How do we know that they have not already assessed fitting a fence or barrier? Salt water, high tides, wind and rough seas in winter could have made the whole project totally impractical. One bad winter and it’s all gone, or worse someone gets impaled on or trips over what remains. It is really sad that someone died. But surely we need to take our own blinkers off, get away from this “wrap everyone up in cotton wool” attitude. Its time people took ownership of their own health and safety. I live in very centre of Newark (yes I know about the anagram), and like many towns with rivers running through it there is a real and present danger of falling off the edge and into the brown, rat infested abyss called the Trent, especially near and at the town locks. In summer (yes we did have one, it was on 12 July at approximately 13:45 and lasted an hour) the wharf is heaving. Touch wood only the odd few have fallen in and most of them were eventually rescued. Think of all the pubs and clubs up and down the country. Places like York or along the canal banks in the Cotswolds. Should we shut them down for “elf n safety” reasons until we can erect several thousand miles of ugly, ineffective and expensive barriers? We could and then when the first child falls off them and dies from a fractured skull we can remove them and start all over again. Personally I think that they should have left the heavy electric wheelchair and used a lighter manual wheelchair. I would have, simply because of the expectation that I would have manual handling difficulties in boarding the boat. My heartfelt sympathy goes out to the bereaved.

Ray and Betta Obviously we do not know all the ins and outs of this and yet it seems to me that the use of this quay area for boat trips means that there would be more people in a small area than would have been expected without such an attraction. I cannot agree with Betta re the use of an alternative wheelchair. It really depends on individual abilities but one should remember that belts tend to be used where the persons body position in the chair needs assistance to stay in a suitable seated posture. I would hesitate to think that a manual whjeelchair was better than the person adapted electric wheelchair. We cannot get to a position where we seem to say that they should not have been there in any case. A complex incident but rails along the side of a busy quayside impractical - I doubt that somehow. It feels very wrong in my guts. Bob

Following this incident is it now reasonably practicable for a similar incident to occur at the same spot? A risk assessment will have to be carried out and I would imagine some added precautions will be required, i.e. safety barrier along the edge at least in the vicinity of the boarding access. If this is so then why not introduce the same measures at all such edge hazards in the country. I wonder in the council or whoever is responsible for the area has carried out an access audit under the Equality Act or DDA before?

I've been trying to resist the temptation to respond to this but I can't any longer. This is a tragic event, make no mistake but comments suggesting that edge protection should be in place here only supports the press's and subsequently the publics' negative perceptions of our industry. I'm sorry Bob but I have to ask. Have you ever been to Lyme Regis?

And a car park for that 4x4 that made it back up again...

It appears that the issues of the wheelchair and disability may not be particularly relevant to this tragic accident. Anyone falling in to cold deep water can drown as has been the case for very many, even with heroic efforts at rescue and resuscitation. Yes, it may well have been forseeable that someone would fall in, but so too it is forseeable that someone would fall off Beachy Head, off the banks of the Wharfe, off Crib Goch, off the jetty at Salcombe (and they have). But to suggest that fences/barriers are needed is to me nonsense. Life is full of hazards. Most of us will live to old age, some will die younger and leave grieving families and friends. It's tough but true. Fencing our coastlines, rivers and mountains is firmly in the realm of the madness that is elf 'n safety.

Like many other forum users I'm not acquainted with the Cobb at Lyme Regis where the recent tragedy occurred, so am not qualified to make proper comment on it. However, from a general perspective, I generally share the views already expressed by Betta Spenden, RayRapp and Stuff4blokes. In addition to unfenced river banks and cliff faces, the edges of canals in the UK generally are unfenced, even in towns, villages and cities where significant numbers of people are likely to approach or walk/cycle beside them. Though canal lock chambers by their nature can pose a particular hazard to the unwary, especially when the water in them is at the level of the lower adjacent stretch of canal, they are usually unfenced. I've walked and cycled considerable distances along canal towpaths and can't remember seeing any locks which did have fencing. This is because it's simply not practicable to enclose lock chambers with handrails or provide them for most stretches of canal towpaths. By the same token it's generally not practical, for various reasons, to have fencing (handrails/barriers) at harbours and docks. During my early HSE days this was explained to me by senior inspectors when I first started to inspect such places. It was reflected in the Docks Regulations of 19XX which generally allowed unfenced edges, but did require barriers to be provided at and highlight corners and other changes of direction of such edges. I recall that the regulations also required vertical sides of docks and harbours to incorporate escape ladders at requisite intervals, plus lifebelts, etc. Though the lengths of unfenced stretches of docks and harbour sides in the UK are likely to total many miles, many locations are open to the public. This includes people who are under the influence of booze and/or other drugs, with young children, with pets, unaccompanied children & teenagers, etc - and yes, sometimes, sadly there are incidents at such places, some with tragic outcomes. Most if not all dock and harbour areas which are accessible to the public probably have warning signs. Also, from recollection of a sizeable and publically accessible Scottish harbour I used during a holiday last month, some lengths of the harbour edges had baulks of timber (similar in shape and size to wooden railway sleepers) secured to them. Such timbering seemed to provide a reasonable compromise in that they 1) indicated the presence of the harbour edge and 2) would tend to prevent vehicles, pushchairs and wheelchairs from going over the edge, and yet still allow boats, notably fishing vessels, to be loaded and unloaded.

