Simply unspeakable

[mayalld]

Very much agree Liam and well said.

 

 

 

But they should carry part of the blame.

 

If it is deemed necessary to secure a piece of equipment to make it safer. The person who fails to do so must take part of the RESPONSIBILITY in increasing the danger to other people.

 

If they left it open on purpose that is classed as negligent as we all have a duty of care to others.

 

I can't agree.

 

Locking mechanisms are not fitted to bridges for H&S reasons. They are fitted to prevent unauthorised people from interfering with the bridge.

 

This bridge is fitted with a vertical bolt, secured by a hancuff key, and it is very easy to inadvertantly fail to properly lock the bridge.

 

Part of the problem on the Ashton is dreaming up locking mechanisms that will defeat vandals. Take a look at these bridges and see how many times the mechanism has been changed, and how battered the thing is, as vandals get to work on it.

 

There is a locking mech in use on the Upper PF swing bridges, which uses a watermate key, and retains it until the bridge is properly closed and locked, which may well have ensured that this couldn't occur, but it is far from certain that it would have survived in this location.

 

This would appear to be a case of kids messing about with things that they shouldn't mess about with, and suffering tragic consequences. The blame must rest with whoever was messing with the bridge.

[Phil Speight]

So, even allowing for the compounding causes, this IS probably a case where people died because locks had been fitted to the paddles.

 

My point was only meant to be that as more and more measures are thought to be necessary to combat various things, sometimes those very measures are increasing the dangers.

 

Anybody who wants a practical demonstration of how BW protecting the great British public has introduced a whole raft of new hazards for the boater only needs to try working through locks on the Regents Canal. There are lock enclosures you cant get in or out of (on foot) without a key. It's not possible to bow haul a boat out of some locks, due to permanent barricades between lock and steps. (And plenty more!)

 

Presumably too many people have stumbled out of the local hostelries, and into the lock. Do we put barriers round all locks where there is a nearby pub, for instance ? Where do you stop ?

 

Alan

I think Alan that while all you say is good sense I still think the Gargrave lLock accident was caused by the incorrect use of the lock. Other factors may have made it impossible to prevent theaccident once it was happening - but the cause as far as I can see has to do with the "responsible" persons in charge of the boat not following correct procedure.

As to the argument ( not from you ) that even if a boater had failed to lock the bridge as the signs make clear ,of course they must share the blame. Do as your told by the byelaws and regulations , close lock gates wetheryou agree with the principal or not and lock bridges when INSTRUCTED to do so.

Phil

Cheers

Phil

[Chertsey]

Seventy six posts - many of them sensible - in seven and a half hours. Whatever it is, it clearly isn't unspeakable.

[fender]

Seventy six posts - many of them sensible - in seven and a half hours. Whatever it is, it clearly isn't unspeakable.

 

No not 'unspeakable' in terms of a topic -

 

but in terms of the accident - try describing the process of the girl's legs being sheared off??? I imagine it cant have been very nice sitting there watching your legs being sliced off. Its a bloody nightmare and one no-one would want to have. Imagine the trauma the girl musthave had. In many ways its a far worst accident than a lot of accidents because of the way and means of how it happened. Its like something from a horror movie.

 

Its not very nice

(and its something I sincerely hope wont happen again)

Edited June 24, 2008 by fender

[NB Phoenix]

I can't agree.

 

Locking mechanisms are not fitted to bridges for H&S reasons. They are fitted to prevent unauthorised people from interfering with the bridge.

 

But is this not also to stop "unauthorised people" from injuring themselves or others?

 

This bridge is fitted with a vertical bolt, secured by a hancuff key, and it is very easy to inadvertantly fail to properly lock the bridge.

 

Part of the problem on the Ashton is dreaming up locking mechanisms that will defeat vandals. Take a look at these bridges and see how many times the mechanism has been changed, and how battered the thing is, as vandals get to work on it.

 

There is a locking mech in use on the Upper PF swing bridges, which uses a watermate key, and retains it until the bridge is properly closed and locked, which may well have ensured that this couldn't occur, but it is far from certain that it would have survived in this location.

