Jump to content

Wanderer Vagabond

PatronDonate to Canal World
  • Posts

    3,686
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    224

Posts posted by Wanderer Vagabond

  1. 2 minutes ago, Ronaldo47 said:

    No doubt a consequence of the revised highway code that requures motorists to give cyclists a much wider berth than formerly. At least it gives the cyclist more room to swerve to avoid the potholes etc. that are becoming so widespread these days. The last time I cycled through  puddle in the gutter it cost me around £50 for a new rear wheel, tyre and inner tube  due to a collapsed drain surround. 

    Yes, I do accept that the 3rd world state of our roads now does mean that there is the likelihood of having to steer around chuffing great holes in the road, but then a lot of these are now also going to cause serious damage to road vehicle wheels, not just cyclists. Have to say that I will rarely cycle through any puddle precisely because you don't know what is in it (Dawn French sketch anyone?:unsure:). 

     

    Given that most carriageway widths are about 3 metres in each direction, if a motorist gives me 2 metres, at worst he/ she is only going to take one metre of the opposing carriageway to get past. It is mostly when travelling at slow speed anyway (I have been known to do over 50mph downhill, and wouldn't expect to be overtaken then other than in the same fashion that you'd overtake any other vehicle doing 50 mph). At 8 - 10 mph going uphill however, a car is going to be past me in a flash, they hardly need 300 yards of clear road in the opposing direction to achieve this.

  2. 4 hours ago, Higgs said:

     

    Once in a blue moon I probably would give the overtaking vehicle some road space. It wouldn't be on my must-do list. I'm there reading the road as well, for my own space.

     

     

    It's interesting, have you ever driven in rural Ireland? Pulling over to allow overtaking vehicles to pass is what they used to do all of the time, until you get used to it, it can be a bit unexpected, but it does seem to result in far less aggression than is present on UK roads. Whether their driving methods have changed post pandemic I don't know. I do know that English driving methods are now sh*t post pandemic. Driving in London has always been a battle against aggression, but it now seems nationwide.

     

    Another thing that I have also found interesting as a cyclist (as well as motorcyclist,HGV driver, car driver, etc.etc.etc) is the reluctance that drivers seem to have now for passing a cyclist. Give me a metre of passing space and I'm quite content and yet I regularly have to either pull over and stop, or ride up onto the the footpath (an awful lot of 'footpaths' are now pedestrian/cyclist shared spaces) because the car behind me wont pass if there is any traffic coming the other way, which would mean that if I don't stop, or get out of the way by other means, will lead to a tailback of traffic. No, I don't want them passing me and rapping my knuckles with their wing mirrors, but I'm not entirely sure why they need to cross onto the other side of the road to pass me. Are people no longer aware of their vehicle widths?

  3. 54 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

    For the last time, the BW bylaws are the applicable laws for the canals and specifically include the Aire and Calder. It is not my opinion, it is easily proven fact.

     

    if you think the Colregs are the applicable rules then every canal boat moving at night must have compliant nav lights. Which they don’t. And could you explain the point of the BW bylaws?

    Since you were the one who raised the BW bylaws perhaps it should be you who explains what the point of the BW bylaws are since there is no-one enforcing them. On the other hand, taking part in an offshore race during which a collision occurred between two of the boats (of which I was on neither) the insurance company, referencing the COLREGS decreed that the boat (on port tack) that had failed to give way to a boat on starboard tack was responsible for the ensuing collision and settled the insurance claim accordingly.

     

    I'd be interested to see how an insurance company would settle with your approach to overtaking, "We collided because he wouldn't give way to me overtaking him" somehow I don't think that would wash. Given the lack of any enforcement of either COLREGS or BW bylaws it would be in the realms of insurance claims where they gain any relevance.

    • Greenie 1
  4. 1 minute ago, MartynG said:

    image.png.93da6d9f0733b12239f448e4f44c61af.png

    To be honest all of the talk by the other poster regarding 'the law' is somewhat academic since there is no-one enforcing either COLREGS or BW bylaws. Where it would become relevant is in the event of a collision and it would be the insurance companies would assess who had breached the requirements or in the event of a fatality the MAIB would do so. The only place I've ever seen enforcement was on The Broads.

