No wide beams getting to Warwick this morning

[WotEver]

10 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

I would also put up a sign saying 'hold the handrail'

And that is just the kind of nannying advice that gets H&S such a bad reputation. It’s bloody obvious that a handrail is there and it’s entirely my choice as to whether I use it or not. If I trip and fall and I’m not holding the handrail then that was my choice and my fault for putting myself at risk. I detest the fact that companies feel the need to protect themselves with such asinine instructions thanks to the proliferation of ‘no win no fee’ solicitors.

“If you’ve had an accident...” then it was no-one’s fault; go look up the meaning of ‘accident’. 

[Flyboy]

5 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Or put another way, they have only had one serious accident in 81 launches so far.

Is that an acceptable risk?

Unfortunately the other 80 launches have not been witnessed. The odds are that a lot of the other ones did not go as planned. 

[Flyboy]

4 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I agree. Shit stirring and bullshit

As the person who filmed the incident I don't feel that the health or safety of anyone present (including myself and my family) was compromised. If I had done so, I would have reported it to HSE myself using the online form provided for that purpose.

Having said that, I remain unconvinced that Dr Bob has reported it to HSE. I think he is bullshitting as he seems remarkably reluctant to say what the H&S issues are.

I don't agree, you're the one that put the video in the public domain. If the launch was normal there would be no need to make it public. I think you're the one that's shit stirring.

[ditchcrawler]

Well I can see risk in the launching but and here I have to make an assumption as I was not there, if passing boat traffic was stopped I can see no risk in the waterway being narrowed. The waterway being narrowed when there is no launch taking place may be an inconvenience but again I cant see any greater risk than boating through a bridge hole. As for the launch I wouldn't want to comment on what I could see, yes it went wrong but if going wrong gave risk to death or injury I couldn't say from the video as I couldn't see what equipment was in use. whether it was designed for that use, if it was equipment that needed regular maintenance and inspection of what, all I could see was the front going and the stern not. The investigation should answer those questions.

[Captain Pegg]

42 minutes ago, WotEver said:

And that is just the kind of nannying advice that gets H&S such a bad reputation. It’s bloody obvious that a handrail is there and it’s entirely my choice as to whether I use it or not. If I trip and fall and I’m not holding the handrail then that was my choice and my fault for putting myself at risk. I detest the fact that companies feel the need to protect themselves with such asinine instructions thanks to the proliferation of ‘no win no fee’ solicitors.

“If you’ve had an accident...” then it was no-one’s fault; go look up the meaning of ‘accident’. 

And do you also want those companies to deliver reliable goods with good customer service at prices that are affordable to you?

If so you need those companies to have good control of risk. That covers health, safety, reliability, financial performance and other things. The more simple explanation to why companies lay down safety procedures for their employees to follow is that they recognise accidents are bad for the employee and bad for the company.

Risk management is simply a product of the demands of society.

JP

[Jerra]

1 hour ago, WotEver said:

“If you’ve had an accident...” then it was no-one’s fault; go look up the meaning of ‘accident’. 

Try telling that to th police/emergency services, there is no longer such a thing as an RTA (Road Traffic Accident).

[WotEver]

53 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Try telling that to th police/emergency services, there is no longer such a thing as an RTA (Road Traffic Accident).

Yep, I’m aware of that and equally aware of the cause. 

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

you need those companies to have good control of risk

I know. Sad, innit?

[WotEver]

There’s a really dodgy, rusty, wobbly set of steps down a small cliff face in Gran Canaria. The whole thing is at an angle and the handrail is loose. A couple of hundred folk use it every day. I asked a local once what would happen if someone slipped and hurt themselves. He replied that he guessed they’d be more careful next time or maybe they’d avoid it in the future. A sensible common-sense approach to H&S due to the total absence of a No-Win-No-Fee mentality on the island. The retort to anyone who tried to sue would be that if you’re so stupid as to not realise that the steps aren’t safe then maybe you shouldn’t be allowed out on your own. 

