Legal applicability of International Regs on Canals

[Keeping Up]

Can any of you legal experts out there say definitively whether or not the "International regulations for the prevention of collisions at sea" apply in law to the canals of the BCN around Birmingham?

[Paul C]

They don't, because somewhere within them is wording to the effect of "if any more local rules exist, they override these rules".

 

However the basics are the same, namely passing on the right and not raw bashing into each other's boats etc. Obviously there's junctions on inland waterways, which don't really apply at sea and I can't remember the junction details in the international regs for narrow channels. There's a load of detail differences I imagine, though. And less of a size variation in vessels and stuff like fishing, tugs, limited maneouvrability, sailing, etc etc

[Athy]

Can any of you legal experts out there say definitively whether or not the "International regulations for the prevention of collisions at sea" apply in law to the canals of the BCN around Birmingham?

If you state exactly where you intend to have a collision, it may help people to give a more precise reply.

[MtB]

They don't, because somewhere within them is wording to the effect of "if any more local rules exist, they override these rules".

 

 

So ARE there 'local rules' on the canals? Or are the rules we generally observe unenforceable 'guidance'?

[Paul C]

 

 

So ARE there 'local rules' on the canals? Or are the rules we generally observe unenforceable 'guidance'?

 

I can't remember the link so I can't check but I'm pretty sure there's something in the byelaws, which are in theory enforceable rules.

[mrsmelly]

They don't, because somewhere within them is wording to the effect of "if any more local rules exist, they override these rules".

 

However the basics are the same, namely passing on the right and not raw bashing into each other's boats etc. Obviously there's junctions on inland waterways, which don't really apply at sea and I can't remember the junction details in the international regs for narrow channels. There's a load of detail differences I imagine, though. And less of a size variation in vessels and stuff like fishing, tugs, limited maneouvrability, sailing, etc etc

 

This is not strictly true, as Narrowboating is a " Contact " sport surely bashing into other boats is allowed?

 

Tim

[Alan de Enfield]

If there are 'local rules' they take precedence, if their are no local rules then the COLREGs apply.

 

If for example there is no local rule saying the actions a boat should take in fog, then the COLREGs section on Fog would apply.

 

I believe that it all concerns if the waterway is 'connected to the sea' (or not).

[Alan de Enfield]

Here we go -

If your boat is capable of going to Sea (ie Seagoing) then :

 

International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 7.1

The Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/75) implement the Convention on International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea2 – usually known as the “COLREGS”. These regulations apply to vessels on waters that are navigable by seagoing vessels, which include most Category D inland waters, and some Category C. In practice, most such areas are subject to local rules which modify the COLREGS in the jurisdiction of the relevant navigation or Statutory Harbour Authority. However, if you are operating in a Category C or D area where no Navigation or Harbour authority rules seem to be in place, then the international rules may apply. MSN 1781, as amended, provides further information and advice.

[MtB]

If you state exactly where you intend to have a collision, it may help people to give a more precise reply.

 

 

I was imagining the OP had already had it.

 

I thought about posting "Ok, who have you hit?!" when there were no replies to the OP, but decided that would be ungracious.

[haggis]

Can I just say I like the word applicability. Never heard it before but it sounds good :-)

 

haggis

[mayalld]

Here we go -

If your boat is capable of going to Sea (ie Seagoing) then :

 

International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 7.1

The Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/75) implement the Convention on International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea2 – usually known as the “COLREGS”. These regulations apply to vessels on waters that are navigable by seagoing vessels, which include most Category D inland waters, and some Category C. In practice, most such areas are subject to local rules which modify the COLREGS in the jurisdiction of the relevant navigation or Statutory Harbour Authority. However, if you are operating in a Category C or D area where no Navigation or Harbour authority rules seem to be in place, then the international rules may apply. MSN 1781, as amended, provides further information and advice.

 

Reversed logic.

 

The criteria is NOT whether YOUR boat is seagoing, but whether the waters are connected to the sea, and navigable by seagoing vessels.

