In view of the tragic death of a young girl last week-end, should organisations such as the National Trust not be forced to protect its invited public from the hazards of its beauty spots and pathways.
It seems an anomaly that under health and safety legislation in industry roof edge protection is mandatory for workers well used to the height environment yet the public, including children, are allowed to walk along precipitous pathways without any such protection.
A change in the law is surely needed in this respect.
In view of the tragic death of a young girl last week-end, should organisations such as the National Trust not be forced to protect its invited public from the hazards of its beauty spots and pathways.
It seems an anomaly that under health and safety legislation in industry roof edge protection is mandatory for workers well used to the height environment yet the public, including children, are allowed to walk along precipitous pathways without any such protection.
A change in the law is surely needed in this respect.
Angus Macmillan
Ah! MacMillan!
"You've never had it so good". "A mini outside every door".
On Mon, 08 May 2006 23:45:58 +0100, [email hidden] wrote:
|In view of the tragic death of a young girl last week-end, should |organisations such as the National Trust not be forced to protect its |invited public from the hazards of its beauty spots and pathways. | |It seems an anomaly that under health and safety legislation in |industry roof edge protection is mandatory for workers well used to |the height environment yet the public, including children, are allowed |to walk along precipitous pathways without any such protection.
You want a 3 ft wide path and fencing on both sides of Crib Gogh and Striding Edge? -- Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk> Google Groups is IME the *worst* method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.
In view of the tragic death of a young girl last week-end, should organisations such as the National Trust not be forced to protect its invited public from the hazards of its beauty spots and pathways.
It seems an anomaly that under health and safety legislation in industry roof edge protection is mandatory for workers well used to the height environment yet the public, including children, are allowed to walk along precipitous pathways without any such protection.
A change in the law is surely needed in this respect.
I see you're still wasting bandwidth and oxygen Macmillan.
Perhaps before they start in the countryside the powers that be should start by erecting fences between every inch of pavement and every road to stop children and drunks wandering into the roads and getting killed. After all more people get injured or die like this than in the manner you suggest.
No, on second thoughts it's a [censored] idea, just like yours!
Perhaps before they start in the countryside the powers that be should start by erecting fences between every inch of pavement and every road to stop children and drunks wandering into the roads and getting killed. After all more people get injured or die like this than in the manner you suggest.
I was going to suggest the same, fencing pavements would save far more lives.
All the fences could be paid for by introducing a Pavement Fund Duty that all pedestrians have to pay. They would pay the fee, £100 a year seems about right, at the Post Office when they also have to present a medical check (so you can be sure they are in a safe condition to be on the pavement) and a certificate of insurance (in case of accidents needing rescue).
"Dave Fawthrop" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
On Mon, 08 May 2006 23:45:58 +0100, [email hidden] wrote:
You want a 3 ft wide path and fencing on both sides of Crib Gogh and Striding Edge?
I have a nasty feeling that if you did a proper risk assessment taking all matters into account, you'd need your safely graded and surfaced path to be enclosed, ventilated and properly lit, with seated resting places, "refuges", every few hundred meters, with emergency food dispensers, CCTV, cash machine, etc. Beginning to sound a bit like the Great Wall of China? -- M Stewart Milton Keynes, UK http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm
On Mon, 08 May 2006 23:45:58 +0100, [email hidden] wrote:
|In view of the tragic death of a young girl last week-end, should |organisations such as the National Trust not be forced to protect its |invited public from the hazards of its beauty spots and pathways. | |It seems an anomaly that under health and safety legislation in |industry roof edge protection is mandatory for workers well used to |the height environment yet the public, including children, are allowed |to walk along precipitous pathways without any such protection.
You want a 3 ft wide path and fencing on both sides of Crib Gogh and Striding Edge?
No idea where these places are; nor would I particularly want to.
"Dave Fawthrop" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
On Mon, 08 May 2006 23:45:58 +0100, [email hidden] wrote:
You want a 3 ft wide path and fencing on both sides of Crib Gogh and Striding Edge?
I have a nasty feeling that if you did a proper risk assessment taking all matters into account, you'd need your safely graded and surfaced path to be enclosed, ventilated and properly lit, with seated resting places, "refuges", every few hundred meters, with emergency food dispensers, CCTV, cash machine, etc. Beginning to sound a bit like the Great Wall of China?
In view of the tragic death of a young girl last week-end, should organisations such as the National Trust not be forced to protect its invited public from the hazards of its beauty spots and pathways.
It seems an anomaly that under health and safety legislation in industry roof edge protection is mandatory for workers well used to the height environment yet the public, including children, are allowed to walk along precipitous pathways without any such protection.
A change in the law is surely needed in this respect.
I see you're still wasting bandwidth and oxygen Macmillan.
Perhaps before they start in the countryside the powers that be should start by erecting fences between every inch of pavement and every road to stop children and drunks wandering into the roads and getting killed. After all more people get injured or die like this than in the manner you suggest.
