Views wanted on possible safety fence on Marple Aqueduct

[frangar]

Apologies if this has been posted already but Martin Clark has posted this on the pennine waterways site

Pennine waterways link: http://waterwaynews.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/a-safety-fence-on-marple-aqueduct.html
CRT consultation link: https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/about-us/consultations/current-consultations

It's started an amusing(!) debate on the canals and rivers UK group on facebook.

I personally think if it's allowed to go ahead then who knows where it will end...Chirk and Pontcysyllte seem likely candidates to say nothing of locks and lock gates.......madness!

Cheers

Gareth

Edited January 5, 2015 by DHutch
To add CRT link to opening post.

[Loafer]

It's the way things are heading. I'm amazed it hasn't happened on the Ponty yet. (I wouldn't want to see it happen, by the way)

[GoodGurl]

These aqueducts have gone unprotected for year's, why start now it would spoil the excitement of going over Pontcysyllte

[frangar]

I think it should be nipped in the bud now before it gets started....my views will be sent in as I hope others who care about the history and heritage of our waterways will also do.

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[steven wilkinson]

The Trust is looking for feedback on the safety fencing proposals. Comments can be made by email to aqueduct.fence@canalrivertrust.org.uk

The consultation period will be open until January 31st 2015

 

There we go! Fill your boot!

[jenlyn]

If the place is going to be promoted, and therefore gets busy, perhaps best to have a fence. Better than an accident and consequently a court case.

 

Times are a changing.

The silliest post on the fb thread seems to be the plonker banging on about a twelve inch spike on a steering wheel, in place of an airbag.

Takes allsorts I guess.

[frangar]

If the place is going to be promoted, and therefore gets busy, perhaps best to have a fence. Better than an accident and consequently a court case.

Times are a changing.

The silliest post on the fb thread seems to be the plonker banging on about a twelve inch spike on a steering wheel, in place of an airbag.

Takes allsorts I guess.

Well that was me....as I suspect you well know.....and I stand by it!

 

If you are happy to see historic structures be ruined and money wasted on unessercery stuff then I really don't feel you have any idea of what living on a canal is about. As I suspect then you are just here for cheap housing!

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[Keeping Up]

It makes sense on aqueducts with a wide path on the offside such as Marple and Chick, where people are tempted to jump across and/or walk along the offside. On aqueducts such as the Ponty it would be ridiculous.

[john6767]

What am I missing, this is the offside so the only people to whom an unprotected edge is a danger are boaters. Visitors on foot would be on the towpath, assuming there is no access to the offside by foot. If there is access on foot then addressing that would be the simplest cheapest way of protecting the public.

[Loafer]

It makes sense on aqueducts with a wide path on the offside such as Marple and Chick, where people are tempted to jump across and/or walk along the offside. On aqueducts such as the Ponty it would be ridiculous.

 

I'm not thinking about towpath walkers, KU. I'm amazed there's no railing on the offside to stop kids and animals from falling out, in these exciting days of health and safety.

 

I'm particularly amazed we haven't lost any drunks there!

Edited January 2, 2015 by Loafer

[jenlyn]

Well that was me....as I suspect you well know.....and I stand by it!

If you are happy to see historic structures be ruined and money wasted on unessercery stuff then I really don't feel you have any idea of what living on a canal is about. As I suspect then you are just here for cheap housing!

Cheers

Gareth

Obviously common sense needs to prevail, history or not.

The canals aren't just about you, they have to be shared now, to survive, live with it, or get off :-)

 

You know nothing about why I choose to live as I do, and your definitely not qualified to presume, given your stupid spike remark.

[frangar]

As there is no public access to the offside....unless you are determined...as far as I know on either marple or chirk then unless you are being stupid there is no need for you to be there.

 

I don't think any boaters have fallen off in the last 200 odd years....doesn't exaclty seem a hug risk to me....and where will it stop?...no walking over lock gates as they have a drop on one side with no rail?....fences round all locksides?...all boaters to be clipped onto their boat at all times?

 

Sometimes common sense seems to be in very short supply!

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[bassplayer]

If the place is going to be promoted, and therefore gets busy, perhaps best to have a fence. Better than an accident and consequently a court case.

Times are a changing.

The silliest post on the fb thread seems to be the plonker banging on about a twelve inch spike on a steering wheel, in place of an airbag.

Takes allsorts I guess.

...it would work though...

[alan_fincher]

Whilst accepting the argument that once they start, these things tend to start a rash of similar initiatives, it does strike me this is very different from Pontcysyllte.

 

At Pontcysyllte it is not possible to step off the boat on the "wrong side" and walk about on it, (well not unless you have a very good sense of balance!).

 

Here you can just step off your boat, and walk up to an unguarded edge, (my sons took photographs from that side, and I found it quite unnerving, even though they never got particularly close).

 

The suggestion here also seems to be that people are jumping the canal, and then have to come to a halt on the other side before plunging over the edge.

 

Now I know people will say that any accidents are just Darwinian selection, but the simple fact is that when someone does manage to kill themselves there the HSE people and the courts are likely to put heavy pressure on CRT about what risk assessments were done, and whether steps had been taken to prevent such an incident. There could, I would have thought, be some substantial fines levied, at the very least.

 

I hate to see safety features springing up all over the place on a 200 year old plus canal system, but it seems to me CRT are in an exceedingly difficult position in the modern age. When the structure was built, if someone had done something stupid, and fallen from it to their death, there is no question it would have been judged their fault, and with no possible liability resting on the owners of the structure. Today things are no longer that straightforward.

[frangar]

Obviously common sense needs to prevail, history or not.