  5. 11 hours ago, nicknorman said:

    Well I think we have the measure of you now. No knowledge of BW bylaws and no understanding of the difference between a displacement hull and a planing hull. What other major gaps in your knowledge exist? Ok yes I know, you can’t answer that Donald because you don’t know what you don’t know.

    In terms of any gaps in knowledge, any in mine are as nothing in comparison to the gaping holes in yours. The difference is that I don't have your level of arrogance. You might not have noticed but I actually asked the person concerned regarding the draught of her boat whereas you would undoubtedly have told her what it was!

  6. 1 minute ago, M_JG said:

     

    Now then....

     

    As you have spent the last 48 hours complaining about Nick claiming you have said things you havent can you please show me where have come close to suggesting that?

    No, I'm suggesting that, if the draught when up on the plane is less, surely they can go into the shallower waters?

  7. 6 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

     

    You'd have thought quite wrong then.

     

    Rach is probably not the best woman for you to try mansplaining powerboat handling to.  She has quite a lot of experience handling a fast boat.

     

    Sometimes in unwise locations, but we won't hold that against her. 😁

     

     

    Not 'mansplaining' or even criticising (what do I know about cruisers?:unsure:) but it just seemed logical that if you lift one end of the boat up, the other end of the boat would go down. Alternatively, is it genuinely a hydrofoil effect?

  8. 11 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

    Around 3ft, maybe a bit more for a bigger boat.

     

    On the plane the draught is shallower as most of the boat and drive is out of the water. 

    Odd 'cos I would have thought if you raise the bow (going onto the plane) the stern would drop, or have you got a hydrofoil?:rolleyes:

  9. Just now, MartynG said:

     

    HW Cromwell is HW Hull +5hrs

    HW Torksey is HW Hull + 3hrs 15min

    The flood at Torksey  runs in for 2 hrs

    In a narrowboat if you leave Torksey as  soon as the flood arrives and you take 3hrs 45mins to travel to Cromwell you will arrive at HW Cromwell.

    On neaps and when there is loads of fresh on the tide never really makes it to Cromwell

     

     

     

    Didn't work out that way when we did it, we ran out of tide before we got to Cromwell, it wasn't like flogging against the Douglas and Ribble on the Ribble link, but we weren't going very fast for the final hour. I think the fact that we'd had to come through Torksey lock first because the moorings below were full probably slowed us down.

     

    Last year, with the weather we had, there certainly wasn't loads of fresh and, I'm guessing now, but I don't think this year is going to be much different given the current lack of rain.:unsure:

  10. 5 hours ago, Paul C said:

     

    Are you using this specific situation and extrapolating it more widely to all of your boating everywhere, when you say "my concern will be to remain in the navigation channel."?

     

    I am not familiar with that stretch of the Trent but I didn't realise the navigation channel was <14' wide, or thereabouts.....once again, I will ask the simple question, if you met a boat in the opposite direction here, would you not be able to pass either?

    I think we've already covered that, IF there was a boat coming from the opposite direction, the onus will be on him/her to avoid me so if anyone has to go into jeopardy off the navigation line it is going to be them.

     

    This talk of a 'boat coming in the opposite direction', what sensible boater wants to flog into the tide (either on the flood or the ebb) by choice? Not only are you going to use twice as much fuel to get to your destination, but you are going to have to give priority to all boats coming towards you. There are occasions when you have to flog against the tide, the Ribble Link being one, but you aren't going to meet anyone in a narrow channel doing that one.

     

    Going from Torksey to Cromwell on the flooding tide, you only have 2 hours (if I remember right) before the tide turns so the last hour (takes me about 3 hours in my narrowboat) will be against an ebbing tide, but the big difference is that you are going to be on the top of the tide. Going off the navigation line is going to be less of an issue at the top of the tide compared to 3 - 4 hours into an ebbing tide.  

