Jump to content

13 year old non swimmer drowns


Bewildered

Featured Posts

I did not make that suggestion at all.

For the sake of accuracy, in post #99 I said "Some rural locks are in the middle of nowhere, and are therefore low risk."

Different thing altogether.

 

I'm afraid I must disagree.

In undertaking a risk assessment there are two main criteria to consider.

 

1) Liklehood of an accident occurring

2) Severity of possible accident (bruises, broken finger, lost limb, death etc)

 

Followed by 'what can be done to reduce No1, No2 or both No1 & no2.

 

As a (poor) example - the risk of an accident in an Boeing 747 with 1 passenger is the same as the risk of an accident to a Boeing 747 with 300 people. (the effect is very different - 300 dead instead of 1 dead, but the incidence of accidents, or the severity of the accident is unchanged)

 

If you suggest that the more people that are 'around' (rural Vs urban lock location) means the risk is increased - then all aircraft would be limited in number they can carry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't say I saw much evidence of this when working amongst a sample of 1000 of them for almost 20 years! I would suggest that they are little different to my generation when we were their age.

And based on the very tiny sample of my nephew whos just completed a first assent of some unpronounceable peak in Nepal, hes not exactly scared of his own shadow

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid I must disagree.

In undertaking a risk assessment there are two main criteria to consider.

 

1) Liklehood of an accident occurring

2) Severity of possible accident (bruises, broken finger, lost limb, death etc)

 

Followed by 'what can be done to reduce No1, No2 or both No1 & no2.

 

As a (poor) example - the risk of an accident in an Boeing 747 with 1 passenger is the same as the risk of an accident to a Boeing 747 with 300 people. (the effect is very different - 300 dead instead of 1 dead, but the incidence of accidents, or the severity of the accident is unchanged)

 

If you suggest that the more people that are 'around' (rural Vs urban lock location) means the risk is increased - then all aircraft would be limited in number they can carry.

Alan,

 

Your first point is correct then you contradict it.

 

Risk is the combination of the likelihood and the outcome. Therefore assuming we are taking about the same event - let's say running into a volcanic ash cloud - the probability of this occurring would be the same whether the plane had 1 or 300 people on board. 300 deaths is a worse outcome than one death. Therefore risk with 300 passengers on board a 747 is greater than the risk when it has 1 passenger on board.

 

The risk involved in a lock that more people use or visit is absolutely greater than one that has fewer users or visitors.

 

JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm afraid I must disagree.

In undertaking a risk assessment there are two main criteria to consider.

 

1) Liklehood of an accident occurring

2) Severity of possible accident (bruises, broken finger, lost limb, death etc)

 

Followed by 'what can be done to reduce No1, No2 or both No1 & no2.

 

As a (poor) example - the risk of an accident in an Boeing 747 with 1 passenger is the same as the risk of an accident to a Boeing 747 with 300 people. (the effect is very different - 300 dead instead of 1 dead, but the incidence of accidents, or the severity of the accident is unchanged)

 

If you suggest that the more people that are 'around' (rural Vs urban lock location) means the risk is increased - then all aircraft would be limited in number they can carry.

I disagree as well!

 

In order for an accident of the specific type that I referred to, (i.e. lock jumping) people must be present.

 

These people must also be prepared to take part in behaviour that is clearly dangerous, and could result in injury or even death. Most people do not take part in this kind of behaviour for obvious reasons.

 

Certain groups of society that are more likely to take part in this dangerous behaviour; for example,children, adults under the influence of drink or drugs, young people trying to look "macho", or to impress the opposite sex.

 

So it is clear that the risk is higher at locks that are located in areas where these types of people might congregate.

 

Isolated rural locks are less likely to be places where the dangerous behaviour takes place as very few people live nearby; therefore the risk is lower.

 

And you are right - your aeroplane analogy is bad. biggrin.png

Edited by PaulG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In risk assessment the terms are carefully defined. But in general conversation we might use hazard and risk interchangeably. I found my company's training videos very annoying because they confused risk and hazard.

Edited by mross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have written to CaRT suggesting that the lock be renamed. My letter has been forwarded to the local office.

 

Updated

 

Two emails received from CaRT already. It's now in the hands of Manchester & Pennine's Waterway Manager. I'll post any news.

Edited by mross
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan,

 

Your first point is correct then you contradict it.

 

Risk is the combination of the likelihood and the outcome. Therefore assuming we are taking about the same event - let's say running into a volcanic ash cloud - the probability of this occurring would be the same whether the plane had 1 or 300 people on board. 300 deaths is a worse outcome than one death. Therefore risk with 300 passengers on board a 747 is greater than the risk when it has 1 passenger on board.

 

The risk involved in a lock that more people use or visit is absolutely greater than one that has fewer users or visitors.

 

JP

 

The likelihood of the accident does not increase because there are more people 'on board' - the risk is identical - the number of people 'involved' is greater, but the risk of the accident occurring in the 1st place is not increased.

 

If the risk of someone drowning in a lock is (say) 1 in 100,000 visits, then if there are 100,000 people there at the same time and one drowns then it is 1 in 100,000, if 100,000 people individually visit the lock over a period and one drowns it is still 1 in 100,000.

