How dangerous is walking?

The problem is that the NTS may close the path in case there is another
accident and they get sued. There may be something in today's new
legislation permitting the closure of a dangerous path! I hope not.
Lindsay
www.caledoniahilltreks.com

druidh said:

There are suggestions that some preventative measure need to be taken
on a section of footpath in Glencoe on account of a 2nd tragedy there.

Oh dear. I hope not. There are many, many more dangerous bits in
Glencoe than the area around the Lost Valley so why not do them all?
Should we welcome a paved tarmac path up the Buchaille Etive Mor? How
about direction arrows painted on the rock on Stob Coire nan Lochan,
just in case the mist is down and people aren't sure where to go? A
nice railing along the Aonach Eagach to give people something to hold onto.

The fact is that mountains can be dangerous places, especially for the
unwary, the stupid, and the unfortunate. I'm not suggesting that the
casualty was anything other than unfortunate, but here's an unavoidable
truth: accidents happen. My sympathies go out to the deceased's friends
and family, but the very thing that makes the mountains attractive to
most people could be destroyed by knee-jerk reactions like this. Once
you start trying to make the mountains safer, where do you stop?

Colin

What the NTS will have to watch is that we are now in the American
culture of sue, sue sue. It is of concern to me running a guiding
business that there a lot of people are out there (not any of my
clients I should point out - well not any I know) wanting to make an
easy buck if you make an error of judgement. This is probably why my
insurance is so high!!
Lindsay
www.caledoniahilltreks.com

Lindsay said:

What the NTS will have to watch is that we are now in the American
culture of sue, sue sue. It is of concern to me running a guiding
business that there a lot of people are out there (not any of my
clients I should point out - well not any I know) wanting to make an
easy buck if you make an error of judgement. This is probably why my
insurance is so high!!

Are landowners liable for accidents to viistors to their land.? If
that was the case private landowners would nearly all be agressive
gomls - simply for self preservation reasons... Even I would barbwire
the gates.

Richard Webb

Lindsay said:

The problem is that the NTS may close the path

They can try.. I suppose the bridge can be shifted but that would
surely increase danger. Anyone trying to close off a hill and
climbing area in Scotland (Bidien and Coire Gadhail) will need a thick
skin and a reverse gear.

Richard Webb

In message <[email hidden]>

Lindsay said:

What the NTS will have to watch is that we are now in the American
culture of sue, sue sue. It is of concern to me running a guiding
business that there a lot of people are out there (not any of my
clients I should point out - well not any I know) wanting to make an
easy buck if you make an error of judgement. This is probably why my
insurance is so high!!
Lindsay
www.caledoniahilltreks.com

I believe that is an accusation that is often made which is difficult to
substantiate with fact. Certainly many of the companies which jumped
onto the bandwagon of advertising to the public for litigation over
accidents (usually for a percentage of the winnings) have not been
successful in maintaining their businesses and several have folded or
failed to win more than a few cases.

In general I suspect that insurance premiums have risen largely as a
result of unexpected payouts for floods and similar "natural disasters",
coupled with the increase in the number of uninsured drivers on the
roads. The problem is that most insurance companies insure for multiple
types of risk and if one set of risks go up it depletes the pool of
resources the company has, and they then increase premiums generally for
all risks. Don't forget that legislation dictates that insurance
companies have assets calculated in proportion to the risks they take
on. So if flooding is considered an increased national risk, then the
assets devoted to insuring property have to be higher. More assets
devoted to covering property risks, less available to insure other risks
such as outdoor activities.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

RJ Webb said:

Lindsay said:

What the NTS will have to watch is that we are now in the American
culture of sue, sue sue. It is of concern to me running a guiding
business that there a lot of people are out there (not any of my
clients I should point out - well not any I know) wanting to make an
easy buck if you make an error of judgement. This is probably why my
insurance is so high!!

Are landowners liable for accidents to viistors to their land.? If
that was the case private landowners would nearly all be agressive
gomls - simply for self preservation reasons... Even I would barbwire
the gates.

Richard Webb

This was one of the major concerns voiced over the new Land Access laws
in Scotland. It was (sort of) addressed through a test of
reasonableness. The main thing is that land owners will not be
responsible for every slip or fall, but would be responsible for, say, a
runaway tractor.

druidh

Estates I think are concerned about being sued as unknown individuals
tried to say that Estates would be responsible for injuries etc caused
to hillwalkers using their land. This was obviously to try and stop
the new legislation that came into effect today. Thankfully they
failed. However you will note that several Estates have erected
warning signs at Bridges warning users that they cross at their own
risk.
Lindsay
www.caledoniahilltreks

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from
the wonderful person Lindsay <[email hidden]> said

Quoted message said:

The problem is that the NTS may close the path in case there is another
accident and they get sued. There may be something in today's new
legislation permitting the closure of a dangerous path!

