falls from aqueduct - whose fault?

[Zarco]

Bit like jumping in front of train. Nothing to stop you.

[FourWheelDrift]

It's a UNESCO world heritage site, maybe they can't do anything to make it safer as it's all about conserving it as it is.

[ScotHill]

The Romans.

[saaby93]

ScotHill said:

The Romans.

Well of course them - that goes without saying

[Captain Smerc]

Whatsmyname said:

Reports say that people tried to stop him but he just barged them out of the way.

Barged you say ?

[Dogwatch]

saaby93 said:

The problem the C&RT may have is that much of its infrastucture is victorian. Think of tow paths alongside canals or deep locks.
Should all of them have some sort of safety fencing these days, or is it obvious that it's dangerous?

There was a case a few years ago, I can't remember the details, where someone argued that a if a canal had been fenced in they wouldn't have fallen in. It was initially upheld but the Court of Appeal threw it out as impractical.

We don't know if the two other deaths cited above were accidental or intentional. Sadly, like Beachy Head locally, I expect the structure attracts some in a very dark place.

[Jasandjules]

Whose fault? Rhetorical question surely when someone does this themselves of their own free will?

[Whatsmyname]

Captain Smerc said:

Whatsmyname said:

Reports say that people tried to stop him but he just barged them out of the way.

Barged you say ?

Maybe its aboat time they did something about those railings.

[Pesty]

Whatsmyname said:

Captain Smerc said:

Whatsmyname said:

Reports say that people tried to stop him but he just barged them out of the way.

Barged you say ?

Maybe its aboat time they did something about those railings.

Possibly pier pressure

[Captain Smerc]

More like Watergate .

Edited by Captain Smerc on Saturday 18th May 22:54

[phil y]

Le Controleur Horizontal said:

TheRainMaker said:

phil y said:

We went the other week, after crossing over and coming back, I discovered my 5 year old fits easily through the railing gap.

I take it she/ he is still alive?

Should be, they "bounce" at that age don't they ?

Probably should clarify, the railings extend either side of the bridge, so he was on solid ground when we tried it.

No irritating kids were harmed in this experiment

[TeamD]

phil y said:

Le Controleur Horizontal said:

TheRainMaker said:

phil y said:

We went the other week, after crossing over and coming back, I discovered my 5 year old fits easily through the railing gap.

I take it she/ he is still alive?

Should be, they "bounce" at that age don't they ?

Probably should clarify, the railings extend either side of the bridge, so he was on solid ground when we tried it.

No irritating kids were harmed in this experiment

Why are you training your kid to do this?

[skyrover]

No railing here... should every high place in the land be fenced off, or should people take a bit of personal responsibility?

If the railings were adequate to stop someone falling through, than they are fine. There is no way to legislate against someone deliberately putting themselves in harms way.

[anonymous-user]

Dogwatch said:

saaby93 said:

The problem the C&RT may have is that much of its infrastucture is victorian. Think of tow paths alongside canals or deep locks.
Should all of them have some sort of safety fencing these days, or is it obvious that it's dangerous?

There was a case a few years ago, I can't remember the details, where someone argued that a if a canal had been fenced in they wouldn't have fallen in. It was initially upheld but the Court of Appeal threw it out as impractical.

We don't know if the two other deaths cited above were accidental or intentional. Sadly, like Beachy Head locally, I expect the structure attracts some in a very dark place.

As you say you can't fix stupid.
Go down castlefield on a sunny day and lock gates are a magnet for the pished to walk across, about one of the only times I'll agree with that twunt Carney when people people are asking for canals to be fenced off.


https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/great...

[Elysium]

hutchst said:

Vizsla said:

You sure that's right?

I seem to remember an H&S guy coming to work and giving examples of tragic accidents that had happened where people had entered dangerous areas, one of these being a lift machinery room where the victim had entered and got mangled by the motors. The firm were prosecuted by H&S and naturally their defence was that the door was plastered with lots of warning notices 'risk of serious injury or death' etc etc.

Verdict: Guilty of negligence! It was ruled that notices were not sufficient, as the victim could have been illiterate, dyslexic, chronically short-sighted, or a non-English speaker, and that the firm should have kept the door securely locked with controlled access to the key only to authorised personnel.

