Jump to content

13 year old non swimmer drowns


Bewildered

Featured Posts

Ladders are actually a really good example. People have always fallen of ladders and killed or injured themselves, they still do but in far fewer numbers than they used to. Why? Because of the Health and Safety at Work Act. Risk assessments are now required. These show up a need for additional equipment and actions. Using a harness, tying in the ladder, using levelling chocks or sandbags. Result? Less people die falling off ladders. Employers only started doing these things when legislation forced them to. As someone who spent years working off a ladder, I have to conclude that I could easily have been killed doing so if I had been born 50 years earlier.

 

I've said before on this forum, we should be celebrating our H&S legislation as a massive success due to all the lives it's saved. Perhaps an annual HASAWA Bank Holiday, with very safe street parties.

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.

The per capita odds remain the same but it's now likely that five times as many folk will now die at that location. To my mind that makes the risk five times greater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The per capita odds remain the same but it's now likely that five times as many folk will now die at that location. To my mind that makes the risk five times greater.

Given that there are now over 400,000,000 visits to the canal I assume the odds have come down ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I did have to snigger (just a bit honest) at the guy on his step ladders fitting a new LNB to a neighbours sky dish yesterday, fully knitted out in harness and hard hat......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no doubt that H&S legislation has saved many lives over the years, often by making employers stop ludicrously dangerous working practices or making them take sensible safety precautions -- the clue being the word sensible.

 

The point is that if somebody does something required by their employer as part of their job, it's up to the employer to make sure that all reasonable (not unreasonable!) safety precautions are taken, because the employee is being made to do the task by their employer and they owe them a duty of care. This includes climbing ladders, or pylons, or church spires.

 

If somebody climbs a ladder of their own volition at home and falls off and breaks their neck it was their own choice and they take responsibility for it -- which doesn't mean the ladder manufacturer shouldn't attach safety precautions to it, but if the user ignores them it's then their own fault. However sniggering at them probably isn't the right thing to do, given the number of people who are killed every year falling from ladders (maybe a hundred or so in the UK?) it's actually a sensible precaution, even if it doesn't look very macho ;-)

 

If a hundred people died every year falling into locks -- for example, more than died falling into rivers and the sea -- then it would obviously be sensible to put up warning signs at every lock, and possibly even fences to keep the public out at the worst ones (it works for trains...) if this was possible.

 

But this isn't the case, in spite of the fact there are thousands of canal locks many fewer people drown in them (less than one per year?) than in rivers, lakes, and the sea -- which can't all have warning signs fitted. All have the common factor that they're full of water which people can't breathe, as any four-year old could probably tell you.

 

The situation is different with CART workers, they are working on the canals as a job and so it's up to CART to provide them with safety equipment (lifejackets, harnesses etc) and make sure they use them. For people hiring boats it's the job of the boatyard to provide lifejackets and tell them about the risks with locks, then it's up to the hirer whether they follow this advice or not. For private boaters and gongoozlers (including kids who swim in locks) what they get up to in or near water which is self-evidently capable of drowning somebody is entirely their own responsibility.

 

The exception to any of this is if there are unusual hidden hazards which the man on the Clapham omnibus might reasonably be unaware of -- for example a dangerous weir. In this case warning signs (or barriers) are appropriate, and CART erect them because if they didn't they could not unreasonably be held responsible if an accident happened.

 

But prominent (otherwise pointless...) notices at every lock saying "Danger, deep water, risk of drowning" -- what next? Similar notices at every pedestrian road crossing? Should every knife have an embossed (so it can't be lost) warning saying "Danger, sharp knife"? How about warnings on packets of crisps saying "Danger, crisp crumbs may cause choking"?

 

These might sound ridiculous, but any one of them would save more lives than notices at locks...

Edited by IanD
  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sometimes wonder if we try to make everything too safe so people loose the ability to see danger.

So now there is this tragic drowning, last summer there were youngsters swept out to sea swiming in fast running currents, every time there are big storms people stand on the sea front and someone gets swept away by a big wave.

There is constant pressure for railtrack to put footpath bridges over the tracks rather than allowing people to walk across as it is 'so dangerous' to cross the tracks. Actually it is a lot easier and safer to cross the tracks than crossing just about any road.

 

How many children now walk to school or are allowed to play in the street? Certainly below about 13 it is very few, but the downside is they don't develop proper road sense and lack exercise. This is also building up health problems for the future.

 

A bit of danger makes people aware otherwise we become complacent and a bit lazy as a society and that is not healthy.

Yes, if we don't allow kids to take risks they won't learn how to assess risk. On the other hand lots of kids have been killed taking risks so there's obviously a balance to be struck between the two. As kids in the late 60s/early 70s we were just left to our own devices and got up to some really stupid activities. Climbing along the outside of railway bridges (I seemed to have no fear of heights at the time), and running across whole sets of railway tracks (at least 12 lines). We were just lucky to have got away with it.