 

That makes sense, because it would be ludicrous to have a body of water where some vessels are covered by COLREGS and some not.

 

So;

 

1. The entire connected inland waterways system is connected to the sea.
2. The entire connected inland waterways system can be navigated by seagoing vessels.
3. COLREGS apply
4. COLREGS say that if a competent authority has its own rules those rules take precedence over COLREGS
5. The British Waterways General Canal Byelaws 1965 contain such rules and take precedence over COLREGS

[Athy]

 

 

 

 

2. The entire connected inland waterways system can be navigated by seagoing vessels.

 

So THAT's how that supertanker reached Cropredy Lock.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Athy

[billS]

So THAT's how that supertanker reached Cropredy Lock.

 

Many years ago I went through Cropredy lock in my seagoing Shetland Family Four.

[magpie patrick]

 

 

Reversed logic.

 

The criteria is NOT whether YOUR boat is seagoing, but whether the waters are connected to the sea, and navigable by seagoing vessels.

 

That makes sense, because it would be ludicrous to have a body of water where some vessels are covered by COLREGS and some not.

 

So;

 

1. The entire connected inland waterways system is connected to the sea.
2. The entire connected inland waterways system can be navigated by seagoing vessels.
3. COLREGS apply
4. COLREGS say that if a competent authority has its own rules those rules take precedence over COLREGS
5. The British Waterways General Canal Byelaws 1965 contain such rules and take precedence over COLREGS

 

 

I think number 2 is a moot point: whether the vessel can go to sea isn't quite the same thing as it being seagoing. A bath tub (or a tabur yak dinghy) can go to sea, the wisdom of doing so it questionable

 

Many years ago I went through Cropredy lock in my seagoing Shetland Family Four.

 

Yeah, and Juno is insured up to 12 miles off shore, BUT...

[Athy]

 

Many years ago I went through Cropredy lock in my seagoing Shetland Family Four.

Sorry, sibling groups of ponies don't count.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

Reversed logic.

 

The criteria is NOT whether YOUR boat is seagoing, but whether the waters are connected to the sea, and navigable by seagoing vessels....................

 

 

 

 

I am not sure if you are saying the MCA document is correct, or, if they are incorrect.

[Keeping Up]

My reason for asking is that I am pursuing a legal claim (for my uninsured losses) against a hire-boat that hit mine at high speed last year, I'm definitely not intending to hit any other boats myself

 

After many months of consideration the legal team have advised me that my claim has little chance of succeeding because by not having a lookout on the bows of my almost-stationary boat, I was navigating in breach of Rule 5 that requires "every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision".

 

At the moment I am not sure whether to argue that, since I had a perfectly clear view from the stern of my boat, my lookout by sight was adequate; or whether to argue that these regulations do not apply to an area of canal that can only be reached by narrow-beam vessels.

[Paul C]

My reason for asking is that I am pursuing a legal claim (for my uninsured losses) against a hire-boat that hit mine at high speed last year, I'm definitely not intending to hit any other boats myself

 

After many months of consideration the legal team have advised me that my claim has little chance of succeeding because by not having a lookout on the bows of my almost-stationary boat, I was navigating in breach of Rule 5 that requires "every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision".

 

At the moment I am not sure whether to argue that, since I had a perfectly clear view from the stern of my boat, my lookout by sight was adequate; or whether to argue that these regulations do not apply to an area of canal that can only be reached by narrow-beam vessels.

 

 

Let me guess....you were coming out of a junction and they were going along the canal? If so, or if it were a similarly tight situation such as a bridgehole on a bend, then did you use the horn? And did they too? I can see the claim as being arguable. Of course, unless by sheer chance they are on the forum, we're unlikely to hear the other side.

[billS]

Surely that would only be applicable in situations where the steerers view from the stern was restricted, as per joining the Oxford Canal from the Grand Union at Wigram's turn.

 

Was your view restricted in this particular instance, and did that have any bearing on your action taken to avoid a collision?