Must say I was quite surprised, but the guy also said that British Rail (as it was then) had abandoned trying to defend cases where kids had strayed onto the tracks and got injured or killed as the same criteria apparently applied i.e. BR should have ensured no unauthorised access was possible (obviously just not do-able along thousands of miles of track, but H&S innit).

Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council

I'm not saying that it applies to the facts of this case, just that it is possible in law.

Signage and disclaimers are not a defence against negligence.

The question here is if the authority responsible for the maintenance of these railings had been negligent and if that had contributed to the death.

[motco]

bristolbaron said:

I think the focus of the issue should be on how he was able to “squeeze through” the bars to get to the outside. Had he climbed over, that’s totally on him, but if he could squeeze through at a point with a drop, a young child could perhaps slip through with relative ease?
The expected weight load of each upright is fairly irrelevant, beyond not being able to be pushed to breaking point from the right side.

'Squeezing through' sounds suspect to me. Looking at a photograph of the railings suggests that they are closely pitched verticals fixed direct to the deck at the bottom with a horizontal rail at the top. If the railings had indeed been inspected recently they must employ a blind person if a gap large enough for an eighteen year old to squeeze through existed. As Bristolbaron says, the expected load on the uprights would be from the footpath side and any human would load a number of uprights. Only by being on the 'wrong' side could anyone rely on a single upright for support. Sorry, but too many people act as if the world is Disneyland and all risks have been removed. It is not, and hazards exist.

[TeamD]

speedyguy said:

Dogwatch said:

saaby93 said:

The problem the C&RT may have is that much of its infrastucture is victorian. Think of tow paths alongside canals or deep locks.
Should all of them have some sort of safety fencing these days, or is it obvious that it's dangerous?

There was a case a few years ago, I can't remember the details, where someone argued that a if a canal had been fenced in they wouldn't have fallen in. It was initially upheld but the Court of Appeal threw it out as impractical.

We don't know if the two other deaths cited above were accidental or intentional. Sadly, like Beachy Head locally, I expect the structure attracts some in a very dark place.

As you say you can't fix stupid.
Go down castlefield on a sunny day and lock gates are a magnet for the pished to walk across, about one of the only times I'll agree with that twunt Carney when people people are asking for canals to be fenced off.


https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/great...

What's with the first photo in that story? There is a headless, levitating body halfway across the gates.

[Superleg48]

Superleg48 said:

Why are people so quick not to take responsibility for their actions or actions of others when they were clearly doing something moronic.

We live in a society where it is increasingly acceptable to lay blame for things that happen at any place but ourselves.

The fact is that the railings were there and were intact. The only negligence here is that of the individual who felt it would be a great idea to climb over/through them.

All of this conjecture about the potential negligence of the party responsible for the maintenance of the railings is exactly what is wrong with the world. It is obvious to the lowest form of intelligence that it is not a good idea to climb over a physical barrier, the other side of which is a 100 foot plus drop.

[eccles]

saaby93 said:

Scrump said:

Some interesting information on this website:
http://www.londonboaters.org/floater-jan2017-pontc...
I have no connections so don’t know how true any of it is.
The webpage includes this picture which I presume is from the same aqueduct:

article said:

Mr Mcdowell’s death by falling from the aqueduct is not the only one to take place recently. Two months after Mr McDowells death, 24-year-old Benjamin Hughes died following a fall from the aqueduct. A final hearing has yet to take place. The same coroner also confirmed just days before Mr Mcdowells death that a third person, Darren Macfalane, aged 39, had died falling from the aqueduct.

The problem the C&RT may have is that much of its infrastucture is victorian. Think of tow paths alongside canals or deep locks.
Should all of them have some sort of safety fencing these days, or is it obvious that it's dangerous?

Why do you quote it like that when it clearly states later on in the report that the other deaths were suicides.
Sadly these days common sense isn't allowed, where a normal person might look and asses something as having risks, then not doing it, we have to cater for total idiots.

[eccles]

skyrover said:

No railing here... should every high place in the land be fenced off, or should people take a bit of personal responsibility?

If the railings were adequate to stop someone falling through, than they are fine. There is no way to legislate against someone deliberately putting themselves in harms way.

You can't go near the edge there any more (not since last year) as the National Trust are grazing cattle along the edge of the cliff, so it's fenced off about 100yds inland.