Inflatable fatalities

[char-p]

Looking at this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/5208460.stm

 

Why is this kind of dis-regard for h&s still happening? Where there no risk assessments?

 

Paul

[SeanT]

Not really a lighting related post, but nasty story - things like this shouldn't be happening, although outdoors anything can happen - it's like asking about risk assessments for natural disasters in some cases..... (probably not this one though)

[niclights]

That is awful and in an age when H&S often seems overbearing is hard to understand.

 

However, I think it is not appropriate to suggest there was disregard for H&S or that there were no risk assesments etc. Sometimes things happen that you cannot, or could not have, account for. We should keep an open mind like the police

[mumbles]

Like always it is sad that this happens, but we shouldn't be discussing this on half the facts.

 

As sean says, how can you do a risk assessment to cover all eventualities. It's a bit like buildings which are designed to stand upto the 50 year storm, but the hundred year storm may be beyond them, but in this case, there doesn't seem to have been anything in particular like unexpectedly strong winds. However there is likely to be an investigation, so again, there isn't much to discuss as we don't know the full story.

 

EDIT; oh well, nic seems to have said the same but more concisely and has typed quicker.

[Seano]

Quite. As the Durham police said:

"We are working with the Health and Safety Executive who are already on the scene, obviously looking to establish the cause... we are keeping an open mind. "

 

If you have some information that they don't have, you should get in touch with them. Otherwise, speculating that there was criminal negligence (which is what a "disregard for health and safety" would amount to) is in dubious taste and in this public forum may actually be libellous.

[char-p]

Am not really suggesting that, I suppose it is my strength of sadness in reading that this has happened that pushed me to be so inflamatory. For that, I retract and apologise. I truely hope that it is a freak occurance, and will mainly hold onto this one as a "don't ever want to cause that" type of learning.

 

Paul

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Wanted to add apology

[Bryson]

Before replying here, especially with any speculation on the cause, Google "Sub Judice" and remember that anything you post on the Blue Room is at your own risk.

 

Tanks y'all

[dbuckley]

This missus was speculating that maybe some scallies had undone whatever it was that held the thing down. The beeb news report sure looks scary.

[paulears]

Whilst obviously concerned for the people involved in this incident, why are we instantly looking for scapegoats. People killed and injured = somebody to be castigated. I am not sure that we understand the concept of 'accident' any more? Common sense, applied by ordinary people is what risk assesment is about. I don't think it fair to comment on this particular incident, but things have to be put into perspective.

 

Let's consider putting up a marquee on a field. Common enough and we then fill it with kit. We talk about the structure and how much weight it can take, how safe the elecs are etc. Er... who checked it couldn't be lifted off the ground by a rogue gust? I wasn't in my assessment, did we assume the marquee contractor did the assessment? Was this before we removed an entire side of the marquee for visual reasons? Everybody tries to do their best, but at some point, responsibility ends (or maybe just seems to?) We spend a long time making our contribution safe, but have any of our safe decisions impacted on other peoples analysis?

 

A few years ago, I was rigging an off-stage dressing room to act as a chorus room. Monitors (audio and visual), microphones, comms etc all needed cable access, so with the permission of the stage manager, I made a hole in the ceiling for access. Afterwards we plastered it back up and they repainted. Only recently I found a team wearing space suit type gadgets repairing asbestos panels that had been cut through by an electrical contractor - seems in theis venue for fire safety reasons asbestos had been used all over the place. Safe as long as left alone. So am I to blame if anyone contracts asbestosis? Is the stage manager who said "do it" to blame? I hate this blame culture. With the data to hand, when I did it I wasn't worried. With hindsight, a wonderful gift, what I did was wrong. Was I negligent, then=no, but now people would no doubt say yes.

 

char-p's initial post immediately jumped to the conclusion that risk assessments were not done and H&S was absent - nowadays we are so used to blame being the first reaction. "I was working in a kitchen and slipped on some mess that hadn't been cleaned up", "I was given the wrong ladder"

 

One definition of accident simply states "An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm"

[back_ache]

I've had a look around Dreamscape as a visitor before, it was a great exhibit to visit and just as big as the artical states and a good demonstation of the pysclogical effect of coloured light.

