And today's Darwin Award contestant is...

[Brian]

...my risk assessment would state a very small chance of occurring, but potentially serious consequences. ...perhaps 0.5% or less.

 

[DEVILS ADVOCATE]

So, if your stage is out every weekend over the summer at mini-festivals you're likely to get a 'climber' at least once a year. With a hazard outcome of 'single death' or 'multiple life-changing injuries' that's quite a high risk. So what control measures could you introduce?

[/DEVILS ADVOCATE]

[Stuart91]

[DEVILS ADVOCATE]

So, if your stage is out every weekend over the summer at mini-festivals you're likely to get a 'climber' at least once a year.

[/DEVILS ADVOCATE]

 

Like a true advocate, you've twisted my words slightly. ;)

 

0.5% of bands might have a penchant for climbing. (That's a guess, I haven't met one yet, but they are obviously out there, or maybe we just caught them on good days).

 

Not all events have bands at them, or are clearly of a genre where it's unlikely to happen.

 

Plus, even of the bands who climb, the vast majority would content themselves with climbing up a few feet and continuing the song from there. It's a very small subset of my notional 0.5% who would actually undertake a leap from the highest point. So the actual risk is retreating into insignificance.

 

Obviously, I'd approach the problem differently if we were to land something along the lines of Warped Tour, but for the mix of clients and events that we have just now, I really can't see it being a significant risk.

 

So what control measures could you introduce?

 

It's tricky. Without going into too much detail, cladding the truss would look ugly and restrict sightlines. The clients wouldn't be happy with it. Plus, if the truss was rendered inaccessible, there are other parts of the structure that are climbable, albeit more difficult and hence riskier, I'm not sure where we would stop.

 

At the moment we essentially rely on supervision to deal with unruly behaviour. We keep staff around the stage at all times, and we make it clear to organisers that it's our call as to what constitutes unsafe behaviour. At the moment we don't specifically warn bands about climbing. Most would just feel insulted that we thought they might consider it, and it might just give others ideas. :P Of course, we would have words with anyone that we'd been given a heads up about, but most of the time with local bands you don't have a clue who they are beforehand.

 

 

Playing Devil's Advocate myself for the minute, if we are having to deal with very small risks, what else should we be tackling? A drummer could throw a stick into the crowd, which could easily cause a life changing injury if it gets someone in the eye. Or a performer gets brained by a bottle thrown from the crowd. Should we be compelled to stretch chicken wire across the front of the stage, Blues Brothers style? ;)

[ImagineerTom]

So as part of the risk assessment for each time you use the stage (you are doing this already I hope) you take some reasonable guesses about what's likely to happen. If the stage is being used by the WI choir or a brass band then the likelihood of any one of them climbing up the truss is minimal so the preventative steps you need to take are minimal (ie "keep an eye open") if you're hosting showbands, teen groups, punk bands, rappers.... demographics which typically involve a fair degree of showing off & where substance use/abuse at some level is reasonably likely then you start introducing basic steps to make it less easy/inviting for them to climb. From a legal/prosecution POV you don't need to make it impossible for them to climb, simply be able to demonstrate that you took reasonable steps and that the person willfully ignored them. Have some nice vinyl wraps made that go around the bottom 2m of your truss (you can even get transparent ones), in small print (say 20pt so someone next to it can see it but it's invisible at any distance) at eye level have a printed warning saying "don't climb this, it's dangerous) and I'd argue you've taken all reasonable steps to stop someone climbing your truss. If someone bipasses the wraps and ignors a notice that climbing is dangerous then any judge would be happy that the person doing the climbing has willfully done something dangerous and stupid against advice.

If you find yourself at an event where people are ignoring this barrier then either stop the show or position someone by each truss to act as a further physical deterrent.

[Brian]

We keep staff around the stage at all times, and we make it clear to organisers that it's our call as to what constitutes unsafe behaviour.

There you go, there's your control measure.

 

Should we be compelled to stretch chicken wire across the front of the stage, Blues Brothers style? ;)

I've long advocated solid 12mm plexiglass across the full width and height of most festival stages :)

[OllieDuff]

The Facebook apology kinda sorta (I'm going to say it did, so mler) confirmed my immediate thought about this. (Where it said: "I used to be a kid who was afraid to do anything physically dangerous")

 

This is the result of modern risk-averse parenting. (Or maybe it isn't - but an incident like this has the same relationship to that that any one storm has to global warming.)

 

Here is someone who wasn't allowed to climb trees as a child. Someone who never hurt himself falling off a climbing frame, or trying (failing) to jump something on his bike. Someone who stayed in playing video games and watching movies instead. (Where you can jump out of an upstairs window and run away, and being knocked unconscious is just like taking a short nap before you wake up, shake your head and carry on with no further consequences.)

 

We, collectively, have raised an entire generation of numpties like this. We (this is very much a first-world problem, obviously), have damaged the development of a generation of kids who've never been allowed to take a risk. Yes, he was/is an idiot. But we, collectively, with our excessively risk-averse first-world western culture have been busily raising an entire generation of such idiots.

 

And enabling their continued idiocy, as they grow up out of their ridiculously risk-averse childhoods, graduate from their ridiculously risk-averse schools and move into the ridiculously risk-averse 21st century first-world workplace.

 

For the sake of humanity, stop this madness now. Take off the warning labels! Take down the handrails! Shut down the "no win no fee" lawyers and get the drama students back up stepladders, quickly, before it's too late for us all!

 

 

George Watsky is only a couple of years older than me (and people of my age performing and being techs in student/amateur theatre and people of a similar age working in the industry). We don't lob ourselves off truss for giggles (our shenanigans tend to be more in the "watch the rugby on the big screen with a few beers after the punters have left" vein). This guy's apology on Facebook makes much of how his acting out on tour is "making up for [his] earlier shyness", which is a load of crap that he (or his PR guy) is using to paint an extremely poor decision as part of some kind of narrative about personal development. This is, obviously, a load of rubbish - I was afraid of getting hit by the ball in school sports, and spent a lot more time indoors reading than outside trying to jump things on my bike, but that doesn't mean that I'm unable to manage risks in my own life. And yes, I'm a gamer in the 18-25 age bracket, but that doesn't mean that I leap off tall structures expecting to walk away unscathed, because most people can distinguish between a video game and reality. I also don't wander around the countryside with a sword looking for a dragon to slay - because I know I can do that in a game, but not in reality.

 

You have not "raised an entire generation of numpties", you've raised a generation which includes numpties - as every generation does, including yours. Are you really trying to suggest that this idiot is symptomatic of an entire generation of people who can't look after themselves, as opposed to one man making a really stupid decision? And if that is your belief, do you think that his punishment should be less severe than that of an older performer (let's say they're in their forties or fifties) who'd done something equally stupid, because society/his parents should share the blame?

 

Other respondents have compared risk assessing performer antics to risk assessing the presence of children, young people (again with the young-people-bashing, Blue Room! We're not all suicidal fools!) or people living with disabilities in the workplace. I'm not sure who should be more offended - performers, or wheelchair users? Regardless, this guy is an adult, he was in his place of work and he did something incredibly dangerous. It would send entirely the wrong message to punish the promoters, production company or riggers for someone else's gross recklessness; do you really want to encourage the talent to think that they can goof off and endanger others, because the PM is responsible for mitigating the risks arising from irresponsible behaviour? Isn't that exactly the kind of cotton-wool wrapping, risk-aversity that Seano was railing against?

[Seano]

Are you really trying to suggest that this idiot is symptomatic of an entire generation of people who can't look after themselves, as opposed to one man making a really stupid decision?

 

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Everyone under um.. 32, without exception, complete numpty!

 

Unless, of course, my little rant was not entirely serious.

90% serious, maybe.

[Stuart91]

I've long advocated solid 12mm plexiglass across the full width and height of most festival stages :)

 

Would have been handy

. :)

[Andrew C]

Plexiglass sufficiently thick that you can't hear through either...