It is surely a question of balance, as in so many other things. We do not know, from the article, what part the person involved played in this tragic accident. Were they guilty of a degree of foolhardiness in being too close to the edge, did they unintentionally propel the wheelchair over the edge, either through distraction or lack of experience in controlling an electric wheelchair (easily done)? I don't think I've ever been to Lyme Regis, so I don't know to what extent the arrangements at the dock complied with the requirements to make 'reasonable adjustments' for those with disabilities. If people were attracted to a point of interest such as boat trips, it should be foreseeable that not all of them will be fit or rock steady on their feet or even able to walk at all. They still have a right to be considered in arrangements, being disabled should not mean being excluded from activities where reasonable arrangements can be made to accommodate them, in a supposedly civilised society. Was there any evidence of any reasonable arrangements? We do not know from the report, so will have to suspend judgment on blame, but hopefully all make a mental note to check arrangements elsewhere where it is practicable to consider precautions. A

RayRapp - I was also going to mention railway platforms in my post above, but decided it was already getting quite long and might even incur a chiding from Clairel. As regards railway platforms I have a relative who is a co-founder and former operations manager of a standard gauge heritage railway. Some years ago he told me that, unbelievably, a railways inspector had suggested/asked for the edges of the railway's platforms to be fenced. I don't know the details, but suspect that the railway swiftly challenged what the inspector had requested, and probably copied in his boss as well. Like platforms elsewhere, the railway's platforms remain unfenced, not least because they are used by trains with carriages of different styles and lengths. I think my relative mentioned that platform fencing (with interlocked gates?) WAS practicable for a few London Underground stations (presumably on the Jubilee Line extension) served always by trains of standard length and with matching doors - but NOT for other stations in the UK. p.s. When using the London Underground, I instinctively try to keep away from platform edges while waiting for trains, especially at busy times, in case I get accidentally pushed off the edge. In addition to the risk of getting mown down by an approaching train, there's the risk of touching and being electrocuted by the exposed live rail. Earlier this year I experienced the Glasgow Underground for the first time. As at least some or most of the stations had narrow central platforms with a line on each side, I was glad I didn't have to use the platforms during busy periods. I'm not sure but think the trains were powered from overhead wires rather than live rails like those of the London Underground. Though I'm not a railway expert, the presence of low-level live rails on the London Underground and other railways in the South East strikes me as a notable design flaw in view of the risk they pose to people, including trespassers, and presumably animals as well. Also, weren't uncertainty and concern about live rails significant factors in the delay in sending/getting paramedics to casualties in the Underground trains after the London bombings?! Perhaps the use of low level live rails is a legacy from the early days of electric railways and that it was considered just too expensive and/or technically awkward to replace them with overhead power wires and also to adapt the trains. Also, as regards the London Underground, perhaps the tunnels aren't of sufficient height to allow the installation of overhead wires. Slight apologies for this digression/side development from the main topic, but it seemed easier than starting a brand new topic.

With regards to railway platform edges, it's amazing how passenger ferries, airports and even fair grounds also prevent access / protect exposed edges but railways don't. I might be in the minority who considers this a 'significant' risk interface, when factoring in children, students, crowding, air turbulence (passing trains) and associated accident stats. Let's face it, SFAIRP and technically speaking, some method of protecting the edge (catering for different rolling stock) could be implemented - similar to that in place on some underground platforms, as previously mentioned! I don't think that's risk averse, again I'm sure many of our fraternity will disagree wholly with me. Something being discussed on another thread.