[Tecka]

3 hours ago, WotEver said:

“If you’ve had an accident...” then it was no-one’s fault; go look up the meaning of ‘accident’. 

 

2 hours ago, Jerra said:

Try telling that to th police/emergency services, there is no longer such a thing as an RTA (Road Traffic Accident).

Just thought I'd point that you've actually proved the point WotEver made...

[billS]

A small manufacturing enterprise providing local employment built a boat. The  launch went a bit wrong. No one was hurt. A bit of infrastructure was slightly damaged. Someone posted a video on the internet because it was a bit funny.

The boat, once launched had to be temporary moored in a less than ideal location, because of the infrastructure damage. 

A leisure boater was slightly inconvenienced and had a bit of a rant on a boating forum, being unaware that the "inconsiderate" mooring was necessary because of the accidental infrastructure damage. So far, so good. We all do that.

The slightly inconvenienced boater sees the video and  chooses to inform the health and safety executive, bringing down, in all probability, a  raft of inspection, stress and bureaucracy on the unfortunate businessman. He will have to take the time to deal with that himself. He is not a multi- national oil company with departments to handle it. During this time, he will not be building boats and earning money.  I hope he does not just give up in disgust.

The slightly inconvenienced leisure boater boasts on the forum about "accidentally" reporting the incident to the HSE.

My dealings with the HSE have shown them to be pragmatic and sensible. It is the people with an axe to grind, whether due to being slightly inconvenienced, or due to a lack of sense of proportion who give them a bad name.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 27, 2017 by billS

[Flyboy]

18 minutes ago, billS said:

A small manufacturing enterprise providing local employment built a boat. The  launch went a bit wrong. No one was hurt. A bit of infrastructure was slightly damaged. Someone posted a video on the internet because it was a bit funny.

The boat, once launched had to be temporary moored in a less than ideal location, because of the infrastructure damage. 

A leisure boater was slightly inconvenienced and had a bit of a rant on a boating forum, being unaware that the "inconsiderate" mooring was necessary because of the accidental infrastructure damage. So far, so good. We all do that.

The slightly inconvenienced boater sees the video and  chooses to inform the health and safety executive, bringing down, in all probability, a  raft of inspection, stress and burocracy on the unfortunate businessman. I hope he does not just give up in disgust.

My dealings with the HSE have shown them to be pragmatic and sensible. It is the people with an axe to grind, whether due to being slightly inconvenienced, or due to a lack of sense of proportion who give them a bad name.

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps if this unfortunate businessman had constructed a safe and well thought out launch system none of this would have happened. A decent system would probably cost less than the bill he will get from CaRT. He's probably got insurance to cover it, although the insurance company may not be too happy with his dodgy launch technique.

[MtB]

On 27/10/2017 at 20:43, billS said:

He is not a multi- national oil company with departments to handle it. During this time, he will not be building boats and earning money.  I hope he does not just give up in disgust.

 

My perception having passed the site a few weeks back and picked up a totally unexplainable feeling there was a "FU and FO" attitude radiating from everyone there, I'm totally not surprised to see this video posted. 

Hopefully they will be stopped now from launching their money-grabbing fuc ugly space-grabbing widebeams which clog up our canals forthwith.

[furnessvale]

13 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

My perception having passed the site a few weeks back and picked up a totally unexplainable feeling there was a "FU and FO" attitude radiating from everyone there, I'm totally not surprised to see this video posted. 

Hopefully they will be stopped now from launching their money-grabbing fuc ugly space-grabbing widebeams which clog up our canals forthwith.

Someone was posting on Facebook earlier that they had been held up by a widebeam launching at.......Longport (Stoke on Trent)!

I wonder what the available cruising range of that boat will be?

George

[frangar]

19 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

My perception having passed the site a few weeks back and picked up a totally unexplainable feeling there was a "FU and FO" attitude radiating from everyone there, I'm totally not surprised to see this video posted. 

