Health and Safety

[pluk]

Right, as this conversation refuses to die I've split it off from Loggers Leap topic. I've done the best I can to move posts that leave both threads making sense and relevant.

Hard hats on, this thread could be dangerous apparently......

I think H&S inspections had found issues with the rocks safety. Let's remember, back in 2005 when it was changed, it was 18 years old, then in 2008 I think, Falls was condemned because the supports under the chute after the main drop (opposite Peeking Heights) were deemed unsafe, and they were modified or replaced. It's 26 years old this year and is still in good nick.

It seems that people don't like changes at Chessington generally. Shame - things do change, for the better. People just can't seem to see that Chessington needs to be bought upto date in some areas, it has been so far to an extent but is forever ongoing at a very slow pace.

Removing excellent theming because it is the cheapest way of fixing up things they have allowed to fall into disrepair is an improvement how? People are not adverse to change, they simply don't like things being made worse than they were before. Just removing stuff rather than fixing it does not constitute bringing the park up to date.

[Benin]

Never gonna happen, putting rocks back in now would be a costly and ponitless task.

#rocksarenotrollinganymore

I think H&S inspections had found issues with the rocks safety. Let's remember, back in 2005 when it was changed, it was 18 years old, then in 2008 I think, Falls was condemned because the supports under the chute after the main drop (opposite Peeking Heights) were deemed unsafe, and they were modified or replaced. It's 26 years old this year and is still in good nick.

It seems that people don't like changes at Chessington generally. Shame - things do change, for the better. People just can't seem to see that Chessington needs to be bought upto date in some areas, it has been so far to an extent but is forever ongoing at a very slow pace.

Changing for the better =/= Removing theming that has fallen into disrepair because of lack of park maintenance..

Modifying and replacing NEEDS to be done anyway, hence why the ride and its rocks failed their tests... Maybe if the park had fixed their stuff up a bit more regularly, the area wouldn't look dire today...

Removal of theming is the best thing that happened to the ride? Strange concept to say the least...

And then to say people can't see that Chessie needs bringing up to date... Erm... No... Wrong basically, as everyone and their mum can see Chessie needs to improve itself (something it is doing with Wild Asia and Creaky Cafe) but how is the removal of ride theming rather than fixing it up so that it FULFILS the H&S requirements the better option?

Madness...

[JoshC.]

Never gonna happen, putting rocks back in now would be a costly and ponitless task.

Pointless task? Yep, because guest experience means nothing at theme parks...

[Mark9]

I think H&S inspections had found issues with the rocks safety. Let's remember, back in 2005 when it was changed, it was 18 years old, then in 2008 I think, Falls was condemned because the supports under the chute after the main drop (opposite Peeking Heights) were deemed unsafe, and they were modified or replaced. It's 26 years old this year and is still in good nick.

In such good nick that its main support structure gets condemned.

[RideAddict]

Well until it got condemned back in 2008, it was in pretty good nick, yes. But obviously wear and tear took its toll, as did the weather.

Do you work for Imperial Leather or something?

Erm...no.

Removing excellent theming because it is the cheapest way of fixing up things they have allowed to fall into disrepair is an improvement how? People are not adverse to change, they simply don't like things being made worse than they were before. Just removing stuff rather than fixing it does not constitute bringing the park up to date.

Changing for the better =/= Removing theming that has fallen into disrepair because of lack of park maintenance..

Modifying and replacing NEEDS to be done anyway, hence why the ride and its rocks failed their tests... Maybe if the park had fixed their stuff up a bit more regularly, the area wouldn't look dire today...

Removal of theming is the best thing that happened to the ride? Strange concept to say the least...

And then to say people can't see that Chessie needs bringing up to date... Erm... No... Wrong basically, as everyone and their mum can see Chessie needs to improve itself (something it is doing with Wild Asia and Creaky Cafe) but how is the removal of ride theming rather than fixing it up so that it FULFILS the H&S requirements the better option?

Madness...

Theming and bringing thigns upto date is not always the main priority. H&S can stop a ride from opening. This goes back to what I said in the Slammer topic about people not understanding maintenance.

Theme parks have a duty to identify hazards and make things safe. That comes before theming. In this case, taking Falls' rocks away was an H&S issue first on the list, before theming.

[pluk]

Theming and bringing thigns upto date is not always the main priority. H&S can stop a ride from opening. This goes back to what I said in the Slammer topic about people not understanding maintenance.

