Health And Safety

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Wussername said:

The requirements of an audit trail might well be seen to be important in a court of law where a duty of care needs to be established or that a company has not only been seen to have taken reasonable care but has taken reasonable care.

Sorry but again it is the detail that I cannot see; someone??? has a duty of care to??? and we??? have addressed our duty of care by??? as evidenced by ???

[Wussername]

21 minutes ago, Philosophical said:

Sorry but again it is the detail that I cannot see; someone??? has a duty of care to??? and we??? have addressed our duty of care by??? as evidenced by ???

Are you on the right thread old chap? May I refer you to:

I would like to refer to a post made by JohnK on Feb 12^th:

I wonder if it’s partly down to the indemnity insurance of the boat yard. 
Since we seem do have now adopted US litigation laws could someone who had an accident sue the boatyard because they hired a boat to an unsuitable party?

What is an unsuitable party? Someone with mobility issues, someone who is considered not old enough – a minor? Someone on their own, a solo helm, who, challenged by weather and tidal conditions is unable to handle a given situation. Finally a party who had been given insufficient instruction from a boatyard who employed an individual who was unable to offer a suitable or meaningful introduction as to the basic skills and methods required.  

Andrew

[BroadAmbition]

Having had someone run into the back of our car a few years ago, I was astounded at the number of telephone calls we got trying to make us claim for injury where there was none. 14 on one day alone and the calls went on for 2 years!! It is this sort of ambulance chasing that should be stamped on. - Agreed

I had a similar experience after my van suffered damaged to its front side (Insurance claim on t'other party no quibbles) I did not so much as scratch a finger nail let alone suffer any injury, the phone calls I received stating I could claim thousands for my Injuries went on for about two years, I ended up getting quite nasty with them in the end

Griff

[JohnK]

I had a similar experience after my van suffered damaged to its front side (Insurance claim on t'other party no quibbles) I did not so much as scratch a finger nail let alone suffer any injury, the phone calls I received stating I could claim thousands for my Injuries went on for about two years, I ended up getting quite nasty with them in the end
Griff

I don’t bother talking to them anymore. Sadly I have to accept calls from unknown numbers because it might be work but the sequence of events usually goes ....
‘Am I speaking to John?” “Yes you are” “I’m ringing from xxxx company, according to our records ....” at that point I’ve hung up.
I genuinely feel sorry for the people making the calls, they’re so desperate for work they’ve taken what must be an appalling job.

[Polly]

I always interrupt, and say, 'Sorry, I don't take these calls, I am hanging up now.' And then do so.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Wussername said:

Are you on the right thread old chap? May I refer you to:

I would like to refer to a post made by JohnK on Feb 12^th:

I wonder if it’s partly down to the indemnity insurance of the boat yard. 
Since we seem do have now adopted US litigation laws could someone who had an accident sue the boatyard because they hired a boat to an unsuitable party?

What is an unsuitable party? Someone with mobility issues, someone who is considered not old enough – a minor? Someone on their own, a solo helm, who, challenged by weather and tidal conditions is unable to handle a given situation. Finally a party who had been given insufficient instruction from a boatyard who employed an individual who was unable to offer a suitable or meaningful introduction as to the basic skills and methods required.  

Andrew

Finally a party who had been given insufficient instruction from a boatyard who employed an individual who was unable to offer a suitable or meaningful introduction as to the basic skills and methods required. 

So please detail the training and evaluation that would be required to satisfy a court or investigation that a boatyard or individual had given sufficient instruction to prevent ???, and then maybe consider the cost implications to the boatyard and the reaction of potential hirers who will now fear a test and evaluation before they are allowed to take the boat from the yard..

But again, my point is where is the evidence that instruction from the boatyard or lack thereof is the root cause of actually anything "bad"  

[JanetAnne]

My mother in law is quite happy to take those type of calls and can keep them talking for hours. She has Alzheimer's...

[JohnK]

But again, my point is where is the evidence that instruction from the boatyard or lack thereof is the root cause of actually anything "bad"  

I don’t think there is any.
However, in the case of an accident HSE, a court or whoever is going to start with “ok Mr boat yard owner show us you’ve done everything you can to ensure that person was competent to hire your boat”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Londonlad1985]

I keep them on the phone, make a bit of a pantomime out of it, natter away tell them my problems let it go along for as long as they like then at the end just not agree or say yes or send back the forms. I see it a public service while I'm wittering on they can't bother others. 

I also from time to time post back junk mail with no stamp 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, JanetAnne said:

My mother in law is quite happy to take those type of calls and can keep them talking for hours. She has Alzheimer's...

Sadly I have too much free time on my hands so I invent a number of accidents and explain them all in minute detail till they catch on.

[Wussername]

6 minutes ago, Philosophical said:

Finally a party who had been given insufficient instruction from a boatyard who employed an individual who was unable to offer a suitable or meaningful introduction as to the basic skills and methods required. 

So please detail the training and evaluation that would be required to satisfy a court or investigation that a boatyard or individual had given sufficient instruction to prevent ???, and then maybe consider the cost implications to the boatyard and the reaction of potential hirers who will now fear a test and evaluation before they are allowed to take the boat from the yard..

But again, my point is where is the evidence that instruction from the boatyard or lack thereof is the root cause of actually anything "bad"  

I think that I might be able to detail the training and evaluation that is required.

There would be little cost to the boatyard.