 

Assessing risk is primarily' how likely is it 'to happen' (and the measurement can only be a 'number') and if the risk is 'high' (who defines 'high') then action should be taken.

 

As an aside :

 

Some years ago Ford Motor Company under took (what they called) a risk assessment (it should more probably have been called a 'financial assessment')

 

A percentage of cars burst into flames (for no apparent reason), Ford did an evaluation of the option of recalling X million cars, or just paying out the 'compensation' to the familes of the deceased / injured.

 

On balance they decided that the 'risks' were sufficiently low not to warrant a recall.

In risk assessment the terms are carefully defined. But in general conversation we might use hazard and risk interchangeably. I found my company's training videos very annoying because they confused risk and hazard.

 

 

 

That is the standard that we followed and was as per my suggestion of the 'measures' I quoted in Post #126

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my belief that all this H&S nonsense we have to deal with theses days has two underlining reasons.

 

Firstly, the litigation culture that we have inherited from the USA; all this blame culture is good for the law makers and lawyers as it keeps them in business. It is in their interest to keep this monster growling; this may go some way to explain some of the more rediculous judgments made by judges. Allowing some idiot to sue and win because they spilt hot coffee in their own lap and the cup wasn't labelled as hot, for example.

 

Secondly, because of the decline of the U.K. as a manufacturing nation. The reason I say this is because of the middle management people, the type of people who are clever academically but bloody useless when it comes to anything practical. When we had a manufacturing nation we would put these people in middle management (to get in the way of the actual workers), now that our manufacturing is a mere shadow of what it once was, what do we do with these people now? We have to give them something to do because they have been to university and must therefore be clever. What we do is create a health and safety culture and put all the middle management people in charge (that way they can still get in the way of the actual workers and earn a crust off of someone else's labour)

Aparantly one of these people worked out that ladders are dangerous and need a risk assessment and method statement before work can commence. I mean who knew? Thousands of years workers have been using ladders but of course we were all to thick to work out they were dangerous, I'm so glad someone from health and safety came along to do a risk assessment before I did myself an injury.

 

I think perhaps I'm getting cynical as I get older

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the risk of someone drowning in a lock is (say) 1 in 100,000 visits, then if there are 100,000 people there at the same time and one drowns then it is 1 in 100,000, if 100,000 people individually visit the lock over a period and one drowns it is still 1 in 100,000.

Therefore if a rural lock only gets visited by 50,000 people the risks are low. But if the lock is in an urban area where it might be visited by 500,000 the risk is much higher. No?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have sympathy with your point of view. But, generally, I believe that Risk Assessments have made the workplace safer. It depends on the Company culture and how rigid their procedures are. I laugh at these step ladders about two foot high that warn you not to stand on the top platform! But we did risk assessments and toolbox talks and had an excellent result in that accidents were rare. As long as some form of risk assessment was done you couldn't be criticised as it was understood that two people would produce different assessments for the same scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therefore if a rural lock only gets visited by 50,000 people the risks are low. But if the lock is in an urban area where it might be visited by 500,000 the risk is much higher. No?

 

No

 

The risk is identical.

The incidence of accidents will be higher, but, the "1 in 100,000" will not be affected.

 

Maybe we will just have to agree to differ.

 

(British Standards were happy with the way we assessed risk, but maybe it was just that 'inspectors' interpretation of the guidelines - who knows ?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have sympathy with your point of view. But, generally, I believe that Risk Assessments have made the workplace safer. It depends on the Company culture and how rigid their procedures are. I laugh at these step ladders about two foot high that warn you not to stand on the top platform! But we did risk assessments and toolbox talks and had an excellent result in that accidents were rare. As long as some form of risk assessment was done you couldn't be criticised as it was understood that two people would produce different assessments for the same scenario.

I agree but unfortunately health and safety treats everyone as an idiot. Most of us can asses a risk without the need for all the paperwork.

And some people take things to rediculous extremes. My brother is a school site manager and health and safety officer for the site, the man from the borough in charge of H&S for schools is an idiot. During my brothers last annual assemnet this idiot actually proposed a scenario, what would you do if an airplane crashed on the school playing field? He also asked why my brother had not filled in the section on swimming pools, to which my brother replied "if you can find a pool on this site I will fill it in"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No

 

The risk is identical.

The incidence of accidents will be higher, but, the "1 in 100,000" will not be affected.

 

Maybe we will just have to agree to differ.

 

(British Standards were happy with the way we assessed risk, but maybe it was just that 'inspectors' interpretation of the guidelines - who knows ?)

Risk and probability are not the same thing. You keep arguing the risk is identical when it is in fact the probability that is identical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Risk and probability are not the same thing. You keep arguing the risk is identical when it is in fact the probability that is identical.

 

Risk is defined as "A possibility of incurring loss or misfortune". So that means it doesn't always happen, which implies that it will happen a certain percentage of the time. This percentage is also known as the probability of it occurring, which means if you know the probability of the risk happening you can do a lot of things with it, such as find the expected value of the risk :)

 

If you were just told that there was a risk that your house would burn down tomorrow, you wouldn't know what to expect, because you don't know the probability of this happening, but if you're told that something will happen with a 50% or even an 80% probability, you'll take the event more seriously.