    59 minutes ago, Midnight said:

    Doh! Sorry

    Yes senior moment - us going down on the ebb him pushing against it. His problem as it was a left turn. 

    So the other guy, who was shouting at you, was actually in the wrong, as you correctly say it was his problem to avoid you. Sounds like distraction tactics by him to me;)

    5 hours ago, Naughty Cal said:

     The hull of an 8 ton GRP cruiser is not the deepest part of the boat.

     

    It is the drive gear that is deeper (and more expensive when it hits the bottom of the river)

    Not being particularly au fait with the draughts of cruisers, what would be the normal draught of an 8 ton GRP Cruiser? Obviously if they decide to go up 'on the plane' then their draught then will become a whole lot deeper, but at normal speed what would it be?

  11. 4 hours ago, Midnight said:

    I've never had a problem overtaking or being overtaken on the Trent. Did have a cruiser skipper shake his fist as he passed by last year. Him on the flood and us on the ebb on a tricky corner but he could have waited as he was coming against the flow and anyway there was enough channel to share otherwise he would have been on the bottom. 

    I don't know if it is me, but I'm baffled by this one. Was the boat overtaking you? if so how was he 'on the flood' and you were 'on the ebb', surely if you were both going the same way you were both on the same tidal state. Even if you were going in opposite directions you would still have been on the same tidal state since it is either ebbing, flooding or slack water, I don't think it can do both at the same time:huh:.

     

    If the other boat was 'coming against the flow' the onus is on him to avoid you if you were going with the flow.

  12. 5 hours ago, MartynG said:

    That's true . But on the R.Trent most cruisers like to to stick to the charted channel . So its is always appreciated when a  slow boat like a narrowboat moves over when it is safe to do so.

     

    Narrowboat  should  stick to the channel. I recall one occasion when a narrowboat cut a corner only to run aground. The ebb turned the boat at a right angle to the bank and as we passed the propeller was above the water. I believe the next tide lifted him off.

     

    A bit of a contradiction here,"...most cruisers like to to stick to the charted channel..." and ,"....Narrowboat  should  stick to the channel....".

     

    To be honest I'm talking about a specific situation which may well become more common as we get dryer summers. When travelling down on an ebbing tide with very little fresh water coming down (as it was last year, and will probably be this year) I am going to stick pretty rigidly to the navigation channel. I found out last year that you don't have to stray far off it to have an issue. I'm less concerned about grounding on a flooding tide(but would still rather not), but on an ebbing tide it rapidly becomes a problem in which you will get stuck. If, when I ran over the sand bar last year, instead of riding over it the boat had stopped on it, it is pretty certain that I would have remained there until the next tide.

     

    As far as cruisers go, I'm not sure whether an 8 ton GRP cruiser is going to have a deeper draught than my 18 ton steel narrow boat (perhaps the underwater V-profile makes it deeper, I don't know) but if one wants to pass me the decision and method are entirely theirs, my concern will be to remain in the navigation channel. Realistically what has always seemed to happen whenever I've navigated the Trent is that as we are locked down all of the cruisers then disappear over the horizon;)

  13. 11 hours ago, nicknorman said:

    Haha and you have never heard of the BW bylaws! Some great expert on inland boating!

    Once again making unwarranted assertions, as I've now come to expect. Let's actually look at what I've said rather than the nonsense that you keep alleging that I've said shall we? I've said that I'm not that troubled by coming up behind a boat going slower than I am provided it travels at a speed that my boat is capable of maintaining, I am also quite willing to stop to allow boat to pass me on the canal. What you have said is that you are equally content provided that they are only going 0.1mph slower than you. Since you wish to make fictiticious allegations about me I will allege that all that you want to do is blast around the system at the maximum permitted speed regardless of any damage to the infrastructure you may cause (you haven't said that? well I haven't said most of what you allege either).

     

    If time on the water is so onerous to you that you have to get it over and done with as quickly as possible, as I said earlier, perhaps narrowboating isn't for you?

