Fishing from Grafham Dam Suspended and under threat !

bobmiddlepoint

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2017
Messages
3,748
Location
Where I want to be
Yes, we as anglers, be it fly or spin casting, have a responsibility to exercise appropriate care. That's simple commonsense. And then, there are people like my sister, who I told three times to not stand directly behind me while I was casting, chose to ignore me, and got hooked under the chin not two minutes later.

The only person at fault for hooking your sister is you! If you were throwing daggers of discharging a firearm would you have carried on with her in the line of fire? You were probably lucky it was your sister. I imagine if you told a stranger "don't to stand there or I might stick this hook in you" and you then went and did it you might end up in court.


As for your question about how a layperson would know if it is safe to pass; the simple answer is to speak up and ask to pass. At the same time, even someone who has never held a rod in his or her life can understand that if the angler (whose focus may be on the water or the rod, and may not be aware of passers-by) is moving the rod, then there may be -- just may be -- a potential of being struck with the rod or the hook.

As has already been said the layperson has no idea what the fly caster is about to do. It never crosses their mind that the fly is going behind the angler or indeed that someone would be stupid enough to throw a sharp object behind them without looking in a public place.


Andy
 

Paul_B

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 14, 2008
Messages
6,356
Location
West Riding of Yorkshire
We can't fish the dam wall due to the possibility of sightseers peering over the wall and getting an eyeful, also due to the possibility of someone slipping, the someone slipping bit seems far fetched when we have a section of bank we fish from that drops very steeply to about 20ft deep.
 

anzac

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
2,549
Location
Terra Firma
The only person at fault for hooking your sister is you!
Mate, you weren't there, and don't know how she got herself hooked. You also don't know my sister and what a bl**dy-minded little so and so she was back then.

Imagine someone who moves away, and the purposely moves back in the way simply for spite. Third time was the charm. She moved away. I started to cast, and she stepped back directly behind me.

It never crosses their mind that the fly is going behind the angler or indeed that someone would be stupid enough to throw a sharp object behind them without looking in a public place.
And as I said earlier, we as anglers have a duty to fish and act responsibly. At the same time, the general public using the same space also has a duty to act responsibly. With that, the general public cannot blame anyone but themselves for an injury IF everyone is exercising due caution.

As a mate of mine pointed out, 'Paddy the pedestrian', we can assume, generally is neither blind nor mentally deficient. That means he should be able to see and assess what is happening around him, and act appropriately.

That indeed brings us back to the topic of cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers -- all of whom, to my thinking at least, have an equal duty of awareness and risk avoidance.
 

bonefishblues

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
4,481
Location
Near Bicester, Oxon
As a mate of mine pointed out, 'Paddy the pedestrian', we can assume, generally is neither blind nor mentally deficient. That means he should be able to see and assess what is happening around him, and act appropriately.
As I and others have pointed out, to mitigate a risk, you have to understand the nature of the risk. Often, the GB public does not understand that risk. The burden is not equally shared between the parties - one can cause much greater harm to the other. Similarly, the potential to cause harm to others is greater for the driver of c1500-1750kgs of metal box. That is why there is a greater onus on drivers to take care.

It's just the way it is - one can imagine it's different, but that won't be the case if someone gets hooked and loses an eye on the dam, unless they are your sister...
 

Vintage Badger

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 16, 2021
Messages
2,407
Location
Cheshire
Talking about this sort of issue, do fly fishers have public liability insurance in case injury is caused to the public (or fellow anglers), and does such a thing exist?
 

anzac

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
2,549
Location
Terra Firma
Since you brought proportionate risk and big, heavy metal boxes in motion into the discussion, By your analogy, the greater the potential for harm the greater the level of responsibility, correct? Yet, in aviation, the pilot of an Airbus carrying 300 plus passengers, and weighing in excess of 300,000 lbs, and the pilot of a single seat Grob sailplane each has the same duty to avoid duty to see and avoid a collision even though either or both may be under positive air traffic control.

As for my sister or anyone else losing an eye on the dam, I suggest that whether you or I agree, such matters would be decided in a law court, and a judgement of negligence by one or the other party.
 

PaulF1

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Messages
80
Location
Manchester UK
Mate, you weren't there, and don't know how she got herself hooked. You also don't know my sister and what a bl**dy-minded little so and so she was back then.

Imagine someone who moves away, and the purposely moves back in the way simply for spite. Third time was the charm. She moved away. I started to cast, and she stepped back directly behind me.


And as I said earlier, we as anglers have a duty to fish and act responsibly. At the same time, the general public using the same space also has a duty to act responsibly. With that, the general public cannot blame anyone but themselves for an injury IF everyone is exercising due caution.