 

You cannot assess risk without involving probability into the assessment.

 

Breathing is a risk - you may inhale a fly and choke to death - it is totally meaningless until you put a 'liklehood of it happening figure' alongside the 'risk.

 

"There is a 1 in a million chance of choking on a fly" - the risk does not change (choking on a fly).

 

I am now starting to repeat myself - I have no further 'arguments' to offer so I guess we will just have to agree that we cannot agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Risk is defined as "A possibility of incurring loss or misfortune". So that means it doesn't always happen, which implies that it will happen a certain percentage of the time. This percentage is also known as the probability of it occurring, which means if you know the probability of the risk happening you can do a lot of things with it, such as find the expected value of the risk :)

If you were just told that there was a risk that your house would burn down tomorrow, you wouldn't know what to expect, because you don't know the probability of this happening, but if you're told that something will happen with a 50% or even an 80% probability, you'll take the event more seriously.

 

You cannot assess risk without involving probability into the assessment.

 

Breathing is a risk - you may inhale a fly and choke to death - it is totally meaningless until you put a 'liklehood of it happening figure' alongside the 'risk.

 

"There is a 1 in a million chance of choking on a fly" - the risk does not change (choking on a fly).

 

I am now starting to repeat myself - I have no further 'arguments' to offer so I guess we will just have to agree that we cannot agree.

Fair enough but I can only conclude you have never actually done any meaningful structured risk assessment using any established tools and techniques in a safety critical environment. I think you would understand the point WotEver, PaulG, mross and myself are making if you had.

 

JP

Edited by Captain Pegg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but there aren't many roads that make a noise for ages before a vehicle comes along either.

Or indeed where every driver knows exactly where people are going to cross and sounds his horn in advance whether someone is there or not.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have written to CaRT suggesting that the lock be renamed. My letter has been forwarded to the local office.

 

Updated

 

Two emails received from CaRT already. It's now in the hands of Manchester & Pennine's Waterway Manager. I'll post any news.[/size]

Good on you Mr Oss for doing something positive. I do think you are right that is a simple yet potentially powerful idea.

 

JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have seen and had kids jumping into locks when we have been coming threw the bridge (thats right next to the lock)

Normally you could stop but now think we had a bolinder and sometimes towing. Luckly apart from a few fowl words from the kids it was ok but imagine what could have happened if the bolly had one of its moments!

 

I have done stupid stuff but not as stupid as some. Ive also seen kids play chicken with trains but thats a diffrent story.

 

The prob is there is no sence of common sence these days.

No one seams too think or see a danger everyone seams to have a its someone else's fault no mine or my kids.

 

We use to have a kid at a bus stop for school he use to smash the glass (in his words he was bored) it would the rain as many of us who could would stand in the few dry spots and the kid could never wonder why we made him stand in the rain, he use to just run home and cry to his mum that we made him stand in the rain.

Edited by billybobbooth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave - I really think that we are at cross purposes here.

I have never said that the notices at WB are unnecessary or unjustified. If I gave that impression then it was unintentional.

They were evidently placed for perfectly valid reasons..

What I said was there is apparent inconsistency in the approach of CRT in that signage was installed at one site, while it was not at another where similar activities were carried out with fatal results.

Fair enough. If I'm honest, I'd say that Smethwick Locks would have got a sign if they were in a more prominent place. Rightly or wrongly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my belief that all this H&S nonsense we have to deal with theses days has two underlining reasons.

 

Firstly, the litigation culture that we have inherited from the USA; all this blame culture is good for the law makers and lawyers as it keeps them in business. It is in their interest to keep this monster growling; this may go some way to explain some of the more rediculous judgments made by judges. Allowing some idiot to sue and win because they spilt hot coffee in their own lap and the cup wasn't labelled as hot, for example.

 

Secondly, because of the decline of the U.K. as a manufacturing nation. The reason I say this is because of the middle management people, the type of people who are clever academically but bloody useless when it comes to anything practical. When we had a manufacturing nation we would put these people in middle management (to get in the way of the actual workers), now that our manufacturing is a mere shadow of what it once was, what do we do with these people now? We have to give them something to do because they have been to university and must therefore be clever. What we do is create a health and safety culture and put all the middle management people in charge (that way they can still get in the way of the actual workers and earn a crust off of someone else's labour)

Aparantly one of these people worked out that ladders are dangerous and need a risk assessment and method statement before work can commence. I mean who knew? Thousands of years workers have been using ladders but of course we were all to thick to work out they were dangerous, I'm so glad someone from health and safety came along to do a risk assessment before I did myself an injury.

 

I think perhaps I'm getting cynical as I get older

The basis of our H&S legislation is now 42 years old. It remains largely unchanged because it's one of the best devised and written pieces of legislation on the statute. It has undoubted saved thousands of lives. In all probability there are people you know who are alive today because of it.

 

People still enjoy sniping away at it in their blissful bubble-shaped echo chambers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.