Theme parks have a duty to identify hazards and make things safe. That comes before theming. In this case, taking Falls' rocks away was an H&S issue first on the list, before theming.

H&S can not stop anything. Poor design, build or maintenance could mean it is not safe to operate, but that is not because of H&S, it is because of park operations.

Identifying a hazard and making it safe is one thing, removing everything they can not be bothered to maintain to an acceptable standard is another. In this case if the rocks were unsafe there were two clear options - repair/replace the rocks or remove the rocks. They made the easy and cheap (but wrong) choice, and now it looks crap.

Everything is potentially hazardous, nothing is without risk. With your thinking we wouldn't build a theme park in the first place, just in case.

[Fred]

Neither - the rocks removal project was the best thing ever to be done to that ride, even Chessington admitted soon after how much it had improved the ride.

We have a troll again! Yay!

If the rocks removal project was the best thing ever, why is it their intention to put them back? Why do they bother with theming rides in the first place?

It was removed due to lack of maintenance and care, if they bothered it'd still be here. Don't be an idiot trying to tell people who know more than you otherwise.

[RideAddict]

H&S can not stop anything..

Yes, it can actually.

We have a troll again! Yay!

Excuse me?

[pluk]

No it can not. Health and safety provides a list of criteria which the park must fulfil to operate safely. If the park can't fulfil that criteria it is the parks fault, not health and safety.

[RideAddict]

No it can not. Health and safety provides a list of criteria which the park must fulfil to operate safely. If the park can't fulfil that criteria it is the parks fault, not health and safety.

Think about what you've just said: If the park can't fulfil that criteria it is the parks fault, agreed - but then under no circumstances would H&S allow it to open and operate. If they did, they'd breach H&S and the park would be in trouble.

[pluk]

Think about what you've just said: If the park can't fulfil that criteria it is the parks fault, agreed - but then under no circumstances would H&S allow it to open and operate. If they did, they'd breach H&S and the park would be in trouble.

I've thought about it. I'm still right, as you agreed! In no circumstance would it be the fault of health and safety, they are merely the monitors. It's like saying it is the polices fault you haven't got a driving licence because they caught you drink driving.

Anyway, in this case from that photo it appears the tunnel remains. Hurrah!

[RideAddict]

Always having the last answer, eh, pluk?

Whatever! You think what you like, I'll believe what I know.

[Benin]

Always having the last answer, eh, pluk?

Whatever! You think what you like, I'll believe what I know.

Allowing other opinions, it's not for everyone...

[Bubbles1]

This thread is very entertaining

[Ricky]

It's not just any opinion, its a TPM debate opinion.

[Spider]

Always having the last answer, eh, pluk?

Whatever! You think what you like, I'll believe what I know.

Given that in another thread, about a certain S & S flat ride, you have said about 10 times that you're going to say no more on the matter, it would appear that you suggesting that anyone else has to have the last word is laughably hypocritical.

I've only been on the forums a little bit but you're already coming across as one of the most belligerent internet users I've ever come across. Pluk is discussing a matter of interpretation - it's not a case of him 'thinking' something and you 'knowing' something else (and you would be well to think about what such a statement makes you look like to everyone else reading - trust me, you're not winning any friends), it's simply a case of who you ascribe the blame to.

In this case Pluk is correct in that H and S set guidelines, and it's the park's fault for not ensuring that their structures meet these. You saying you 'know' something else is beside the point - we all 'know' what the issue at hand is (the rocks weren't safe to stay up), most sensible people would suggest that it wouldn't have been to much work to repair/upkeep/replace the rock work, and that therefore the park are to blame. If I owned a theme park with rides that were falling apart, faulty restraints, fire hazards and unstable structures, I could claim when it was shut down that it was ;Health and Safety's' fault. I assume in this case you wouldn't agree, perhaps you would like to apply this to what we're talking about here and realise how childish and, frankly, silly you sound.

[RideAddict]

OK, firstly drop the abuse. Secondly, back in 2008 when the ride was condemned, Chessington would never have allowed it to operate. Because if they had and an accident occurred, they'd be in so much trouble and H&S would be investigating so thoroughly.

Who here has or hasn't heard of the phrase "You are looking at the person responsible for health and safety" ? The answer is extremely obvious.

Pluk, you go on believing, but I know what I'm talking about with health and safety.

[BigBobJones]

Do you have a NEBOSH RideAddict?

[Ricky]

Did you know that every merlin park has it's own on-site H&S team? And that when you say they would be in trouble, they would only be in trouble with themselves unless whoever was involved took it further which usually they don't as Merlin (a very big corporation) would just pay them off to keep quite.