There would be no test or evaluation other than that which already exists.

Not sure about the bad bit though! Don't understand that.

Andrew

[Guest]

Just now, Wussername said:

I think that I might be able to detail the training and evaluation that is required.

There would be little cost to the boatyard.

There would be no test or evaluation other than that which already exists.

Not sure about the bad bit though! Don't understand that.

Andrew

I think that I might be able to detail the training and evaluation that is required.

I'd be pleased if you would

There would be little cost to the boatyard.

Would need to know what is above 

There would be no test or evaluation other than that which already exists.

I do not believe that any exists today and any training or instruction that relies on attendance or participation only, as opposed to some post course evaluation would not satisfy any court or inquiry as being qualified.

Not sure about the bad bit though! Don't understand that.

The "bad" refers to the as yet to be specified and unidentified problem we are trying to address with these additional training measures. 

 

[Wussername]

Sadly you will have to be satisfied with my last contribution on this matter. 

It is neither fishing or mending nets.

I'm off to bed.

I shall wind the cat up and put the clock out.

Tootle pip!

Edited March 13, 2018 by Wussername

[MauriceMynah]

I agree. All hirers should have a form to sign. It should say...

It's water. It's dangerous. Either live with it or bugger off!

no more, no less.

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

I agree. All hirers should have a form to sign. It should say...

It's water. It's dangerous. Either live with it or bugger off!

no more, no less.

 

25 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

I agree. All hirers should have a form to sign. It should say...

It's water. It's dangerous. Either live with it or bugger off!

no more, no less.

Water can also be wet, is that a risk?

[JanetAnne]

6 hours ago, Philosophical said:

 

Water can also be wet, is that a risk?

I believe it's a risk that can be managed by consulting the appropriate health and safety bod. Now the risk has been identified you will be pleased to hear that they will protect you from the wetness until the water is turned into dry water and you can be trusted to go near it again.

 

[grendel]

ah you mean the new dehydrated water, just add water to bring it back to its full potential.

[Vaughan]

Well, you all had a good chat last night, but did we get anywhere?

Here is something which I very often say to first time hirers towards the end of their trial run :

"Please remember that I cannot teach you how to handle a boat. I can show you the methods that you will need to follow, but the rest will be your own practice and this week, you will get plenty of it!"

Let's face it, that is half the fun of an adventure, boating holiday in such a safe environment as the Broads.

We must recognise that the trial run (the clue is in the name) is not a test : it is a demonstration and initiation into boat handling. If you wanted to train the hirer up to the level of passing a test, that would take a couple of days - out of a 6 day holiday - so he might as well go beforehand and get an RYA certificate in the first place. In which case the boatyards would not have enough customers to stay in business.

The trial run should cover commonsense matters :

Never jump off a boat - always step off it.

Always have one hand on a rail when on deck.

Bring the boat into a mooring at a slow enough speed so that if you make a mistake, you don't do any damage.

And several more, in this same vein.

The last company I worked for had a check list of items that must be covered during a trial run, such as the gas, the toilets, the batteries, etc. There was a box to tick for each one and the list went on for 3 pages. This was then signed by the hirer to say that they were happy with the boat and was kept on file in the office. I imagine Broads yards all do something similar. The run out on the river, however, is not a "box" that can be ticked : it is a hands - on experience between the instructor and his customer and each time, it is different.

This is how we have been doing it ever since the end of the War and when you consider the millions of people who have enjoyed a happy holiday, taught by this method, I don't see how we are going to do it different now without just getting bogged down in paperwork.

 

[High6]

ah you mean the new dehydrated water, just add water to bring it back to its full potential.

Or use it neat if you want whiskey and dry.

Sent from my Nexus 9 using Tapatalk

[Smoggy]

49 minutes ago, High6 said:

Or use it neat if you want whiskey and dry.

Sent from my Nexus 9 using Tapatalk
 

But would you use fresh ice or the frozen stuff?

[High6]

But would you use fresh ice or the frozen stuff?

It would have to be Tesco's reusable plastic ice cubes so as not to dilute the Scotch.

Sent from my Nexus 9 using Tapatalk

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, High6 said:

It would have to be Tesco's reusable plastic ice cubes so as not to dilute the Scotch.

Sent from my Nexus 9 using Tapatalk
 

Wouldn't want to spoil a good drop of Dalmore '62 

[SteveO]

Trouble is, we live in an increasingly litigious society, where just about all jobs have been dumbed down to a box-ticking exercise and no-one wants to be accountable for making judgements and possibly defending them in court later.  Someone, I am sure, will have done the calculation and decided that hiring to singles or single adults accompanied by minors is just not worth the extra bother.

I think we will see a lot more of this sort of thing before common sense breaks out.

[marshman]

Well done Vaughan - spot on. As you said before you would be hard pushed to sue the yard if they had in their possession a ticked list as has been described.

As you have also said, once the boat leaves the yard, it is the Skipper who is responsible for the boat AND the crew, NOT the the yard and even in this litigious society we now find ourselves in, I doubt any court would wish to disturb that principle, whatever some seem to think.

 

[FairTmiddlin]

1 hour ago, marshman said:

 you would be hard pushed to sue the yard if they had in their possession a ticked list as has been described.

 

 

And the age old catch all in the hire industry.

"Is there any thing I have shown or told you, that you do not understand and wish me to show, or tell you once again?"

Just about covers any eventuality.