Chris Hawkesworth was kind enough to forward this:

Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 17:29:05 -0000
From: Chris
Subject: Safer Weirs.
To: Allan Bennett
Cc: Colin Kempson , Kevin East

Dear Allan,

I thought you might like to know that there has just been published by DEFRA
and the EA the following document.


River Weirs - Good Practice Guide.
R&D Publication W5B-023/HQP

This booklet is 10mm thick A4 and quite glossy. The BCU has had a hand in
addressing the issues contained within it and we put your views forward for
consideration.

Though not all our views are included and it generally talks about new Weirs
and refurbishments. Nonetheless Canoeing is mentioned in almost every page
together with "Duty of Care" and other like words.

It will be available shortly on the EA web site and is available for purchase
£50 p+p from .


www.environment-agency.gov.uk/floodresearch

WRc, Frankland Road, Blagrove, Swindon, Wilts SN5 8YF. 01793 865012

----------------------------------

The website seems to want a user name & password, but despite that the
documents can be reached via a search box.

The report is linked from:

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk...ct=&searchfor=

R&D Technical Summary W5B-023/TS
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk..._ts_517716.pdf
R&D Technical Report W5B-023/TR report section A
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk...eca_667538.pdf
R&D Technical Report W5B-023/TR report section B (in 3 parts):

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk...cb1_667607.pdf,

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk...cb2_667634.pdf

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk...cb3_667638.pdf)
and Appendix A
R&D Technical Report W5B-023/TR/AppB - Appendix B
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk...ppb_667643.pdf
R&D Technical Report W5B-023/TR/AppC - Appendix C (in 3 parts

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk...pc1_667674.pdf

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk...pc2_667679.pdf

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk...pc3_667683.pdf)
R&D Technical Report W5B-023/TR/AppD - Appendix D
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk...ppd_667687.pdf



Comments, anyone?


Allan Bennett
Not a fan of leaks

--

"Allan Bennett" wrote in message
...

Chris Hawkesworth was kind enough to forward this:

Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 17:29:05 -0000
From: Chris
Subject: Safer Weirs.
To: Allan Bennett
Cc: Colin Kempson , Kevin East


Dear Allan,

I thought you might like to know that there has just been published by
DEFRA
and the EA the following document.


River Weirs - Good Practice Guide.
R&D Publication W5B-023/HQP

This booklet is 10mm thick A4 and quite glossy. The BCU has had a hand
in
addressing the issues contained within it and we put your views
forward for
consideration.

Though not all our views are included and it generally talks about new
Weirs
and refurbishments. Nonetheless Canoeing is mentioned in almost every
page
together with "Duty of Care" and other like words.

It will be available shortly on the EA web site and is available for
purchase
£50 p+p from .

snip loads of URLs

Hi Allan

I think there is only you & I here just now. The odd post appears from
out of the blue, but never develops into a thread.
Any lurkers reading this?

£50!!! Fat chance of me shelling out that much!
Wotsit say then? I haven't looked at the URLs as there were so many of
them. (I'm feeling idle, so situation = normal)
Can you give a summary? Good for us or not? Have they addressed our
concerns or glossed over them?

David

In article , David Kemper
wrote:
"Allan Bennett" wrote in message
...

Chris Hawkesworth was kind enough to forward this:

Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 17:29:05 -0000
From: Chris
Subject: Safer Weirs.
To: Allan Bennett
Cc: Colin Kempson , Kevin East


Dear Allan,

I thought you might like to know that there has just been published by
DEFRA
and the EA the following document.


River Weirs - Good Practice Guide.
R&D Publication W5B-023/HQP

This booklet is 10mm thick A4 and quite glossy. The BCU has had a hand
in
addressing the issues contained within it and we put your views
forward for
consideration.

Though not all our views are included and it generally talks about new
Weirs
and refurbishments. Nonetheless Canoeing is mentioned in almost every
page
together with "Duty of Care" and other like words.

It will be available shortly on the EA web site and is available for
purchase
£50 p+p from .

snip loads of URLs

Hi Allan

I think there is only you & I here just now. The odd post appears from
out of the blue, but never develops into a thread.
Any lurkers reading this?

£50!!! Fat chance of me shelling out that much!
Wotsit say then? I haven't looked at the URLs as there were so many of
them. (I'm feeling idle, so situation = normal)
Can you give a summary? Good for us or not? Have they addressed our
concerns or glossed over them?

It does not directly address the concerns which have been made very clearly
here and elsewhere, of the danger to paddlers and other river users, of
certain death should anyone be swept over some of the sluices along the
Thames and other rivers.

The doc covers some interesting stuff about weir types, water flows etc (well
worth a look just for that info), but is mainly concerned with what should be
done for playboaters and the like in the weir tails should new weirs be built
or older ones be refurb'd.

Just what would be expected from CH, I suppose.

BUT!!!! There is an admission that some of the weirs are a danger...

Carl Douglas has a response in another ng which I will relay here shortly.



