Lack of platforms at locks

[GuyBarry]

OK, so I'm really interested now about the nature of C&RT training.  Because if the training involves a section about "don't bother about kids swimming below the lock, because they're not at risk", they can shove their training up their arse.

 

I doubt very much whether that's the case though.

[Dr Bob]

11 minutes ago, Jerra said:

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.

Good try Jerra, but risk assessment is not that easy. You need to assess risk based on individual cases not generics. If it were a business, a score of 10 for a death ....on your scoring scheme......would require mitigation. I do part agree with what you say and perhaps the likelihood of a death is 1 not 2. The question then is do you stop kids taking any risks. Only the person on the site can assess the real risk.

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, Dr Bob said:

Good try Jerra, but risk assessment is not that easy. You need to assess risk based on individual cases not generics. If it were a business, a score of 10 for a death ....on your scoring scheme......would require mitigation. I do part agree with what you say and perhaps the likelihood of a death is 1 not 2. The question then is do you stop kids taking any risks. Only the person on the site can assess the real risk.

So you can't assess a place you have to do a separate assessment for every single individual who might visit it?

[Dr Bob]

2 minutes ago, Jerra said:

So you can't assess a place you have to do a separate assessment for every single individual who might visit it?

No , by individual I said individual cases, not people. That means a separate assessment for each site as they will all be different. You have to visit the site to do a good risk assessment. 

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, Dr Bob said:

No , by individual I said individual cases, not people. That means a separate assessment for each site as they will all be different. You have to visit the site to do a good risk assessment. 

Ah! That is obviously the case I misinterpreted your words.  However with no fatalities in 15 years  (and probably much more) the chances do seem to me low.  If there had been fatalities local "wisdom" would have made the place a no no.  At least up here in the Lakes it works like that, people can consider a stretch of water dangerous because Noah's second cousin drowned there just after the flood.

 

As I have said earlier warning signs are becoming so common and in some silly places that I feel they have little effect, granddad would say we used to swim there its OK, so the sign is ignored.  The sign is then seen as a "bum covering" exercise by whoever put it up.

[Graham Davis]

1 hour ago, GuyBarry said:

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?

As I said, your lack of knowledge of the system outside your local lock is clouding your judgement.

You may love "your lock" and "your Avon" but you obviously have no experience of anywhere else. Kids swim in locks, lakes, quarries and rivers all over the country and rarely get into trouble, just as drunk boaters use locks throughout the system occasionally and don't get into trouble. As a mere member of the public you are in no place to tell people what to do, in fact doing so is likely to get you into trouble, especially from a group of stroppy teenagers. Even as an official CaRT volunteer I suspect your instructions would be to stand back and let them get on with it FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY.

If you want to "care about the community" then go and do the job properly, but volunteering with CaRT and doing their training.

[billS]

A man accesses and kindly helps out at his local lock. He visits other locks and decides they are more dangerous than his local lock which he freely accesses. He then decides that his own lock is too dangerous for free access and should be fenced off to prevent the public, i.e. himself accessing it.

 

Great stuff. Keep it coming. 

Edited July 9, 2018 by billS
Can't spell...

[Graham Davis]

34 minutes ago, GuyBarry said:

OK, so I'm really interested now about the nature of C&RT training.  Because if the training involves a section about "don't bother about kids swimming below the lock, because they're not at risk", they can shove their training up their arse.

 

I doubt very much whether that's the case though.

Why don't you stop argueing here, get on the phone to CaRT tomorrow and VOLUNTEER to take the course?
Then and only then can you criticise it.
But if you do decide to do that, please go with an open mind and be willing to listen and learn, instead of the closed attitude you appear to have here.

[GuyBarry]

5 minutes ago, billS said:

A man accesses and kindly helps out at his local lock. He visits other locks and decides they are more dangerous than his local lock which he freely accesses. He then decides that his own lock is too dangerous for free access and should be fenced off to prevent the public, i.e. himself accessing it.

 

Great stuff. Keep it coming. 

Yeah, I do.  As a result of this discussion I'm starting to think that I should be kept out.  Make of that what you will.

 

I didn't go to the lock today but sat a little way upstream.  I saw a boat coming down that was towing another boat alongside.  My heart went out to them and I walked down to the lock, knowing I'd get there before them.  They were extremely grateful to me - there was only one woman on the tiller for both of them and a single other crew member.

 

It's very hard not to care.

4 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

Why don't you stop argueing here, get on the phone to CaRT tomorrow and VOLUNTEER to take the course?
Then and only then can you criticise it.
But if you do decide to do that, please go with an open mind and be willing to listen and learn, instead of the closed attitude you appear to have here.

As I've said a few times, I'm very happy to take part next February when they start their training for the new season.  I'm looking forward to it.

