on the bridge as giving in.

As the post that this refers to mentions kids demanding a ride in Stalybridge, which has no moveable bridges, I think we can assume that the kids were demanding a ride on the boat.

In which case giving in is NOT a good idea.

I've always found "sorry lads, I'm not insured to take passengers" works well enough - until somebody gives in and gives them a ride, at which point it becomes more difficult to keep the blighters off.

[Jerra]

9 hours ago, Laurie.Booth said:

I just don't see the harm in letting the children enjoy riding on the bridge. 

I never as a child respected a teacher who just said no to a request. I respected a teacher (my headmaster) who would explain why I wasn't to do something.

A couple of points.  The first if you think that allowing children to ride a swing bridge doesn't potentially put them at risk(and ultimately you for allowing it) then you and I will never agree on the matter.  I seem to remember a case of a girl losing both legs and she wasn't even on the bridge.

Secondly in a short forum post I wasn't going to go into the ins and outs of conversations I have had with pupils about what they can and can't do.  I was merely giving a shortened version I wasn't expecting anybody to take it so simplistically.  You obviously did.

[Laurie Booth]

9 hours ago, DHutch said:

Always. Furthermore, if letting them do something mildly risky, also explain the risks.

The same goes for adults.

Daniel

Agree 100%

[Laurie Booth]

2 hours ago, mayalld said:

I've always found "sorry lads, I'm not insured to take passengers" works well enough - until somebody gives in and gives them a ride, at which point it becomes more difficult to keep the blighters off.

Agree.

[Laurie Booth]

1 hour ago, Jerra said:

A couple of points.  The first if you think that allowing children to ride a swing bridge doesn't potentially put them at risk(and ultimately you for allowing it) then you and I will never agree on the matter.  I seem to remember a case of a girl losing both legs and she wasn't even on the bridge.

 

Let's agree to disagree 

[Laurie Booth]

1 hour ago, Jerra said:

Secondly in a short forum post I wasn't going to go into the ins and outs of conversations I have had with pupils about what they can and can't do.  I was merely giving a shortened version I wasn't expecting anybody to take it so simplistically.  You obviously did.

Fair point. I was only saying in my school days some teachers said "no" and when asked "Why" the reply most of the time was "Because I say so!" I wasn't suggesting you were one of those teachers. I admire any teacher who could do the job for more than one year.

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, Jerra said:

A couple of points.  The first if you think that allowing children to ride a swing bridge doesn't potentially put them at risk(and ultimately you for allowing it) then you and I will never agree on the matter.  I seem to remember a case of a girl losing both legs and she wasn't even on the bridge.

A 15 year old girl lost both legs in 2008 when they were crushed by the Yew Tree Lane swing bridge on the Ashton Canal. The bridge had apparently been left unlocked, allowing local kids to swing the bridge with tragic results. I believe BW were prosecuted for this, although a quick Google doesn't bring up details. But presumably a boater allowing kids to swing on a bridge could be held liable for any resulting accident.

[Laurie Booth]

22 minutes ago, David Mack said:

But presumably a boater allowing kids to swing on a bridge could be held liable for any resulting accident.

 

But presumably a boater not allowing kids to swing on a bridge could be held liable for interfering with their civil liberties.

[DHutch]

5 hours ago, David Mack said:

A 15 year old girl lost both legs in 2008 when they were crushed by the Yew Tree Lane swing bridge on the Ashton Canal. The bridge had apparently been left unlocked, allowing local kids to swing the bridge with tragic results. I believe BW were prosecuted for this, although a quick Google doesn't bring up details. But presumably a boater allowing kids to swing on a bridge could be held liable for any resulting accident.

All things in life are a risk. However, slightly playing devils advocate, if a boater had allowed the kids to swing on the bridge but explained, that the main risk was pinch point at the end of the travel, de to the weight of the bridge, maybe it could have been avoided.

Daniel 

[Dave123]

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 19:28, Jerra said:

Do you not think that if they get rides from some they will expect others to give in as well?

Yes I realise this. Unfortunately at the time it seemed the easiest way to avoid a confrontation. They had already started jumping on and off the boat.

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 19:28, Jerra said:

Do you not think that if they get rides from some they will expect others to give in as well?

Yes I realise this. Unfortunately at the time it seemed the easiest way to avoid a confrontation. They had already started jumping on and off the boat.