 

This would appear to be a case of kids messing about with things that they shouldn't mess about with, Yes and I refer to above in red

and suffering tragic consequences. The blame must rest with whoever was messing with the bridge.

Yes again and this is the reason its locked. So part of the blame must also lie with whoever vandalised the locking mechanism OR whoever left it unlocked.

[mayalld]

Locking mechanisms are not fitted to bridges for H&S reasons. They are fitted to prevent unauthorised people from interfering with the bridge.

But is this not also to stop "unauthorised people" from injuring themselves or others?

 

 

No, I don't believe that it is.

 

Bridges on this part of the canal were fitted with locking mechanisms many years ago, and long before "society" invented "Health and Safety" as a concept designed to prevent people injuring themselves through their own lack of common sense.

 

The locks were fitted to prevent yobs opening the bridges, and leaving them open, thereby interfering with traffic over the bridge.

 

If the risk of injury was the motivation behing fitting locking mechanisms, then all bridges would be locked. As this isn't the case, we must conclude that locks were fitted where there was a risk of interference.

[magnetman]

But is this not also to stop "unauthorised people" from injuring themselves or others?

 

 

 

No, I don't believe that it is.

 

Bridges on this part of the canal were fitted with locking mechanisms many years ago, and long before "society" invented "Health and Safety" as a concept designed to prevent people injuring themselves through their own lack of common sense.

 

The locks were fitted to prevent yobs opening the bridges, and leaving them open, thereby interfering with traffic over the bridge.

 

If the risk of injury was the motivation behing fitting locking mechanisms, then all bridges would be locked. As this isn't the case, we must conclude that locks were fitted where there was a risk of interference.

 

Its horrible when these things happen. I heard that someone had their neck broken at Aldermaston lift bridge which is why it was modified to lift more vertically.

 

however

 

'Health and Safety' is going to end up destroying the human race. If people are idiotic and put themselves in harms way they should be allowed to die, there are enough humans around already. supporting and encouraging any weakness in a species is a fundamental error.

[stort_mark]

? No....... Do you?

 

You asked me to give examples of accidents. I suggested being struck by lightning or a meteorite.

 

And on this we agree. As I said in a previous post, I do not like the no blame culture and we should learn accept the outcome of our actions.

Actualy I think we are almost totally in agreement but coming at it from different perspectives. I believe it is the witchunt-blame culture that actually leads to senseless and nonensical HSE requirements.

[carlt]

supporting and encouraging any weakness in a species is a fundamental error.

You would advocate euthanasia for the disabled then?

[stort_mark]

Well, yes, but. Let's say that you have 100lbs of blame to hand out. There are a number of participants in this, some known and some unknown. If I imagine a list of them it could include:

 

The designer of the bridge locking bolt

The maintainer of the bridge

The last boater to use the bridge before the accident

The person who unlocked the bridge (which may or may not be the boater)

The kids swinging on the bridge

The girl sat where the bridge closes

The designer of the bridge stop

 

Now, take your 100lbs of blame and share it out. Not easy. So far we know very little about what actually happened in this incident.

 

Richard

 

You're absolutely right. In true HazID terms this should be done as a proper risk assessment (i.e. not "blame" but "cause") but the reality is that the swing-bridge is the easiest 'result' to tackle. The most effect would probably be education (as there would surely be a net positive social effect) but the easiest is for someone to say "let's chain up the bridge".

 

Agree that we know little about what happened here (and unlike the Gargrave tragedy there will not be a MAIB investigation).

[Catrin]

This is a horrifying accident, I cannot imagine what this must be like for the girl, her family, her friends and her school. However….

 

Whenever I catch kids at my secondary school doing something that could result in an "accident", I try to get them to think about the consequences of their behaviour. My question, "why isn't that a good idea?", is regularly met with, "because we could get into trouble, Miss?". Very often they have no idea why rules are put in place. Pupils regularly seem completely stumped when thinking through what might result from their actions. They seem to think that they cannot possibly get hurt, and "we're only messing about".

 

I increasingly think that many parents and schools are failing to teach children the consequence of their actions. Some adult does the thinking for them in advance and we constantly pick up the pieces when they get things wrong. Making mistakes is how we learn – if we don’t let kids make small mistakes, they don’t understand how to avoid the big ones.

