Non Speed Related Law Question For Plod
Discussion
On a local building site the building was restricted to 60m. However, after someone who was larking about on the tower crane fell 100m to their death the local authority decided to further restrict the height of the building to 50m because height kills. Later someone was illegally erecting a mobile crane to access something on the other side of the site and fell 80m to their death. Obviously, the solution to someone having killed themselves in this way was to restrict the building height still further to 40.
Unfortunately the building had already exceeded 40m and so, after vast expense had been expended on constructing a building fit for its purpose, it was demolished down to 40. The council also insisted that safety nets be included round the building at every floor, and 2m thick rubber padding be included all round it at ground floor level (making access almost impossible). The staircase was to ripped out in case anyone fell down the stairs or well, and new short staggered access ramps were to be threaded through the building.
Tragically one of the demolition workers was untrained, unlicensed and inexperienced and decided to pull a faulty ladder out of the skip to reach the 25m level on the scaffolding to save him walking round to the proper access. He fell to his death from half way up it.
Naturally the council have now decreed that the building be reduced to 30m and be covered with CCTV cameras. Yesterday I was caught on camera erecting an aerial which exceed the 30m limit and I am being prosecuted for exceeding the height limit as height kills. This despite the fact that I was standing on the middle of the flat roof nowhere near the edge parapets.
Do the BiB here have any advice?
But what really pisses me off is that when they showed me the CCTV recording and were fast forwarding to my "crime" I noticed that there were many dangerous acts or omissions which could have, and probably will, lead to deaths despite being under the 30m limit. Missing scaffold boards, missing guard rails, unsecured ladders, faulty or inadequate erection, missing warning signs, people working dangerously, people who I recognised as untrained and unlicensed....
Shouldn't they be acting to prevent real danger rather than persecuting someone who had been working perfectly safely, but in excess of the arbitrary limit?
Shouldn't we be monitoring all the real near misses and learning from them, rather than trying to find people to blame for what are often tragic accidents, or punishing people who are acting safely but whose actions relate indirectly to a contributory factor in an unrelated accident.
Unfortunately the building had already exceeded 40m and so, after vast expense had been expended on constructing a building fit for its purpose, it was demolished down to 40. The council also insisted that safety nets be included round the building at every floor, and 2m thick rubber padding be included all round it at ground floor level (making access almost impossible). The staircase was to ripped out in case anyone fell down the stairs or well, and new short staggered access ramps were to be threaded through the building.
Tragically one of the demolition workers was untrained, unlicensed and inexperienced and decided to pull a faulty ladder out of the skip to reach the 25m level on the scaffolding to save him walking round to the proper access. He fell to his death from half way up it.
Naturally the council have now decreed that the building be reduced to 30m and be covered with CCTV cameras. Yesterday I was caught on camera erecting an aerial which exceed the 30m limit and I am being prosecuted for exceeding the height limit as height kills. This despite the fact that I was standing on the middle of the flat roof nowhere near the edge parapets.
Do the BiB here have any advice?
But what really pisses me off is that when they showed me the CCTV recording and were fast forwarding to my "crime" I noticed that there were many dangerous acts or omissions which could have, and probably will, lead to deaths despite being under the 30m limit. Missing scaffold boards, missing guard rails, unsecured ladders, faulty or inadequate erection, missing warning signs, people working dangerously, people who I recognised as untrained and unlicensed....
Shouldn't they be acting to prevent real danger rather than persecuting someone who had been working perfectly safely, but in excess of the arbitrary limit?
Shouldn't we be monitoring all the real near misses and learning from them, rather than trying to find people to blame for what are often tragic accidents, or punishing people who are acting safely but whose actions relate indirectly to a contributory factor in an unrelated accident.
At the risk of getting into any sort of discussion with you, I think that most (if not all) BiB on here would use a certain amount of discretion when dealing with people driving in excess of the posted speed limit, and not "do" people at the ACPO threshold, unless there were other aggravating factors, such as state of vehicle, other manner of driving, lack of documents.
Or have I misread your post, and was it REALLY not about speeding at all?
Or have I misread your post, and was it REALLY not about speeding at all?
Dibble said:
Or have I misread your post, and was it REALLY not about speeding at all?
gone said:Sighhhhh.
woops, there goes another one, straight over my head
I thought it was quite obvious what it was REALLY about.
diesel ed said:Like they do in industry in general and in transport industries with a more grown up attitude to "policing".
Shouldn't we be monitoring all the real near misses and learning from them, rather than trying to find people to blame for what are often tragic accidents, or punishing people who are acting safely but whose actions relate indirectly to a contributory factor in an unrelated accident.
I knew I shouldn't have bothered to reply.
I tried to give a reasonable, straight answer to your thinly veiled post.
You seem to enjoy baiting people on here. If you ask a straight question, you'll get a straight answer. People's opinions differ, which is fine.
I shan't respond further.
I tried to give a reasonable, straight answer to your thinly veiled post.
You seem to enjoy baiting people on here. If you ask a straight question, you'll get a straight answer. People's opinions differ, which is fine.
I shan't respond further.
gone said:
woops, there goes another one, straight over my head
There comes a time when it's best to keep one's head down. This may be such a time.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
I think there's usually an 'h' in 'whoops'.
On the other hand maybe it should have been 'oops'.
Sorry 'gone', silly mood again.
Dibble said:So, what, exactly is your problem? You asked a straight question, and I gave a straight answer -
I knew I shouldn't have bothered to reply.
I tried to give a reasonable, straight answer to your thinly veiled post.
You seem to enjoy baiting people on here. If you ask a straight question, you'll get a straight answer. People's opinions differ, which is fine.
I shan't respond further.
diesel ed said:Or perhaps the concepts I'm raising aren't only going straight over gone's head.
Or have I misread your post, and was it REALLY not about speeding at all? diesel ed said:Like they do in industry in general and in transport industries with a more grown up attitude to "policing".
Shouldn't we be monitoring all the real near misses and learning from them, rather than trying to find people to blame for what are often tragic accidents, or punishing people who are acting safely but whose actions relate indirectly to a contributory factor in an unrelated accident.
Themoss said:Wondered how long it would be before Themos woke the thread up with one of his scintillating yet deeply reasoned contributions. Trolling not been giving you the satisfaction you need wherever you've been? So you're having to give it to yourself now.
Diesel old boy, as always,
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff