BelgiumBrit

As I see it, the ONLY punishment this man has received relating to this offence, is that he'll be taking buses and taxi's for a year ( and looking for alternative employment presumably ) and his next insurance premium( if he can get insurance ) will be exhorbitant, and rightly so. All in all, not so harsh really is it , considering he is responsible for a mans death?

Agreed. There was never any mention of the cyclist being at fault in the reports of the Trial. However , this man was found guilty of taking another persons life due to the standard of his driving being well below the expected level of that of a competent driver. He was found guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt' in a Court of Law; Tried by his 'Peers', a Jury of 12 members of the public. As an aside, The Police Accident Investigators are trained to a very high standard. Their evidence will include, cross contamination of paint or fibres from cyclist to vehicle and vice versa , reconstructions of speed at the scene,trajectory of debris ( such as glass from lighting units and windscreens )from the vehicle across the accident scene. This alone can give a very good indication of direction, speed and angle at time of impact ( even without tyre braking marks on the road surface ). It is a science , and very precise.( When a hit and run occurs, glass fragments from lighting units recovered from the scene can be traced to the make and year of vehicle , and then onto a widespread sweep of CCTV around the time of the incident.) I am sure that such evicence would have been included in the Fatal Accident enquiry report to The CPS. And that is how they caught the man who has now been convicted. This is a very sad tale, and to suggest that 'maybe' the cyclist was in 'someway at fault' is very unfair. The driver was convicted of causing his death due to the manner of his own driving. That should be accepted.

Shaft coupling ? Is this the 'swingers' thread ?

Windfola ................It is late, but I promise to reply to your post tomorrow ..............How could i resist ?

Nice one !

I've been following this thread for quite a few days, just wondering where it would go ........... So, we have a guy , who is living on an unlicenced boat, fending for himself, flouting B.W mooring rules. The O.P was , I believe, ( despite his post title ) quite rightly highlighting a potential problem ( if not threat ) of someone whom he has witnessed behaving in an anti social and beligerent manner, that maybe could escalate in certain circumstances.Given the nature of this site ( a forum for discussion and highlighting problems on the waterway, The O.P was right to do that !) I'm pretty amazed that this has turned into a multi page discussion about Mental Health Isuues to be honest . We have some posters that are 'professional' MH experts,and it is great to have 'experienced' viewpoints on any forum. But, Mental Health Isuues are contentious, you can never underestimate someone with a M.H issue ,they , by the nature of their condition can be volatile, unpredictable, and extremely violent without necessarily showing any forewarning ( but the man in question does seem to be consistant in his manner ) ! I was a Police Sergeant for many years , and I know the Mental health System; I know the Criminal Justice System too ;how they assess,and take into 'account' Mental health issues, and how 'they' fail to accomodate such people; Or HOW they fail to 'protect' those with mental illness and members of the public alike! Sadly both systems in 'partnership', on too many occasions let innocent members of the public down dramatically with dreadful , fatal , or 'life changing ' consequences, when those with serious Mental Health issues should be in secure accommodation.They also 'let down' those with illness that require remedial and interventionalist help. If you have a problem with this man, don't call the Social Services Mental Health Assessment Team, call the Police, get it logged, and have it dealt with through the CJS , they will then get Mental Health Assessment involved. Clearly he is spoiling 'others' enjoyment' of the Cut , and is being threatening or abusive to others ( Sec 5 Public Order Act 1986 ). If he is dealt with properly, and gets profesional help , whilst in custody or elsewhere by order of the courts , that HAS to be for the greater good surely ?????????

Again, thanks for that MJG,I take your point,nicely put, and appreciated ! Ian

Great post, thanks for that! Glad to see that you are taking 'training' seriously. Ian

Roger THAT ! Sorry , i now see it is 'Magpie', my apologies ! Cheers ! Ian

Maggie and Graham , both posts noted , thanks. It's just my own personal viewpoint , and of course i respect your own views , and i do accept that things have changed in 'my time away '. Cheers Ian

Well, I have actually, be it 20 plus years ago, I held a UK commercial boatmans licence ( Board of Trade / DOT as it was then ) for 5 years, and worked 2500 hrs plus over that period on non tidal waters. I have seen horrific boatmanship from hirers and owners alike. I appreciate that I have been away from it for a long time, I could take a chance , and just buy my boat and hope it all comes back to me ( which i reckon it will ) , but personally, i'd prefer to keep it as professional as you can do in pleasure boating, and get my RYA helmsman cert first before delivery. Ian

According to your own inflated opinion of yourself ? How can one discuss on the basis of THAT ? ie, "I've been here longer than you, and you are talking utter bollocks " Nonsense !

And likewise .....I am not new to internet forums, I know how 'they' work, but I will always defend my viewpoint if I believe it to be correct , and engage in meaningful ' respectful debate and discussion'( on a discussion forum - hint ). I just don't believe that referring to someones' posts as 'utter bollocks ' is the way ahead though , do you ?

Thanks , I respect your viewpoint,( we all have one ) and the fact that it was posted in a friendly and inoffensive manner. Cheers Ian

Yes, of course I am..... you obviously don't like an opposing view point to yourself and resort to arrogance.

carlt No, I don't believe I have 'LOST THE ARGUEMENT' at all , I was 'merely' offering MY opînion and observations on the chaos that appeared on the Webcam pics , and a general overview. I believe that there should be basic navigational training for 'ALL' boat users on Inland waterways. Why ? Because I know it makes sense to have some , even a week ends training based on helmanship, protocol,lock working, mooring up,collision damage, man overboard, first aid even .......the list is endless, but I wouldn't suggest that we go off into the realms of Ocean Yachtmater status, more akin to Day skipper practical. Wouldn't insurance be cheaper if you had an RYA or equivalent quali ? Maybe .... would the waterways be safer ? I think so ....... Hirers in ALL continental waterways do ( despite arguments to prove otherwise ) have better basic tuition , and in some cases , such as Belgium, can not hire at all without CEVNI , for the reasons that you helpfully and in a friendly manner noted, so thanks for that !Sadly , the two previous posters before yourself are arrogant, and not conversant with the meaning of debate and discussion ,and IMO are 'talking shite' from the confines of their 'secure' Dept of Health accomodation ! Is there a canal near Rampton or Broadmoor ?

seems like there is ALOT more support and training given than your average punter in the UK.I like the fact that a dvd is sent , and that two classifications are included , 'experienced' , and 'new to cruising' .........it would seem they are happy to tutor new cruisers for a significant period of time ........bravo to that ! Now, what are the 'exemptions' if you take your own boat on continental waters ? I live in Belgium , you wouldn't get far without CEVNI or equivalent .. Richard , by nature , this is a 'discussion forum' , and that is what we are having isn't it ???????? Ian

Please direct me to the information source that you refer to , and maybe I'll stop wobbling on ..'

Well, this is a contentious issue , and it seems to me that hire firms generating revenue pay significant amounts to Waterways authorities, which in turn is used in the upkeep of the waterways. Fair enough. I wouldn't consider it unnecessarily 'bureaocratic' to ensure that a boat owner does a 2 day (200 quid ) safety and helmsman course before getting their Waterways licence for their own boat ! I'm not suggesting that those hiring should do this , but lets say a minimum 5 hrs training charged at 80 quid ? Would that kill the hire boat industry , and stop the revenue paid to the relevant authorities ? I doubt it ! I don't consider the certification of all boat owners ( or some form of certification for hire boaters ) to be bureaucratic at all ! If you want to travel the continental waterways , you MUST have a CEVNI qualification . Do you think that is just European bureacracy, or maybe it is just common sense and based on waterway user safety issues, rather than the inhibitation of cash flow from River / canal authorities !

Just watching the holiday captains larking aound on The Broads makes me shudder !!!! It has got to be wrong to allow someone with NO prior experience to have a One hour familiarisation course and then 'head off 'causing presumably chaos, and potential or actual danger to themselves and others. You wouldn't be able to hire a 50cc moped without the requisite licence would you ? So, what is so difference that allows a complete novice to take the helm and skipper a 40 ft boat ? I'm sure there will be some opposing views on this , those of you that started their boating careers in such a way, and acted responsibly and with common sense. But, I find it all very irresponsibe. I don't have a boat at the moment, and am looking for the right one to buy. I won't take the helm until i've passed my RYA helmsmans cert, and i have a commercial non tidal boatmans licence from years and years ago ( expired ) , but as a matter of principle, safety and self confidence , I wouldn't just hop on my 'just bought ' boat and head off along the system, that would be very foolish !