Hopefully they will be stopped now from launching their money-grabbing fuc ugly space-grabbing widebeams which clog up our canals forthwith.

You are far from the only one thinking that!!!

 

[mrsmelly]

3 hours ago, Jerra said:

Try telling that to th police/emergency services, there is no longer such a thing as an RTA (Road Traffic Accident).

Its true and that goes to show what a stupid situation we all find ourselves in in life nowadays, there were Road Traffic accidents when I was a bobby and there still are, only the bullshit has changed.

[billS]

30 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

My perception having passed the site a few weeks back and picked up a totally unexplainable feeling there was a "FU and FO" attitude radiating from everyone there, I'm totally not surprised to see this video posted. 

Unexplainable?  Did they look a bit funny, or foreign or something?

If your feeling is unexplainable, presumably they did not spit in you, give you the finger, or inconvenience you in any way.

I don't like widebeams either, but I do respect people using their enterprise and skill to build things, and I wouldn't want my prejudices to destroy their livelihood.

It would be good to get the opinion of some of their customers.

[MtB]

On 27/10/2017 at 21:53, billS said:

Unexplainable?  Did they look a bit funny, or foreign or something?

 

Do you not understand the meaning of 'unexplainable'?

 

[billS]

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Do you not understand the meaning of 'unexplainable'?

 

Of course, but it is not an absolute truth.  What you find unexplainable may be perfectly clear to other people.

 

[frahkn]

11 hours ago, billS said:

Of course, but it is not an absolute truth.  What you find unexplainable may be perfectly clear to other people.

 

I thought that MtB was not saying he did not understand it, rather he did understand but could not explain it to a third party.

Admittedly I'm not very confident of this interpretation.

[cuthound]

As no one was killed, or even injured, I doubt if the HSE will bother to investigate. 

Not all accidents are reportable under RIDDOR.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/riddor/reportable-incidents.htm

When I easy working and RIDDOR was in force, less than 5% of incidents reported were investigated by the HSE. They simply are not resourced to investigate near misses. 

[Captain Pegg]

1 hour ago, cuthound said:

As no one was killed, or even injured, I doubt if the HSE will bother to investigate. 

Not all accidents are reportable under RIDDOR.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/riddor/reportable-incidents.htm

When I easy working and RIDDOR was in force, less than 5% of incidents reported were investigated by the HSE. They simply are not resourced to investigate near misses. 

You may well be correct although that doesn't mean they won't be interested. A proportionate response might be to write to the company asking them to demonstrate they have undertaken a safe and sufficient risk assessment and are adhering to the controls that resulted from that assessment.

It may also be appropriate to ask CRT how they assess the suitability of leased sites for the activities that take place on them (assuming that applies here).

The operation pictured shows 30ish tonnes of steel being pushed over a precipice by a piece of plant not designed for such with no apparent means of restraint despite there being friction reducing equipment in use and there is no obviously controlled exclusion zone around the operation. All pretty basic stuff.

It may not look risky but in the lead up to almost every industrial accident things look routine.

JP

 

[bizzard]

A cabin within an outer cabin suspended from its ceiling with a big universal coupling (gimbal fashion) which should keep it quite motionless whatever the rest of the boat does. They built a big ship like this once, it didn't catch on though.

Sorry, wrong thread. Could a mod transfer it to the ''sea sick'' one please. IMPORTANT!! Could save a lot of Barley Sugar sucking.

Edited October 28, 2017 by bizzard

[matty40s]

At least if Prue comes and reads this,  she will realise what you have to go through  every time a wide boat is pumped out.

[billS]

28 minutes ago, matty40s said:

At least if Prue comes and reads this,  she will realise what you have to go through  every time a wide boat is pumped out.

As in a narrow gap?

Who is Prue?

[RLWP]

18 minutes ago, billS said:

As in a narrow gap?

Who is Prue?

Richard