Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2017 10:56:40 GMT
The usual twats are in there making excuses for "their" crt. At the end of the day, crt again showed total ignorance and stupidity when dealing with this issue. The civil service standard never seems to wane. Yet more money wasted.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Jan 15, 2017 11:38:56 GMT
I think MtB's comment has merit, safety first. However, it is annoying to see CRT squander our money - instead of just fixing the minor problem they have to wander down the yellow brick road of litigation. It's very easy to spend other peoples' money. I disagree. There is risks associated associated with being inside and outside a boat when transiting a lock particularly with vulnerable crew members. For many years, I used to helm a community boat giving holidays to disadvantaged children. It is a case of balancing those risks. Following the Drum Major incident, in 1998, there was never a suggestion that the the four who drowned should not have been inside the boat in a lock.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2017 11:47:56 GMT
It seems odd that when there is a known fault with a lock wall causing a risk of hanging up, we should argue about whether anyone should be inside a boat when transitting locks.
Surely the point of C&RT is to put known faults right.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by larkboy on Jan 15, 2017 13:26:47 GMT
I too read this thread on canal world and was very troubled by the attitude of C&RT. I find it disgusting that they would inflict four years of litigation on the victim, only to then settle out of court so they avoid any negative judgements. The money they spent on fighting this case would have been much better spent on repairing the lock in question, and, from the sums involved, a few others as well. At the very least, they should have signage up alerting boaters to potential hazards if they don't have the money to effect repairs, after all, they found the money for their stupid comedy signs on the system. The more of these cases that come to light, the more I dread them getting their hands on the Great Ouse system...☹️☹️
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Jan 15, 2017 13:30:03 GMT
It seems odd that when there is a known fault with a lock wall causing a risk of hanging up, we should argue about whether anyone should be inside a boat when transitting locks. Surely the point of C&RT is to put known faults right. Rog I agree. However, all that C&RT has done (and then only after being nagged by HSE) is to install notices suggesting that the boat is forward of the cill marker, clear of bottom gates and parallel to the wall. It is interesting to note that in the 60 pages correspondence between HSE and the Trust, not once has C&RT admitted the the lock does not comply with minimum safety standards that have been in use since March 2008!
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jan 15, 2017 14:45:09 GMT
CRT's behaviour over this is atrocious!
However I disagree with MtB's comment, it's easy for him to say it afaik he's a solo boater.
How many of you clear the the cabin of occupants when going through a lock?
There were comments that it may be more unsafe supervising kids etc on the lockside, what if it's bad weather, icy or dark?
What is the actual level of risk, the likelihood, when locking, how many transits, how many sinkings per year? I'd suggest the actual likelihood is low.
It makes sense to ensure that no exits are locked or blocked so that there is a clear escape route.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Jan 15, 2017 14:54:01 GMT
Have to agree with Allan (post above). But I still think MtB's comment has some validity. I have made a note about Bank newton Lock 40 as it may be one we go through this Summer, I wouldn't want to be sharing it with another boat if it hasn't been sorted out by then. As things stand, C&RT have absolutely no intention of fixing the wall such that it complies with minimum safety standards. The following is C&RT's response to two parts of an information request - I suggest you take great care and look out for notices on lock gates (rather than beams) which tell you to keep off the bottom gate and parallel to the wall.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jan 16, 2017 2:04:18 GMT
MtB says this: "I totally disagree. No-one should be inside a NB when transiting a lock. Deaths from drowning trapped inside a sunken boat in a lock keep happening. Will no-one ever learn? Isn't the risk obvious?" ...and I'm inclined to agree. That would barr many disabled people from boating .
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jan 16, 2017 2:21:09 GMT
CRT Should be referred to the charities commission over this.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Jan 16, 2017 8:43:54 GMT
CRT Should be referred to the charities commission over this. As CRT spends about £5m a year on claims made against it, I can't see the Charity Commission geting hot under the collar about £500,000 some of which would have to be spent settling the claim anyway. If anyone is unhappy that C&RT's locks are unsafe and do not meet their own minimum safety standards then they can raise the matter with HSE or make a complaint to C&RT.
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on Jan 16, 2017 10:08:32 GMT
CRT Should be referred to the charities commission over this. As CRT spends about £5m a year on claims made against it, I can't see the Charity Commission geting hot under the collar about £500,000 some of which would have to be spent settling the claim anyway. If anyone is unhappy that C&RT's locks are unsafe and do not meet their own minimum safety standards then they can raise the matter with HSE or make a complaint to C&RT. If H&S would get involved in the possible accidents while locking through, there is a risk that they will not allow use of locks anymore because of all the possible dangerous situations that could (and sometimes do) happen.
It would be a safer solution to fill them up with concrete to make sure that nobody can fall in one of them, as if that person is a non-swimmer he/she could drown.
Peter.
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Jan 16, 2017 13:51:49 GMT
HSE legislation is aimed at minimising risk " as far as reasonably practical", not totally eliminating it. They would be more likely to ban the use of motor vehicles!
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Jan 16, 2017 14:11:11 GMT
HSE legislation is aimed at minimising risk " as far as reasonably practical", not totally eliminating it. They would be more likely to ban the use of motor vehicles! Absolutely agree Ian. From an HSE case review of Mr Churchills concerns 21/5/15 -
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Jan 20, 2017 14:03:00 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2017 14:21:40 GMT
The floater was quite good until you started producing your own particular brand of crap, pity really. Nice to see on nbw that they were glad to see the back of you. Your a nasty little prick, and I'm glad some are seeing you for what you are, rubbish.
|
|