Lack of platforms at locks

[MtB]

5 minutes ago, GuyBarry said:

But if it's left open to the public, surely there should be signs warning the public of the dangers?  There's absolutely nothing at the moment. 

 

Surely the danger is bloody obvious.

 

I think signs saying don't fall in would just clutter up the place. The idea of 'not falling in' is hardly a novel concept.

 

In fact I think people might be MORE likely to fall in, them being distracted from the danger by all the signs to read and fences to climb over. 

[GuyBarry]

6 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Surely the danger is bloody obvious.

 

I think signs saying don't fall in would just clutter up the place. The idea of 'not falling in' is hardly a novel concept.

 

In fact I think people might be MORE likely to fall in, them being distracted from the danger by all the signs to read and fences to climb over. 

There have been ten deaths in the River Avon in Bath since 2009:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-39265505

 

A few years ago fences were erected all along the water's edge from the city centre all the way to just below Windsor Bridge.  There are warning signs at repeated intervals.  There are several emergency boxes containing a throwline - you have to phone 999 and get a special code to open them.  I gather they were the first to be installed in this country.

 

There's nothing below that stretch of the river, though.  Perhaps the council doesn't care if people from that end of town fall in.

[Graham Davis]

49 minutes ago, GuyBarry said:

Fencing off Weston Lock wouldn't block access to the towpath in any way.  You walk from one end of the lock to the other without using the towpath.

 

Someone fell in a couple of weeks ago.  There's a deceptive gap between the upper lock mooring and the water's edge which is mainly hidden by vegetation.  I wasn't there, but I heard that some drunk was making his way along the towpath and slipped down it.  The emergency services had to be called. 

And when you fence it off how are the emergency services (or even a trained member of the public) going to get in to save them?

[nicknorman]

23 minutes ago, GuyBarry said:

You've got a valid point there.  If it had been fenced off then I wouldn't have started watching in the first place, wouldn't have learned about lock operation, and wouldn't be considering becoming a volunteer.  And yes, it's quite likely I wouldn't be able to help out at Weston Lock at all.

 

But if it's left open to the public, surely there should be signs warning the public of the dangers?  There's absolutely nothing at the moment.  The general public is educated in road safety but not generally in waterways safety.  I'm sure most people know to keep away from the water's edge but are they aware of the strong currents caused by the gate paddles, for instance?

The world is a dangerous place. Only hazards that are not patently obvious should be signed IMO, otherwise the entire world becomes one big hazard sign. If people are too stupid to realise that there is a river there with water, a deep drop into a lock etc, then it is only a matter of time before they kill themselves in some or other piece of stupidity. Stupid people don't read signs anyway, they are just ugly clutter (the signs, not the people.        Or maybe the other way round!).

 

The modern ill of putting signs everywhere is untenable. There will always be some unsigned hazard and anyway the more fatuous signs there are, the more people don't even see them let alone read and understand them. Look at how many fishermen one sees on the canal fishing right beside the "no fishing due to overhead power lines" signs.

[GuyBarry]

11 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

And when you fence it off how are the emergency services (or even a trained member of the public) going to get in to save them?

On the stretch that's already fenced off, there are gaps in the fence every so often with wire across them to stop people from falling through.  I actually wonder how safe this arrangement is as I can imagine someone at night drunkenly hanging on to the top of the fence for support, then suddenly discovering that it isn't there.  I think the top of the fence should be continuous with some way of hinging it open if necessary, but I don't know how practical this is.

 

If Weston Lock were to be fenced off, presumably the fence wouldn't be at the water's edge, but at the edge of the towpath, and the emergency services would have access.

Edited July 9, 2018 by GuyBarry

[Jerra]

8 minutes ago, GuyBarry said:

There have been ten deaths in the River Avon in Bath since 2009:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-39265505

 

A few years ago fences were erected all along the water's edge from the city centre all the way to just below Windsor Bridge.  There are warning signs at repeated intervals.  There are several emergency boxes containing a throwline - you have to phone 999 and get a special code to open them.  I gather they were the first to be installed in this country.

 

There's nothing below that stretch of the river, though.  Perhaps the council doesn't care if people from that end of town fall in.

