British Waterways wasted £1.75m on narrow lock bollards backed by 
suspect risk assessment 
THOSE narrow lock bollards, which British Waterways' Simon Salem, 
Marketing & Customer Service Director admits cost £1.75 millions were 
backed by suspect Risk Assessment.

It was at the Inland Waterways Association National Festival, Simon 
admitted that British Waterways had 'got it wrong' over the 
installation of lockside bollards on narrow locks.

Photo: Graham Phillips


Not now to be used—dangerous!
It was a Risk Assessment taken by British Waterways Head of Health & 
Safety, A V Stammers on the 28th February, of which we have had 
sight, that it was stated 'Install appropriately located bollards 
where not already provided' to prevent the hazards of gate hang-ups, 
boat movement, vessel damage or injury.

Yet the same Risk Assessment stated that hang-up on the lock chamber 
wall, which is the greatest hazard for inexperienced boaters 
instructed to use ropes on bollards, was rated a low level risk.

High level is the most severe risk calculated, with low level the 
lowest.

Poured scorn
Every columnist in narrowboatworld and countless other correspondents 
poured scorn on the installation of those bollards, pointing out 
their danger with inexperienced boaters tying to them and risking 
being hung-up. Others pointed out that with the lack of grass mowing, 
they would soon become an unseen tripping hazard.

But most of all related that they were absolutely pointless in a 
narrow lock, with a rope down at such an angle quite unable to stop 
movement of boats in deep narrow locks, yet which was another of the 
reasons for installing them.

It is our columnist David Hymers, who today also reveals that there 
was no consultation whatsoever about their installation, it being a 
decision taken by British Waterways directors alone.

Consultation by the users groups, experienced in boating, would soon 
have pointed out the dangers, and so saved yet more money being 
needlessly thrown away by British Waterways.

Now there will be the cost of removing them. 



Reply via email to