The canals aren't just about you, they have to be shared now, to survive, live with it, or get off :-)

You know nothing about why I choose to live as I do, and your definitely not qualified to presume, given your stupid spike remark.

You really have no idea do you? Thanks for the personal insult btw...at least I don't hide behind pseudonyms and various names but hey ho....

 

As a motorcyclist and cyclist believe me cars would be driven with much more care if fitted with spikes on the steering wheel rather than the occupants thinking they are invincible with all their crumple zones and airbags...otherwise known as the Volvo mindset by bike riders!

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[alan_fincher]

If you are happy to see historic structures be ruined and money wasted on unessercery stuff then I really don't feel you have any idea of what living on a canal is about. As I suspect then you are just here for cheap housing!

 

Have you considered that what it might cost CRT if someone dies could exceed any costs in having tried to reduce the possibility.

 

I also hate to see anything unnecessary happening, but in this case there are already railings on one side you can walk on (the towpath side, obviously), but not the other. As there is a "walkable are" on both sides, I don't think it would be "ruined" to anything like the same extent that (say) Pontcysyllte or even something smaller but similar like Wolverton would be ruined. I would be far more inclined to oppose such changes at aqueducts like those, but Marple probably has a far greater risk of some tragic accident happening simply because someone did something daft.

[steven wilkinson]

the occupants thinking they are invincible with all their crumple zones and airbags!

 

'Risk compensation' is the term I believe.

[MartinClark]

At Pontcysyllte it is not possible to step off the boat on the "wrong side" and walk about on it, (well not unless you have a very good sense of balance!).

 

Here you can just step off your boat, and walk up to an unguarded edge, (my sons took photographs from that side, and I found it quite unnerving, even though they never got particularly close).

 

At Pontcysyllte you can just step off your boat into thin air with a 126 ft drop beneath you.

Edited January 2, 2015 by MartinClark

[jenlyn]

You really have no idea do you? Thanks for the personal insult btw...at least I don't hide behind pseudonyms and various names but hey ho....

As a motorcyclist and cyclist believe me cars would be driven with much more care if fitted with spikes on the steering wheel rather than the occupants thinking they are invincible with all their crumple zones and airbags...otherwise known as the Volvo mindset by bike riders!

Cheers

Gareth

Pseudonym's and various names??? Lol.

 

As for the rest of your post, been there, seen it, got the tshirt. I never had cause to have a "Volvo" mindset when riding bikes for the last 40 years (not one accident in that time), perhaps you should have the spike on your bars?

[Guest]

Looks ok to me and if done well won't it won't detract from the appearence too much.

 

I don't see a problem.

Edited January 2, 2015 by The Dog House

[magpie patrick]

I can't find the relevant clause, but a land owner is not required to protect the public from a risk that is self-evident, only from one that may not be appreciated. Wild Swimming UK make this point in answer to all those "no swimming" signs.

 

I know personally of one person who has fallen to their death from Marple Aqueduct, the young man was in my class at school - this was in 1982, I was 15. There was no outcry locally then and there hasn't been since.

 

Access to the offside is possible for the determined: I was tempted today as there is evidence that there may once have been a fence on that side, note I said MAY. I thought better of it. I certainly wasn't going to jump over, more because Id fall short and get wet, to get round and get past the fence is a long way round and isn't as easy as it was when I was a kid.

 

Without prejudice to my view that there is no need for a fence, if CRT deciide there should be one they must design it with great care, not something they are very good at. There is no history of railings on this canal and thus none to copy, and unliike Chirk the parapet on the towpath side is masonry. The design proposed looks like it was found in Walcot Salvage and tacked on - this won't do.

 

Have you considered that what it might cost CRT if someone dies could exceed any costs in having tried to reduce the possibility.

 

I also hate to see anything unnecessary happening, but in this case there are already railings on one side you can walk on (the towpath side, obviously), but not the other. As there is a "walkable are" on both sides, I don't think it would be "ruined" to anything like the same extent that (say) Pontcysyllte or even something smaller but similar like Wolverton would be ruined. I would be far more inclined to oppose such changes at aqueducts like those, but Marple probably has a far greater risk of some tragic accident happening simply because someone did something daft.

 

Normally Alan, you talk sense, but any risk assessment at Pontcysyllte would yield a much higher risk of someone inadvertently going over the edge. To fall of Marple, you have to be somewhere you shouldn't be

[alan_fincher]

 

At Pontcysyllte you can just step off your boat into thin air with a 126 ft drop beneath you.

 

Yes, obviously I know that Martin.

 

How many people would though?

 

The point is that here people do get off, and walk around on the offside. Or that seems to be by far the safest of the happenings - if people really are jumping from the tow-path, and expecting to land on the offside, and stop before they go over the edge, then there is a real and present danger, however bonkers we may judge those people to be.

 

If the worst happens, will cRT be able to walk away from it, with no costs, if they had already been aware it is happening/ I rather doubt that.

[Guest]

At Pontcysyllte you can just step off your boat into thin air with a 126 ft drop beneath you.

That's the difference though is it not.

 

You would have to be utterly stupid to step off the offside there. At Marple it would seem to be a reasonable thing to attempt.

[Tuscan]

Surely a £25 penalty and 'no return' signs would suffice...

[MartinClark]

That's the difference though is it not.

 

You would have to be utterly stupid to step off the offside there. At Marple it would seem to be a reasonable thing to attempt.

 

It wouldn't seem to be a reasonable thing to me, as I don't like heights. But even someone who is okay with height and who chooses to strp off their boat (and I don't think many people do) then they will be very aware that it is an aqueduct with a big drop and they are not going to accidentally wander off over the edge.