Our cruise this year is providing me with much to muse upon. Its
not often that I have time for politicians of any flavour. When it
comes to political parties segregated by their colour. Blue is not good for
me, neither is Yellow though I do have a liking for Green because it
matches my spots. But I still hold a bit of a crush on the colour Red!
Not the new rosé red or labour lite, just the old red.
When it come down to the Inland Waterways, the choice of colour however is a stark one. There is the Environment Agency Blue. Or the
Canal and River Trust Grey. So until such time as the Environment
Agency gets its act together again. Unlike like the Henry Ford choice of
colour, the trust will continue to perform in it usual 50 Shades of depressing Grey.
Take
for instance the grey area of Health and Safety. There is more
stupidity spouted about protecting people from themselves - presumably
done in the belief that everyone is Extremely Stupid. However, sometimes
the extremity of the stupidity scale, is extended by those who are
expected to act sensibly towards implementing Health
and Safety. I'm not in favour of the nanny state or wishy washy health
and safety bunkum. Even the HSE has a section on its website debunking
the mythology of health and safety used inappropriately. http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/
In
a previous working life, I would sometimes as part of my job move bits of
equipment between two buildings. Then like 'political correctness' before
it - health and safety became the current fashion trend in the
workplace. We had portering staff who had been subjected to a round of Health and Safety training. Who on their return had for some reason, implemented a 'risk assessment' on their job. Afterwards, it seemed they were now absolved from portering. So we had to do it for ourselves.
The
first thing was I had to undergo was some health and safety awareness
training. Just to be able to make my own personal risk assessments. So off I
went on a course which lasted 14 weeks. (that's not a typo) it was 14
weeks long and conducted in a place about 20 miles from my place of
employment. As luck would have it, the training was about 5 miles from
my home. So it was easier and less fraught from the dangers of riding a
motorcycle through heavy commuter traffic to work each day.
Then
there I was, 14 weeks later and ready for the task in hand. I walked
between the two buildings which I had done hundreds of times before. I
made copious notes to identify every risk I could find. This was then
incorporated into a lengthy document on which the health and safety
audit with its associated risk assessments would be based. For each
identified hazard, a further risk assessment was made. The size, weight
and shape of the items to be moved was established. A route was then
chosen (from a choice of one) to minimise risk. A suitable means of transport was chosen. (A small four wheeled hand cart was purchased) So how did it work out. Whenever
I went between buildings, I would just pick up the items and carry them
as I had done before. It was quicker and easier than lugging a small
trolley about!
Shortly afterwards, this over reaction, best described as the 'institutional approach to health and safety' was abandoned by my
employers and replaced once again by good old common sense. The health
and safety training certificate was consigned to the bin. The porters
returned to portering and all was well once again in the world of academia.
You
may have been wondering why I started off today's musings by reference
to politicians. Well unusually, myself and a politician of a blue
persuasion actually agreed with each other.
'They
are now the most powerful lobbying force in the land. You can see the
results of their campaigns on park benches, on street corners, on
station platforms – and now their hectoring signage is sprouting on
desolate beaches and once unspoiled stretches of moorland. They are more
energetic than the RSPCA. They are more effective than the
birdwatchers, the child‑protectors and the petrolheads put together.
Indeed, for manic dedication they are only rivalled by Fathers4Justice.
Ladies and gentlemen, let's have a big hand for this year's winner of
the prize for the Most Successful Special Interest Group. I give you –
the Royal Society for the Extremely Stupid.' So said, Boris Johnson writing in the Daily Telegraph.
Now
you also might also be wondering why I had also set out with a
reference to the Environment Agency and the Canal and River Trust. Well
its because they seem to have very different views with regard to
implementing Health
and Safety and the subsequent management of the risk. Walk around the
inland waterways system and you will find its a dangerous environment.
There is going to be a risk of drowning and the ground underfoot is
going to be filled with potential tripping hazards. Experience has told
us about these ever present dangers. Life is full of life long learning
opportunities (personal risk assessments). In other words we live and we learn.
There is a whole new branch of Health
and Safety implementation. One that suggests that people can become
desensitised to assessing personal risk and become reliant on someone
else watching out for their safety. I remember one of the questions we
were asked on the Health and Safety course was. If you put up a 'beware of the dog'
notice on your garden gate are you making people aware that you have a
dangerous animal. Or are you making people aware that you just have a
dog. Where a simple 'please close the gate' notice might be more appropriate.
Producing safety signs
is a big business today. Much research has gone into producing images
and words blended together to create an eye catching impact and an
instant understanding of the potential risks. In other words, you can
fulfil the requirements of much of the current Health and Safety legislation with appropriate signs.