 

there is no external support, just its inflatable self and there is ambiant multi-track audio feed in from speakers outside coming from linked CD players.

 

 

 

 

My thoughts go out to the victims and there loved ones.

[dbuckley]

One definition of accident simply states "An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm"

Not a bad definition. Of course, if whatever happens is on your risk assessment, then it's hardly "unexpected". For example, if you are RAing a cable accross a thoroughfare, one would expect to have "punter tripping over cable" listed as a possibility, and some ameliorating measure(s) to prevent it happening. So if a punter does trip over the cable cover installed to stop the punters tripping, its not an unexpected event, just either (a) an inadequate countermeasure, or (b) the fact that no matter what you do, if enough people cross that spot on the floor sooner or later someone will trip there. But its not an accident as you wrote down that you expected it to happen.

 

... why are we instantly looking for scapegoats. People killed and injured = somebody to be castigated. I am not sure that we understand the concept of 'accident' any more?

Scapegoats have to be identified for a number of reasons, but one of the most important is so that it can be determined who pays compensation to those injured. This is mandatory when you have the legal concept of "fault" and compensation.

 

In NZ we have "no fault" compensation provided by a state owned enterprise. Doesn't matter through whose negligence, incompetence, act of God or one in a bazzilion chance the incident occurs, ACC will pay compensation, and the vivtims have no rights to persue the matter through the courts. It's not perfect, but it works adequately for most preople most of the time, and keeps the courts clear of this entire category of dispute. (Note this doesnt prevent OSH, our equivalent of H&S, coming after you, you are legally required to take "all practicable steps" to ensure safety)

 

... but at some point, responsibility ends.

No it doesn't. Thats what being responsible means. You will stop working on improving safety at some point, but that doesn't stop you being responsible. Of course, if something happens then you may dispute you were responsible, for example, you build that marquee with the lampy hire co saying they've got 1300KG distributed and they put up 5000KG on two points and the thing comes down, you may be able to shift the blame and thus the responsibility.

[the kid]

Intresting listening to R2 at the monment people are saying that it was hot inside.

If you can get it now there is a caller who uses them.

[paulears]

I guess that responsibility does eventually stop, often at the person at the top of the heirachy tree, often nowadays the most senior person who has to fall on his sword due to the action of the lowliest person. Don't you just hate the way society works nowadays?

[AndrewR]

For my 2p I would say that resposiblility does stop. Not just at the top, but as the HSE say after you have taken all reasonabily practible steps to minimise the risk. So would a venue be to blame for a crazed gun toting psyco running in? No. Risk assesments can only cover forseeable events. The man who trod on a piece of wood that shouldn't have been there, thats a foreseeable event (and his own fault IMHO, should have watched where he was going) Not knowing any details of the tragic occourance that brought about this thread I won't coment directly. But remember that Air Crash Investigators call it a crash untill they can determine if it was an accident or not! At what point will people stop trying to blame? Failure to cover asteroid impact in your risk assesment?

(I realise thats a silly example, but I hope you get my point)

 

Sorry about the rambling rant

 

And

[Ellis]

At this stage all we can only speculate as to the cause. We assume that the organisers have done all the risk assessments that they could reasonably have done so (it is the job of the Police, HSE and ultimately the courts to question that fact) and treat it as a precautionary tale.

 

Without sophisticated computer modelling and wind-tunnel experiments, it is not possible to know exactly how a structure will behave under wind loadings in a particular location.

 

Local terrain and buildings can cause locallised funel effects than significantly amplify the effect of the wind. I recall reports in the local press about the effect of the (at that time) buildings at a new local hospital being expected to cause the trees in a near-by woodland to be blown over and that the proposed heli-pad would be unuseable for much of the time.

 

There is another story about a building that was built and engineered to prevent the windows from blowing in. When the first high wind came, the windows in the leigh of the building were sucked out. The entrance of same building is difficult to approach in moderately windy conditions due to the funneling effect.

 

The moral of this incident (and the other stories) is that we will always under-estimate the power of the wind (and the other elements). So when we are working outdoors, we need to be extra vigilant and be ever ready to provide a timely and appropriate response WHEN things go wrong in a way we do not expect.