A couple of points.  The first is going to sound hard hearted  (perhaps it is) 10 deaths in 9 years hardly an epidemic.  here in the lakes we probably approach that each year.  Fences in towns are mainly because people get drunk and don't have anyone prepared to take care of them i.e. ensure they don't go near the water.  How many of these deaths were self inflicted, jumping in, swimming, suicide attempts?

 

Fences won't necessarily prevent drunks drowning, being drunk brings out daftness in people e.g. climb a fence.

 

The proliferation of warning signs IMO does no good.  I know a place where there is a pond, well more like a puddle really, about 10 feet across and knee deep.  It has a life ring and Danger deep water signs.  After a while the public get so used to warning signs they don't even notice them.  Most are there so that somebody can say well there was a warning sign when somebody has done something daft.

 

You said earlier most people have sense to keep away from the waters edge but need warned of strong currents.  They don't need warned of strong currents because having the sense to keep away from the waters edge they will be no where near the strong currents.

 

Follow warning signs to their logical conclusion and every road needs periodic signs saying warning traffic, in some areas you need one on your door as you go out saying "Warning breathing is dangerous polluted air".

 

This is a reflection on the silly society we have developed where kids are kept inside rather than out playing etc etc.

[GuyBarry]

2 minutes ago, Jerra said:

How many of these deaths were self inflicted, jumping in, swimming, suicide attempts?

 

My understanding is that they were mostly drunk people falling in by accident.

Quote

You said earlier most people have sense to keep away from the waters edge but need warned of strong currents.  They don't need warned of strong currents because having the sense to keep away from the waters edge they will be no where near the strong currents.

If they deliberately choose to go swimming just below the lock they are at risk from the strong currents.  I think that stretch of water is very deceptive because it looks safe.  Kids jump off the lower lock mooring and swim to the other side.  They're not looking up to see if a boat's coming down, and someone coming down through the lock may very well not notice them.  What happens if the paddles suddenly open?

 

[Jerra]

5 minutes ago, GuyBarry said:

 

If they deliberately choose to go swimming just below the lock they are at risk from the strong currents.  I think that stretch of water is very deceptive because it looks safe.  Kids jump off the lower lock mooring and swim to the other side.  They're not looking up to see if a boat's coming down, and someone coming down through the lock may very well not notice them.  What happens if the paddles suddenly open?

 

So what you are saying is people haven't the sense to keep away.  Incidentally what happened to the decades of kids who will have been doing exactly the same thing?   Are there records of mass drownings for the area?

[GuyBarry]

Not that I'm aware of.  I'm sure if it happened once there would be a public outcry and demands for the lock to be fenced off.

 

But that's what we tend to do in this country - wait for an accident to happen before doing anything about it.

[zenataomm]

2 hours ago, GuyBarry said:

It probably isn't.  Sometimes, however, it's possible to end up in situations like that willy-nilly and then I have to use my judgement.  Seems better than letting them fight it out themselves.

 

It brings me back to the earlier question about "who is in charge of the lock?"  Although I still maintain that the correct answer is "the C&RT", the actual answer in practical terms is "no one".  It's completely open to the public and they use it for all sorts of purposes for which it wasn't designed.  No one polices it and there are almost no signs about what you should or shouldn't do there.  I went to my local councillor last week because I was concerned about groups of children swimming just below the lock, which I think is incredibly dangerous since if the paddles opened unexpectedly they could be swept into the river.  The council's going to contact the C&RT about putting a sign up, but to be honest I think the only competely safe thing would be to fence the lock off from the general public completely.

I shall resist further comments on this thread, it's either a wind up or the naivety level is so advanced I can see tears before bedtime.

 

[GuyBarry]

9 minutes ago, zenataomm said:

I shall resist further comments on this thread, it's either a wind up or the naivety level is so advanced I can see tears before bedtime.

 

It's most certainly not a wind-up.  I have spoken to my local councillor and the C&RT have been informed of my concerns.  What they choose to do about it is up to them.

[MtB]

19 minutes ago, GuyBarry said:

It's most certainly not a wind-up.  I have spoken to my local councillor and the C&RT have been informed of my concerns.  What they choose to do about it is up to them.

 

 

Well you certainly know how to make yourself unpopular with boaters.

 

[GuyBarry]

What difference will it make to boaters if the C&RT put a sign up warning of the dangers of swimming below the lock?

 

I'm sure you're all experienced people who would look out for hazards such as this.  But as I mentioned previously, you get all sorts of people who come through the lock without much of a clue about what they're doing.  What if those drunken lads in motorized dinghies had come down at the same time as there were kids swimming below the lock, and no one else was there?

[mayalld]

3 hours ago, nicknorman said:

I’ve no doubt there are people slower than you. Some people are incredibly slow and inefficient. But by trying to suggest that 1/2 paddle fills the lock faster than full paddle, whilst disturbing the boat less, you are clearly clutching at straws and demonstrating irrationality.

 

Anyway it is true that using 1/2 paddle for the first minute or so doesn’t make a massive difference to overall lock time, however it is just faffery and making a meal of things, over-complicating the procedure and all quite unnecessary.

 

Oh and reading you post again, you cross the top twice to our once. Twice the work, twice the risk of falling and all for no point.

I don't suggest that it fills the lock more quickly, merely that the speed gain is VERY marginal.

 

And it is true that half paddles aren't strictly "necessary". There is much in life that isn't actually necessary, but we still do it, because it makes life better.

 

A more measured raising of the paddles is very little extra effort, and brings a dividend in terms of not throwing the boat around.

 

And I HAVE tried the alternative approach of keeping back towards the bottom gate. It doesn't work for me. It may well work for you, because our boats are not identical, and perform differently.

 

That's what makes me competent - knowing MY boat and how it will react, and not presuming that everybody else has the same experiences as I do.

7 minutes ago, GuyBarry said:

What difference will it make to boaters if the C&RT put a sign up warning of the dangers of swimming below the lock?

 

I'm sure you're all experienced people who would look out for hazards such as this.  But as I mentioned previously, you get all sorts of people who come through the lock without much of a clue about what they're doing.  What if those drunken lads in motorized dinghies had come down at the same time as there were kids swimming below the lock, and no one else was there?

One wonders how the carnage was avoided before you took up residence to regulate your fellow men at this lock.

[GuyBarry]

Thanks for the sarcasm, Dave.

 

I am of the opinion that the only reason why there hasn't been a serious accident there is a statistical one.  Craft come through the lock relatively infrequently.  People go swimming in or below the lock pretty rarely.  Most of the time there's nothing happening there at all.

 

Anyway, I'm conscious that this thread has now gone off the topic of "general boating", so I shall bow out of it.

[MtB]

39 minutes ago, GuyBarry said:

What difference will it make to boaters if the C&RT put a sign up warning of the dangers of swimming below the lock?

 

You were calling for fences as well as signs.

[David Mack]

5 hours ago, GuyBarry said:

 

 

I am of the opinion that the only reason why there hasn't been a serious accident there is a statistical one.  Craft come through the lock relatively infrequently.  People go swimming in or below the lock pretty rarely.  Most of the time there's nothing happening there at all.

I've only done the Avon once, and we met kids swimming at a couple of the locks. So you could say that from my experience there are kids swimming all of the time. 

Same this last weekend on the Stort. Kids swimming in and around the locks. It's what kids do on hot summer weekends, and no amount of fencing or warning notices is going to stop it.

They've tried fencing in canals. My 1968 BCN guidebook actually marks all the access points to the towpath as there were so few of them. Trouble is, kids still got in, but if they get into difficulty, the access for rescuers was so much more difficult. And yes kids did die for want of access.

There's already a petition out there with thousands of signatures calling for Manchester's waterways to be fenced to stop those who have drunk far more than they can handle, from falling in and drowning. How about teaching them to take responsibility for their own actions instead?

[mayalld]

8 hours ago, GuyBarry said:

It probably isn't.  Sometimes, however, it's possible to end up in situations like that willy-nilly and then I have to use my judgement.  Seems better than letting them fight it out themselves.

 

It brings me back to the earlier question about "who is in charge of the lock?"  Although I still maintain that the correct answer is "the C&RT", the actual answer in practical terms is "no one".  It's completely open to the public and they use it for all sorts of purposes for which it wasn't designed.  No one polices it and there are almost no signs about what you should or shouldn't do there.  I went to my local councillor last week because I was concerned about groups of children swimming just below the lock, which I think is incredibly dangerous since if the paddles opened unexpectedly they could be swept into the river.  The council's going to contact the C&RT about putting a sign up, but to be honest I think the only competely safe thing would be to fence the lock off from the general public completely.