[mrsmelly]

My reason for asking is that I am pursuing a legal claim (for my uninsured losses) against a hire-boat that hit mine at high speed last year, I'm definitely not intending to hit any other boats myself

 

After many months of consideration the legal team have advised me that my claim has little chance of succeeding because by not having a lookout on the bows of my almost-stationary boat, I was navigating in breach of Rule 5 that requires "every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision".

 

At the moment I am not sure whether to argue that, since I had a perfectly clear view from the stern of my boat, my lookout by sight was adequate; or whether to argue that these regulations do not apply to an area of canal that can only be reached by narrow-beam vessels.

 

You do NOT need to provide a seperate Lookout in these circumstances. The steerer will suffice.

 

Tim

[Keeping Up]

 

 

Let me guess....you were coming out of a junction and they were going along the canal? If so, or if it were a similarly tight situation such as a bridgehole on a bend, then did you use the horn? And did they too? I can see the claim as being arguable. Of course, unless by sheer chance they are on the forum, we're unlikely to hear the other side.

 

No, wrong. I was going straight on along the canal, at Factory Junction, travelling eastwards from Wolverhampton towards Birmingham.

 

The other boat came from the side (Dudley direction) at literally full speed and did a classic "straight-on at T-junction" into the side of my boat, hitting it at the bows which were projecting about 2ft through the bridge-hole before the junction. I had slowed to a virtual standstill under the bridge, because my crew would need to get off to go and set the locks, so even if I had had a lookout on the bows in the well-deck they'd still have been under the bridge so it wouldn't have made any difference.

 

Yes I had used the horn (as requested by the notice on the bridge that dates back to when there used to be a canoe club near there) but the other party didn't use theirs.

[mayalld]

 

I am not sure if you are saying the MCA document is correct, or, if they are incorrect.

 

The MCA document is correct. Your one line summary was not.

[LEO]

My reason for asking is that I am pursuing a legal claim (for my uninsured losses) against a hire-boat that hit mine at high speed last year, I'm definitely not intending to hit any other boats myself

 

After many months of consideration the legal team have advised me that my claim has little chance of succeeding because by not having a lookout on the bows of my almost-stationary boat, I was navigating in breach of Rule 5 that requires "every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision".

 

At the moment I am not sure whether to argue that, since I had a perfectly clear view from the stern of my boat, my lookout by sight was adequate; or whether to argue that these regulations do not apply to an area of canal that can only be reached by narrow-beam vessels.

 

Hi,

 

I was sorry to hear of the serious damage to your boat.

 

I would say that it is not possible to have a look stationed on the bows of a canal boat as historically there in no convenient forward look out position - convention dictates that the steerer at the rear of the boat has full control of the narrowboat and responsibility to navigate in a prudent manner.

 

From the information provided it sounds as though the other boat was not navigating in a responsible manner and the hire company are relying on your insurance company to put matters right.

 

Also the extensive damage to the front of your boat should be an indication of the speed and direction of the other boat - any pictures

 

Good luck, when a friends Nb was 'clonked' and damaged by a hire boat that company quickly paid for repairs to his boat.

 

l

Edited March 22, 2016 by LEO

[mayalld]

 

I think number 2 is a moot point: whether the vessel can go to sea isn't quite the same thing as it being seagoing. A bath tub (or a tabur yak dinghy) can go to sea, the wisdom of doing so it questionable

 

As I said, it is about a reversal of the correct logic.

 

The overwhelming majority of boats found on a canal COULD go to sea, but SHOULD NOT. They are NOT seagoing boats.

 

However, there are boats that are seagoing that can navigate the canals. The fact that they seldom do (and indeed that a particular canal hasn't seen such a boat in living memory) doesn't alter the fact that the canal is navigable by seagoing vessels.

 

The point is actually moot because the 1965 byelaws take precedence, so any theoretical applicability of COLREGS is trumped by the byelaws.

[cuthound]

Did you take photos immediately after the collision? If not could you return to the scene and take photos, showing the canal layout, to demonstrate who had priority?

 

You never know, it may help your case, particularly if you have to recover your costs via the small claims court.