Edited by blackrose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

JP

I am not a student of risk or how to measure it, but to me if more people at a lock increases the risk of someone falling and then drowning - a logical concept to grasp - but isn't there a compensatory factor at the same time that with more people at the lock then the chance of rescue from drowning would be much higher.

Thus resulting in an overall reduction in the risk of drowning due to more people at the lock.

Just wondered how these things are measured.

Edited by Horace42
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Katherine Whitehorn said many years ago, the problem with raising teenagers is, you have to trust them, knowing you can't.

 

EA has put no swimming signs on every lock on the Nene and Great Ouse and it's not made a blind bit of difference that I can see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EA has put no swimming signs on every lock on the Nene and Great Ouse and it's not made a blind bit of difference that I can see.

Not yet perhaps, but they're there as blame deflectors if/when an incident occurs and this thread highlights the perceived requirement.

 

Sadly, whilst such signage has a real benefit in highlighting dangers that might otherwise be unseen, the proliferation of such signs on obvious dangers, or yet worse where there's little actual danger, dilutes their effectiveness where they're truly needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not yet perhaps, but they're there as blame deflectors if/when an incident occurs and this thread highlights the perceived requirement.

Perceived being the key word here.

 

I have never known any safety decision be made on the basis of 'we might get sued'. For an organisation such as C&RT they will act under threat of legal enforcement action and their own risk assessment tool does factor in third party risk in terms of value as a tertiary factor after safety and flooding risk.

 

Contrary to popular belief day to day decisions in mitigating risk are generally made by operations managers, engineers or asset managers and not by Health & Safety professionals. The role of the latter is as a specialist support function to the former. Like all specialists they will tend to want to find the solution to the problem within their own field of knowledge.

 

JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not a student of risk or how to measure it, but to me if more people at a lock increases the risk of someone falling and then drowning - a logical concept to grasp - but isn't there a compensatory factor at the same time that with more people at the lock then the chance of rescue from drowning would be much higher.

Thus resulting in an overall reduction in the risk of drowning due to more people at the lock.

Just wondered how these things are measured.

I touched on this point earlier in the thread. Risk assessments used for safety events such as this are quantitative, i.e. numerately calculated, so they require clearly stated frequencies and outcomes for any single event to calculate the risk.

 

In this case of an accident to a member of the public in a lock there will be evidence from accident reports about frequency and the risk matrix will assign the 'probability' of an event in terms of it occuring say weekly, monthly, annually, 2-5 years or greater than 5 years. In the case of an accident in a lock lets say it's a monthly occurrence.

 

The outcome would be selected from options such as multiple death, multiple serious injury/single death, single serious injury, multiple minor injury, minor injury (I think that's pretty much what CRTs own matrix says). The realistic worst potential outcome here is single death.

 

You have introduced something that isn't numerated in a useful way although if rescue happens routinely and successfully it would influence the outcome such that the evidence would be that people don't drown in locks but suffer serious or maybe even minor injury instead. The danger is not to allow a semantic notion of would could happen unduly influence the evidence of what does happen in a favourable way. There is good evidence in this particular case that it is a false premise.

 

In reality drowning at a lock is a relatively high risk - quite possibly responsible for the largest single number of deaths on CRT property - but the event isn't one they are generally directly responsible for. Otherwise there would be significantly enhanced safety precautions. Where you will see enhanced safety precautions is where the risk is deemed to be greatest within the lock population e.g. large river locks which are invariably protected by barriers.

 

JP

Edited by Captain Pegg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perceived being the key word here.

I have never known any safety decision be made on the basis of 'we might get sued'.

That may well be so JP, however, the pressure on CRT to add signage at the scene of this incident must be huge. You're not really saying there are no signs and labels, etc, stating the bleedin' obvious 'just in case' are you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That may well be so JP, however, the pressure on CRT to add signage at the scene of this incident must be huge. You're not really saying there are no signs and labels, etc, stating the bleedin' obvious 'just in case' are you?

No. My family will tell you I get very annoyed with signs and unnecessary restrictions; particularly when driving in Wales. I have also dealt with the aftermath of significant safety incidents where distraction due to too much information was a key factor.

 

It's just there are assertions here about how H&S works that I don't recognise from having significant professional experience relevant to the issue at hand here. I also recognise some genuinely held and logical views that coincide to ones that I may have naturally held before I had that degree of experience and understanding.

 

JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. My family will tell you I get very annoyed with signs and unnecessary restrictions; particularly when driving in Wales. I have also dealt with the aftermath of significant safety incidents where distraction due to too much information was a key factor.

