Notices..what have you spotted?

[Skull]

Facebook

[myglaren]

[CitroJim]

^^ Two good ones

[myglaren]

[CitroJim]

Love that one Steve..

Mine from yesterday's hike around the top of a big quarry..

[Hell Razor5543]

https://br.ifunny.co/picture/warning-ha ... -20qkVN17A

[CitroJim]

A new one has just appeared on one of the entrances to what we all know is a floodplain and the reason it's like it is... Castle Meadow borders the River Lovat and its confluence with the Great Ouse. It is regularly a lake rather than a meadow...

No sh1t Sherlock!

That the Town Council felt such a warning sign is even needed is totally and utterly beyond my belief...

I'd love to know the decision-making process behind it... I had to check we'd not timehopped back to April 1st

I despair... I really do

[bobins]

It's quite simple - they have a duty of care and as such if they don't put up warning signs then they open themselves up to litigation from 'hard of thinking' members of the public and/or ambulance chasing lawyers if/when someone falls over when it's wet or icy. The legal system and H&S legislation means that these signs are needed in order to reduce the risk of a successful claim against the council. I'm not a cheerleader for such things. it's just that having a wife who deals in H&S 'things' makes you realise how daft legislation can be if you're on the wrong end of it.
It's no too far removed from the fact that land owners have to take reasonable steps from stopping people breaking onto their land and injuring themselves* whilst in there. The fact that they broke onto the land is neither here nor there. The fact that they might have easily gained access to the land due to insufficient or ill-maintained fencing is a key point.
The law is an ass - always has been, always will

*- Depending on how the injury was caused i.e. flooded ungaurded pit, fall from height, collapsing building, etc.

[myglaren]

[mickthemaverick]

How thick are some sineriters?

[myglaren]

[CitroJim]

It's quite simple - they have a duty of care and as such if they don't put up warning signs then they open themselves up to litigation from 'hard of thinking' members of the public and/or ambulance chasing lawyers if/when someone falls over when it's wet or icy. <snipped>

Thanks for the very comprehensive explanation Robin I remain very bemused...

[momag46]

Don’t blame H&S, signs like that are not required. If they were, every footpath on every street would also need a sign warning of ice etc. At minimum, a risk assessment is needed and that would show that the risk is so low that no action is required.
The reason the sign is there is because someone doesn’t understand H&S law.

[bobins]

I would contend that the Town Council has half an eye on Civil Law where the burdon of proof is much lower when it comes to litigation. Without knowing the specifics of the site - or more importantly the Risk Assessment - it's difficult to dismiss the council's thinking behind putting the sign up. There may be a history of injuries on the site, it might flood in areas to a greater depth than expected, the mud may be ridiculously slippery, or - heaven forbid - they may have large numbers of runners going over the site churning it up.... though I can't imagine anyone wanting to run over there It may, indeed, be that whoever did the RA didn't know what they were doing, or it may be that RA software decreed that mitigation should be put in place, or the job may have been sub'd out to a contractor who wanted to show that they were doing something. Without knowing the specifics, it's difficult to know........

Don’t blame H&S, signs like that are not required. If they were, every footpath on every street would also need a sign warning of ice etc.

Ah, no. That's where the magic H&S watchwords come into play for such things - "As far as is reasonably practicable". Who decides what is 'reasonably practicable' ? Ultimately, that's for the courts to decide as Homer Simpson once said. There's also the aspect of 'everyday life' - ice is an everyday occurence so should be expected so would obviate the need for a sign in most instances unless an RA says otherwise.

The whole issue is, ultimately, up for debate, and it's only the courts who can say who is right or wrong, and even then their decisions may be overturned.
It'd be interesting to know if anyone's ever been successfully prosecuted for being over cautious.

[CitroJim]

There may be a history of injuries on the site, it might flood in areas to a greater depth than expected, the mud may be ridiculously slippery, or - heaven forbid - they may have large numbers of runners going over the site churning it up....

It's a water meadow that borders the rivers Robin. It floods regularly. It's what it's there for and is part of the town flood defences. It has a well-surfaced tarmac footpath running its whole length from the point almost opposite my house - where the sign is - to the Iron Bridge.

Indeed, various areas do flood to different depths, the footpath can be icy in the winter and the mud is slippery... I regularly run it on my way to Bury Field and revel in the mud but it's never used for mass-participation runs.

It does however host mass-participation dog walking on a daily basis!