I have been asked an interesting question this morning:

Should life saving devices (life rings, buoyancy aids) be provided at the side of a public river?
If so, who has this responsibility?
How can the obvious risk of vandalism be reduced?
and who monitors the devices to ensure they are put back in place after being thrown in the river?

As usual...one question turned into four!!!

All opinions welcomed.

R

Your 5th question has raised many, many more. I'm keeping them to myself for now though :-)

Phil,

Thank you.

I'll take that as 'friendly' advice.

R

Rasput:
As regards responsibility for installing such devices - that might fall to either:

National Rivers Authority/Environment Agency
or
Landowner of the bank.

Thus you might find a municipal authority coudl install such devices in parks, along embankments that abut the river.

Phil

Buoyancy aids for rivers. Fencing for cliffs. Where would it end?

Perhaps I should leave the UK now whilst I still can.

Teach everyone to swim and responsibly.

This has two effects:
1) Less drownings
2) Better chances at Olympics.

Really though, what has been the control for the hundreds of years living near water. Parents telling their kids not to go near it and teaching them why.

SOS

Natural hazard, read the case law of Congleton council v ?

No protection required, you are responsible for your own decisions when around natural hazards

No 'nanny state' - thank goodness

There is very good guidance in the Environment Agency publication "Guide to Public Safety on Flood and Coastal Risk Management Sites". Unlike many government publications it offers common sense solutions to risks associated with rivers, canals, lakes and the seafront. It is well illustrated with lots of examples.

PH2

I still don't know what is meant by a public river, nor do I have any real 'feel' for the situation in the original question.

Hence, I never cease to be amazed at how easily people are able to assign or dismiss responsibility or liability on the barest of facts. If only the answer where as simple as been suggested. In my experience this is rarely the case. Inevitably cases whether criminal or civil will often 'hinge' on the very specific circumstances of the case. We have seen lawyers refer to case law only to have this 'dismissed' by the courts for not being irrelevant (often on the basis of a subtle difference in circumstances) and even different courts arriving at different conclusions on the very same case. Judgement - appeal - judgement overturned - appeal to higher court - judgement reverted to original decision etc etc etc. The Tomlinson case mentioned earlier is one such example.

I fear a more robust and thoughtful answer than "no" (or for that matter "yes") is required.

Further to Tomkins' posting

there are a number of sources of guidance relevant to public safety considerations. These include:

(a) “Watercourses in the Community” (SEPA, 2000). http://search.sepa.org.u...the+community&n=sepa
(b) “Ponds, Pools and Lochans” (SEPA, 2000) www.sepa.org.uk/water/wa...tice_guidance.aspx#Ponds
(c) “Technical design details – embankments” (Environment Agency, 2007)
(d) “C522 – “Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems – Design Manual for England and Wales” (CIRIA, 2000); superseded by C697
(e) “C697 – The SUDS Manual” (CIRIA, 2007)
(f) “C689 - Culvert design and operation guide” (CIRIA, 2010)
(g) Various case studies on the Visitor Safety in the Countryside Group website including an open watercourse in Halifax www.vscg.co.uk/documents/uploads/Halifax.doc►
(h) “Safety at Inland Water Sites” (RoSPA, 1999)
(j) BS5499:2002 Part 11 “Water Safety Signs”
(k) “National Water Safety Signs” (RoSPA, initially published in 1980) www.rospa.com/leisuresaf...al-watersafety-signs.pdf

SEPA are critical of culverts, artificially straightened and mechanically excavated channels for various reasons including fast flowing water, flooding problems, adverse impact on the visual environment and biodiversity and safety issues in relation to steep slopes (or vertical drops), pipework and security grills.

SEPA support the restoration of watercourses where this is practical, and devote a Chapter in “Watercourses in the Community” to this topic. SEPA note various safety benefits associated with open watercourses when compared to artificial structures:

 They are less prone to flooding, especially flash flooding
 There are no grills or pipes into which children can be attracted, and become trapped
 The banks tend to be more gently sloping - making it easier for someone who has fallen in to clamber out.

The restoration of watercourses offers significant ecological benefits, e.g. as a result of the creation of riffles, meanders, pools and planting.

SEPA policy (and that of the Environment Agency) is the avoidance of new culverts except where these are necessary.

In terms of slopes for river restoration projects, references (a), (b), and (d) recommend “one in four or less”, reference (c) notes “typically one in 2.5 to 3”, and reference (e) recommends a maximum of “one in three”.

