falls from aqueduct - whose fault?
Discussion
eccles said:
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.
Superleg48 said:
So, a moron decides to climb over/through railings on a 120ft viaduct and then plunged to his death because an upright he was holding gave way. Immediately, the focus is on the structural integrity of the railing, rather than the reckless stupidity of the moron concerned.
Why are people so quick not to take responsibility for their actions or actions of others when they were clearly doing something moronic?
Yes, this could have been avoided. Simply by not attempting to climb onto the wrong side of railings clearly there to send a message saying “danger, large drop, risk of death...” and provide a physical barrier.
Unfortunate and sad as this is, the only blame here needs to be apportioned to the moron.
We live in a society where it is increasingly acceptable to lay blame for things that happen at any place but ourselves.
I explore abandoned buildings often climbing sketchy sWhy are people so quick not to take responsibility for their actions or actions of others when they were clearly doing something moronic?
Yes, this could have been avoided. Simply by not attempting to climb onto the wrong side of railings clearly there to send a message saying “danger, large drop, risk of death...” and provide a physical barrier.
Unfortunate and sad as this is, the only blame here needs to be apportioned to the moron.
We live in a society where it is increasingly acceptable to lay blame for things that happen at any place but ourselves.
t and I fully agree with this.It's so obviously, purely his fault as it would be if I fell too.
StottyGTR said:
Superleg48 said:
So, a moron decides to climb over/through railings on a 120ft viaduct and then plunged to his death because an upright he was holding gave way. Immediately, the focus is on the structural integrity of the railing, rather than the reckless stupidity of the moron concerned.
Why are people so quick not to take responsibility for their actions or actions of others when they were clearly doing something moronic?
Yes, this could have been avoided. Simply by not attempting to climb onto the wrong side of railings clearly there to send a message saying “danger, large drop, risk of death...” and provide a physical barrier.
Unfortunate and sad as this is, the only blame here needs to be apportioned to the moron.
We live in a society where it is increasingly acceptable to lay blame for things that happen at any place but ourselves.
I explore abandoned buildings often climbing sketchy sWhy are people so quick not to take responsibility for their actions or actions of others when they were clearly doing something moronic?
Yes, this could have been avoided. Simply by not attempting to climb onto the wrong side of railings clearly there to send a message saying “danger, large drop, risk of death...” and provide a physical barrier.
Unfortunate and sad as this is, the only blame here needs to be apportioned to the moron.
We live in a society where it is increasingly acceptable to lay blame for things that happen at any place but ourselves.
t and I fully agree with this.It's so obviously, purely his fault as it would be if I fell too.
So the owner of the derelict building get prosecuted just because you're a bit curious and run out of talent one day.
CoolHands said:
Can we stop everyone dying? That seems to be the proposition that some people advocate, and causes conflict with some people that say no we can’t.
You can't cater for every eventuality and to me, if the railing are fit for their primary purpose i.e. Stopping a pedestrian from falling, then they are OK. If you want to struggle, and squeeze through them then fall off, then that's your look out.eccles said:
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.
surely we need to get PETA involved then - it can't be safe for cattle to be allowed to get so close to an edge! #outrage #saveourcattle!Probably something like this - https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/dangerous-snapchat-chall...
Dares, internet crazes and social media attention.
Dares, internet crazes and social media attention.
irocfan said:
eccles said:
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.
surely we need to get PETA involved then - it can't be safe for cattle to be allowed to get so close to an edge! #outrage #saveourcattle!I can't see the problem with a single upright failing when loaded by the weight of a person as that wouldn't have been a reasonable design load case, indeed a balustrade or handrail designed today to current standards doesn't require that load case to be considered.
However the issue will IMHO be the railing gap that allowed someone to get to wrong side in the first place and how the upright was attached to the head and base rail. I understand that the original design relied on friction rather than a more mechanical connection.
However the issue will IMHO be the railing gap that allowed someone to get to wrong side in the first place and how the upright was attached to the head and base rail. I understand that the original design relied on friction rather than a more mechanical connection.
Superleg48 said:
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.
I'd go further than that. The world is becoming so "safe" that the concept of risk is not being considered in daily life - people aren't being trained to evaluate a risky situation because they've never been exposed to it. Small kids who climb trees know that gravity is a cruel master, and that drops of greater than 6 foot or so are going to hurt. If kids aren't allowed to climb trees, then they won't learn to evaluate the risk.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.
There is an assumption that all risks will be dialled out, that if you can do something, it must be safe, because if it wasn't safe, you wouldn't be able to do it.
rxe said:
Superleg48 said:
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.
I'd go further than that. The world is becoming so "safe" that the concept of risk is not being considered in daily life - people aren't being trained to evaluate a risky situation because they've never been exposed to it. Small kids who climb trees know that gravity is a cruel master, and that drops of greater than 6 foot or so are going to hurt. If kids aren't allowed to climb trees, then they won't learn to evaluate the risk.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.
There is an assumption that all risks will be dialled out, that if you can do something, it must be safe, because if it wasn't safe, you wouldn't be able to do it.
b0rk said:
I can't see the problem with a single upright failing when loaded by the weight of a person as that wouldn't have been a reasonable design load case, indeed a balustrade or handrail designed today to current standards doesn't require that load case to be considered.
CoolHands said:
I think the original design relied on plebs not trying to get around it.
Looks like it's not just the Welsh and Spanish have problems with Balconies and handrails etchttps://mol.im/a/7049463
Whilst it is sad for the individual and more so for his family, anyone who goes past a footpath, around a fence such as the one shown must accept the risk they take. There was a clear barrier and he took a clear decision to move to the other side. If he had lent on the barrier and it had given way that is another matter. But incidents like this can spoil it for everyone when it could be closed due to too higher risk.
I worked in the Middle East, watching poor blokes work in 45 degree heat up skyscrapers for 14 hours a day. I asked locals about the lack of safety for the imported workers
They laughed saying they won’t get paid if they die, so won’t be able send money home. It’s up to them to stay safe
The uk is excellent for safety but I wish common sense is part of decision processes
They laughed saying they won’t get paid if they die, so won’t be able send money home. It’s up to them to stay safe
The uk is excellent for safety but I wish common sense is part of decision processes
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff