Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By srd
I saw a piece on BBC Midlands Today last night that Warwick(shire?) council had cordoned off two pear trees in a park because of the danger of pears falling from them and striking someone walking beneath them.
The council spokesman said that they had done a risk assessment and had even dropped some pears from 3 storeys up to guage the effect of one hitting a pedestrian.
He said that the other alternatives considered were to fell the two trees, or close the park altogether.
He said that the council feared being sued if a pear were to fall on someone.
Stephen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By srd
Thanks Sagalout for pointing out that this was already being discussed elsewhere.
I only read the first few messages under that particular subject heading so did not see the reference to the 'pear' saga further down.
Stephen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Sued...I don't think so! This is nothing more than a piece of infotainment - not worth a drop.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By gham
Reasonably Foreseeable would be the argument in court by the persuant
Though, if a pear hit me on the head, I would probably eat it compensation enough for me
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Breeze
I just checked the term "falling pears" using Google and I note that the Mumbai Mirror is also running the article!
Worse still, I found an article about a Council who has hired tree surgeons to remove conkers from horse chestnut trees to prevent injury of people by small kids throwing sticks into the trees to try and knock the conkers down!
Beg pardon, but surely by doing this, you're now putting the tree surgeons in harms way - unnecessary working at height?
Looks like someone has not read the HSE's script.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By holmezy
Gham,
it might be reasonably foreseeable for a pear to fall on someones head if the person was under the pear tree, but is it reasonably practicable to fence off all the pear tree's in the land to prevent someone being "peared".
Its reasonably foreseeable that people walk across roads and get hit by passing traffic, but its not reasonably practicable to have 6 foot high fences along both sides of all roads to prevent it......we rely on awareness and education and then consider it an "acceptable" level of risk.
So now we all realise the hazards presented by falling pears...be careful!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By R Joe
In the distant past before risk assessment became a thriving cottage industry, paper mountain in its own right, and win-win for the (non-compensation culture) ambulance chasers genuinely interested in the risks associated with gravity and fruit, didn't it contain something along the lines of 'insignificant risks can usually be ignored, as can risks arising from routine activities associated with life in general'........
Regards RJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By edwin
Ever since I first heard anything about health and safety, people have banged on about the hierarchy of controls.
What's the first thing we are told to do - eliminate the hazard !!
There's some hanging baskets and there is a risk (very small risk, maybe) that one might blow off in the wind and fall on someones head - I'll look at the hierarchy of controls; oh yes, I'll eliminate the hazard - we'll get rid of the hanging baskets.
No...no....no...no!!! I here you cry, that's just conkers bonkers!!
What I'm trying to get round to saying is that we've had years of telling people that the best thing to do is get rid of the hazard so why are we surprised when people take us at our word.
You can't have it both ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By gham
LOL
I once dealt with a claim where a checkout operator dropped a pen on the floor back in the day when you signed the slip for a switch transaction. At the same time a customer walking through the check out slipped on said pen and sprained knee resulted.
Insurance paid a small sum in compensation (out of court) because of the cost to defend.
maybe that's why we do chip and pin now
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By holmezy
Gham,
still L(ing)OL
wow.....chip and pin introduced directly as a result of the pen dropping incident....and we then get the added benefits of increased security etc!
From little acorns do big oaks grow....
Just be careful if under an oak tree as acorns do tend to drop from them!!
It's a mad world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Michael Battman
It worries me that with global warming, how long will it be before coconuts are growing here in the UK
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By holmezy
acid rain??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Caro M
Surely fruit falling out of trees and hitting people on the head isn't a bad thing really, I mean just look at Isaac Newton. Maybe the next person to have a pear drop on their head will make an important scientific discovery.....just a thought!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
Coconuts really would be a problem. I remember reading a few years ago that falling coconuts killed more people in Fiji than road traffic, and if you've ever walked in an abandoned coconut plantation you'll you know just how terrifying they really are. I mean, we had to hang the food up in trees at night, no, hang about, that was the black bears in Canada.
Anyway, trying to focus; wouldn't Tomlinson v Congleton MBC apply here?
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Descarte
Its common practice on tropical holiday island resorts for local people to be employed to scale up and knock off coconuts from palm trees to prevent accident and injury to holliday makers from falling coconuts.
I think however the effects of falling coconuts may be a tad greater than that of a pear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By sagalout
Gham,
so its not just safety oiks that end up in strange situations then eh?
"It suddenly occurred to us that a wild coconut was a really significant thing."
The couples' coconut has been afforded the protection of the National Heritage Act and is now a permanent fixture in the prestigious collection at Kew Gardens.
QED
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By jack rumbol
What an absolute load of tosh. This is what gives us Health and Safety workers out there a bad name.
These people should get a life and start worrying about real risks at work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By srd
Perhaps if the council had used a risk matrix they would have found the risk to be low and as such there was no need to take any action in relation to the pear trees?
Likelihood of a person walking through the park being hit by a falling pear (out of a scale of 1 low to 5 high) = 1
Severity of harm caused by being hit by a falling pear = (out of a scale of 1 low to 5 high) = 1
So the risk is 1 x 1 = 1 (tolerable, no further action required)
Stephen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Linda Crossland-Clarke
Gosh, don't you know anything. Coconuts, have 3 eyes in their bottom so they can see where they are falling and don't hit anyone!
Linda - SHE knows!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By sagalout
Linda, I have heard that safetynuts often have to have eyes in the back of their heads and now we have coconuts with eyes in their bottoms. WOW.
Does this mean that safetynuts can see the coconuts falling down behind them and warn those following that they are in immediate danger I wonder. Or is safe to rely upon the competence of the coconut to spot the hazard and apply risk controls?
Now wheres me rum punch gone??
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.