    • Greenie 1
  14. 6 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

    Gosh I'm amazed, I never realised that one actually has to have motion through the water to have good steerage!! I'm so glad you told us ... (NOT!)

     

    Colregs are generic international. Bylaws supercede them as they are UK law. I realise that doesn't suit your purpose so no doubt when challenged in court you would stamp your feet and sulk. That might even work! (or maybe not!)

    But let me ask you this then, if you consider Colregs supercedes the UK BW bylaws (that you don't seem to have heard of, and let's remember that ignorance of the law is no excuse) what lighting should we be using for navigating the canals at night? By the Colregs, all manner of multicoloured stuff. Or by the BW bylaws, a forward white light. Hmmm, I wonder if your boat has Colreg compliant navigation lights? I strongly doubt it. But then again, as we have seen, you like to pick those laws that suit you to obey, and those that don't suit you to ignore.

     

    Anyway it transpires that you are a no-hoper so I'll leave you to block the waterways and force other people to go at your speed whilst feeling very superior about it. I just hope I don't have the misfortune to encounter you on the waterways.

    Once again, as I've come to expect, making an entirely false assertion on my behalf based upon nothing that I've actually said. Since you don't seem to understand navigation rules I also hope that I don't have the misfortune to encounter you on the waterways, since it appeared to be necessary to explain to you concerning the upstream boat rationale (I tried to simplify it so that you would understand), I'd rather not come across someone who doesn't seem to know what they are doing.

  15. 1 hour ago, nicknorman said:

    Ah yes the good old BW bylaws 1965. Very important to adhere to them. The relevant one says

    "(c) on the Aire and Calder Navigation, the Sheffield and South
    Yorkshire Navigation, the Trent Navigation and the Weaver
    Navigation, a vessel which is proceeding against the tide or
    stream shall give way to a vessel which is proceeding with the
    tide or stream."

     

    Yes definitely very important to adhere to them.

    But then of course there is this one:

    "(2) Except as hereinafter mentioned the master of a vessel
    overtaking another vessel proceeding in the same direction shall
    steer his vessel in such a manner that his vessel shall pass with
    her starboard side nearest to the vessel overtaken and the
    master of the vessel overtaken shall steer his vessel to her
    starboard side so as to permit the overtaking vessel to pass in
    safety on the port side of the vessel overtaken:"

     

    But then I guess you are one of those people who likes to select which bylaws to comply with, and which to ignore.

     

    If ignoring the first mentioned bylaw makes one a "useless pillock" in your eyes, what does ignoring the second mentioned make one?

    Funnily enough it is actually important to adhere to the '....a vessel which is proceeding against the tide or stream shall give way to a vessel which is proceeding with the tide or stream...." because the vessel that is travelling with the tide or stream has a lot less steerage whilst the vessel travelling upstream can be virtually static over ground and still have steerage if it is travelling at the same speed as the current(ferry gliding). This is why any collision between the two would be blamed upon the vessel with the most responsive steerage (the upstream boat)

     

    On the other hand, wherever you may have got your 'bylaw' from, I think I'll stick with COLREGS which is far more clearer (and universal) which states," .......Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules of Part B, Sections I and II, any vessel overtaking any other shall keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken.....".  (https://advanced.ecolregs.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=55:rule-13-overtaking&Itemid=505&lang=en). So according to COLREGS it is you as the overtaking vessel, that needs to keep out of my way, not me who is obliged to get out of yours (even though I probably would on a canal).

  16. 4 minutes ago, nicknorman said:


    No the entire width of the Trent is probably not navigable and certainly not at low tide. However it is pretty tolerant for your average narrowboat drawing 2.5 feet or so, apart from a few marked places. I have seen a few narrowboats in what look to be horrendous places but they didn’t go aground. The idea that there is only one line a narrowboat could take, and any slight deviation from it is a disaster, is simply ludicrous. I wonder what would happen if there was a bit of a time warp and you found yourself meeting yourself coming opposite direction. I guess there would be an almighty head-on smash as neither of you would be prepared to move over a few feet from your perceived perfect line. We can but hope.