Councils can already close dangerous paths.

There are any number around here closed because the bridges are
dangerous, which winds me up somewhat since a) half the streams are
fordable without the bridge anyway, and b) they are managing to find
money to put new bridges in (even in places where the water only shows
up two days a year) but can't prioritise replacing bridges which they've
closed ahead of that.

One day they may actually tell me what their priorities are, but I
suspect not, since they'd be completely indefensible.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
SC recommends the use of Firefox; Get smart, or get assimilated.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This was one of the major concerns voiced over the new Land Access laws
in Scotland. It was (sort of) addressed through a test of
reasonableness. The main thing is that land owners will not be
responsible for every slip or fall, but would be responsible for, say, a
runaway tractor.

Its a monster headache in Ireland.... Caused a fair bit of bother has
liability.

Richard Webb

druidh said:

Surely we're not about to see the countryside littered with warning
signs and more fences/barriers?

I'm normally against this sort of thing. But in this case, the
'damage' has already been done, when the bridge was built to
facilitate access (IIRC against the wishes of the man who gave the
land to the NTS). Having encouraged people into the area I can't see
anything much wrong with adding a small barrier before the side path -
not to stop people going down there for the view of the gorge, but as
an indication that the main path goes elsewhere.

Alternatively, remove the bridge.

--
Stop ID cards and the Database State
http://www.no2id.net/

The message <[email hidden]>
from GSV Three Minds in a Can <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

One day they may actually tell me what their priorities are, but I
suspect not, since they'd be completely indefensible.

Of course they will. They now have no choice if you use the freedom of
Information Act. You can they ask why they don't stick to their own
priorities but that won't get an answer as it would cost too much to
extract that information. :-)

--
Roger Chapman so far this year 17 summits
New - 11 (Marilyns 0, Sweats 1, Outlying Fells 10)
Repeats - 6 (Marilyns 1, Sweats 2, Wainwrights 6, Outlying Fells 0)

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:39:58 +0000, Chris Street
<[email hidden]> wrote:

| On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 22:46:37 +0000, GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:
|
| > Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from
| > the wonderful person Lindsay <[email hidden]> said
| >>The problem is that the NTS may close the path in case there is another
| >>accident and they get sued. There may be something in today's new
| >>legislation permitting the closure of a dangerous path!
| >
| > Councils can already close dangerous paths.
| >
| > There are any number around here closed because the bridges are
| > dangerous, which winds me up somewhat since a) half the streams are
| > fordable without the bridge anyway, and b) they are managing to find
| > money to put new bridges in (even in places where the water only shows
| > up two days a year) but can't prioritise replacing bridges which they've
| > closed ahead of that.
| >
| > One day they may actually tell me what their priorities are, but I
| > suspect not, since they'd be completely indefensible.
|
| Try the Freedom of Information Act if you want to find out.....

Better still try publicity in the local rag.
Pose a photo of walker fording stream and ask why they could not just close
the bridge?

--
Dave F

GSV Three Minds in a Can said:

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from
the wonderful person Lindsay <[email hidden]> said

Quoted message said:

The problem is that the NTS may close the path in case there is another
accident and they get sued. There may be something in today's new
legislation permitting the closure of a dangerous path!

Councils can already close dangerous paths.

There are any number around here closed because the bridges are
dangerous, which winds me up somewhat since a) half the streams are
fordable without the bridge anyway, and b) they are managing to find
money to put new bridges in (even in places where the water only shows
up two days a year) but can't prioritise replacing bridges which they've
closed ahead of that.

Remember many a fording session in your neck of the woods.. Used to
take on the Teme when low as it was the easiest way to the pub.

Thats the problem with the English System.. They can close you down..
if a path is washed away by a river, thats all that its goml needs to
get it closed. Does not work quite like that in Glencoe.

Richard Webb

In article <[email hidden]>, Simon Caldwell
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

aving encouraged people into the area I can't see
anything much wrong with adding a small barrier before the side path -
not to stop people going down there for the view of the gorge, but as
an indication that the main path goes elsewhere.

The numerous accidents that have occurred in the Waterfall area of Pont
Neath Vaughan justifies the erection of fences. Some are a located in
quite safe places, but there are those where - going to have a look at
the gorge
- are absolutely necessary.

Not everyone that visits these areas are not as careful as they should
be.

Recently an elderly gent fell into a gorge and was severely injured. The
rescue involved two mountain rescue teams, police, and eventually a Sea
King to get him to hospital. The fence failed to stop his accident, or
he ignored the warnings - who knows?
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk