DOI fails again

[CallMeCurious]

8 hours ago, offshoremanxman said:

You can highlight the problem there easily. From the 2016 report of the earlier crash:

“Mr Longworth insisted that the issue with the parking brakes was ’irrelevant’ to the cause of the crash, while Bernard Warden, environment, safety and health director, said it was ’peripheral’”

It then happened again three more times …  because the idiot trainspotter knows better then absolutely everyone else and listens to absolutely nobody.

Don't forget he was also driving the tram that derailed on a straight piece of track was he not?  Are they still burying the report on that?

[CallMeCurious]

On 6/2/2023 at 4:35 PM, Two-lane said:

https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/new-brakes-mean-snaefell-trams-have-never-been-safer-227807

"The new track brakes apply instant braking at the push of a button in the cab and they also come on automatically in the event of the failure of the electric or pressure systems.

They are powered independently with 24 Volt battery systems."

Maybe they forgot to tell the tram?

[Non-Believer]

[Moghrey Mie]

10 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

I think all primary schools do Cycling Proficiency tests. So maybe they need to encourage more children to ride their bikes to school.

Edited June 6, 2023 by Moghrey Mie

[WTF]

2 minutes ago, Moghrey Mie said:

I think all primary schools do Cycling Proficiency tests. So maybe they need to encourage more children to ride their bikes to school.

there are enough accidents on the roads as it is thanks.

[Non-Believer]

45 minutes ago, Moghrey Mie said:

I think all primary schools do Cycling Proficiency tests. So maybe they need to encourage more children to ride their bikes to school.

It was the £163k+ that caught my eye.

And the usual DOI lack of available figures to show any use level or justification for the spend.

[Two-lane]

1 hour ago, Moghrey Mie said:

I think all primary schools do Cycling Proficiency tests. So maybe they need to encourage more children to ride their bikes to school.

Each person has their own idea about acceptable safety levels. I would not have allowed my children to ride a bicycle to secondary school, let alone a primary school. The potential consequences far outweighed any advantages.

I think what you people need is for my mother to rise from the ashes and give you a good talking to - take care of yourself, look after yourself and (with the pointed finger) don't be so stupid.

You have been given a life. Use it or waste it, but don't rely on other people around you to be sensible - and you cannot assume that primary school children are capable of making rational decisions.

A sign I saw recently, although of peripheral relevance, to me does seem appropriate. In a national park somewhere, above the tree line, there were lots of rocky footpaths. Easy walking, but in some places a fair way down. There were signs that said to wear a hat, bring water, and the last item was "Your safety is our concern, but it is your responsibility".

The roads here are not suitable for cycling. Take your choice about yourself, but take excessive care about making choices for children.

[A fool and his money.....]

38 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

It was the £163k+ that caught my eye.

And the usual DOI lack of available figures to show any use level or justification for the spend.

The usual telephone number cost of anything Government have anything to do with.

[Albert Tatlock]

1 hour ago, WTF said:

there are enough accidents on the roads as it is thanks.

Not really...too many idiots still alive cos of 'elf and safety'...plus too many of the right ladders around also. Needs to stop.

[CallMeCurious]

3 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

It was the £163k+ that caught my eye.

And the usual DOI lack of available figures to show any use level or justification for the spend.

What you mean actually follow up on assumptions and prove or disprove the efficacy of their grand plans? Why would they do that when the magic money tree just keeps on giving?

[Mercenary]

3 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

It was the £163k+ that caught my eye.

And the usual DOI lack of available figures to show any use level or justification for the spend.

Would you really expect someone to count users of a bike stand in this instance? It sounds like they've asked the school for feedback which should be enough surely.

 

£10k-ish per site doesn't necessarily sound terrible depending on what the shelters are, based required etc.

 

Things cost money at the end of the day, £10k for cycle shelters, £50k for playgrounds, £70k to tarmac the carpark. 

 

If you want to save money close the schools with about 3 people per year that cost a fortune to run (and suck resources away from oversubscribed schools), but that's not easy parish pump questions 

 

[Dr Beeching]

4 minutes ago, Mercenary said:

 

If you want to save money close the schools with about 3 people per year that cost a fortune to run (and suck resources away from oversubscribed schools), but that's not easy parish pump questions 

This. 

[Sheldon]

On 4/24/2023 at 8:02 AM, Roxanne said:

This IOM Today article doesn't show Mr Longworth in a particularly good light. That's some whopper he told.

Public Enquiry Request

Their article today takes it to a whole new level: 

Shortcomings in maintenance at the Manx Electric Railway exposed after tram derailment

I'm surprised there isn't a final recommendation in the report that all managers responsible in any way for health & safety over the past decade should be rounded up, then taken out and shot.

[Roxanne]

53 minutes ago, Sheldon said:

Their article today takes it to a whole new level: 

Shortcomings in maintenance at the Manx Electric Railway exposed after tram derailment

I'm surprised there isn't a final recommendation in the report that all managers responsible in any way for health & safety over the past decade should be rounded up, then taken out and shot.

It’s not good. 

Also not good is reporting on the injuries sustained by a passenger, reporting that they were awarded damages, but redacting their name. 

[Sheldon]

2 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

It’s not good. 

Also not good is reporting on the injuries sustained by a passenger, reporting that they were awarded damages, but redacting their name. 

The driver's name was redacted too. Maybe it was a bulk edit? 😉