It is understood that the more recent CIRIA guidance reflects advances in technology e.g. the ability of ride-on mowers to traverse somewhat steeper slopes.

Whatever the slope, any risks can be further reduced by careful consideration of the location of footpaths, e.g. to leave a strip between path and the water’s edge, and by planting of bankside and/or aquatic vegetation. Where such vegetation has sharp foliage it acts as a natural deterrent, as does mud at the water’s edge.

Where a hazard has not been eliminated during design phase or reduced to an acceptable level of risk, there is a need to provide the public with information about.

 risks that might not be obvious e.g. where there are underwater hazards that are not visible
 hazards which pose significant risk e.g. sheer drops, particularly if associated with new infrastructure

I agree wholeheartedly with these kinds of approaches although it is not a new approach. We have used a number of similar schemes over the years, both sloping banks and some different planting schemes, both on the margins and on the banks, which we feel reduce the overall risk to an acceptable level.

We have always tried to strike a sensible balance between risk, personal responsibility and amenity value. It can be a difficult balancing act and requires some careful consideration, including developing the various arguments for and against one approach or another, rather than a ‘simple’ “no” response. I would certainly not suggest to anyone that they abandon either risk assessment or risk management, or adopt the “no” approach merely on the basis or justification that it is a natural hazard.

The reality check referred to, if one is needed, is for people to consider each situation on it’s merits and determine what precautions, if any are needed, on it’s merits. Of course, it would be utterly ludicrous to suggest that every river bank, coastline, or other ‘water hazard’ should be fenced off and have a flotation aid every 10 metres, but it is also reasonably clear to me that in some circumstances, precautions might well be needed and that these might (perish the thought) include flotation aids.

OMG was it me?

Good general question, and certainly gets one thinking - as an interested member of the public.

However, this is why we're in the awful state we're in where Insurers insist on ever-higher standards, perhaps encouraged by Lawyers quoting weak Magistrate decisions, followed by Judith Hackitt being dragged into answering silly queries about public risk decisions via the Myth-busters.

Meanwhile...I entered the profession to help employers to manage risk in what we commonly understand as 'workplaces' - I'm not sure that entering the debate on more generalised risk situations with our precious risk-averse public and press is going to help our cause at all.

Can't we resist and say 'this is not our area of expertise: contact Insurance/Lawyer/RoSPA' etc.?

Good for you, and I trust that you exercise your influence proportionately - and while you're about it, try not to ruin the countryside (in the name of H&S) for the rest of us.

My point is that most H&S practitioners (not including the myriad of environmental and other specialists trying to save us from being flooded out), if they're fed up of being associated with 'all and sundry poor public risk making decisions' should distance themselves (by going back to what the profession was founded on i.e. workplace risk), rather than associate themselves (e.g. via the laughable 'Mythbusters' decisions).

For some reason, the 'mud' of other's poor decisions always seems to stick to our profession rather than the originators.

Kev

One of the specific purposes of the EA / Defra guide is not to ruin the countryside for us and my border collie.

The River Hull runs about 100m past our house; it has public footpaths on both sides, and the far said is an extensive common open to the public (one of Beverley's three wonderful commons, this one has breeding Snipe and Grasshopper Warblers). There are no lifebelts, fences or even signs saying please don't fall in, though if you did given the amount of silt in the river you'd probably suffocate rather than drown) and nor is there any need.

There are signs warning people of the dangers of bulls (and believe me, these are real dangers) and of catching their fishing rods on the overhead wires, but I've never been drawn by the allure of trying to outwit fish.

The relevant case law here is, as has been said, Tomlinson v Congleton MBC, which was all about the value of public amenity versus the risk of falling into, off of or over such public amenity. People know (or should know) that if they fall into a river they will, at the very least, get wet, and currently that's where the law stands,

John

It's jolly good of Clairel to conclude her response above with 'lots of love' to the rest of us on this forum! isn't that the meaning of "lol" ?!!!

Also, I understand that grasshopper warblers as mentioned by jwk at #31 are pretty rare. Perhaps it's best not to mention rarish birds and their locations on this forum or elsewhere on the internet otherwise it could lead to such locations being invaded by hordes of obsessive bird watchers commonly known as twitchers!

:-)

Graham,

In the event that you are not joking, LOL means 'Lots of Laughs'....cue jokes about people not knowing and sending texts which say 'Sorry to hear your dog died lol'