[billS]

All credit to you for helping people, and it's great that you are going to do that in a more structured way as a volunteer. As you have seen, the degree of help that you should offer (if any) has been a point of debate from regular posters here, the vast majority of whom are very experienced canal users.

 

However, there has been no support whatsoever for your view that extra signage and fencing of locks are necessary or even desirable. That should tell you something.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 9, 2018 by billS
inadvertent grocer's

[GuyBarry]

It's really up to the C&RT what signs or other safety procedures they put in place.  It's not up to members of this forum.

 

I have expressed my concerns via my local councillor, and as far as I'm concerned that's the end of the issue.  The C&RT must make their own judgements.

[Victor Vectis]

12 minutes ago, GuyBarry said:

It's really up to the C&RT what signs or other safety procedures they put in place.  It's not up to members of this forum.

Of course it isn't.

 

After all, we just pay for them (licences, mooring fees etc etc)

[Jerra]

28 minutes ago, GuyBarry said:

It's really up to the C&RT what signs or other safety procedures they put in place.  It's not up to members of this forum.

 

I have expressed my concerns via my local councillor, and as far as I'm concerned that's the end of the issue.  The C&RT must make their own judgements.

Sadly CRT are more likely to respond to one approach from a council triggered by one "complaint" (sorry I can't think of a better word I know complaint isn't correct) from a member of the public than the 35,000 boaters and their opinion.

[GuyBarry]

7 hours ago, Jerra said:

Sadly CRT are more likely to respond to one approach from a council triggered by one "complaint" (sorry I can't think of a better word I know complaint isn't correct) from a member of the public than the 35,000 boaters and their opinion.

Well, if you want to start a campaign against  warning of the dangers of swimming below locks, go ahead and do so.

 

I find this whole discussion absolutely baffling.  I'm told that it's irresponsible for me to help out at locks because I might endanger the safety of boats, yet I'm also told that being concerned about the safety of the general public is unimportant because they ought to be able to work things out for themselves.

 

Either you're concerned about safety, or you're not.  Or is it just your own safety that's important?

[Jerra]

4 minutes ago, GuyBarry said:

Well, if you want to start a campaign against  warning of the dangers of swimming below locks, go ahead and do so.

 

I find this whole discussion absolutely baffling.  I'm told that it's irresponsible for me to help out at locks because I might endanger the safety of boats, yet I'm also told that being concerned about the safety of the general public is unimportant because they ought to be able to work things out for themselves.

 

Either you're concerned about safety, or you're not.  Or is it just your own safety that's important?

To me the risk factor in a person I don't know operating a lock is far higher than kids doing something they have done for decades.  Just because you see it as dangerous it doesn't mean it is or is as dangerous as you think.

 

There was probably a time when you didn't see operating a lock as dangerous.  Different people see danger in different ways.

 

Why would I want to start a campaign against warning signs?  I just want common sense to prevail and the current risk adverse society to not get any worse.

 

By your own words in this thread you would have locks fenced off, parts if not all of the canal/river fenced.  Ought we to be putting fences round all the Cumbrian Lakes?  We are raising generations of kids who live in sterile conditions (watch some TV adverts -washing steriliser, surface cleanser etc) who haven't played outside because Mum/Dad thinks they will be abducted.   Now we are objecting to the few who do escape the bonds of modern society's paranoia about risk getting some healthy exercise and sun to boost their vitamin D (another thing they are short of because they don't spend enough time out doors).

[MtB]

2 hours ago, GuyBarry said:

Well, if you want to start a campaign against  warning of the dangers of swimming below locks, go ahead and do so.

 

I find this whole discussion absolutely baffling.  I'm told that it's irresponsible for me to help out at locks because I might endanger the safety of boats, yet I'm also told that being concerned about the safety of the general public is unimportant because they ought to be able to work things out for themselves.

 

Either you're concerned about safety, or you're not.  Or is it just your own safety that's important?

 

 

'Safety' is not black and white. It is a continuum where judgements have to be made. If you truly want 100% safety then you'd be calling for the canals to be filled in and got rid of. But you aren't calling for this, so I call hypocrisy in your demands for endless signage and condemnation of those who oppose this pointing out ever more signage is pointless and self-defeating.

 

You still want the 'dangerous' lock to be there so you can amuse yourself 'helping' boaters, some of who are too polite say say your 'help' is neither expected, required or appreciated. Working the locks is one of the pleasures of boating (as you have discovered) and someone else pitching up and trying to do it 'for me' is a growing nuisance on the canals.

 

 

[Heartland]

A key point of these discussions has been the dangerous nature of the lock. Those who look at canal history will agree that accidents and fatalities happen on the waterway and especially at locks. The boating community has lost some very experienced members in this regard.