Thanks. What did I do to deserve 'Clairel' bashing today!! :-P

Clairel - I can assure you that my comment wasn't intended as criticism. You may recall some time ago in another topic thread that you complained - politely - to me about being long-winded in one of my responses. I didn't think that my response had been particularly long, but it did contain about 6 different points. Therefore, perhaps you complained on behalf of some forum users (not including yourself of course) who might have limited attention spans and/or be unable to cope with too many points in one go! (Goodness knows how such people cope with law reports and similarly detailed documents which tend to make my longer writings seem like models of brevity!) Hope this helps. I did think of adding "Calm down dear" as per the TV insurance advert, but didn't. This would probably have been the metaphorical equivalent of throwing fuel on a fire, as the Prime Minister found when he used the phrase in reply to an opposition minister at Westminster!

Some live webcam views of the harbour at Lyme Regis. It is a small working harbour and marina typical of many such small harbours around our shores. http://www.lymeregis.org/webcams/cobb-webcam Bob raised some real concerns here but rather than simply subjectively discuss the use of handrails I would be interested to learn about the criteria and data that would be recommended for use in any risk assessment of such environments where public access is required. Just how would one go about the risk assessment that some are now calling for? What data would need to be gathered and then, perhaps most importantly, what criteria would be used for the cost benefit analysis etc? I cannot offer any starters as I have never been faced with such a task. It does seem to me though that this is the objective way to determine what course of action may be required. p48

Graham, indeed. Although I think the case referred to the section of the outer wall of the Harbour which is both on the seaward side and is a completely different environment from the harbour side. Readers may also be interested to read the following extract which can be found on the Lyme Regis.org.uk website. p48 "As you pass the station you will see that there is a road round the harbour and also steps up to the outward wall. Walking the wall is the best way to see the Cobb, although the Health and Safety do their best to put you off with gaudy yellow notices. Meryl Streep managed to get to the end of the Cobb in the film The French Lieutenant’s Woman in bad weather so it can be done (although rumour has it that it was a stunt man dressed in her cloak). However, in Jane Austen’s Persuasion, Louisa Musgrove jumps off the steps, falls, and is concussed - so mind how you go!"

Pete, thanks for the Lyme Regis footage, however it did not seem to work too well - never mind, it's the thought that counts. I have never really understood how objective assessments work in health and safety, or perhaps that should be their usefulness. They always seem tainted by subjective elements, such as the 'reasonably practical' qualification.

It was not my intention that this thread be tied to the old fence everything debate. It is very alive I see. Rather I was trying to open up the whole philosophical issue of HOW we make decisions in these sorts of context. The use of the conkers bonkers type argument and impractability as a defence do not satisfy me and I feel that there must be better solutions. To simply exclude disabled from an area is also not a solution as this could well be discriminatory, perhaps the answer is then to exclude all but those at work in such situations. Again this does not appear sensible. Graham also highlights the previously sucessfully defended case, could this give a sense of security? I do not know. We do however need to find suitable methodologies for such situations Bob

P48 I think we are on the same wavelength. We need some clear methods to deal with these issues. Ones that we can defend in the court of public opinion. It worried me when many responses immediately jumped to we cannot fence railway platform type argument. Bob

Safetysmurf Yes one of my fellow wheelchair users described it thus. She found it too difficult to ever want to repeat the exercise!! But does that mean access should be barred to those with limited or no ambulation ability? Bob

Graham Docks Regulations 1934 - I've still got my 1976 edition of Redgrave! Glasgow Subway. Powered by third rail DC. I look at the third rail on a regular basis - three stops on the way to work, four stops back (makes it more likely that I get a seat) All - Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council. Lord Hutton “ there might be exceptional cases where the principle stated in Stevenson and Taylor should not apply and where a claimant might be able to establish that the risk arising from some natural feature on the land was such that the occupier might reasonably be expected to offer him some protection against it, for example, where there was a very narrow and slippery path with a camber beside the edge of a cliff from which a number of persons had fallen. “ Stevenson v Glasgow Corporation 1908 SC 1034, 1039 Taylor v Glasgow Corporation 1922 S.C. (H.L.) 1

Safetysmurf I have an Allterrain manual wheelchair - cost brand new is £3.5k+. An electric all terrain starts around £9k before adaptations. It really does become a cost issue for the disabled who are generally on tight budget in any case. Many have to pay a tenner simply to get a light bulb changed or are paying for two full time carers, ie a day and a night. I can well understand why the decision was made and the risks involved. The question remains "How do we make the decisions about which of these types of situations we can control?" Bob