I'm not suggesting anything like that. Pavements are generally no higher than 9 inches. Nor am I suggesting protection at the side of rivers. What I am suggesting it that if organisations invite the public onto their land they should be under the same health and safety rules as in other circumstances. I understand protection is required for heights of over two metres in industry.
Quoted message said:
No, on second thoughts it's a [censored] idea, just like yours!
Perhaps before they start in the countryside the powers that be should start by erecting fences between every inch of pavement and every road to stop children and drunks wandering into the roads and getting killed. After all more people get injured or die like this than in the manner you suggest.
I was going to suggest the same, fencing pavements would save far more lives.
All the fences could be paid for by introducing a Pavement Fund Duty that all pedestrians have to pay. They would pay the fee, £100 a year seems about right, at the Post Office when they also have to present a medical check (so you can be sure they are in a safe condition to be on the pavement) and a certificate of insurance (in case of accidents needing rescue).
On Mon, 08 May 2006 23:45:58 +0100, [email hidden] wrote:
|In view of the tragic death of a young girl last week-end, should |organisations such as the National Trust not be forced to protect its |invited public from the hazards of its beauty spots and pathways. | |It seems an anomaly that under health and safety legislation in |industry roof edge protection is mandatory for workers well used to |the height environment yet the public, including children, are allowed |to walk along precipitous pathways without any such protection.
You want a 3 ft wide path and fencing on both sides of Crib Gogh and Striding Edge?
Yes please - but take them away again when I've plucked up the courage to walk them both please :-) -- To reply see 'from' in headers; lose the domain, and insert dots and @ where common sense dictates.
In message <[email hidden]>, Gordon <[email hidden]> writes
Quoted message said:
[email hidden] wrote
Quoted message said:
In view of the tragic death of a young girl last week-end, should organisations such as the National Trust not be forced to protect its invited public from the hazards of its beauty spots and pathways.
It seems an anomaly that under health and safety legislation in industry roof edge protection is mandatory for workers well used to the height environment yet the public, including children, are allowed to walk along precipitous pathways without any such protection.
A change in the law is surely needed in this respect.
Angus Macmillan
Ah! MacMillan!
"You've never had it so good". "A mini outside every door".
Thought you were dead....
That's wishful thinking.
-- Martin Richardson 520/1554 Marilyns - 67% to go 60/89 Donalds - 33% to go 61/211 Irish Hewitts - 71% to go 20/220 Corbetts - 91% to go
I'm not suggesting anything like that. Pavements are generally no higher than 9 inches.
Thats about right.
Quoted message said:
I understand protection is required for heights of over two metres in industry.
If your going to troll, at least ensure your are up to date.
The height limit has gone.
The work at height regulations efectivly defined 'work at height' as a place is where a person could be injured falling from it. Thus if you could fall from the pavement into the road and be injured, the work at height regulations now apply.
It seems an anomaly that under recent health and safety legislation in industry pavement edge protection is now mandatory for workers well used to the height of pavements, yet the public, including children, are allowed to walk along precipitous pavements without any such protection.
<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
In view of the tragic death of a young girl last week-end, should organisations such as the National Trust not be forced to protect its invited public from the hazards of its beauty spots and pathways.
............
Quoted message said:
A change in the law is surely needed in this respect.
AFAIK s13 of the The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (right to roam) amended the 1957 & 1984 Occupier's Liability Acts to remove from landowners the duty of care owed to visitors & tresspassers by those acts in respect of "right to roam" land and other specified areas.
<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
In view of the tragic death of a young girl last week-end, should organisations such as the National Trust not be forced to protect its invited public from the hazards of its beauty spots and pathways.
............
Quoted message said:
A change in the law is surely needed in this respect.
AFAIK s13 of the The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (right to roam) amended the 1957 & 1984 Occupier's Liability Acts to remove from landowners the duty of care owed to visitors & tresspassers by those acts in respect of "right to roam" land and other specified areas.
"druidh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
PeterK said:
<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
In view of the tragic death of a young girl last week-end, should organisations such as the National Trust not be forced to protect its invited public from the hazards of its beauty spots and pathways.
............
Quoted message said:
A change in the law is surely needed in this respect.
AFAIK s13 of the The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (right to roam) amended the 1957 & 1984 Occupier's Liability Acts to remove from landowners the duty of care owed to visitors & tresspassers by those acts in respect of "right to roam" land and other specified areas.
Peter K
Irrelevant in Scotland. . . .
druidh
Quite true. The position in Scotland is very clear. See http://www.outdooraccess-scotland.com/upload/47157%20screen.pdf for plenty of examples of case law in Scotland - "it is contrary to common sense, and therefore not sound law, to expect an occupier to provide protection against an obvious danger arising on his land arising from a natural feature such as a lake or a cliff and to impose a duty on him to do so".