 

Setting locks for boaters through opening gates is often a kindness, as well as closing them as the boaters proceed on their way. Working paddle gear is a skill that has to be learnt. For heritage reasons canals regularly retain types of paddle gearing that have that heritage link. A case in point is the Calder & Hebble where a spike is needed to work the gear rather than a windlass.

 

Those that volunteer at Locks, should have the appropriate training and know what to do when for example a boat drifts towards the cill whilst the lock is emptying or conversely on the rise when the tiller is caught under parts of the gate. I note with the CRT, correct me if I am wrong, volunteers also work as a team, and there are more than one there, in case there is a problem.

 

I believe that it is a credit to the CRT for having this service. Whilst the primary role is to assist passage through the locks, there are the ancilliary roles that are just as important.

 

 

[alan_fincher]

2 minutes ago, Heartland said:

 I note with the CRT, correct me if I am wrong, volunteers also work as a team, and there are more than one there, in case there is a problem.

You are wrong.

 

It is not at all unusual to have a CRT volunteer lock keeper acting on their own.

 

My experience is that a single one is generally more likely than a multiple one, (unless it is the lock in a flight where they have their rest / tea room!).

[MtB]

13 minutes ago, Heartland said:

Whilst the primary role is to assist passage through the locks,

 

There is a subversive and low level assumption built into statements like this which needs highlighting and opposing whenever possible. That assumption is that boaters see locks as obstacles to progress, which they wish were not there and which need negotiating as quickly as possible. 

 

This may be true for the contingent for who boating means nothing more than covering lots of miles in a day, but for boaters like me working the locks is an primary pleasure in boating and I oppose this tendency of non-boaters to assume I want 'help' through locks. 

 

Yes help through a flight would be most welcome at dusk on a cold and wet winter's afternoon but this is not when the vollies are there in force. Or ever. It's always on a nice summer's afternoon when I don't really need it!

 

These days whenever I approach a lock I find myself scanning ahead and my heart sinks if I see figures with windlasses hanging about on the lockside waiting for me to speed me through. Conversely I mentally shout 'YAY' and punch the air when the lock is deserted. 

Edited July 10, 2018 by Mike the Boilerman
Add a bit.

[Heartland]

Thanks, I must have encountered more that one volunteer on my travels in recent times.

 

Still having one person may still be enough for the novice boaters like those who hire boats, or come onto the waterway for the first time on schemes such as time share.

 

I am sure experienced boaters like Mike, have no need of the attentions of volunteers, and the challenges of going from lock to lock are part of the enjoyment of being on the waterway.

 

Yet being old enough, I can remember times of when locks were not kept in the best repair, where some paddle gears were faulty and gates leaks so bad it took an age to pass through. 

Edited July 10, 2018 by Heartland

[Cheese]

I think the lesson to be learned from here is that there is no "one size fits all" policy.

 

Some boaters, such as hire boaters and MtB, relish the challenge of operating locks, and don't want any help.  Others, perhaps working single-handed through a flight, would be happy to have some knowledgeable assistance, perhaps particularly setting in advance or closing up afterwards.

 

The worst sort of volunteers, whether CRT trained or not, are those who just do stuff without asking.  The best are those who offer assistance, making it clear at outset that they will always be looking at the boater and working to their command, but who are equally happy to step back if that offer is declined.

 

 

[Jerra]

58 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

These days whenever I approach a lock I find myself scanning ahead and my heart sinks if I see figures with windlasses hanging about on the lockside waiting for me to speed me through. Conversely I mentally shout 'YAY' and punch the air when the lock is deserted. 

Similar to my reaction.

[system 4-50]

I think the immediate working area of locks should be marked out where practical by a purely nominal fence with a simple sign saying that members of the public entering this working area of the lock whilst a boat is being locked through do so at their own risk.

I am confident that the current arrangement of having industrial equipment available to possibly totally ignorant members of the general public will not persist for another decade.

It is not like roads/pavements in that it can be assumed that all members of the public are aware of the dangers of these or are in the care of those that are.  

[Heartland]

System 4-50 has raised an important issue, which is should the inexperienced be allowed to work locks. In this modern world of health and safety requirements, there is a case for the canal owners, be it CRT, Peel Ports, IWA etc to have rules and regulations in place and maybe the signage might be more prominent where it exists.

 

Canal guides such as Nicholsons do provide instructions for lock procedure. Hire boaters are generally briefed by the boat yard and there are now much more information available on the internet which modern phones can access. 

[Jerra]

3 hours ago, Heartland said:

System 4-50 has raised an important issue, which is should the inexperienced be allowed to work locks.

The trouble with inexperience is you can't change it without experience.  If you don't allow inexperienced crews to work locks they never gain experience.