As a mate of mine pointed out, 'Paddy the pedestrian', we can assume, generally is neither blind nor mentally deficient. That means he should be able to see and assess what is happening around him, and act appropriately.

That indeed brings us back to the topic of cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers -- all of whom, to my thinking at least, have an equal duty of awareness and risk avoidance.
If you were driving down a public road, and something shot out from the pavement in front of you, hitting you, you would say it was their fault. You were legally driving on a public road, and something shot out unexpectedly. How could that be your fault?
If you were walking down a public footpath, and something shot across it hitting you.......etc.
I don't see any difference.
I agree that in both situations the "victim" should be showing some awareness of what is happening around them, but it is hard to anticipate something shooting at you from the side at 50 (?)mph.
Add to that the fact that people wandering/cycling around the countryside have let their guard down further, believing themselves to be away from danger. That might be unwise, but it doesn't stop it being true.:(
 

roadrunner1000

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 13, 2012
Messages
704
Location
Kent
When Bewl was fully staffed back when the water authority ran the recreation side, fishing from the dam was restricted to 'from sunrise until 10am then after 6pm to the close'. The rangers were very strict on this rule and came out in a boat at 10am to tell anglers to move.
When fishing the dam these days I look behind before I cast. When the water levels are low I don't try to false cast over the wall, I cast diagonally and the line doesn't go over the lip.
I'm covered by third party liability insurance being a member of the local club but would be rather concerned if I did hook anyone.
I seem to recall there is a sign at either end of the dam advising walkers etc to use the road at the base of the dam.......
 

diawl bach

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
9,583
How much and where from, and do many others have it?
I get mine with membership of the Angling Trust as a fishery as do individual members, yet another reason to join the group. Insurance benefits listed below -

 

bonefishblues

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
4,481
Location
Near Bicester, Oxon
Since you brought proportionate risk and big, heavy metal boxes in motion into the discussion, By your analogy, the greater the potential for harm the greater the level of responsibility, correct? Yet, in aviation, the pilot of an Airbus carrying 300 plus passengers, and weighing in excess of 300,000 lbs, and the pilot of a single seat Grob sailplane each has the same duty to avoid duty to see and avoid a collision even though either or both may be under positive air traffic control.

As for my sister or anyone else losing an eye on the dam, I suggest that whether you or I agree, such matters would be decided in a law court, and a judgement of negligence by one or the other party.
So whatabout planes, I think I heard there :)

Here's how it works in law. Does someone owe a duty of care to another because he/she is doing a thing that might be reasonably foreseen to cause them harm? Have they exercised that duty of care responsibly, or did harm occur to another as a result of their actions/omissions?

There may be a further step whereby any compensatory payment awarded as a result of the former is reduced because the individual who has suffered harm has contributed to their own harm in some way (concept of contributory negligence).

It's pretty simple and common-sense stuff, but liability is not necessarily avoided simply but putting a sign up.
 

PauvrePêcheur

New member
Joined
Nov 24, 2021
Messages
1
Location
Neekie-Peek1
Why does it have to be a knee-jerk reaction from Anglian Water? Incidents happen and get dealt with... If we start banning any activity at the drop of a hat, there's going to be very little left to spend the time! Would cycling have been banned straight away if a cyclist had hit an angler? I don't think so...
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
50,485
This should have been resolved with a sincere apology there and then.
 

anzac

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
2,549
Location
Terra Firma
So whatabout planes, I think I heard there :)

Here's how it works in law. Does someone owe a duty of care to another because he/she is doing a thing that might be reasonably foreseen to cause them harm? Have they exercised that duty of care responsibly, or did harm occur to another as a result of their actions/omissions?

There may be a further step whereby any compensatory payment awarded as a result of the former is reduced because the individual who has suffered harm has contributed to their own harm in some way (concept of contributory negligence).

It's pretty simple and common-sense stuff, but liability is not necessarily avoided simply but putting a sign up.
Yes, that is how it, the law, works. Thank you.

My point is, and has been all along, is one of accepting personal responsibility.
 

Hardrar

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
1,555
Location
North Yorkshire
Shouldn’t Anglian water be fully responsible for the safety of both Anglers and other users of the site? It really is their responsibility to keep them safely apart, by the safe routing of pathways or other means.
 

PaulF1

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Messages
80
Location
Manchester UK
Shouldn’t Anglian water be fully responsible for the safety of both Anglers and other users of the site? It really is their responsibility to keep them safely apart, by the safe routing of pathways or other means.
Whilst I completely agree with you, I guess the point of the thread is that it might be cheaper to get rid of the anglers than re route the paths?
Does anyone know what they make from angling tickets per year? A lot less than it would cost for contractors to remodel the pathways, I bet. :(
 

Latest posts

Top