So in essence you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to H&S. Merlin Entertainments as a company have a HQ H&S team which work with separate parks H&S team which spend every minute of every day reviewing situations and possible outcomes of circumstances. When they feel something is unsafe they remove it long before it happens. Take Stealth queue-line last year, someone reported that part of the fencing had collapsed and by the next morning hey presto the queue had been fixed.

I'm not sure if you know this but, accidents are Merlin Theme Parks are EXCEEDINGLY rare, the rate of which I believe is even lower than Disney.

To sum up the above, H&S are always investigating and when they think something could happen they stop it before it does.

Moving on to Loggers Leap.

[RideAddict]

Bob, what do you mean?

Ricky, you're right about the falling rate. And for Stealth's fence to be fixed that quick, that's got to be a record knowing Thorpe's previous response times.

I have worked partially in H&S, not with rides, so I know I'm correct.

[BigBobJones]

Corporate Manslaughter.... If a guest or guests die at a Merlin park, it may not be the Ride Operator, Mechanic or local H&S employee who will be prosecuted if it is found out that the 'company' was at fault then the blame will go straight up to the directors and can go to prison for many years.

I seriously doubt any UK park would take the risk, the cost to their reputation and public liability insurance would be very damaging.

Nevertheless accidents do happen and guests can be complete idiots..

Now I'm looking forward to that double drop, we call Loggers the 'David Cameron' as it has a double drop like the double dip recession :-)

Bob, what do you mean?

You have answered that you know nothing about H&S, Google it. It is the National Examination Board of Occupational Safety and Health (NEBOSH) H&S professionals study many of their courses to gain qualifications in H&S. It is more advanced than IOSH. I know about this as I have helped my partner who is a H&S professional study through his exams.

The H&S staff at TP should have these qualifications.

My partner always says "H&S is not about saying no, it is about doing things safely." Almost any activity can be undertaken as long as the correct precautions are taken.

[Spider]

Bob, what do you mean?

Ricky, you're right about the falling rate. And for Stealth's fence to be fixed that quick, that's got to be a record knowing Thorpe's previous response times.

I have worked partially in H&S, not with rides, so I know I'm correct.

Wait, are you seriously telling me you're old enough to have a job? *picksjawofffloor*

That was abuse, my previous post wasn't. I said what you were saying sounded silly and you seemed belligerent. That's very different to just abusing you.

My point is, do you ever actually read anything people say to you? We're going round in circles because you're so hung up on what level of knowledge that you have that you've missed the point that it's not a question of facts, it's a question of who the individual chooses to place the blame on. This act of yours where you try and fob everyone off with telling people how much you know (although not actually being able to share anything useful) is tedious in the extreme.

Even if you do know as much about everything as you claim, trust me that knowledge in any field is useless unless you know how to use it. That doesn;t mean shouting at everyone that you know more than them, that means being able to argue more convincingly than them. Despite lots of huffing and puffing over several threads I'm still yet to see you actually do this.

[RideAddict]

Wait, are you seriously telling me you're old enough to have a job? *picksjawofffloor*

That was abuse, my previous post wasn't. I said what you were saying sounded silly and you seemed belligerent. That's very different to just abusing you.

My point is, do you ever actually read anything people say to you? We're going round in circles because you're so hung up on what level of knowledge that you have that you've missed the point that it's not a question of facts, it's a question of who the individual chooses to place the blame on. This act of yours where you try and fob everyone off with telling people how much you know (although not actually being able to share anything useful) is tedious in the extreme.

Even if you do know as much about everything as you claim, trust me that knowledge in any field is useless unless you know how to use it. That doesn;t mean shouting at everyone that you know more than them, that means being able to argue more convincingly than them. Despite lots of huffing and puffing over several threads I'm still yet to see you actually do this.

*sigh in despair*

You don't know me at all Spider, and where I get my knowledge from. But I will tell you that where I get it from is direct, not passed on. I have the contacts, the access and the ability to find out what I need to know.

You have answered that you know nothing about H&S, Google it. It is the National Examination Board of Occupational Safety and Health (NEBOSH) H&S professionals study many of their courses to gain qualifications in H&S. It is more advanced than IOSH. I know about this as I have helped my partner who is a H&S professional study through his exams.

Where have I said I know nothing about H&S? I've heard of NEBOSH now you've told me the full name, just didn't know it as the abbreviated version. I haven't got any qualifications in it.

