George94

I think you are expressing an opinion, and dressing it up as fact. As far as I know, the Colregs definition of sea-going hasn't yet been tested in a court, and until it is, your opinion will remain just that - an opinion. Furthermore, I didn't refer to the BW/CART byelaws. I referred to the EA regulations, which are sometimes very different from the Colregs, and yet make no mention of the Colregs. By contrast, PLA regulations explicitly recognise the Colregs, and say that the Colregs apply, except where supplanted by PLA regulations. Here are the EA byelaws. It is clear that the EA don't think the non-tidal Thames is covered by the Colregs: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/289785/LIT_8635_5361a8.pdf

I am sure everybody is delighted that sense has prevailed. However, the Small Claims Court is probably not the best place to determine questions of maritime law, and to my mind two questions remain unanswered. The first is, what constitutes a proper lookout? In my view a helmsman alone can be considered capable of keeping a proper lookout if his vision is not obscured. The second is, do the Colregs apply to the canals (defined for the sake of argument as being waterways accessible through locks of not more than 4 metres wide)? In my view not, but despite searching I haven't found any support for this view (and also nothing against it), except for this: There have been changes to the Collision Regulations (COLREGS) and a regulatory change is forthcoming that will align the Inland Navigation Rules with the COLREGS. This suggests that the Colregs DON'T apply to inland waterways, otherwise there would be no benefit in aligning the two sets of rules, or indeed in having any rules that are already covered by the Colregs. The only problem is that this statement relates to the USA, not to the UK. However, it establishes a principle that Colregs don't automatically apply to inland waterways. I am aware that the Colregs state: "These Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels.", but I would argue that the canals are not navigable by seagoing vessels, since these are vessels designed to be used on the sea, and are too big to enter normal UK canals. Furthermore, the Environment Agency publishes its own regulations for the rivers under its control, and these are in many instances not in line with the Colregs. So, if this hapens again, quote the foregoing. :-)

This is an excellent volt drop calculator: http://www.midsummerenergy.co.uk/solar_panel_information/voltage-drop-calculator.html/

I know some people have done that, but why should rigid pipe be any more impermeable than sanitation hose which is claimed to be odour-free?

I have just purchased a Vetus to replace my Lavac, which wasn't as problem-free as I had hoped. It's great that Veti and other similar toilets use comparativey little water per flush, but one consequence of that is that unless the discharge hose is very short you are liable to find that after flushing there is still some solid matter sitting in the pipe, which in time is likely to lead to smells. Even the best sanitation hose appears to have a limited life. Being in a marina I tend to use extra water in order to ensure the discharge hose is always full of sweet water, and nothing else. This is another reason to ensure you have as big a tank as you can find space for.

Exactly.

Re crotch straps. Having seen what happened to a friend who failed to adjust his strap properly, and inflated his jacket, I would always advise care be taken in locating the strap where it won't cause problems. This, of course, is not something the ladies need to be concerned about.

As somebody who knows the tidal Thames reasonably well, I would just mention that Spring tides are not really any more dangerous than Neaps provided you are going with the tide, and especially if you are going up-river (with the flood) rather than down. Bear in mind that the tidal Thames does flow in both directions! Going down-river, the tricky bit is turning into Limehouse. With a lot of water in the river I would prefer to avoid doing this (I'd go the other way, or not at all), but going from Limehouse to Brentford or Teddington with the flood tide is nothing to get nervous about. That's assuming you have a good engine, a stout anchor, and no ventilation holes close to the waterline.

Smaller ones may be easier to find space for, but larger ones will usually be cheaper per Watt, and are more difficult to steal.

The Merchant Shipping defines "sea-going" as follows: "sea-going" means going beyond the limits of waters of category A, B, C and D (as categorised in Merchant Shipping Notices No. M1504 and No. M1569). That rules out the canals. The PLA publishes proper navigational bye-laws (which over-ride the Colregs), and one of them states: "All vessels navigating above the Thames Barrier, including tugs pushing craft ahead, Class IV, V and VI Passenger Vessels and vessels subject to the requirements of the High Speed Craft Code, which, by virtue of their construction or trim, have limited visibility from the wheelhouse, shall have a lookout stationed in an appropriate position, maintaining an effective lookout, so as to cover the area of limited visibility; or have made suitable technical arrangements such that an effective lookout can be maintained in the area of limited visibility. Obviously the Port of London is not a canal, but its requirements are much more stringent than anything CART or its predecessor has come up with, so even if the Colregs DO apply to the canals, it is unlikely that a separate lookout would be required. Finally, the PLA refers to the Colregs and other rules of the road in its bye-laws. If the Colregs, or any other regulations, apply to the canals, then CART should jolly well say so.

Thank you, but some of my questions remain unanswered. What ruling concerned not having a lookout at the bow? I concede that the rules, as stated, don't make a concession for single-handers. Where are the BW/CART bye-laws that over-ride the Colregs? Has a court of law decided that the Colregs apply to the English canals? They may be connected to the sea, but they are hardly capable of handling sea-going vessels as envisaged by the Colregs.

What ruling? And why is single-handed sailing different? And what BW bye-laws over-ride the Colregs? I can't find anything. I should be interested to know if anybody has previously been able to establish that the Colregs apply to the canals. Common sense suggests that they shouldn't.

But oxymoronic, given the usual meaning of the word deposit.

I am inclined to the opposite view - that the team has no experience in this field at all and is grasping at straws.

How much experience does your legal team have? Their conclusion regarding a lookout seems bizarre. Every helmsman is himself a lookout, and only needs another lookout if his view is impaired. Think about it. If they are right, every single-handed sailor is in breach of the Colregs. But I am quite sure that isn't the case. In my view the breach is one of common sense, and it's committed by your legal team.