Now
if a pothole suddenly appears in the towpath. The risk can be mitigated
by temporary fencing, until a repair can take place. It would not be
appropriate to place a sign instead of a temporary fence. However,
placing occasional blanket notices or catch all notices along the
towpath about the risk of potholes occurring would not be appropriate
either.
There are going to be times when new risks need to be signed. In some cases the risk will need to be fenced. There
is always the temptation to think that a sign attached to a broken bit
of machinery can be used as a stop gap. Until a some time in the future
when its more convenient to make a repair. The problem with this is as
the signs grow in number. So does the public awareness of a growing back
log of repairs. The signs begin to predominate and their impact is then
lost.
A
regular Health and Safety concern is when someone drowns, usually a
teenager or child. There are then calls for the canals to be fenced.
However, it would be totally impractical to fence off the canals. In
some cases the fencing could itself provide its own hazard. Placing a
fence round the edge of a lock would be impractical for many reasons.
Placing a fence round the perimeter of a lock might be more feasible,
but what real Health and Safety purpose would it serve. There is also
the visual amenity to consider as well as spoiling the heritage
aspects.
Now to further the 'grey sky' lock gate poetry, we have 'grey sky art installations'
appearing alongside lock edges. Totally out of character with the
canals industrial heritage. Such items placed well away from the lock
edge but within the vicinity of the lock. It might well have some merit.
But its intended to attract people to the lock edge. Now art it seems
takes precedence over common sense. Art and poetry have no place on a
lock, where it will only act as a momentary distraction from the danger
that a deep lock chamber offers. My idea of 'canal art' is steeped in
the industrial heritage and the gaily painted boats and the odd barrel
and buckby can.
A further 'gray sky'
case in question is the proposed fencing of the Marple Aqueduct. The
aqueduct was built to carry the Peak Forest Canal over the River Goyt. The
aqueduct was completed in 1799, and opened for business in 1800. The
difference in water levels between the river and canal is around ninety
feet. The aqueduct is scheduled as an ancient monument and in 1966 was
given the distinction of being listed as Grade I. Seven men are recorded
as losing their lives during its
construction.
Now 215 years later, the canal and river trust have decided in their wisdom. (which will for many people be something of an oxymoron)
As a result of a Health and Safety risk assessment, the ancient
monument now requires safety fencing. In its 215 year history, one
person is known to have committed suicide by stepping off the aqueduct
from the towpath side. Which to be blunt, installing a set of railings on the off side would not have stopped anyway.
The
aqueduct parapet running along side the towpath has a rounded coping
stone surface, the parapet on the off side has a flat surface. It seems
that people have been known to step onto the aqueduct on the flat
surface side from their boat. Now call me old and cynical, but if a
rounded parapet wall on the towpath side discourages people from walking
along it. Why is a rounded coping stone not installed on the off side.
This would be a visually more in keeping with the original heritage
structure than railings. There would be no confusion about if its a safe
place to step on and off a boat.
Would the installation of railings provide a hazard of their own. Fitting railings would certainly provide an anchor point for abseiling or the adrenalin junky, bungee
jumpers. Should one of the abseiler or bungee jumper have an accident
or their is a fatality will this then require a subsequent 'risk assessment' and the railings to be removed.
Installing
railings as a real health and safety issue - this has as much worth as
putting a safety railing on top of the Stonehenge Monoliths. I am
willing to bet there have been more people on top of the Stonehenge Monoliths than have ever been walking on the off side of the Marple Aqueduct.
While we are on to aqueducts. Perhaps David Baldacchino, from the Canal & River Trust, would also like to share with us what plans the trust has for the
Pontcysyllte Aqueduct, I wonder what plans the trust have in hand for
the huge Health and Safety problem that the off side presents at Pontcysyllte.
Will the trust be desecrating yet another bit of our national heritage.
The aqueduct was added to the World Heritage List in 2009.
While we are on to Health and Safety. Perhaps David Baldacchino, from the Canal & River Trust,
would also like to share with us what plans the trust has if any (other
than duck lanes) for mitigating the issue of speeding cyclist.
After
all there are a regular series of incidents where the high speed
cyclists come into conflict with members of the public walking on the
towpath. Its been going on for years and has been reported as an issue
of concern in various newspapers and periodicals for about a decade.
There is evidence in chapter and verse on Strava to support a positive
stance is required to this growing issue. Maybe the trust could consider
sending a box of sticking plasters to each victim.