[pluk]

Theming and bringing thigns upto date is not always the main priority. H&S can stop a ride from opening...

Theme parks have a duty to identify hazards and make things safe. That comes before theming. In this case, taking Falls' rocks away was an H&S issue first on the list, before theming.

Going back a few posts RideAddict, in my opinion this is where you are going wrong in understanding how health and safety actually works.

Health and safety goes hand in hand with literally everything any business does. It does not come before or after anything, it must be considered and evaluated at every stage during planning, operating and maintaining everything. Often it barely needs thinking about as another term for H+S could be 'common sense', but when bigger and riskier things are planned and done a set of guidelines needs to be followed.

In the case of something like the Falls rocks they did not build it then stand back and think 'now I wonder if that is safe?'. At the time of design they would have ensured they would be safe, at the time of construction they would have ensured they had been built in the same safe way they were planned, after construction they would have ensured they knew how to safely maintain and check the structure itself and the materials used with a plan and log in place to do that.

When they fail at one of those stages (in this case clearly the maintenance/checks) it simply can not be considered the fault of health and safety. The park has failed, health and safety have not crept up on them and have certainly not demanded something like that be removed, merely pointed out that the structure no longer complied with the criteria demanded to prove it is safe. What the park do with that information is up to them but again it is a certainty that the removal of the theming is their choice as a way of complying with health and safety criteria, rather than fixing or amending it.

The only time I think it would be fair to say that something is closed 'because of' health and safety could be when the goalposts are moved. Something like 'Black Hole' at Alton Towers which, although operating safely for years, suddenly became non H+S compliment when the clearance and evacuation criteria were updated after an incident elsewhere. But even then closure is not the only option available to the park, it would just need to make adjustments to bring it back up to current criteria and it is up to them if they think it is economically viable or not.

Some activity would be inherently too dangerous to ever be H+S compliment under any circumstance. Bare back lion rides and parachuteless skydiving being a couple that spring to mind. Having a themed wall is not one of them and never ever would be.

As for your knowledge and where you get it from, well that is a very different thing to having understanding. I don't usually play the 'I know because' game as it is largely irrelevant with these things being opinion. But in this case I think it is worth pointing out that in a previous life I have been responsible for health and safety at a multi million pound company overseeing the work of a few hundred staff, and my current role includes working with the Health and Safety executive to gather evidence and mount prosecutions against those responsible for industrial accidents. Just sayin'.

[RideAddict]

Fiddling?

As you say, hard hats on.

This is a Rattlesnake-style topic - "Sit back, hold tight, this is a bumpy ride!"

In the case of something like the Falls rocks they did not build it then stand back and think 'now I wonder if that is safe?'. At the time of design they would have ensured they would be safe, at the time of construction they would have ensured they had been built in the same safe way they were planned, after construction they would have ensured they knew how to safely maintain and check the structure itself and the materials used with a plan and log in place to do that.

Of course, that's common sense! Back in the 1980's when Chessington closed for it's transformation, all rides and areas were being modified, the place must've been buzzing with H&S officials.

When they fail at one of those stages (in this case clearly the maintenance/checks) it simply can not be considered the fault of health and safety. The park has failed, health and safety have not crept up on them and have certainly not demanded something like that be removed, merely pointed out that the structure no longer complied with the criteria demanded to prove it is safe. What the park do with that information is up to them but again it is a certainty that the removal of the theming is their choice as a way of complying with health and safety criteria, rather than fixing or amending it.

Absolutely. But H&S can come along, identify the hazard and suggest ways of fixing it, go away and let the park make the necessary changes, and if they find it still doesn't comply on the next visit, they can again suggest ways of fixing it.

I'm sure you're aware that each morning every ride has to undergo the checks? H&S comes into this, and if the checks are all passed OK, a ride can open and operate. If not, then it's a shame for the visitors until they sort it.

As for your knowledge and where you get it from, well that is a very different thing to having understanding. I don't usually play the 'I know because' game as it is largely irrelevant with these things being opinion. But in this case I think it is worth pointing out that in a previous life I have been responsible for health and safety at a multi million pound company overseeing the work of a few hundred staff, and my current role includes working with the Health and Safety executive to gather evidence and mount prosecutions against those responsible for industrial accidents. Just sayin'.

Yes. Like a lot of things, what was once a compliant rule can overnight become defunct, because of H&S moving goalposts, as you put it.

So tell us, who do you work for? Otherwise we've only got your word for it.