    You obviously know very little, if anything, about navigation rules on tidal rivers, do you? If I met another boat coming in the opposite direction, the one being carried by either the current or tide has priority and the upstream boat has the responsibility to keep clear. The only responsibility for the downstream boat is to avoid a collision (COLREGS) if the upstream boat happens to be a useless pillock.

  17. 9 hours ago, nicknorman said:

    Clearly you are a much, much better driver than me and let’s face it you are so very clever. It’s just a shame that your near superhuman driving abilities don’t extend to boating, where you find it so very difficult if not impossible to countenance overtaking even on a massive waterway like the Trent.

    Why don't you make assertions about what I have actually said rather than repeatedly making assertions about what I haven't said. To refresh your memory (assuming you bothered to actually read it in the first place) what I said was,".....so anyone who thinks I might change course in any way whatsover to accommodate them overtaking me on the Trent is going to be seriously disappointed. If they wish to venture off the charted channel on an ebbing tide they are perfectly free to do so......". The Trent is indeed a massive waterway, but do you seriously think that you can safely navigate anywhere across the full width of it? If so Dunham Rack may well hold a few 'surprises' for you (along with a variety of other locations):unsure:

    2 hours ago, MtB said:

     

     

    Yes I suspect the drivers of emergency vehicles with blue lights on would have a lot to say about this sort of thing. It always strikes me they'd quite like other drivers not to slam on the brakes, swerve lanes etc or whatever the instant they realise there is a blue light vehicle approaching.

    As one who has been in that situation on countless occasions all that you need to do is always expect the other driver to do the unexpected, you are rarely disappointed;)

  18. 9 minutes ago, noddyboater said:

    I'd say that either I've been lucky or you have been very unlucky. In over 20 years of using the tidal river with a relatively deep draughted narrowboat I can honestly say it's never touched the bottom. That's not following the defined channel religiously either,  just being sensible, in fog or the dark often. 

    Since the barges stopped running it's obviously not as deep as it was, but I wouldn't worry about passing another boat.

    I would have to admit that I was surprised when the boat rode up, it took a couple of seconds to fully realise what was happening, but I put down a GPS marker of where it was and when I later checked my track at that point I was only about 12 - 15 feet off the red line on the navigation chart (towards the centre of the river), perhaps the chart needs updating.

  19. 13 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

    No, what other people want to do is not my concern, although it is a shame that people get taught the dangerous things. But I’ve plenty of experience of that in aviation. Just tonight on my way home, (A939) came up behind an English plated car, ie tourist unfamiliar with the road. They were not going particularly slowly so I stayed behind at a comfortable distance for a couple of miles until we came to a downhill straight which is a known good overtaking place in anticipation of which I had moved closer. Nothing coming, snicked the DSG into 3rd and floored it, bringing the 280 horses to bear. My car leaps forward and I am in the process of moving to the right hand lane when car in front claps on the brakes hard as he has noticed my manoeuvre. Well it wasn’t particularly close but I had to swerve right a bit to avoid running into his rear. Overtake was completed in about 1/4 of the available straight with obviously no opposite direction traffic (there hadn’t been any for several miles) and absolutely no need for him to even lift off let alone jam the brakes on.

     

    But it just goes to show that having a significant closing speed on the car in front is only fine if they don’t decide to brake, and braking when I move to overtake seems to be becoming more normal these days.

    So it would seem that, using your technique, you have almost had far more 'near miss' rear end shunts than I ever have, is one of us doing it wrong? Should I have had more near misses?:unsure:

  20. 8 hours ago, noddyboater said:

    I've never heard so much tosh in my life.

    The navigable channel of the tidal Trent is wide enough for 2 gravel barges to pass or overtake at low water,  nevermind 2 narrowboats!