Cath

[Machpoint005]

This is a horrifying accident, I cannot imagine what this must be like for the girl, her family, her friends and her school. However….

 

Whenever I catch kids at my secondary school doing something that could result in an "accident", I try to get them to think about the consequences of their behaviour. My question, "why isn't that a good idea?", is regularly met with, "because we could get into trouble, Miss?". Very often they have no idea why rules are put in place. Pupils regularly seem completely stumped when thinking through what might result from their actions. They seem to think that they cannot possibly get hurt, and "we're only messing about".

 

I increasingly think that many parents and schools are failing to teach children the consequence of their actions. Some adult does the thinking for them in advance and we constantly pick up the pieces when they get things wrong. Making mistakes is how we learn – if we don’t let kids make small mistakes, they don’t understand how to avoid the big ones.

Cath

Well put, Cath, and IMO the most sensible remark yet made on this thread (excluding mine this morning, of course!).

Is the way forward to minimise the risks, or allow some miscreants to get injured? I suspect that if the danger were more immediately obvious, there would be less trouble and fewer injuries.

 

Otherwise, how could we possibly explain why the vast majority of motorists keep to speed limits? The risks are obvious to anyone who has crawled past a recent motorway smash.

 

Less so to youth engaged on more esoteric mischief.

[DHutch]

Does anyone know if this bridge naturally stands open or closed - if left on its own what position would it take?

They arent weighted in any partiular direction.

- If left unaided, although they may creep a little, from my memory i would be supprised if they would cause the damage seen here on there closing.

- One of them was a bit of an arse to move actually, its just a bit long (well, the conreates moved inwards), so as i saw it, need a bit of thought/effort to get it to close.

 

I would agree that the locking mechanisum was a bit crude. But then again it does work, and should it be nessasary or a requirment anyway? Lock gates arnt pined open/shut, not all lift bridges are, moving away from waterways, unmaned leval crossings have no lock/key, zebra crossings, the list goes on. Life is full of risks. Always.

 

I find it odd that we were laughing about this last week....

 

The only difference as I see it is that, in the video, the youth was responsible for his own misfortune. With the swingbridge it is someone else that has got hurt.

 

Swingbridges shouldn't need anti vandal gear, any more than concrete panelled walls across the country should be fitted with a means to prevent a recurrence of the collapse.

Very true indeed.

- The above video was (with knowlage) predictable, tragic, clearly hurt the involved person, raised a rye smile, and everyone moved on.

- The topic event was (with knowlage) predictable, tragic, clearly hurt the person a lot, and caused everyone to get hot under the coller.

 

Im not compairing a broken angle, to double apputation, and im not saying its not a great and tragic shame. But as so many people have said. You cant prevent everything, and you do have to keep it in contect. Rather bluntly put; sometimes shit happens. As the saying goes.

 

 

Daniel

[DHutch]

On a side shoot. During an family outing as children my mothers family where on a station. My mums eldest of five, three boys, with a number of cousins hanging on. They where at the root end of a terminous. I dont recall which now, but it doesnt matter.

 

As the train pulled in (loco hauled passenger, before the days of stream lined cowlings and stoping 10ft early) my mums cousin diana put her arm between the approching train and the buffers at the end of the line. My mum being pottentally more upto speed on these things grabbed her and her arm and pulled them out of the way throwing Diana onto the floor. Seconds later the gap closed and the train came to rest against them without any harm done. My grandad (her uncal) who saw enough to have known what happened, then gave Diana a right good telling off for being so stupid!

 

If my Mum hadnt have spotted Diana 'playing with what happens with buffers' theres little doubt that she would have spoiled more than the familys day out. A story that on occation both my mum and grandad retell.

 

Prehaps if my mum had been near the bridge she could have prevented it. Prehaps if Diana hadnt have been so curious she would have stuck her arm infront of a moving train.*

 

*Prehaps also she wouldnt have got a stack of qualifications, spent a summer touring with a flight simular ride, met her partner, raised a family, compeated nationaly in a dozen sports, sailed around the world on and off, and all the other great things her and the rest of our curiously eccentric family get upto.

