Public safety, liability and great big 'oles

[nickwilliams]

This is only a difficult or contentious issue for those who wish to make a meal of it. In reality, it's a fairly simple risk management problem. There is loads of guidance on exactly this topic out there on the web if people care to look.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Much of it is in the mind. If you imagine someone as being cantankerous, or pessimistic, or stupid, or whatever, then that preconception carries over into how a post comes over, to a degree. We need to overcome our instincts sometimes.

It seems the consensus is that this risk originally described is a non-issue.

 

[nearlywhite]

I was making a deeper philosophical point which was probably too subtle.

I'd hardly call that point neither deep nor subtle. That comment above just comes across as a bit sanctimonious.

I don't see the point of fencing off caves if we don't fence off roads. In some high traffic areas roads do have 'fences' and the same should apply to caves.

I don't want a corpse spoiling my streamway but I still want to be able to get to it etc. Topic finished.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Then you definitely missed the point!  - and perhaps you are also proving my point about preconceptions...... 

 

[cap n chris]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbidden_is_allowed

In a free society (apparently we do actually live in one of these for the time being) people are allowed to do stupid things. Misadventure is one of the consequences of liberty.

e.g. family of four in Swildon's Hole, beyond the ladder, wearing jeans and t-shirts, no helmets, one torch between them, children with missing trainers, cave in flood. Free society. All things considered, it actually is good.

 

[nearlywhite]

Then you definitely missed the point!  - and perhaps you are also proving my point about preconceptions...... 

You draw a parallel between protecting people from their own idiocy in the wild and online. That those that whinge about fencing also moan about aggressive posts and that there's a hypocrisy there. Liberty in every sphere!

I was merely offering constructive criticism Mr Burgess, people do have preconceptions about you (as they do everyone) - I was just saying that what you wrote carried a heavy implication that you are far too clever for the rest of us and that perhaps that doesn't help get your opinion across that you wish to give so often. [Insert joke here to keep it friendly]. Anyway, moving on...

You have freedom with the freedom to act and liberty if you're not coerced. You can argue that you extend freedom of movement to those that aren't necessarily able to protect themselves (i.e. children) by fencing off dangers they may or may not know how to handle. You can extend freedom by curtailing liberty, e.g. the justice system. Therefore a fence can be the indicator of a society with significant freedom.

I know that's a little bit overboard Cap'n, I wouldn't want to be accused of subtlety.

PS At the risk of sounding like David Cameron/Gordon Brown, 'I agree with Nick'

 

[Peter Burgess]

 

[Pitlamp]

My memory of that tragic Gaping Gill fatality was that the legal profession eventually decided the best approach was to provide information to the public at the points of access (i.e. at the starts of paths up Ingleborough) - not at every hazard. I think the point was made that members of the public must take responsibility for their own safety and that the land owner's main duty was to provide the basic information.

I remember this pleased many northern cavers and walkers because the ruling meant that ugly fences weren't going to start springing up everywhere unnecessarily. There is of course the conservation aspects of natural features to consider after all.

 

[cavermark]

New fences (and signs) at every shaft top, where there are currently none (like moorland areas in the dales) would be a shame.  I think the analogy of crag tops is a good one. If someone is stupid enough to go too near an obvious big hole (or let their toddler too near) I would hope a court would see it as just that.  Fences to keep sheep/cattle out would be justified (does the GG fence keep the sheep away, or do the sheep know about keeping away from the edge?).

A sign recently appeared on the path up to the Bone caves in the Allt Nam Uamh valley in Sutherland - it was made of plastic imitating slate (in front of a limestone crag) with a warning triangle containing falling rocks...
I really question the necessity - (a) it should be obvious that rocks might fall off a cliff  (b) unless you completely avoid the area, a rock could still hit you even if you walk briskly along the path, without lingering. 

 

[paul]

How about if a danger is obvious (Gaping Gill, cliff edge, deep water) then we should expect individuals to have some common sense.

If the danger is not obvious (old mineshaft in long grass, accessible roof unlikely to support much weight) fence and or sign.

 

[Ian Adams]

If the public don't associate a bloody great drop down a hole or over a cliff as a danger then it would be better that Charles Darwin intervened to remove their genes from the gene pool...