    So would you care to explain as to why last year, when about 12 feet off the navigation channel travelling from Cromwell to Torksey, the boat rode over a sand bar? The fact that water levels were low (as they seem to be this year) might very well have had some impact upon it, but your generalisation isn't particularly helpful if wanting to avoid grounding.

     

    I haven't much of an issue travelling upstream on a flooding tide, since you will probably be lifted off as the tide continues to rise, grounding on an ebbing tide is a whole different ball game. So in terms of 'tosh' it would seem that is what you might well be talking;)

    11 hours ago, nicknorman said:

    Having 280 horses and 0-60 in 5.3 seconds in the car, or 180 horses and 0-60 in 3.2 seconds on the bike,  I tend not to do that. One problem with carrying that excess energy is the unpredictability of the car to be overtaken. They might panic and clap on the brakes as you loom large in their mirror and something appears opposite direction, just as you have decided not to overtake. Well it’s happened to me, rear end shunt very narrowly avoided so I don’t repeat the scenario.

    Well I suppose you'd best tell the IAM and Emergency Vehicle trainers that they've got it all wrong then.

  21. 20 minutes ago, GUMPY said:

    Depends entirely how many horses you have hiding under the bonnet whether you need to do this or not.

     

    Regardless of how many horses you have, it is still a better method of overtaking since you are already going faster than the vehicle you intend to overtake before you cross onto the wrong side of the road. It is the way overtaking is taught on courses that teach such things.;)

  22. 1 hour ago, GUMPY said:

    Going back to cars and overtaking on many of the roads I drive it's easy to pass another car coming the other way but almost impossible to overtake another car without putting both parties in danger.

    I guess many only drive on A roads😂

    As one also accustomed to driving on Devon roads, overtaking can be done but it is helped a lot if you know the road. If you are aware of where the straighter bits are, with no side roads/entrances/farm gates coming in, you build up a speed differential to the vehicle in front before you get to the section, and if something is coming then bail out.

     

    That is where another difference with overtaking in a boat lies, it is almost impossible to build up much of a speed differential to the boat being overtaken.

  23. 21 minutes ago, Tacet said:

    What will you do if meeting a boat travelling in the opposite direction on the Trent?

     

    I am not sure what chart you use, but does it really show the navigable channel as the same width as your boat?

    Why would someone be coming up from Torksey to Cromwell on an ebbing tide? When they get there they wont be able to lock. (and just to add that navigation rules are that the boat being carried by the tide/current has priority, so it is upstream boat's responsibility to get out of the way).

     

    In answer to your second question, yes the Tidal Trent navigation charts are pretty specific as to where you should be on the river (and they are updated to account for any changes). To give you some idea of what the chart looks like, this is my GPS track along the river (so I hold the copyright to this image, it hasn't been pilfered from the chart, but the chart looks pretty much identical).

     

    image.png.4d170cf19e91bd44f48de9b23344aea8.png

    image.png.3940d3cca653f974d9fbdca048a68631.png

     

    I'll leave you to gauge as to the accuracy.

  24. 6 minutes ago, nicknorman said:


     

    you didn’t intimate what speed you go at nor did I elude to it. This is because the actual speed you go at is irrelevant. In your opinion the speed you go at (which probably varies according to your mood) is the speed. The right speed. And any other speed is wrong. Or at least, any other speed will not be accommodated because it differs from your speed.

     

    You have presented various scenarios where on a narrow shallow canal, overtaking might be difficult. Fair enough. But if you are extending that to making out that overtaking on the tidal Trent is problematic, then you lose all credibility.

    Have you been on the Trent? do you know what you are talking about?? (if not where lies your credibility) As I clearly stated I was only about 12 feet off the charted channel and ran over a sand-bar so anyone who thinks I might change course in any way whatsover to accommodate them overtaking me on the Trent is going to be seriously disappointed. If they wish to venture off the charted channel on an ebbing tide, they are perfectly free to do so, but if they get stuck I'm, not going back for them.

     

    You are also, once again, making wrong assumptions on my behalf. How many times to I have to repeat that I'm quite content to move over to let people pass before you stop make false accusations?

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.