 

 

 

As for Euthanasia death of the less naterally able, thats a whole diffrent topic in itself! It was actaully brought up in a convosation i was having this afternoon, as was pointed out then, its only a case of where you draw the line between letting someone cut there fingar, to Hitars approch to the perfect way of life.

 

 

 

Daniel

[R.J.]

I’ve read most of the thread, and am without broadband for a week – so the video will have to wait. BUT, I think whether or not a boater left the bridge unlocked, she was stupid to sit in a point where a big heavy bridge meets a concrete wall. Don’t tell me she had no idea of what could happen, or what was happening at the time it did. These things don’t move at a million miles an hour, I’ve pushed the length of the L&L both ways twice – not to mention the Ashton twice, I know they don't budge easily!

 

As far as the aspirations of “get a job, find a man, get married, have kids” or whatever the quote was mid page two, I think living in that area - it's fair to say there is a great probability she's already found the man, had the kids and got a council flat because of it. Now we will have to pay for her to have the flaming thing adapted for a wheelchair, because of her own stupid actions. We as boaters will also pay in higher fees to have these bridges "accident" proofed, or permanent overbridges fitted in their place.

 

The fact that kids muck about where they shouldn’t is a fact of life. The fact that they will get hurt is also a natural progression. Unfortunately these days it’s never their fault. They can be warned a dozen times not to stick their fingers in a plug socket, but will still do it because they can, and then sue anyone and everyone because we didn’t actually intervene before they got to the socket and of course that the socket was live in the first place.

 

My reply to the solicitors' advert, "Have you had a trip or fall?" IS: If yes, then you should have been looking where you were bloomin' going!!

 

Rant over.

 

RJT

[mayalld]

You would advocate euthanasia for the disabled then?

 

That, my friend, is what is known in the trade as hyperbole!

 

It is a simple fact that life is a dangerous business, and has been for thousands of years.

 

For all those thousands of years, people (mostly) survived by virtue of a keen sense of self preservation, and awareness of danger. Sadly lapses in these senses caused a few to die or be maimed.

 

Then some public spirited soul invented "Elfin Safety", which was to be the saviour of our race. Many of the dangerous things that had previously existed were to be removed from society, and the small number of people who had previously come to grief because of these dangers would be saved.

 

This, of course, was such a wonderful idea that it was expanded upon, to the point where any situation in which somebody was injured became an opportunity to see if more Elfin Safety could have prevented this tragedy.

 

What nobody noticed is that after an initial reduction in injuries (as dangerous situations that native wit couldn't protect against were guarded against) increasing Elfin Safety brought diminishing returns. Nobody thought to ask why this might be. The answer was simple. In their new, less dangerous, lives, people were less aware of danger, less on the look out for it, and consequently more succeptible to the dangers that remain.

 

We have arrived at a point where people, and young people in particular, expect that "somebody" will have ensured that nothing dangerous will happen to them. They no longer believe that their safety is their responsibility. Elfin Safety has defeated itself.

 

Just imagine how much safer the roads would be if seatbelts and airbags were banned, and all cars were fitted with a foot long spike sticking out of the steering wheel.

 

Yes, it is a tragedy, but that doesn't mean that there is somebody else to blame.

[mayalld]

Well, yes, but. Let's say that you have 100lbs of blame to hand out. There are a number of participants in this, some known and some unknown. If I imagine a list of them it could include:

 

The designer of the bridge locking bolt

The maintainer of the bridge

The last boater to use the bridge before the accident

The person who unlocked the bridge (which may or may not be the boater)

The kids swinging on the bridge

The girl sat where the bridge closes

The designer of the bridge stop

 

Now, take your 100lbs of blame and share it out. Not easy. So far we know very little about what actually happened in this incident.

 

Richard

 

OK, I'll bite on that one

 

The designer of the bridge locking bolt

 

0 - The bolt was designed to stop inconvenience caused by people interfering with the bridge, not for health and safety purposes, and taking into account the consequences (against intended purpose) of failure was adequate.

