If that's the case we can take down everything we have and "close up the shop".
Considering how many cell towers are unguarded I don't believe at any court
would find it our responsibility to permanently sit in front of our towers 24/7
to fend off stupid kids. I agree that the society require more and more
protections for the dummies but I believe there are some reasoning that require
our society to function with limited protections for young kids that want to
challenge whatever they can.
Courts tent to be more generous if there is a large source of case available
such as an insurance is around or the defendant is "filthy rich".
Hans - N2JFS
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger (K8RI) on TT <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>
To: towertalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
Sent: Sat, Feb 11, 2017 5:25 am
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Fwd: anti-climb, litigation, attractive
Last I heard, it depends on the jurisdiction, but from pre teens through
teens, they are likely to take any measures as a challenge. In many
jurisdictions, it matters not to what lengths you go, if they can
circumvent what ever measures you take, you can be found guilty. Add to
that, civil suits. They are likely to be more generous with awards than
criminal proceedings.
73, Roger (K8RI)
On 2/10/2017 11:16 PM, Hans Hammarquist via TowerTalk wrote:
> Jim,
>
> The thing is that, according to what I read, you have to fail ALL the five
> point in order for some courts to find you responsible. I believe that you
> have to fail at least some of them. If you put up a fence or anticlimb
> device you should be relatively safe. No, I don't think it can be considered
> "cost efficient" to use illuminated signs with motion detectors etc. A fence
> around your entire installation with guy wires etc should be considered,
> from y point of view, enough.
>
> You can never stop anybody that is determined enough. If somebody wants
> dearly to climb your tower they will. You can't stop them. I would like to
> see, no actually I wouldn't, that court that will hold you responsible for
> that. The same way, if somebody breaks in to your house and get injured a
> court will not hold you responsible for that. Yes, there are myths around it
> how a bungler slips on ice when breaking in and the owner end up paying
> compensation but nobody can show where this happened.
>
> Anyhow, an anticlimb something and a few signs should be enough for most
> situations if I read it right.
>
> Hans - N2JFS
>
>
> ____________________________________
> From: _jim.thom@telus.net_ (mailto:jim.thom@telus.net)
> To: towertalk@contesting.com
> Sent: 2/10/2017 1:52:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
> Subj: [TowerTalk] anti-climb, litigation, attractive
>
>
> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 18:36:41 -0500
> From: Hans Hammarquist <hanslg@aol.com>
> To: towertalk@contesting.com
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Fwd: Fwd: anti-climb, litigation, attractive
> nuisance
>
> I do believe that if you put up the anti-climb planks or a reasonable high
> fence around the tower and add signs warning about the danger you should
> be relatively safe. Regarding high RF levels I suggest that you keep this
> under control so you can interrupt transmission if somebody enter that area.
> A better alternative would be to avoid high RF levels at ground altogether.
>
>
> 73 de, Hans - N2JFS -----
>
> ## and if you post signs, they had better be in several languages. They
> should also be illuminated at night, like perhaps a motion detector
> led..and perhaps powered from a UPS supply.
> And if you mark the signs...danger. Danger from what, falling yagis, or
> falling ice, or your shunt fed 160m Tower.
> And if marked ..danger. That implies the tower is a dangerous hazard.
> You just implicated yourself, good luck with that. One of the local hams
> used three 4 x 8 sheets of plywood on the base of his trylon tower.
> Painted em white. Easily removed when required. At the telco I worked
> at, we used 4 sided steel fencing, non climbable, and barbed wire facing
> outwards at the top, at a 45 deg angle... for both towers, and also
> guy anchors. Teen aged kids and guy anchors are a bad mix. Base of
> tower + equipment buildings were also fenced off with an 8 ft tall fence +
> more barbed wire.
>
> Jim VE7RF
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
--
73
Roger (K8RI)
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|