On 10/3/07 23:42, "Sue Burchett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And probably the same one that changed the requirements following the death >> of a volunteer when working by the side of the canal on the Cotswolds >> Canals. >> It caused the work on that canal to be suspended until working practices, >> etc, had been re-examined and procedures put in place to prevent a >> re-occurrence. >> > > I believe it was a heart attack rather than an accident. It *may* have been a heart attack. The post mortem was inconclusive. > Difficult to legislate for. Closer adherence to the principle of 'only ever work within eyesight and earshot' of others (as per WRG site safety briefings) might have helped. Or it might not. We may never know. Martin