Allan Bennett


--

Response to the River Weirs - Good Practice Guide from Carl Douglas as posted
on the rowing ng:


"A hugely relevant section of this report is on p28 of the section
referred to directly above:
"2.3.9 Weirs suitable for canoeists
"(i) General
"In the context of this guide, a canoeist is taken to mean a
person in a kayak that is designed for use in white water. It is,
of course, recognised that canoes take many forms, and it is
necessary to consider the safety of any and all river users.
-snipped -
"Many existing weirs do not provide safe or suitable conditions
for canoeists. When modifications are carried out to such weirs,
or when new weirs are constructed, it is essential that the
potential interest of canoeists is considered in the planning and
design process (see Case Study H). It will not always be
appropriate to make weirs suitable for canoeists, but ignoring
the safety of river users in the design of such works will render
those responsible liable to prosecution in the event of an
accident, especially if the river is known to be used for
canoeing."

Allan & I have, quite separately, been working get the various
authorities, including the ARA, the BCU & the EA (& predecessors), to
accept the legal need to guard these installations. Hitherto the ARA &
the EA simply haven't wanted to know. Imagine my surprise upon seeing
in the EA's own document this direct statement of public liability.

Not only canoeists are vulnerable to the dangers inherent in the
hydraulic design of various man-made river installations. Rowers have
died in Thames sluices, yet the ARA has not given a toss. And the ARA
recently buried the results of its so-called enquiry into a major
accident at Hambledon sluices, below Henley (?to protect certain
reputations?).

The paragraph continues:
"(ii) The hydraulic jump
"A hydraulic jump is a mass of turbulent water that occurs when
very fast flowing water meets much slower and deeper water
(see Case Study H). Hydraulic jumps are therefore frequently a
feature immediately downstream of weirs. Canoeists refer to
them as standing waves (which describes their appearance) or
stoppers (which describes the impact that they can have on a
canoe!). A fundamental feature of the hydraulic jump is the
rotating flow pattern, illustrated in Figure 2.7, which can prevent
anything caught in the jump from escaping. It is this feature
that poses the greatest risk to a canoeist (and to anyone
finding themselves in the turbulent conditions downstream of a
weir). The return current brings the canoe or swimmer back to
the base of the weir, trapping them in turbulent water with the
inevitable risk of drowning."

That's _exactly_ what I've been saying on a number of occasions here on
RSR. I note that the BCU did become involved in this study, but the ARA
was nowhere to be seen. Another instance of human safety being at the
bottom of ARA priorities, I'm afraid.

As if to underline the particular dangers of Thames anti-scour sluices,
on p20 the report says:
"Raised sills – often constructed at the end of a stilling basin
to reduce the risk of bed scour, these can create intense
underwater currents that can trap a swimmer or canoeist"

Again, just what I've been saying about these installations

Does this report mean that the EA, having publicly recognised &
boom guards well upstream of it weirs, & particularly above its deadly
Thames sluices? These guard should be designed to keep rowers,
canoeists & inadvertent swimmers out of the killing zone (that area
upstream of the open sluices from which no swimmer can possibly escape).

Carl"


So, Mr Hawkesworth: now that the EA have admitted that some of their
structures are a danger to river-users (such as racing paddlers - the guide
does not recognise racing or touring paddlers as canoeists!!!) - with "the
inevitable risk of drowning", and acknowledge their liability - what does the
BCU propose to do to ensure the weirs are made safe?




Allan Bennett
Not a fan of water torture



--

In message , Allan Bennett
writes

So, Mr Hawkesworth: now that the EA have admitted that some of their
structures are a danger to river-users (such as racing paddlers - the guide
does not recognise racing or touring paddlers as canoeists!!!) - with "the
inevitable risk of drowning", and acknowledge their liability - what does the
BCU propose to do to ensure the weirs are made safe?

Er ... I hate to expose the logic (and indeed admit that someone other
than you two is reading this), but if it's an EA "admission" and
"liability", why do you imagine the BCU can "make the weirs safe"?
Should you not be addressing your question to the EA?
--
David Pearson

In article , David Pearson
wrote:
In message , Allan Bennett
writes

So, Mr Hawkesworth: now that the EA have admitted that some of their
structures are a danger to river-users (such as racing paddlers - the
guide does not recognise racing or touring paddlers as canoeists!!!) -
with "the inevitable risk of drowning", and acknowledge their liability -
what does the BCU propose to do to ensure the weirs are made safe?

Er ... I hate to expose the logic

Logic: an instrument used for bolstering a prejudice. Elbert Hubbard

Is that the ligic to which you refer, possibly?

(and indeed admit that someone other than you two is reading this), but if
it's an EA "admission" and "liability", why do you imagine the BCU can
"make the weirs safe"? Should you not be addressing your question to the
EA?

No. The BCU is the body representing canoeing and canoeists. It is their
job. Or are they happy to see their members being sucked over weirs and
drowned?

Doesn't make much commercial sense, really, does it?

And you have taken out-of-context what I wrote: in fact I didn't even write
"make the weirs safe" at all!

Now, to expose the logic: the BCU no longer have to make the case regarding
the safety of these structures - they should simply refer to this document
and get the EA - or whoever - to ensure they are made safe.

"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be, and
if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!"
-- Lewis Carroll

But, I suppose the trade-off policy (apparent to all but the blind and
blinkered) is that the BCU hold fire on the safety bits because of all the
play areas and licenses being provided...

How will that look for canoeing when we hear of the next fatality?





Allan Bennett
Not a fan of Manly's Maxim


--