Mike Todd

Sadly, most social media ones are hyperbolic , , ,

I am not sure that we should necessarily assume that a boat dweller is a boater, in the sense in which it was being used in the thread.

But we do have to remember why the data is being recorded - to identify those not complying with CC and mooring 'rules'. They are not interested (nor should anyone) in having an accurate record of the movement of every boat. Whilst it is also likely that some staff will operate their system in ways not really approved from above, in general they are only concerned to use the data as a start point in the enforcement process. Whatever anyone seems to have heard individual staff say, I would be very surprised is a court was not prepared to take into consideration all sorts of evidence and to weigh it according to its pedigree. If a boater is really that keen (s)he could always seek a court order for records such as those kept at locks to be disclosed as relevant evidence. Most Thames lock keepers also take notes - no idea what they do with them and, of course, they can only do so when they are there. Again, yhey could be sought as evidence in extremis. Apart from the privacy and data protection issues, I doubt whether most of us would really want to spend significantly more money in collecting data that goes well beyond the needs of the enforcement process. At the moment, and I suspect for a long time to come, CaRT are only able to tackle the really obvious cases and I would be surprised if the current data collection fails to identify them. OK so there are some false positives (ie boats picked out that are in fact compliant by any standard) but it is likely to be cheaper, if a tad irksome, to live with them and just back off when challenged by the boater.

Are the tunnel keepers only making notes to assist them check boats out than have been checked in?

I (as an long term IT person) am not sure how straightforward it is to record 'direction'. Of course, with a suitable handheld having a built in compass then it would possible to point it in the right direction in order to record a compass point. However, this is still quite complex to gain reliability - where does the operator stand and how do they point it? Presumably it would have to be in terms of 'stand at the pointy end and look towards the blunt end'. What is much harder is to record the direction reliably in terms that boaters normally understand eg 'going towards Bulls Bridge'. The problem overall is how to define 'direction' in a way that allows the data input person just to select from a set of options eg a drop down menu. The option of having regular distance posts (as on a motorway) indicating direction is clearly not feasible. I am unconvinced that the task of recording 'direction' (in a way that ultimately would stand scrutiny in court) is low cost.

There is nothing (syllogistically) illogical about the final paragraph. Whether it is 'proper' is another matter . . .

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_railway_station(we are all trivia cheats now!)

I think it is an instruction rather than advice

I should have also said that by consulting a qualified and equipped E engineer, they can access the onboard diagnostics which report what the unit thinks is the problem. Of course, it may get this wrong or there may be more than one problem . . .

Sounds rather similar to our experience earlier this year. There are not too many boatyards around who can do work on them - whereabouts are you? Initially we had one part replaced (the controller) and still problems continued and then almost all of the rest, the combustion unit (I think that there are only two significant replaceable stages!) at the end of which we did not have much more than the original casing . . . Even so, we had a final glitch and had to call an engineer back for what turned out to be air in it that had to be bled from the top.

Since we wre trying to be correct here, am I right in thinking that should be fewer rather then less?

2000 according to the never-wrong Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMNB_Portsmouth)

Do you any detail on Jack Monk? Back in the 60's I met a Jack Monk when he lived at Bishop Meadow Lock, Loughborough. I've not heard anything else about him since that time.

deleted

A few days ago there was an item on the radio about 'the power of negative thinking' and one of the more prominent interviewees was a Scot who has spent is whole career being the safety officer on North Sea drilling rigs, where the cost of an accident is usually rather high. He cited an example of how this specialisation works: He was reviewing with the electrical team what would happen in the event of an electrical malfunction. The proud reply was that the system would shut down into a safe mode. Ah, he thought, and what happens to all the lights on the rig? It seems that they would all have been turned off thereby turning what might have been a modest incident into a likely disaster scenario! They sought a better, more system-wide approach. He also talked of the notion of chronic unease, the willingness always to think of the worst outcomes, not in order to prevent things from happening but so that problems could be better avoided.

Donald Rumsfield? (But I actually strongly agree with the premise)

Of course an even older engineer would have told you how to apply (proper) flux first rather than rely on this new-fangled fluxless stuff!

I am sorry that you found "But if you look at a map you will find that Lock 62 (alleged culprit) is relatively away from housing and more rural." patronising. I was responding to #99 in which it was suggested that rural locks were less risk. I was pointing out that the lock in question is relatively rural.

The water in the lock is at least as unpalatable as in the rest of the canal (where does it come from?) One of the larger risks is said to be infection as a result of ingesting canal water. Also, locks often trap less than pleasant detritus, some of which itself is a hazard to those who encounter it.