It's just there are assertions here about how H&S works that I don't recognise from having significant professional experience relevant to the issue at hand here. I also recognise some genuinely held and logical views that coincide to ones that I may have naturally held before I had that degree of experience and understanding.

JP

Fair enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Katherine Whitehorn said many years ago, the problem with raising teenagers is, you have to trust them, knowing you can't.

 

EA has put no swimming signs on every lock on the Nene and Great Ouse and it's not made a blind bit of difference that I can see.

Agree. I have seen far more kids in the river locks than the canal and those locks are covered in notices. I just make sure that they are all aware or the cill just below the top gates, so don't seam to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perceived being the key word here.

 

I have never known any safety decision be made on the basis of 'we might get sued'. For an organisation such as C&RT they will act under threat of legal enforcement action and their own risk assessment tool does factor in third party risk in terms of value as a tertiary factor after safety and flooding risk.

 

Contrary to popular belief day to day decisions in mitigating risk are generally made by operations managers, engineers or asset managers and not by Health & Safety professionals. The role of the latter is as a specialist support function to the former. Like all specialists they will tend to want to find the solution to the problem within their own field of knowledge.

 

JP

A few days ago there was an item on the radio about 'the power of negative thinking' and one of the more prominent interviewees was a Scot who has spent is whole career being the safety officer on North Sea drilling rigs, where the cost of an accident is usually rather high. He cited an example of how this specialisation works:

 

He was reviewing with the electrical team what would happen in the event of an electrical malfunction. The proud reply was that the system would shut down into a safe mode. Ah, he thought, and what happens to all the lights on the rig? It seems that they would all have been turned off thereby turning what might have been a modest incident into a likely disaster scenario!

 

They sought a better, more system-wide approach. He also talked of the notion of chronic unease, the willingness always to think of the worst outcomes, not in order to prevent things from happening but so that problems could be better avoided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few days ago there was an item on the radio about 'the power of negative thinking' and one of the more prominent interviewees was a Scot who has spent is whole career being the safety officer on North Sea drilling rigs, where the cost of an accident is usually rather high. He cited an example of how this specialisation works:

 

He was reviewing with the electrical team what would happen in the event of an electrical malfunction. The proud reply was that the system would shut down into a safe mode. Ah, he thought, and what happens to all the lights on the rig? It seems that they would all have been turned off thereby turning what might have been a modest incident into a likely disaster scenario!

 

They sought a better, more system-wide approach. He also talked of the notion of chronic unease, the willingness always to think of the worst outcomes, not in order to prevent things from happening but so that problems could be better avoided.

Strange I first went Offshore back in 1980 and even then we had DC emergency all over the place. This was on regardless of what else happened including gas leaks. All the light were explosion proof and the batteries had to last for 24 hrs. I was always on tender hooks when the Lloyds and DTI inspectors insisted on them being switched on all day and night. I loved my batteries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re the proximity of locks, rural or close to housing, is it not the ones in between that are more problematic? Rural but close enough to housing to be accessed but far enough away not to be noticed when getting up to mischief, as in lock 62.

 

I came thru lock 62 a couple of months back, there was a shrine with photo and flowers, a sad affair.

There was a small group of 13yr olds lurking near lock 63, had a fire going under the railway bridge. The idiot amongst them threw a stone as we left!

 

To the poster who was the butt of fowl (sic) language, did they tell you to cluck off?

 

Edited because I can!

Edited by Jim Riley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument that 'it hasn't happened before' isn't a good one in making risk decisions. Past evidence certainly features in the calculation but the premise that because something hasn't yet happened means that it won't or is unlikely to in future is flawed logic.

 

JP

Have you ever heard of Noddy Timbs - and the FEB - that's Flat Earth Brigade - and he's their leader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever heard of Noddy Timbs - and the FEB - that's Flat Earth Brigade - and he's their leader.

No and he's not even even lunatic enough to feature heavily in an online search of that name. I did find him as a contributor to the forum on a site called Engineering360 with his tagline "No one's died yet. Therefore it must be safe."

 

What I did note is that he's from Tamworth. Is there something you want to tell us?

 

JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No and he's not even even lunatic enough to feature heavily in an online search of that name. I did find him as a contributor to the forum on a site called Engineering360 with his tagline "No one's died yet. Therefore it must be safe."

 

What I did note is that he's from Tamworth. Is there something you want to tell us?

 

JP

Sorry a senior moment it should have been included with my comment but somehow the last paragraph got deleted when I sent the comment.

 

Very astute of you to find it. and 10/10 for a direct hit! But actually it is an acronym of - No ones dropped dead yet - and a figment of my imagination - he's a fictitious person and my opponent when I call for proposals to improve safety that fall on deaf ears.

In the CRT scenario, he would advocate absolutely no signs anywhere an accident hasn't happened - regardless of any risk assessment.

Edited by Horace42
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.