This 


Not so much "Charles Darwin" as some other "entity". There are frequent reports of people falling (from mountains, hills and footpaths) in Snowdonia. One person manage to break their leg whilst "walking on the flat" (must have taken a level of stupidity no amount of training could hope to achieve).

The solution;
"People" continue to be allowed to venture around Snowdonia
They continue to be airlifted when they fall over/fall down
They continue to be ridiculed in the press for being stupid/ill equipped

I suspect the alternative would be to fence off Snowdonia with signs saying "Keep out - dangerous area".

That obviously isn't going to happen ... I think there is a line in the sand with human liberties which has been addressed earlier in this thread.

And, Les old bean, seems you have finally come off the fence on an issue lol



Ian

 

[ttxela]

Not so much "Charles Darwin" as some other "entity". There are frequent reports of people falling (from mountains, hills and footpaths) in Snowdonia. One person manage to break their leg whilst "walking on the flat" (must have taken a level of stupidity no amount of training could hope to achieve).

A bit harsh perhaps, I'm sure anyone with a bit of bad luck could stumble and injure themselves,

The solution;
"People" continue to be allowed to venture around Snowdonia
They continue to be airlifted when they fall over/fall down
They continue to be ridiculed in the press for being stupid/ill equipped

Agree apart from the ridicule, we all do stupid stuff sometimes surely?

 

[Peter Burgess]

How many cars is it now, Alex......?  :ras:

 

[Ian Adams]

Agree apart from the ridicule, we all do stupid stuff sometimes surely?

.... Yes, but the press are not forgiving (I was citing what actually happens not suggesting what should happen)

:-[ :-[ :-[

Ian

 

[ttxela]

How many cars is it now, Alex......?  :ras:

Quite a few 

 

[Simon Wilson]

My memory of that tragic Gaping Gill fatality was that the legal profession eventually decided the best approach was to provide information to the public at the points of access (i.e. at the starts of paths up Ingleborough) - not at every hazard. I think the point was made that members of the public must take responsibility for their own safety and that the land owner's main duty was to provide the basic information.

I remember this pleased many northern cavers and walkers because the ruling meant that ugly fences weren't going to start springing up everywhere unnecessarily. There is of course the conservation aspects of natural features to consider after all.

The fence at GG is partly there for safety and partly for conservation. The fence used to be only around the steep part. It was Burnley Caving Club who extended it to where it is now. The path down the shakehole was badly eroding and the purpose of extending the fence was to direct people further round to a better place for a path. The new path was later reinforced with wood and then again with stone.

We asked for permission to make the fence go all the way round with a stile for the path but the estate office wouldn't let us do that. The plan was to plant trees. The fences around potholes have the secondary function of excluding sheep and creating small areas of woodland. Deaths Head is an example. At Lost Pot the primary function is to protect the special habitat that the shakehole provides and that fence was done under the Environmental Stewardship Scheme.

 

[Bob Mehew]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-31172579 seems a pertinent aside to this thread.

 

[Pitlamp]

Thanks for that Simon - I never knew it was the Burnley that did the GG fencing work.

Just for completeness, the steps down into the shakehole (i.e. the existing path) were constructed by Craven Pothole Club members during a winch meet a number of years ago (with the blessing of the various interested authorities).

I wonder how many other commendable acts of conservation work by cavers quietly go on in the background. Perhaps this forum should celebrate this sort of thing more often. (It's been good to read of CNCC initiatives on here in recent years.)

 

[braveduck]

I have a feeling It was the Bradford pothole club ,I was there !

 

[Simon Wilson]

I have a feeling It was the Bradford pothole club ,I was there !

You're going to tell us Bratford discovered the Burnley Pitch next.

I think both Craven and Bratford have done work on the fence and/or the steps as you would expect. The fence has been replaced and Bratford might have done that but it was me that decided the erosion needed a solution and proposed moving the path from its old position in a gully to its present position on a ridge. Some members of the Burnley needed some persuading but once the decision had been made the club swung into action. The first fence didn't last long because people kept climbing over it to use the old path and we had to patch it up. People didn't stop climbing over until the steps were made on the new path.