But if you look at a map you will find that Lock 62 (alleged culprit) is relatively away from housing and more rural. Also, IIRC, the locks at the Leeds end of L&L that are supervised are also relatively rural. The lock above Reading that attracts macho teenagers is also away from housing. If you attend to my earlier point about think things through you might see that rural locks may be greater risk than urban ones just because there is less probability of someone being around to help. Also there may be greater difficulty in emergency services being able to get there. The simple fact is that all locks have risks, as does every stretch of a canal. What is at issue is what is a reasonable or proportionate response to each risk. Few people think that erecting notices actually reduces risk in the sense of modifying behaviour. Sadly, all too often the reason notices are put up is so that post hoc the risk 'owner' can then say that they are not at fault and cannot be sued.

I am not sure how you get to a point at which some locks are considered a greater risk than others. Physically they are all much the same (and the press reports are unclear about how far the actual lock was contributory or could it have happened anywhere along the canal?). I am concerned that you are tacitly concurring with the assumption that some locks are a higher risk (in a material way) than others just because of the surrounding social area. There is much danger in going down that route and my risk assessment is that you avoid it. There are some sections (eg north out of Leeds) where there are known problems and CaRT do what their limited resources can do but it also infringes on the rights of boaters (who can only pass through when there is supervision and security locks are removed) It is also important to think through any simplistic initial safety measures (I don't for one moment blame the mother but am repeatedly disappointed by coroners who seem to think that they should court public opinion by making statements of shallow thinking). Sometimes such steps actually increase the risk, as some posts have highlighted, either through the way in which people react to warnings, or by displacing the risk onto someone else in a way that actually makes the situation riskier. To avoid raising emotions in a canal context, I will illustrate from a context I also know something about: church security. From time to time, churches are damaged by less-than-charming visitors, either direct vandalism or damage in the act of theft. At one time there was a rush of churches to lock them as much as possible, only opening when there was a service. In places like here in Cornwall, this would mean that one of the most valuable assets for tourists is unavailable. In fact, nowadays the main insurance company actively encourages churches to be left open, at least during daylight hours, whilst making sure that nothing of value can be removed just by lifting it away, even - often - unattended. The damage done during a break-in is often much greater than the value of what is stolen. Too often in our current society we react to adverse events (many involving sad fatal accidents or life limiting injury) in what I provocatively call Red Top knee jerk reactions. There is an underlying assumption that all danger is avoidable and so the call is that They should do something about it. The result is an ever-growing list of rules and regulations. Part of the current political climate, across many countries not just UK, involves a reaction (probably equally short sighted) to sweep away regulation so that we are 'free to make our own decisions'. Such freedom, if it is real and not synthetic, provides the opportunities to make mistakes, that either affect ourselves adversely but sometimes affects others that way. We desperately need to find a philosophy that makes proper provision to avoid risk (anyone see Victoria Derbyshire this morning?) but also understands that a balanced freedom does sometimes mean taking our own responsibilities. Arguing for one extreme or the other is not good for our collective social health.

What do you consider to be the maximum distance that it reasonable for children to have to travel to school?

Not at all! Not knowing whether a specific boat is or is not a home is very different from knowing that some boats are used as homes. It is the latter that is relevant to policy setting.

The two numbered points you make are unarguable. However, the final paragraph (even though I do not understand the monkey expression, maybe I live in protected circles) spoils it by making an assertion without evidence. Certain people are claiming that the existing policy disadvantages them, either on grounds of disability or as a parent of a child at school age. This is very different from being able to prove that CaRT did not consider the matters as set out in 1 and 2 just that they came to conclusions that do not match the expectations of the claimants. To establish the first it will be necessary to show that people with a given disability cannot reasonably comply with the current law on boaters without a home mooring together with the existing guidance and also that it is reasonable that they should be able to do so. This still leaves them as boaters without a home mooring and so still subject to the basic legal requirement. (For example, I suspect that it will not be sufficient to state that with a disability they cannot move at all and thus be allowed effectively a permanent residential mooring without extra charge) In the second case it will be necessary to show that the so-called cruising guidelines impose a distance requirement that is unreasonably more stringent than parents living in rural areas (or in over-subscribed urban catchment areas) where 10 mile distances are not uncommon. In neither case will it matter, should the claim come to court, whether or not CaRT published their considerations that led them to conclude that their current statements are compliant, although either party may wish to make comments on whether they are reasonable. However, I suspect that CaRT could readily show that they do consider special cases but they only have cite one example to establish that premise. This would leave the claimants needing to show that CaRT have acted unreasonably by not doing the same in every relevant case. I am not saying that claims under either heading are not possible but rather to assert that burden of proof is perhaps a little higher than some suggest.

I spoke too soon!