Thus showing that your previous assertion that you understand about the boater being in charge wasn't sincere.

 

The person who is "in charge" is the person who is operating the lock for a legitimate purpose with the permission of CRT.

 

People who mess with the lock are not in charge, they are trespassing.

 

It also appears that you are of the opinion that there should always be somebody else ensuring that idiots don't hurt themselves. It isn't possible, and in the process you make it MORE dangerous for legitimate users.

[Graham Davis]

5 hours ago, GuyBarry said:

What difference will it make to boaters if the C&RT put a sign up warning of the dangers of swimming below the lock?

 

I'm sure you're all experienced people who would look out for hazards such as this.  But as I mentioned previously, you get all sorts of people who come through the lock without much of a clue about what they're doing.  What if those drunken lads in motorized dinghies had come down at the same time as there were kids swimming below the lock, and no one else was there?

Probably nothing at all would have happened.
I'm afraid that it is your lack of knowledge of the rest of the network outside your one lock that is totally clouding your judgement.
As has been siad numerous times, join the official volunteers with CaRT, get their training done, and perhaps get out a bit and see some more of the system, other than your very limited bit.

[X Alan W]

On 07/07/2018 at 02:22, nicknorman said:

We always wind both paddles fully up on the Cheshire locks (by which I mean one after the other in the time it takes to cross the gate). Why is it we are able to get on with it, using full paddle, whilst you dawdle, only capable of coping with 1/2 paddle? I would recommend some additional training in boat handling in locks, so you become competent to use the paddles as they were intended.

No Idea of the way the Chesire locks are now but in the working era paddles were always opened the way you describe & forward gear/tickover made the boat draw forward & stay on the cill gate/s for a much smoother ride to a full lock

[Jerra]

With regard to kids swimming my experience of kids in general is they are far more savvy and ab le to look after themselves than a lot of adults give them credit for.

[GuyBarry]

2 hours ago, Graham Davis said:

Probably nothing at all would have happened.
I'm afraid that it is your lack of knowledge of the rest of the network outside your one lock that is totally clouding your judgement.
As has been siad numerous times, join the official volunteers with CaRT, get their training done, and perhaps get out a bit and see some more of the system, other than your very limited bit.

I said I was going to bow out of the discussion but I can't deal with this.

 

I have lived in Bath for over twenty years.  I have lived close to the river Avon for the last fifteen or so.  I love the river Avon.  I don't want to see anyone in danger there.

 

You are seriously telling me that I should go and get some training with the C&RT so that I no longer care about the community in which I live?

[Jerra]

16 minutes ago, GuyBarry said:

I have lived close to the river Avon for the last fifteen or so.  I love the river Avon.  I don't want to see anyone in danger there.

 

During those 15 years how many people have been drowned at the lock?

[GuyBarry]

2 minutes ago, Jerra said:

During those 15 years how many people have been drowned at the lock?

None, as far as I'm aware.

 

That's a great attitude - "no accidents so far, so we must be all right!"  I hesitate to mention the words "Grenfell Tower", but...

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, GuyBarry said:

None, as far as I'm aware.

 

That's a great attitude - "no accidents so far, so we must be all right!"  I hesitate to mention the words "Grenfell Tower", but...

The point being as I mentioned earlier kids have been swimming in and near locks for decades.  The fact there hasn't been a casualty in 15 years suggests the risks are low.  I take it you have never seen a risk assessment done.  I am not trained but I have a very close friend who has lectured me on many occasions about how to do it.  

 

I am sure somebody will correct me with regard to numbers but it goes something like this:

 

Give the risk of it happening a number (I think he uses 1 to 5) depending on how high the risk is.  Then give the result a number according to the severity of the result.  Again 1 to 5.

 

Risk of drowning seems fairly low 15 years without it happening so we will call it 2.   The result fatality so 5.  2 X 5 =10

 

By his way of doing things if the result is 15 to 20 you must do something to lessen the chance of it happening if 20+ it must be stopped immediately until it can be made safe.

 

Using this system and your own evidence as far as I can see nothing needs to be done.

 

With regard to Grenfell that hadn't been done using the correct cladding (it hadn't as I understand it been tested properly) so no correct risk assessment.  Nothing like the situation we are talking about.