 

The maintainer of the bridge

 

1 - The maintainers have kept the locking mechanism in working order, despite the attention of vandals. They might possibly have done better in predicting an incident such as this, and reviewing whether the locking mechanism was still fit for purpose, but on the evidence of the frequency of such incidents, it was not reasonably forseeable

The last boater to use the bridge before the accident

 

0 - Even if the boater had failed to ensure that the bridge was properly secured, he/she could not reasonably have foreseen the potential for this incident.

 

The person who unlocked the bridge (which may or may not be the boater)

 

0 - Impossible to say! We must assume that the bridge was unlocked by either a boater (for a legitimate purpose) or the kids (not for a legitimate purpose). Regardless of who it was, it doesn't alter the other slices of the pie.

The kids swinging on the bridge

 

66 - They could see their friend sitting there, and they were interfering with something that they were aware that they shouldn't interfere with.

The girl sat where the bridge closes

 

33 - She was sitting there, well aware that the bridge opens into that space, and well aware that here mates are messing about with the bridge

 

The designer of the bridge stop

 

0 - The bridge was designed well before H&S had been invented

[ChrisPy]

I have heard that a couple of kids drowned in a lake in Leeds a few years ago.

 

Since when the policy in the huge Leeds district has been to fence off all accessible stretches of water - including unspoilt reaches of rivers in countryside locations where ornery folks like to perambulate and enjoy the scenery .............

 

DUHHH !!!!!!!!!

 

........... but good for the local fencing economy, politishuns meeting HSE expenditure targets and placating various local worthies & parents' so-called pressure groups (i.e. pressure the council but leave the kids to their own devices with no guidance?)

 

roll on the nanny state concrete-paved jungle.

 

oh, it's so nice not to have to spend too much time in England .

[CanalWalker]

I have heard that a couple of kids drowned in a lake in Leeds a few years ago.

 

Since when the policy in the huge Leeds district has been to fence off all accessible stretches of water - including unspoilt reaches of rivers in countryside locations where ornery folks like to perambulate and enjoy the scenery .............

 

DUHHH !!!!!!!!!

 

........... but good for the local fencing economy, politishuns meeting HSE expenditure targets and placating various local worthies & parents' so-called pressure groups (i.e. pressure the council but leave the kids to their own devices with no guidance?)

 

roll on the nanny state concrete-paved jungle.

 

oh, it's so nice not to have to spend too much time in England .

 

 

But that isnt true is it? So no need to complain about it.

[mayalld]

But that isnt true is it? So no need to complain about it.

Which bit wasn't true?

[CanalWalker]

the policy in the huge Leeds district has been to fence off all accessible stretches of water

 

its not true. its bollocks.

[Hairy-Neil]

I have heard that a couple of kids drowned in a lake in Leeds a few years ago.

 

Since when the policy in the huge Leeds district has been to fence off all accessible stretches of water - including unspoilt reaches of rivers in countryside locations where ornery folks like to perambulate and enjoy the scenery .............

 

Fencing rarely prevents access to the water by persons determined to 'play' in it. More likely is the fence obstructs the rescuers when the inevitable incident eventually happens

[tidal]

its not true. its bollocks.

 

Agreed

Google "Safety Management of Open Water " leeds

and then look at this Wharfemeadow

From what I know the scrutiny and discussions are still going on

 

 

Unless of course you know different........?

[carlt]

That, my friend, is what is known in the trade as hyperbole!

 

No, in fact, it's irony.

 

supporting and encouraging any weakness in a species is a fundamental error.

 

A statement like this, made by somebody who, elsewhere on the forum has stated that he has a disability (an autistic spectrum disorder) seems a little bit silly.

 

but welcome back, btw.

[mayalld]

Agreed

Google "Safety Management of Open Water " leeds

and then look at this Wharfemeadow

From what I know the scrutiny and discussions are still going on

 

 

Unless of course you know different........?

 

So, in other words, the original statement was NOT bollocks.

 

After the drowning, there was a typical knee-jerk reaction, and a policy of fencing was put in place. This policy was suspended at the 11th hour (or from reading the report possibly at the 13th hour), once somebody finally realised that it was a stupid policy